Document Eagle_doc_ad330031c1

Highway 44 Pedestrian Crossing Pre-Concept Report Eagle, Idaho 10B ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Acknowledgments This project was completed in collaboration with the following working group, whose input was essential to the decisions and concepts generated for this document: City of Eagle Nichoel Baird Spencer, MRCP, AICP – Planner III COMPASS Kathy Parker – Principal Planner Molinari Park Development Partners Eagle River Development Partners Idaho Transportation Department Mark Wasdahl – Senior Planner Regan Hansen – Design/Construction EIT Research, siting, and concept development by: The Land Group, Inc. Elaine Zabriskie – Project Manager Jason Densmer, PE – Principal Doug Russell, RLA – Principal Chad Lorentzen – Landscape Designer Intern Roger Collins – Senior Planner Kerstin Dettrich – Estimator 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com 1. Project Introduction Project Major Grant Funding Public Involvement 2. Existing Conditions Summary and Analysis of Existing Environmental Traffic Speeds and Bicycle and Pedestrian Zoning and Parcel Existing Overpass and Underpass Siting 3. Design Requirements Pedestrian and Bicycle Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Dimensioning and Underpass Dimensioning and Basic Crossing Performance 4. Concept Development Concept Concept A – Overpass with Public Concept B – Concept C – Overpass with Concept D – Selection Process for Preferred Concept Performance Comparison Cost 5. Appendices Enclosure Bike Runnel ITD Confirmation for Minimum Distance from Table of Contents 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report 01 Project Introduction 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Purpose and Need As the Treasure Valley’s many natural and cultural amenities continue to attract residents to the area, critical infrastructure must be examined through the lens of projected development pressure to ensure users’ continued health, safety, and enjoyment. The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), an association of local governments tasked with planning for the valley’s future, published Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 (CIM 2040), the regional long-range transportation plan for Ada and Canyon Counties. The plan articulates several goals including: improving walkability, preserving agricultural land, minimizing vehicular congestion, improving municipalities’ jobs-housing balance, enhancing park access, and preserving natural resources. To accomplish these goals, one objective the plan identifies is high-capacity vehicular transportation along State Highway 44 to provide a crucial east- west transit connection, linking several of the state’s largest economies and population centers. However, heavy vehicular travel along State Highway 44 poses challenges to a number of the goals outlined in CIM 2040 by creating a barrier to non-vehicular circulation, effectively separating businesses, schools, and residential areas north of Highway 44 from developments and neighborhoods to the south. Creating a bicycle and pedestrian- oriented connection on Highway 44 between Eagle Road and Palmetto Road offers many opportunities including: increased access to the Boise River for residents north of Highway 44, increased access to East State Street and downtown Eagle’s commercial district for residents south of Highway 44, decreased vehicular traffic along State Highway 55 and Eagle Road, and improved pedestrian connection to key Greenbelt access points. Goals The goals for this project nest within the CIM 2040 vision by providing a safe pedestrian route perpendicular to State Highway 44, aiding in improvements toward a vibrant downtown core with increased workforce and customer connectivity, enhanced river and park access, and minimized environmental impact from informal trail access and greenbelt parking. Ultimately, the central purpose of this proposed crossing can be boiled down to improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety across Highway 44 while minimizing traffic disruptions along the route, thus improving access to natural and constructed amenities in the area. Project Summary for the Transportation Improvement Program The City of Eagle is considering opportunities for a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing within the area of State Highway 44 between Eagle Road and Palmetto Road. The project will permit pedestrian and bicycle traffic to cross the highway safely and quickly without slowing the highway’s vehicular traffic flow, and is expected to improve business patronage and access to built and natural amenities. Project Summary 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Scope of Work The Land Group was contracted to produce a pre- concept report for a grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing for the State Highway 44 bypass between Eagle Road ( Highway 55) and Palmetto Road. The intent of the project is to determine specific location, feasibility, and a preliminary cost estimation of an over- or undercrossing on the highway. Major Milestones Cost Based on cost precedent studies, a pedestrian overpass or underpass may cost $10,000 to $25,000 per linear foot of the crossing, respectively, with above-grade overpasses incurring higher costs for additional materials and a below-grade underpass requiring earthwork, lighting, utility relocation, and significant dewatering. Cost estimate case studies are included in figure 4.03. Project scheduling based on an assumed fall 2019 start date. Statement of Project Development Project development at the level of detail within this report was necessary for a grade-separated crossing for several reasons. First, a careful inventory and analysis of site conditions allows the City of Eagle to act with accurate information. Next, producing initial recommendations for siting can help to more clearly define the project needs and limitations. Finally, high-level concept development allows for cost estimation that would not be otherwise possible. 12 months Post-occupancy review and project closeout 2027 Pre-Concept Report approved by city council 4-6 weeks Fall 2019 6 months Public involvement process Spring 2020 12-24 months Design process 2022 12-14 months Seek funding from grants and alternative sources 2021 12-24 months Begin construction 2024 1.01 Assumptions The Land Group assumes that a grade-separated pedestrian crossing is desired by the public at the proposed general location specified by the City of Eagle. While it is typically accepted that crossings which fully separate vehicles from pedestrians improve safety for all parties, additional research is included to support this claim at the specified location. 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Grant Narrative Rapid growth throughout Boise, Eagle, and the surrounding Treasure Valley necessitate proactive infrastructure interventions from various municipal, state, and federal entities to maintain the safety, health, and sense of community that define the region. While Interstate 84 and State Highway 20/26 provide east-west connectivity between the capital city and growing communities to the west, including the city of Eagle, State Highway 44 remains the only major east-west transportation corridor north of the Boise River. This highway, which accommodated over 32,000 daily trips just east of the intersection of Eagle Road in 2015, will need to serve a projected 50,000 daily trips by 2040 (COMPASS). As a result, significant infrastructure investment is currently aiming to improve the highway’s capacity and efficiency to meet this projected demand. However, State Highway 44’s improved east- west vehicular connectivity and the corridor’s projected doubling of traffic volume pose significant constraints to north-south pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the Boise River and downtown Eagle. Existing at-grade crossings at signalized intersections at S Edgewood Lane and S Eagle Road may carry increased risk and wait times. Additionally, these intersections are just over a mile apart, which far exceeds the maximum distance pedestrians are willing to walk to a signalized crossing. 75% of pedestrians will not even walk 550-1100 feet to a crossing if an unprotected mid- block crossing is perceived as feasible (National Association of City Transportation Officials). As a result, users may opt to avoid north-south crossing, which would impact Eagle’s central business district, existing and proposed developments along the highway, and greenbelt interaction from users on both sides of the highway. Alternatively, users might opt for incredibly risky mid-block crossings, where 76% of pedestrian fatalities occur, or may drive instead, adding to parking demands and roadway congestion (NHTSA). The improvement of State Highway 44 offers a great opportunity for strengthening the region’s connection. However, it is crucial to consider Eagle’s local character and historical use. Eagle is a town defined by its quaint, tree-lined streets and a serene, accessible river. Investment that strengthens the relationship between the town’s natural and built amenities offers not only a way forward in the face of an uncertain future, but an acknowledgment of the cherished past. Numerous examples from the United States, including precedent case studies such as Baseline Road Underpass in Boulder, CO; Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge in Portland, OR; the BP Pedestrian Bridge in Chicago, IL, and the Vancouver Land Bridge in Vancouver, WA confirm the efficacy of grade-separated crossings in improving pedestrian and vehicular safety while enhancing the economic and cultural vitality of the local community. The City of Eagle enjoys a unique and valuable opportunity to integrate such a crossing on presently vacant land in the Eagle River and Molinari developments. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Funding Opportunities The following sources were identified as possibilities for future project funding, and it is recommended that they be explored by COMPASS and the City of Eagle. Non-Profit Organization Funding Community Change Grant, America Walks Private Funding Community and Economic Development, SC Johnson development/sc-johnson-grants-our-guidelines-and-focus-areas Made to Move, Blue Zone LLC and Degree Federal Funding BUILD Discretionary Grants, DOT Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, FHWA FAST Act, FHWA Grants and Cooperative Agreements, CDC Safe Routes to School, FHWA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance, EPA TIFIA Credit Assistance, DOT Local Funding Partnerships with local developers may supplement a portion of the project cost, though this must be negotiated in the project planning stages. 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com The City of Eagle is exploring opportunities for an under- or overcrossing on State Highway 44 between South Eagle Road and Palmetto Street. Such a crossing would facilitate for Eagle residents’ health, safety, and quality of life while bolstering economic growth at the planned developments on either side of Highway 44. A safer crossing will mitigate both the serious safety issues posed to pedestrians by the highway and the traffic disruptions that have grown along with Eagle’s population. A public involvement plan must appropriately gather the opinions, preferences, concerns, and local expertise of stakeholders and members of the public. Local jurisdictions and agencies will also be critical voices in the planning of a grade-separated crossing. A two-way collaborative process such as this will aid in the development of effective solutions that minimize drawbacks, maximize public benefits, and are defensible to all parties involved. By utilizing time-tested techniques as well as newer, digital methods of communication, the public involvement plan will involve members of the community as effectively as possible. Public Involvement Activities 1. Identify stakeholders 2. Produce digital and physical outreach materials Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: Dedicated project pages will routinely feature update posts throughout the public involvement process Email contact: set up project contacts through email to regularly update invested members of the public Website content: the City of Eagle will develop website content to provide regular updates to interested parties Public involvement presentation: presentation materials such as slides or handouts will be created and presented to the public at meetings and outreach activities 3. Conduct a statistically Valid Survey A survey, requesting input on pedestrian crossing frequency, safety concerns, and perceptions of vehicular traffic will be sent to a predetermined and statistically valid group. Three thousand (3,000) households within the City of Eagle will be selected randomly from archived GIS data. These households will receive a postcard asking them to participate in a survey through an included website link. A minimum of 400 responses would be sufficient to generate a summary and provide a reasonable basis of public opinion. Offering incentives such as entering participants in a drawing for prizes is recommended to increase survey participation. 4. User Group Input User group input can be gathered through Public Involvement Plan 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Identified Project Stakeholders stakeholder interviews and intercept surveys, which target the individuals who are most likely to use the proposed crossing. These interviews and surveys are intended to accumulate immediate information concerning user preferences and safety concerns. Four information sessions held at different times will also be planned. To maximize efficiency and participation, individuals will be divided into work groups and interviewed with carefully selected questions. Public Meetings and Update Presentations Initial Public Input Meeting: the purpose of this meeting will be to introduce the public to the project and gather initial input on a potential grade- separated crossing. Project Development Updates: During the planning and design stages of the project, two updates will be held. The first meeting’s purpose will be to present concepts, gather public input on these concepts, and provide a status update on the current understanding of public opinion concerning the project. The second meeting will present results of the statistically valid survey, summarize public sentiment, and present the draft plan of the preferred concept. City of Eagle City Council members City of Eagle Parks, Pathways, and Recreation Commission City of Eagle Chamber of Commerce members Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Foundation for Ada/Canyon Trail Systems (FACTS) Eagle Arts Commission Eagle Urban Renewal Community Outdoor Sports Organizations Walk and Ride Eagle Eagle Police Eagle Fire District Local irrigation companies Local landowners Eagle River development Molinari Park development Local Media Eagle Schools West Ada School District Boise School District Additional stakeholders to be determined by the City of Eagle 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com 02 Existing Conditions 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Summary and Analysis of Existing Conditions Road Conditions and Safety State Highway 44, a four-lane, 55 mph urban highway, represents a significant barrier to bicycle and pedestrian movement within the City of Eagle. The highest rate of vehicle collisions and pedestrian- vehicle conflicts within or around the siting area occurs at the intersection of Eagle Road (also referred to as Highway 55) and Highway 44. The lower-traffic intersection of S Edgewood Way and Highway 44 exhibits the second highest number of collisions, and the continuation of this pattern with the intersection of Palmetto Street and Highway 44 can be reasonably expected. Therefore, a pedestrian crossing that conveniently draws pedestrians away from hazardous intersections could help improve both pedestrian and driver safety. At present, the long distance (approximately one mile) between existing signalized pedestrian crossings on Highway 44 increases the likelihood of pedestrians crossing at unprotected mid-block locations. These crossings are extremely unsafe as drivers do not expect pedestrians, and there is a tragically high likelihood of fatality if a pedestrian is struck at the posted speed limit of 55 mph (see figure 2.05). Topography Existing topography within the siting area is practically nonexistent, meaning that an overpass or underpass must construct the entire required grade change rather than taking advantage of natural elevation changes. Current Zoning Parcels within the proposed siting area for this pedestrian crossing are currently zoned by the City of Eagle as C-3 Commercial, Central Business District, and Mixed-Use. These generally compatible uses will benefit from increased pedestrian connectivity, with no area expected to be adversely affected by a pedestrian crossing. Planned Transportation Projects A half continuous flow intersection (CFI) is planned for the intersection of highway 44 and Eagle Road, adjacent to Eagle's Central Business District. This intersection will increase wait times and detriment convenience for pedestrian crossings, making a grade-separated crossing potentially more attractive to users. Planned Developments Both sides of the highway are currently slated for development, with Molinari Park to the north and Eagle River to the south. A proposed crossing should avoid causing major disruption to planned structures and road layouts, and facilitate pedestrian connections using walkways through and around future developments. Such connections will provide a greater level of pedestrian movement between and within both developments. Underground Utilities A number of utilities exist along the State Highway 44 corridor, including water, sewer, irrigation, fiber optic cable, and storm drainage. While an overpass would require minimal rerouting of utilities regardless of location by increasing the proposed span to locate footings outside utility zones, an underpass would require avoidance or relocation of multiple underground utilities (see Utility Sections, figure 2.13). Avoidance would be achieved by increasing tunnel depth, while relocation of utilities would require burying those utilities deeper below the underpass. Both of these options increase construction costs. In-depth explanations and graphics for these summaries are provided in the following pages for Existing Conditions. 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Summary An environmental scan of the project area was conducted to identify the environmental factors affecting project concepts. The project should strive to minimize environmental impact and seek opportunities for environmental benefit such as stormwater treatment or improved wildlife habitat. Environmental Scan Wildlife A high-level review of potential effects on wildlife was performed, including a review of endangered species critical habitats from USFWS. Results of that review show there are no critical habitats in the proposed disturbed area. See figure below for the location of the project to the nearest critical habitat. 2.01 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report A review of Waters of the United States was performed to identify the waters of the US that are within one mile of the site, and assess any impact based on the water body status as assigned by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Summarized results from IDEQ are shown below. Waters of the United States 2.02 Stormwater (EPA-NDPES) Once a preferred concept has been developed to a reasonable level of design, the size of the disturbed area must be determined to see if the project meets the requirements for coverage under the EPA’s Construction General Permit (CGP). 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Area wetlands were reviewed using the National Wetlands Inventory. No wetlands were identified within the area of the project on the south side of Highway 44. The indicated area of wetland conflict to the north of the highway was mitigated when the Ballantyne Canal was recently buried. Wetlands 2.03 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report FEMA Floodway The currently-effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps as published by FEMA were reviewed for the project area. All properties south of Highway 44 are identified within Zone AE (areas with a 1% annual chance of flood hazard) which is a regulated floodplain zone 2.04 recognized by the City of Eagle. Areas north of Highway 44 are identified in Zone X (areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard) which does not have any floodplain development requirements under current city of Eagle ordinances. 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Vehicle Speed and Fatality Risk While some pedestrian crossings may be discouraged by high travel speeds, the risks for pedestrians increase exponentially at travel speeds above 35 mph. State Highway 44’s posted 55 mph speed limit presents an 89% pedestrian fatality rate. National Safety Trends The Governors Highway Safety Association compiles data by year and by decade regarding transportation-related fatalities in the United States. Trends in the last decade indicate the relative decline of most traffic fatalities; however, pedestrian fatalities have increased dramatically. Factors such as distracted walking and driving, larger vehicle size, and infrastructure deficiencies all must be considered to provide safe opportunities for pedestrian mobility. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Vehicle Speed (MPH) Risk of Pedestrian Fatality 55 mph posted speed limit of State Highway 44 between Eagle Road and State Street 89% pedestrian fatality risk 2008 2017 Pedestrian Fatalities All Other Traffic Fatalities 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 4,414 5,977 33,009 31,156 +35% 35,000 Source: Governors Highway Safety Association Source: D.C. Richards Transportation Laboratory 2.05 2.06 Pedestrian Safety Risks 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Traffic Speeds and Incidents The heaviest vehicular traffic through the project area occurs on Highway 44, South Eagle Road, and East State Street. Other adjacent roadways act as collectors for these arterials, funneling traffic volumes to the highest speed and capacity roads. Intersections have the highest rate of vehicle accidents, making them the most hazardous place for both drivers and pedestrians. 2.07 Location Daily Traffic Count Date of Measurement Hwy 44 East of Eagle Rd 27,803 March 2015 Hwy 44 West of Eagle Rd 26,469 September 2014 Eagle Road South of Plaza Dr 21,890 February 2016 Eagle Road North of Island Wood Drive 41,297 March 2015 Local Traffic Counts Roadway classes sourced from COMPASS GIS, based on the 2040 Functional Classification map approved in 2013. Crash data sourced from ITD through COMPASS GIS. Date range included: 2008-2017. Traffic counts sourced from LandProData. N 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Pedestrian Behavior for At-Grade Crossings 75% 25% would not walk 550-1100 feet to a signalized intersection would walk 550-1100 feet to a signalized intersection 550-1100 feet Pedestrian Behavior and Walk Distance (Above) A National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) study surveyed pedestrians to better understand crossing behavior and crossing compliance. The study found that most pedestrians would not walk even the commonly accepted quarter-mile radius to a signalized intersection. As a result, pedestrians would presumably choose to cross illegally at mid-block locations, utilize a vehicle, or avoid crossing altogether. Pedestrian Fatalities at Crossings by Crossing Type (Right) The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a nationwide census of traffic-related fatalities, noted a significant relationship between the location of pedestrian road crossings and fatalities in 2017. Crossings around intersections proved nearly three times less fatal than unprotected mid-block crossings. Other or Unknown Intersection Related Not Intersection Related 76% 26% 2% Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2.08 2.09 Location Collisions Fatalities Intersection Hwy 44 and Hwy 55 >150 1 Intersection Hwy 44 and Edgewood Way >50 1 Highway 44 between Hwy 55 and Edgewood Way >30 0 Local Vehicle Incidents Crash data sourced from ITD through COMPASS GIS. Date range included: 2008-2017. Data for recent fatalities sourced from local news reports. Collisions estimated based on GIS approximated counts. 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Pedestrian infrastructure surrounding the site has several effective east-west corridors, the most prominent path being the Greenbelt. A wide pedestrian pathway also exists along sections of Highway 44, but ducks into adjacent developments to the south at hazardous intersections where crossings at the highway are deemed unsafe. North-south corridors within the area are more limited, with the most infrastructure extant along South Eagle Road stemming from the North Channel of the Boise River and connecting to downtown Eagle. Sidewalks along Edgewood Way also provide some pedestrian connectivity toward East State Street. A major infrastructure gap exists along the highway between Edgewood Way and South Eagle Road, a stretch of just over a mile. This stretch is five to ten times greater than the distance that, already, only 25% of pedestrians are willing to walk to a safe crossing. No north-south connection exists within this area to unite the Greenbelt with Eagle’s Central Business District or the existing and proposed businesses, housing areas, schools, or public amenities. GIS data for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure sourced from COMPASS GIS, last updated in April 2019. Additional data derived from site visits. 2.10 N 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Zoning and Parcel Ownership Map Annotation Parcel Primary Owner Owner Address Owner City Total Value Acres 1 R0119150010 EAGLE HEALTH PLAZA LLC PO BOX 1559 BOISE, ID 83701-0000 8,121,300.00 $ 2.607 2 R2893850019 BALT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FORUM ONE LLC 755 W FRONT ST STE 300 BOISE, ID 83702-0000 64,500.00 $ 0.309 3 R2893850010 BALT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FORUM ONE LLC 755 W FRONT ST STE 300 BOISE, ID 83702-0000 3,193,200.00 $ 2.067 4 R2893850030 EAGLE 26 LLC 737 N 7TH ST BOISE, ID 83702-0000 169,800.00 $ 0.886 5 R2893850041 EAGLE 26 LLC 737 N 7TH ST BOISE, ID 83702-0000 191,700.00 $ 0.8 6 R2893850050 EAGLE 26 LLC 737 N 7TH ST BOISE, ID 83702-0000 202,400.00 $ 1.056 7 R2893850021 EAGLE 26 LLC 737 N 7TH ST BOISE, ID 83702-0000 120,000.00 $ 0.726 8 R5760220060 EAGLE RIVER OWNER'S ASSOCIATION INC 3101 N CENTRAL AVE PHOENIX, AZ 85012-0000 - $ 1.231 9 R5760240010 WESTMARK CREDIT UNION PO BOX 2869 IDAHO FALLS, ID 83403-2869 1,344,500.00 $ 0.821 10 R5760250161 EAGLE RIVER LLC 435 SHORE DR STE 120 EAGLE, ID 83616-0000 331,600.00 $ 0.692 11 R5760250155 EAGLE RIVER LLC 435 SHORE DR STE 120 EAGLE, ID 83616-0000 328,700.00 $ 0.686 12 R5760250165 EAGLE RIVER LLC 435 SHORE DR STE 120 EAGLE, ID 83616-0000 331,600.00 $ 0.692 13 R5760250170 EAGLE RIVER LLC 3101 N CENTRAL AVE STE 1390 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-2643 998,000.00 $ 5.455 14 R5760250184 EAGLE RIVER LLC 3101 N CENTRAL AVE STE 1390 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-2643 512,300.00 $ 2.8 15 R5760240024 R2M PROPERTIES LLC 3015 SALEM AVE SE ALBANY, OR 97321-0000 2,177,300.00 $ 1.4 16 R5760250126 EAGLE RIVER HOTEL II LLC PO BOX 8506 BOISE, ID 83707-0000 1,380,000.00 $ 2.88 17 R5760250151 EAGLE RIVER LLC 435 SHORE DR STE 120 EAGLE, ID 83616-0000 542,400.00 $ 1.132 18 R5760250190 EAGLE RIVER OWNER'S ASSOCIATION INC 3101 N CENTRAL AVE PHOENIX, AZ 85012-0000 - $ 0.974 19 R6951340100 ELKRIDGE PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 298 STAR, ID 83669-0000 577,000.00 $ 0.909 20 R6951340300 EAGLE PAVILION LLC 705 CHARDIE RD BOISE, ID 83702-0000 2,917,200.00 $ 1.468 21 R6951340400 D L EVANS BANK PO BOX 1188 BURLEY, ID 83318-0000 978,800.00 $ 0.638 22 R6951340500 ROGERS EDYTHE H REVOCABLE TRUST 3905 SANDBAR LN EAGLE, ID 83616-0000 682,100.00 $ 0.345 23 R6951340600 ROGERS EDYTHE H REVOCABLE TRUST 3905 SANDBAR LN EAGLE, ID 83616-0000 193,100.00 $ 0.484 24 R6951340200 W & H LIMITED LIABILITY CO 720 W 20TH ST PITTSBURG, KS 66762-0000 826,100.00 $ 0.379 25 S0516212426 EAGLE 26 LLC 737 N 7TH ST BOISE, ID 83702-0000 2,402,100.00 $ 15.425 26 S0516223100 ABS ID-O LLC 1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-0000 299,500.00 $ 0.625 27 S0516223120 JOSHNIK LLLP 3184 W ELDER ST BOISE, ID 83705-0000 374,500.00 $ 0.201 2.11 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Zoning and Parcel Ownership The potential siting area for an over/undercrossing along State Highway 44 is zoned as Mixed Use, C-3 Commercial, or as a part of the Central Business District. The density of existing and proposed businesses coupled with ample housing in the area make the location ideal for pedestrian traffic. Additionally, mixed use developments like the proposed Molinari Park are often advertised to result in diminished vehicle dependency, a strong selling factor in an area with rapid growth and a burgeoning commuter population. Much of Eagle has a relatively even daytime to nighttime population split (9,792 daytime and 8,761 nighttime in the project area, according to Esri's 2016 GIS data), meaning it’s possible for people to live and work within the same census tract. Providing better pedestrian connectivity through hazardous barriers like Highway 44 could help residents to take full advantage of this proximity, further reducing vehicle congestion and improving quality of life for Eagle’s residents and employees. 2.12 Zoning data from AdaCountyGIS, last updated in 2016. Approximate parcel boundaries and parcel information sourced from Ada County Assessor's Office, through LandProData. N 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Depths to top of utilities shown above are located based on a combination of standard depths and average depth located by TO Engineers for the pressure effluent pipe installed along Highway 44. These depths are approximations only. A detailed survey or excavation is required to locate exact depths to utilities. Utility Section Cut Pressurized Effluent Pipe Highway 44 Planned Molinari Development Eagle River Development Fiber Optic Line Storm Drain Ballantyne Canal 6” Irrigation Pipe Water Line 4’ 6’ 3’ 6’ 2’ 2’ Approximate Standard Utility Depth 7.1’ Avg Depth to Water Table 2.13 24' to Clear Zone Boundary 32' to Clear Zone Boundary N 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Existing Utilities There currently are a significant number of existing utilities flanking Highway 44. A grade-separated crossing would either need to avoid or relocate these, which would be difficult in some cases. In particular, the buried Ballantyne Canal represents a serious barrier to an overpass’s structural footings or any part of an underpass. Including a longer span on a pedestrian overpass could bridge over the utilities, but would likely be more costly in terms of materials and engineering. An underpass would either need to be buried deeper than existing utilities, or have utilities relocated. There is some limited area to the west of the study area to site an underpass without encountering the Ballantyne Canal. 56 ft 13 ft typical width occupied by utilities from planned edge of pavement on the south side of Highway 44 typical width occupied by utilities or right of way from planned edge of pavement north side of Highway 44 2.14 N 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Spatially, siting constraints along State Highway 44 are attributable to three primary sources: existing structures and utilities, planned developments, and the highway itself. No developed parcels were included in the siting area for the grade-separated crossing. Siting is further informed by the existing and proposed locations of pedestrian infrastructure, which would ideally be connected by a new crossing. Hazardous intersections between high speed roadways, such as Highways 44 and 55, are less desirable locations for a pedestrian crossing. Instead, pedestrians could be moved down safer, lower-speed corridors on the interior of planned developments. Finally, locating an overpass too far west could potentially obstruct signals and signs for the planned half continuous flow intersection (half CFI) at the intersection of Highways 44 and 55, meaning that only an underpass would be reasonably feasible west of the Ballantyne canal. Any overhead structure with a 17 ft clearance must be a minimum of 300 ft from proposed CFI signage. This location is marked on the map with a dashed black line. Overpass ramps or stairs may extend into the underpass siting area, but it is not recommended to locate footings over the Ballantyne Canal or other utilities. An underpass would conflict with CFI drainage structures regardless of location, but this could be mitigated by expanding drainage structures elsewhere. 195 ft 178 ft average minimum span for an underpass, based on combined utility and roadway width average minimum span for an overpass, based on utilities, roadway widths, and clear zones Overpass and Underpass Siting Overview 2.15 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report 03 Design Requirements 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Site-Specific Summary: Cost The average expected cost for a pedestrian overpass is about $10,000 per linear foot Benefits Requires less earthwork than an underpass Minimizes drainage issues and lighting costs Minimizes conflicts with utilities Provides visible wayfinding symbol Offers opportunity for attractive architectural form and public artwork Can provide a unique experience to users No risk of reintroducing Zone AE flood plain on north side of highway Few expected effects on the planned half CFI Drawbacks Requires high clearance (17 ft ITD minimum, 17.5 ft preferred) over the highway Requires long ramps that can be inconvenient or difficult for differently-abled people to use Either requires covering for all-season, all- weather use, or seasonal maintenance to remove snow, leaves, and other debris No existing topography change exists to provide natural ramps Potential reduction of business or commercial visibility from highway Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpasses Pedestrian Overcrossing I Berkeley, CA Courtesy of Google Earth Overpasses span obstacles such as roads, freeways, waterways, or railroads above grade while providing adequate clearance for traffic or natural features below. These structures improve connectivity while providing high visibility. 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Site-Specific Summary Benefits Offers improved ADA accessibility and convenience to maximize usership Minimizes footprint; no ramps required Offers opportunity for bicycle or after-hours use via exterior stairs with bike runnels Offers potential area for additional amenities like commercial space or public restrooms Drawbacks Any elevator breakdowns result in no ADA access Significant maintenance costs Creates significant cost addition to a building Requires joint effort with developer; may alter developers’ existing plans Attached Overpasses Freight House Attached Pedestrian Bridge I Kansas City, MO Courtesy of Farshid Assassi, Arch Daily Attached Pedestrian Skyway I Hong Kong Courtesy of Yoos and James, Places Journal Attached overpasses include structures or buildings on one or both sides of the span. These structures can improve accessibility and weather protection for all users, but will also require additional structural engineering and collaboration with developers. This solution is also feasible for an undercrossing, but is not recommended for this site due to dewatering needs. 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Site-Specific Summary Freestanding or Building-Integrated Elevator ADA-accessible and easy to use Alternative access, such as bike runnels (see appendices) should be provided for bicyclists Relevant to both over- and undercrossings Additional construction and maintenance costs Potential security issues for attached building Ramp Strategies Ramp Spirals Self-covering – reduces weather covering needs Can be exhausting if landings are not included Ramp Switchbacks Reduce total length consumed by a ramp Can be frustrating or exhausting for users Stairs Should exist in addition to ADA infrastructure Common solution, relevant to both overcrossings and undercrossings Can be equipped with bike runnels, narrow channels in stairways to facilitate for bike tires Lower construction and maintenance costs versus elevators Reduces the footprint required to achieve an elevation change Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge, by Merryman Barnes Architects Portland, OR I Courtesy of kpff.com Pfluger Bridge, HDR Engineering I Austin, TX Courtesy of Jay Reese Contractors BP Pedestrian Bridge, by Frank Gehry I Chicago, IL Courtesy of ArchiTravel A challenge in constructing a pedestrian over- or underpass is the long ramp that occur when a crossing must reach a significant clearance height or depth. Switchbacks, spirals, stairs, and elevators are all options to mitigate these and make the crossing more attractive to users. 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Pedestrian and Bicycle Underpasses Site-Specific Summary: Cost The average cost for a pedestrian underpass is between $27,000 per linear foot Additional cost for an undercrossing at the specified study area can be expected, based on dewatering, utility relocation, and construction shoring needs Benefits Requires shorter ramps and fewer stairs Unobtrusive form blends with surrounding built and natural features Drawbacks Will require relocation of multiple utilities or the Ballantyne Canal Drawbacks Continued Will exist within the water table year-round, with additional periodic flooding issues, requiring constant pumping and other flood prevention measures Smaller feasible siting area results in 8% ramps with landings rather than the preferred 5% with no landings for paths Requires lighting at all times Crime and vandalism can be more common than in overpasses No natural topography exists to provide natural ramps toward the undercrossing May feel unsafe or claustrophobic, deterring use Woy Woy Pedestrian Underpass I Gosford, Australia Courtesy of Saunders Civibuild Engineering Basalt Ave Pedestrian Underpass I Basalt, CO Courtesy of the City of Basalt Underpasses span obstacles such as roads, waterways, or railways below grade while providing adequate clearance, lighting, and drainage for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. These structures provide improved connectivity with discrete visual form. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Overpass Dimensioning and Requirements for Enclosures Wall heights will vary based on purpose. To keep pedestrians from falling, 6 ft with a 42" hand rail is typically sufficient. To deter users from climbing fences or throwing objects to the road below, a 10 ft height is recommended. ADA Railings for handholds must be provided along ramps, and are strongly recommended along the span of the overcrossing. Platforms should accommodate a minimum travel width of 10-12 ft with an additional 1-1.5 ft for structure and overhang at either side. Therefore, a total platform width of 12-15 ft is recommended. Structure for an overpass must be engineered to safely support a long span (typically upwards of 200 ft for this site). Enclosures can be used to best mitigate climbing, jumping, throwing objects, or other inappropriate use of the overpass. A 10 ft interior clearance is recommended to allow bicyclists to move comfortably and safely. 3.01 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Overpass Dimensioning and Requirements Stairs are recommended for both sides of the overpass, but are shown at only one location in the graphic for clarity. Considering the physical exertion required to reach a 20 ft grade change, steps with a 6” rise and 12” tread are recommended, as opposed to the 7” rise and 11” tread per ADA minimum standards. Platforms can vary in width from the standard path width, becoming wider to accommodate furnishing zones where users can rest and enjoy the space. Spans are further elaborated upon in figure 3.01. Clearance above the road is set at 17 ft, per the Idaho Transportation Department’s highway standards, though 17.5 ft is preferred. Ramps are recommended at rather than the ADA maximum of 8.3% with landings, to provide a comfortable and consistent grade for users. Path Widths should accommodate travel in two directions by a variety of users (bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, etc). Clear zones are measured 32 ft out from the fog line on the north side of the highway, and 24 ft from the fog line on the south side. These areas typically include a number of underground utilities, and footings must not be located in this area. Utilities may also be located well outside the clear zone area, see figure 2.14. Footprint Area: the minimum area for an overpass ramp, landing, and stairway on either side of the highway is 3,750 square feet (with a 15 foot structure width). Span Area: the minimum area for an overpass span is 2,625 square feet. (with a 15 ft structure width). 3.02 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Underpass Dimensions and Requirements for Tunnels Soil Cover depth is based primarily on the above infrastructure. It is recommended to relocate utilities as opposed to locating the crossing underneath existing utilities, since the former method permits the shorter ramp that are a major benefit of underpasses. Tunnel clearance should follow the same standards as overpass enclosures, with a 10 ft minimum vertical clearance for bicyclists. Footings and Drainage for the underpass must be deep enough to provide a stable base while including pumping infrastructure to mitigate potential water infiltration into the underpass from the high water table. Water Table standard depth was retrieved from data by TO Engineers. Utilities would need to be relocated below the underpass, except for the Ballantyne Canal to the east, to minimize the footprint of the project and keep the underpass at a reasonable depth. 3.03 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Underpass Dimensioning and Requirements Ramps would ideally be set at 5% for comfort and consistency. However, due to the significant depth required for an underpass, an 8% ramp with landings spaced at 30 ft would permit the smallest possible footprint. Platform depth is set at 14 ft below grade, including 3 ft of soil cover to avoid existing utilities, 1 ft of structure for the tunnel, and 10 ft of clearance within the tunnel. Footings and Drainage structures must be provided with adequate space for pumping infrastructure to ensure structural stability and address significant water infiltration risks inherent to the high water table of the site (see figure 3.03). Clear Zones, as with an overpass, are measured 32 ft out from the fog line on the north of the highway and 24 ft from the fog line to the south, and typically include space for utilities. Footprint Area: the minimum area for an underpass ramp, landing, and stairway on either side of the highway is 3,264 square feet. Span Area: the minimum area for an underpass span is 2,340 square feet. 3.04 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Overpass vs. Underpass Performance Comparison Overpass Underpass Pedestrian and Bike Number of stairs Span length Ramp length Maximum ramp grade Total footprint area Quality of user experience Required hours of artificial lighting Vehicular Disturbance Construction disruption duration/severity Landscape and Buffering Potential for protected public space Aesthetic Potential for public art Potential for designed city signage/branding Visual obstruction to developments Feasibility Basic structure cost Constructibility Maintenance requirements Dewatering needs Effects on utility relocation Interference with planned half continuous flow intersection See Figure 4.01 and description of the selection process for additional detail. Two or more concepts both performing at the same level (poor, moderate, or best) are shown with the same icon. Good Performance Moderate Performance Poor Performance 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report 04 Design Concepts 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Concept Introduction The preceding site inventory and analysis has laid out a number of opportunities, including prime pedestrian routes and possibilities for additional public amenities, and constraints, such as the wide utility zone and high local water table for the study area. To best articulate a crossing solution within this area, which will take advantage of opportunities while mitigating constraints, four high- level concepts have been developed to test potential crossings. These concepts include only enough detail to communicate a basic design, which is then analyzed for relative performance and approximate cost. Each concept represents a category of solutions: an overpass with additional public amenities (landscaped area, public space, etc.), a standard overpass using ramps and stairs with minimal additional amenities, an overpass with elevators and stairs, and finally an underpass. As the modularity diagram on the following page suggests, the basic components of these solutions can be rearranged based on preference or necessity. Cost estimates are similarly modular to provide the greatest degree of efficiency and utility. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Concept Modularity Freestanding Elevator with Stairs Freestanding Elevator with Stairs Elevator Attached to Structure with Exterior Stairs Integrated Stairs- Ramps Organic Forms in Integrated Stairs- Ramps Standard Ramp with Stairs Mirror Ramp with Stairs Organic Forms with Mirror Ramp Perpendicular Span Underpass Span Curved Span Diagonal Span Concepts have been generated to provide a degree of flexibility as the city and public further refine their desires for an over- or undercrossing. Components therefore are somewhat modular, and can be rearranged to provide the most attractive and efficient solution. Icons at the right show a number of components used to develop the concepts shown on subsequent pages. 4.01 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com This concept illustrates a diagonal overpass that includes both stairs and ramps to achieve the required clearance elevation. The area north of Highway 44 features a linear ramp to provide sound-buffering and visual screening between potential development on adjacent parcels and the highway. The area south of Highway 44 includes ramp switchbacks with integrated stairs to minimize the required footprint while maximizing public space. The diagonal crossing could be oriented to frame desired views and direct pedestrian connections along identified corridors. Concept A – Overpass with Public Amenities Concept A I Bird's Eye View Facing East N Proposed structures shown for Molinari Park and Eagle River are approximations only. These graphics are used to show the crossing in a more accurate future context. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Square Feet Acres Total Footprint Area 22,600 0.52 North Footprint 7,700 0.18 South Footprint 14,900 0.34 Crossing site, showing recommended location and furthest westward span location N Concept A I View of overpass from Highway 44 N 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Advantages Ramp on north side could utilize proposed berming to separate the highway from Molinari Park Switchbacks minimize view obstructions from Highway 44 to Eagle River development Diagonal crossing layout over the highway could be easily manipulated for signage or aesthetic benefit Connects existing and proposed pedestrian corridors effectively, conveying pedestrians directly between Eagle River and Molinari Park Wider platform (20 ft) can be used for a furnishing area, improving user experience Integrated stairs and ramp are convenient for users Disadvantages Large footprint on the south side of the highway Long ramp to the north creates a visual and access barrier – this could be a benefit or detriment depending on goals of the proposed development A wider platform incurs a higher construction cost Diagonal crossing angle increases overall structure span Planter areas/public space integrated in overpass View of overpass span 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Concept A North Side South Side Pedestrian and Bike Number of stairs Span length Ramp length Maximum ramp grade Smallest turn radius on ramp (for bicycle traffic) North/south footprint areas Total footprint area Quality of user experience Required hours of artificial lighting Vehicular Disturbance Distance from span to closest half CFI overhead signage Construction disruption duration/severity Landscape and Buffering Potential for protected public space Total square footage of landscaped area within structure/public space Provision of a partial vertical buffer along Molinari development Aesthetic Potential for public art Potential for designed city signage/branding Visual obstruction to developments Feasibility Basic structure cost Constructibility Maintenance requirements Dewatering needs Effects on utility relocation Interference with planned half continuous flow intersection Two or more concepts both performing at the same level (poor, moderate, or best) are shown with the same icon. Good Performance Moderate Performance Poor Performance 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Concept B features a sculptural overpass that efficiently moves pedestrians through the use of stairs and ramps. Curving ramps north and south of Highway 44 evoke the river’s form and provide visual interest both for users and vehicular traffic below. The ramp to the south skirts carefully across the vacant parcels, consuming minimal area while buffering highway noise. Limited additional public amenities are shown, making this concept both space-efficient and cost efficient, though it is recommended to include such amenities as benches, public space, and public artwork. Concept B – Overpass Concept B I Bird's Eye View Facing East N Proposed structures shown for Molinari Park and Eagle River are approximations only. These graphics are used to show the crossing in a more accurate future context. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Square Feet Acres Total Footprint Area 15,500 0.36 North Footprint 7,650 0.18 South Footprint 7,850 0.18 View of overpass from Highway 44 N Crossing site N 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Advantages Unique layout makes the crossing an attraction in its own right Provides an experience for users, helping to draw more people toward the bridge Draws attention to Eagle River and Molinari developments Perpendicular orientation of the span over the road can be used for artistic signage Pedestrian connections in four different areas give users more choice for an efficient path Shallow ramps and gentle curves are safe and easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate Disadvantages less effective in creating buffered public space Artistic form requires additional design, engineering, and construction effort Results in significant visual obstruction from the highway to Eagle River Public seating and planter space View of overpass span 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Concept B North Side South Side Pedestrian and Bike Number of stairs Span length Ramp length Maximum ramp grade Smallest turn radius on ramp (for bicycle traffic) North/south footprint areas Total footprint area Quality of user experience Required hours of artificial lighting Vehicular Disturbance Distance from span to closest half CFI overhead signage Construction disruption duration/severity Landscape and Buffering Potential for protected public space Total square footage of landscaped area within structure/public space Provision of a partial vertical buffer along Molinari development Aesthetic Potential for public art Potential for designed city signage/branding Visual obstruction to developments Feasibility Basic structure cost Constructibility Maintenance requirements Dewatering needs Effects on utility relocation Interference with planned half CFI Two or more concepts both performing at the same level (poor, moderate, or best) are shown with the same icon. Good Performance Moderate Performance Poor Performance 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com This third concept shows a building-attached overpass which includes stairs and enclosed elevators to achieve the required clearance elevation. This space-efficient design eliminates the need for ramps and is highly effective when considering the high clearance required for the crossing. The concept could either include a building-attached elevator or two free-standing elevators, depending on a developer's preference. While locating the elevator within the building draws in pedestrians and keeps elevator mechanisms better weather-protected, this would likely incur higher design and engineering costs. Concept C – Overpass with Elevators Concept C I Bird's Eye View Facing East N Proposed structures shown for Molinari Park and Eagle River are approximations only. These graphics are used to show the crossing in a more accurate future context. 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Square Feet Acres Total Footprint Area 3,700 0.08 North Footprint 2,050 0.05 South Footprint 1,650 0.04 View of overpass from Highway 44 N Crossing site N 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Advantages Elevators, rather than ramps, result in the smallest footprint of any concept Elevators are easy for all users to operate, and convenient for pedestrians Stairs can be fitted with bike runnels (see appendices) for bicycle accessibility Direct pathway through the developments can be flanked with buildings or public space Disadvantages Will require heavy involvement with Eagle River and future owners of the attached building Will require extensive engineering and maintenance Any elevator outages temporarily remove all ADA access Security issues and night access may diminish or eliminate ADA accessibility during some hours Landing overlooking elevator and a section of stairs Public Courtyard 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Concept C Performance North Side South Side Pedestrian and Bike Number of stairs Span length Ramp length N/A N/A Maximum ramp grade N/A Smallest turn radius on ramp (for bicycle traffic) North/south footprint areas Total footprint area Quality of user experience Required hours of artificial lighting Vehicular Disturbance Distance from span to closest half CFI overhead signage Construction disruption duration/severity Landscape and Buffering Potential for protected public space Total square footage of landscaped area/public space Provision of a partial vertical buffer along Molinari development Aesthetic Potential for public art Potential for designed city signage/branding Visual obstruction to developments Feasibility Basic structure cost Constructibility Maintenance requirements Dewatering Needs Effects on utility relocation Interference with planned half CFI Two or more concepts both performing at the same level (poor, moderate, or best) are shown with the same icon. Good Performance Moderate Performance Poor Performance 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Concept D – Underpass On this site, an underpass would encounter a number of challenges in order to be effective for users. While the unobtrusive visual form blends with existing features and would not cause visual obstructions, the underpass would require the relocation of a number of utilities. Additional engineering and dewatering would also be necessary to ensure the crossing's usefulness. This style of crossing would include ample space for public art, though that space would not be visible from outside the crossing, and also requires a lesser grade change, resulting in shorter ramps. Concept D I Bird's Eye View Facing East N Proposed structures shown for Molinari Park and Eagle River are approximations only. These graphics are used to show the crossing in a more accurate future context. 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Square Feet Acres Total Footprint Area 6,900 0.16 North Footprint 3,450 0.08 South Footprint 3,450 0.08 View of underpass from Highway 44 N Crossing site N 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Advantages Opportunities for public artwork Causes no visual disruption at grade May be shallower, resulting in shorter ramps Disadvantages Limited potential for public space without extensive excavation Will require careful engineering and construction to avoid reintroducing flooding issues which were mitigated by burying the Ballantyne Canal Will require additional engineering to mitigate the high water table and reduce water infiltration into the structure Tunnel may feel uncomfortable or claustrophobic to users Integration of natural light, artificial light, and public artwork to make the space comfortable will be costly Will necessitate that all local utilities except the Ballantyne Canal be relocated Extensive traffic disruption during construction May introduce a fall hazard into the ramp/stair trench Strong potential for graffiti and vandalism Potential for Public Art Ramp and Stairwell toward Underpass Span 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Concept D Performance North Side South Side Pedestrian and Bike Number of stairs Span length Ramp length Maximum ramp grade Smallest turn radius on ramp (for bicycle traffic) North/south footprint areas Total footprint area Quality of user experience* Required hours of artificial lighting Vehicular Disturbance Distance from span to closest half CFI overhead signage Construction disruption duration/severity Landscape and Buffering Potential for protected public space Total square footage of landscaped area/public space Provision of a partial vertical buffer along Molinari development Aesthetic Potential for public art Potential for designed city signage/branding Visual obstruction to developments Feasibility Basic structure cost Constructibility Maintenance requirements Dewatering Needs Effects on utility relocation Interference with planned half CFI Two or more concepts both performing at the same level (poor, moderate, or best) are shown with the same icon. Good Performance Moderate Performance Poor Performance 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Selection Process for Preferred Concept Selection Process Selecting a preferred concept from among all developed concepts considered three factors: concept performance, working group input, and user experience. Concept Performance. The performance as tabulated in the comparison chart at the right was considered as a metric of each concept’s effectiveness in meeting the project goals to improve pedestrian access and safety. Working Group Input. The working group appointed by COMPASS and the City of Eagle provided reactions to each concept and helped identify local preferences. User Experience. The user experience for each concept was weighed, acknowledging this is a subjective measure. Well-lit, artistic solutions with higher user comfort were ranked more favorably than concepts lacking these features or those requiring greater maintenance. Preferred Concept The selection process determined that an overpass will encounter fewer challenges than an underpass. An underpass is not recommended due to construction challenges, higher costs for both construction and maintenance, fewer opportunities for public space or artwork amenities, and the user safety and discomfort issues that could stem from its steep ramps and sharp turn radii. While all overpass options outperform the underpass, one concept performs particularly well in the comparison chart: Concept C, an overpass with elevators. This solution's small footprint allows the greatest flexibility within the identified siting area, though it would presumably perform best at the identified location connecting to Molinari Park's north-south pedestrian corridor. Because the concept does not use ramps, it doesn’t create barriers between proposed developments and the highway. The concept's major drawback is the loss of ADA accessibility that would occur in the event of an elevator breakdown. Proper design, construction, and ongoing maintenance should minimize the occurrence of such an event. Although Concept C is preferred overall, there are important considerations to be kept in mind: Higher maintenance costs should not be overlooked, as these costs will be a long-term investment for the city. Elevators are also somewhat less convenient for cyclists to use. If the majority of users are expected to be by cyclists, this concept may be less ideal. This evaluation determined that Concept C is the preferred concept. This preliminary recommendation should continue to be evaluated as additional public input is gathered. 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Overpass Underpass Concept A Concept B Concept C Concept D Pedestrian and Bike Number of stairs 40 40 40 28 Span length 257 ft 225 ft 212 ft 197 ft Ramp length 400 ft 400 ft N/A 225 ft Maximum ramp grade 5% 5% N/A 8% Smallest turn radius on ramp (for bicycle traffic) 13 ft radius 40 ft radius N/A 5 ft radius North footprint areas 7,700 sq ft 7,650 sq ft 2,050 sq ft 3,450 sq ft South footprint area 14,900 sq ft 7,850 sq ft 1,650 sq ft 3,450 sq ft Total footprint area 22,600 sq ft 15,500 sq ft 3,700 sq ft 6,900 sq ft Quality of user experience High High Moderate Moderate to Poor Required hours of artificial lighting Night hours only Night hours only Most hours; code required All hours Vehicular Disturbance Distance from span to closest half CFI overhead signage Approx. 430 ft Approx. 380 ft Approx. 425 ft N/A Construction disruption duration/severity Moderate: span layout and placement, road- adjacent ramp/public space construction Moderate: span layout and placement, road- adjacent ramp/public space construction Moderate: placement of pre-fab span, road-adjacent construction of building and elevator Severe: Excavation, culvert placement, sealing, fill, ramp and stairwell construction Landscape and Buffering Potential for protected public space High High Moderate Low Total square footage of landscaped area/public space 6,850 sq ft 2,150 sq ft 2,700 sq ft 0 sq ft Provision of a partial vertical buffer along Molinari development Along commercial area Along commercial area Negligible None Aesthetic Potential for public art High: ample vertical surfaces for public art High: ample vertical surfaces for public art Moderate: fewer publicly visible surface areas Moderate: public art and artistic lighting; low visibility Potential for designed city signage/branding (visibility from road) Moderate: angled visibility High: perpendicular visibility High: perpendicular visibility N/A: no visibility from road Visual obstruction to developments on the north High High Low N/A Visual obstruction to developments on the south Moderate Moderate Low N/A Feasibility Constructibility Good Good Good Poor Maintenance requirements Moderate Moderate Extremely High Extremely High Dewatering Needs N/A N/A N/A Constant pumping Effects on utility relocation No relocation required No relocation required No relocation required All but Ballantyne Canal Interference with planned half CFI Low Low Low High; requires drainage structure relocation Total Performance (sum of high performance marks) 11 Good 12 Good 17 Best 6 Poor Concept Performance Comparison Chart 4.01 Good Performance Moderate Performance Poor Performance 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Summary of Cost Estimate The above cost estimates are relevant for the architectural structure of an over- or undercrossing. Costs are based on comparable case study price modeling, and are broken down by basic structure component (i.e. ramp system, land acquisition cost, etc.). Overpass Underpass Concept A Concept B Concept C Concept D Pedestrian and Bike Project scope Extended ramp system and added public amenities Standard overpass Elevators and added building scope High groundwater, dewatering, temporary shoring, roadway improvements, and utility relocations Ramp system 3,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 Stair system 1,200,000 820,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 Bridge span or subterranean span 1,750,000 700,000 2,000,000 700,000 Public amenity/landscape features 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 4,500,000 Structure and elevator system - - 3,500,000 - Design fee (8-10%) 800,000 600,000 1,056,000 1,000,000 Land acquisition cost 350,000 250,000 300,000 300,000 Subtotal 8,100,000 5,870,000 9,106,000 10,000,000 Contingency (30%) 2,430,000 1,761,000 2,881,800 3,000,000 Projected project cost 10,530,000 7,631,000 11,837,800 13,000,000 Cost Estimate 4.02 58 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Cost Precedents 4.03 Name Location Overall Cost Year Completed Average Cost Per Linear Foot Vancouver Land Bridge Vancouver, WA $12,250,000.00 2008 $10,054.68 University District Gateway Bridge Spokane, WA $13,200,000.00 2019 Atlanta Braves Bridge Project Atlanta, GA $21,000,000.00 2017 Papillion Pedestrian Bridge Papillion, NE $1,800,000.00 2018 Apogee Stadium Pedestrian Bridge Denton, TX $2,500,000.00 2018 Lafayette Pedestrian Bridge Portland OR $3,900,000.00 2018 $24,736.08 Amgen Helix Pedestrian Bridge Seattle, WA $10,000,000.00 2004 Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge Portland, OR $13,000,000.00 2012 Connecticut River Walk Springfield, MA $4,500,000.00 2002 Foley Pedestrian Bridge Foley, FL $6,300,000.00 2016 Mercer Drive Pedestrian Bridge Atlanta, GA $2,900,000.00 2017 Euclid to 18th Transportation Improvement Boulder, CO $7,400,000.00 2012 $27,595.51 Basalt Avenue Pedestrian Underpass Basalt, CO $6,200,000.00 2017 4th Street Southwest Underpass Calgary, Alberta, Canada $6,700,000.00 2019 Woy Woy Pedestrian Underpass New South Wales, Australia $4,800,000.00 2015 The East Campbell Avenue Portals Campbell, CA $4,850,000.00 2016 Baseline Road Underpass Boulder, CO $5,400,000.00 2016 Overpass Overpass and Elevator Underpass 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com 05 Appendices 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report Enclosure Styles Rustic Traditional Style Pedestrian Bridge I Winston-Salem, NC Contemporary Industrial 38th and Blake Pedestrian Bridge I Denver, CO Contemporary Sculptural Claude Bernard Overpass I Paris, France Natural Buffering - Features Wide Inaccessible Planting Areas Vancouver Land Bridge I Vancouver, WA Full Enclosure Full Enclosure Partial Enclosure Horizontal Pedestrian Buffer While only basic crossing structures are provided in the preceeding pages, a variety of design styles could be applied based on public preference or determination by cost. 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com Bike Runnel Detail 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 44 Grade Separated Crossing Pre-Concept Report ITD Confirmation for Minimum Distance from Half CFI 63 ---PAGE BREAK--- 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 [PHONE REDACTED] thelandgroupinc.com 64 ---PAGE BREAK--- This Page Intentionally Left Blank