Document Everett_doc_6f7b91373c

FINAL PLAN MARCH 2011 Everett Bicycle Master Plan PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design, City of Everett, and Everett Bicycle Community PREPARED FOR: City of Everett and Everett Bicycle Community ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgments The Bike Master Plan was a significant team effort involving the Cities Traffic Engineering, Planning, Civil Design, and Parks departments with the Assistance of Alta Planning and Design. This technical expertise was combined with a significant Citizen outreach program and extraordinary levels of participation by individual citizens. B.I.K.E.S of Snohomish County and the Cascade Bicycle Club provided valuable feedback and material for the plan. Bill Weber and Kristin Kinnamon of B.I.K.E.S and John and Bob Jackson provided detailed feedback on proposed routes. Over 100 citizens at four public meetings and a stakeholder email list of approximately 200 individuals. City of Everett Elected Officials Mayor – Ray Stephanson City Council Members: Paul Roberts (President) - Position 1 Jeff Moore - Position 2 Arlan Hatloe (Vice President) - Position 3 Ron Gipson - Position 4 Drew Nielsen - Position 5 Brenda Stonecipher - Position 6 Shannon Affholter - Position 7 City of Everett Staff Dave Davis, Director, Public Works Ryan Sass, City Engineer Dongho Chang, Traffic Engineer Jim Ozanne, Public Works - Traffic Engineering provided day to day management, field verification and coordination between all the groups Tom Hood, Public Works - Engineering helped develop the detailed cost estimating methods Paul Crane, Public Works - Utilities provided international perspective and reviewed the draft plan Brent Linder and Jim MacLauchlan, Public Works - GIS provided the aerial photos and cross sections Steve Ingalsbe, Planning provided cycling expertise and route and plan review Mark Harrison, Parks provided input on the various trail options ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III Setting iii Recommendations iii Community Support for Plan Development v Relationship of Everett Bicycle Master Plan to Everett Planning Documents v Last Thoughts v I. INTRODUCTION I-1 Setting I-1 Purpose of the Everett Bicycle System Master Plan I-1 Contents of the Plan I-2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS II-1 Past Planning Efforts II-1 Climate & Topography II-1 Transportation Infrastructure II-3 Roadway Network II-3 Transit Service II-3 Bicycling Conditions II-3 Bicycling Events II-7 Data Collection Effort Summary II-7 Public Involvement II-7 Periodic newsletter updates II-8 Stakeholder interviews II-8 Summary of fieldwork II-9 Collision data II-9 Employer survey II-10 Distribution of Draft Report II-10 III. RECOMMENDED BIKEWAY FACILITIES III-1 Existing Facilities Analysis III-2 “Fair” Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis III-4 “Good” Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis III-5 “Better” Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis III-7 Trails III-8 Proposed Facilities III-9 Connections between Existing Facilities III-1 Proposed Facility Additions III-2 IV. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS: EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT, & EVALUATION IV-1 Existing Education and Outreach Efforts IV-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing Materials IV-1 Clubs and Organizations IV-2 Recommended Education and Outreach Efforts IV-3 Collision Data Review Procedure IV-15 Maintenance IV-15 Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Plan IV-17 V. DESIGN V-1 Design Standards V-1 VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS VI-1 “Fair” Existing Facilities VI-4 “Good” Existing Facilities VI-10 Connections to Existing Facilities VI-18 Tier 1 Facilities VI-24 Tier 2 Facilities VI-33 State Highway Access VI-43 VII. FUNDING STRATEGIES VII-1 Federal, State, and Regional Funding Sources VII-1 City of Everett Funding Sources VII-6 APPENDIX A. PROJECT CONCEPT GUIDELINES…..………………...………A-1 APPENDIX B. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS. B-1 APPENDIX C. COLLISION DATA ANALYSIS C-1 APPENDIX D. SURVEY OF COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION EMPLOYERS. D-1 APPENDIX E. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS APPENDIX F. NEWSLETTERS. F-1 APPENDIX G. END OF TRIP FACILITIES. G-1 APPENDIX H. BIKE SHARING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM H-1 APPENDIX I. TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND VEHICLE DETECTION I-1 APPENDIX J. COMMENTS TO DRAFT PLAN J-1 APPENDIX K. FIELDWORK APPENDIX L. COST ESTIMATING SPREADSHEET…………………………...L-1 APPENDIX M. URBAN DESIGN STREETSCAPE EXAMPLES……………….M-1 APPENDIX N. ERRATA ---PAGE BREAK--- ii ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Executive Summary Setting The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan is the product of a coordinated effort between Everett’s residents, civil servants and elected officials. This plan lays out a roadmap for including bicycling as a convenient and ultimately viable transportation option. The goal is to increase bicycle mode share by developing facilities and programmatic support that encourage more people in Everett to use their bicycle for more practical trips (to travel to work, the store, restaurants, etc.). The foundation of a bike network is already in place in Everett. Previous investments in bicycle facilities include numerous bicycle lanes and trails that cross the City, and new facilities are being installed on a regular basis. Recommendations Figure 8 (page III-11) depicts the recommended bikeway network. This plan lays out a comprehensive system connecting key bicycling destinations and surrounding areas. The suggested system was developed based on input from City staff, stakeholder groups and Everett residents. The network also builds upon recommendations from previous and on-going planning efforts. The system includes a variety of facilities including; roadways, bike lanes, shoulder bikeways, signed bicycle routes including bicycle boulevards, multi-use trails and intersection improvements. Table ES-1 lists currently funded non-motorized projects and shows the City of Everett’s ongoing commitment to non-motorized travel. The table outlines projects funded and /or constructed from 2004 to 2010. Using this plan as a springboard for attracting grant funding, the City hopes to increase the funding of similar projects in the future. Table ES-2 summarizes the projects by category (see Chapters III and VI for further descriptions). ---PAGE BREAK--- iv Past Funding Table ES-1. Funded Non-Motorized Projects (2004 – 2010) TITLE COST FEDERAL STATE LOCAL TOTAL WORK ORDER 3154 MCDOUGALL/SMITH SIDEWALKS 54,104.71 $ - $ - $ 54,104.71 $ 54,104.71 $ 3190 2004 PED PATHS/CURB RAMPS 34,559.51 $ - $ - $ 34,559.51 $ 34,559.51 $ 3194 7TH AVE, 93RD-100TH SIDEWALK 584,486.00 $ - $ 107,740.00 $ 476,746.00 $ 584,486.00 $ 3221 52ND ST PED FLASHER 5,172.72 $ - $ - $ 5,172.72 $ 5,172.72 $ 3232 100TH ST SE PED IMP 156,082.00 $ - $ 75,320.00 $ 80,762.00 $ 156,082.00 $ 3254 HOLLY DR NON-MOTORIZED IMP 1,071,716.94 $ 889,445.00 $ - $ 182,271.94 $ 1,071,716.94 $ 3255 CORBIN DR PED PATH 296,252.00 $ - $ - $ 296,252.00 $ 296,252.00 $ 3268 WEST MARINE VIEW DR. PED IMP 216,826.54 $ 103,000.00 $ 1,926.79 $ 111,899.75 $ 216,826.54 $ 3289 7TH AVE PED & BICYCLE SAFETY 155,231.77 $ - $ 155,231.77 $ - $ 155,231.77 $ 3298 36TH ST/BNSF NON-MOTORIZED 105,617.43 $ 100,095.00 $ - $ 5,522.43 $ 105,617.43 $ 3364 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN 136,619.83 $ - $ - $ 136,619.83 $ 136,619.83 $ 3382 PED SAFETY IMPS ON 112TH ST SE 2,187.15 $ 2,187.15 $ - $ - $ 2,187.15 $ 3404 HORIZON ELEMENTARY WALK ROUTE 526.19 $ - $ 526.19 $ - $ 526.19 $ 3405 CASINO RD & RUCKER AVE PED SIGNALS 4,172.95 $ - $ 4,172.95 $ - $ 4,172.95 $ TOTAL TO DATE 2,823,555.74 $ 1,094,727.15 $ 344,917.70 $ 1,383,910.89 $ 2,823,555.74 $ GRANT Recommended Project Summary Table ES-2. Recommended Bicycle Projects City of Everett Expenditures Existing funding sources  Public Works – Street Improvements Fund 1191  Public Works – Streets Fund 1202 1 Everett, Washington 2009 Budget. (http://www.everettwa.org/default.aspx?ID=1431). Accessed January 26, 2009. 2 Everett, Washington 2009 Budget. (http://www.everettwa.org/default.aspx?ID=1431). Accessed January 26, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- v Community Support for Plan Development The development of the plan would not have happened without the excellent involvement and support of the citizens of Everett, who have worked tirelessly to improve bicycling conditions in Everett. Residents (notably Bob Jackson, Bill Weber, John and Kristin Kinnamon) rode many of the existing and proposed routes to provide specific notes and feedback, greatly improving the final plan. The project team conducted stakeholder interviews to identify bicycle issues from the standpoint of various interest groups and organizations. Throughout the project, City of Everett Senior Engineer Jim Ozanne served as the point contact person to community members and the project team, fielding calls and emails from Everett residents adding their input to the project. Additional activities included:  Project kick-off meeting  Open house #1  Final open house  Draft plan distribution  Periodic newsletter updates  Stakeholder interviews Relationship of Everett Bicycle Master Plan to Everett Planning Documents This bicycle master plan will be adopted as an amendment to the Transportation Element of the City of Everett Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the policy document which will guide the growth of the City until 2025. As required by State law, RCW 36.70A.130(4)(a), the Comprehensive Plan must be updated every seven years. The Comprehensive Plan guides city growth by defining the:  Desired type, level and spatial distribution of population and job growth,  Transportation, utilities and public facilities necessary to serve this population and employment,  Methods of paying for this infrastructure,  Housing requirements for the community, and  Desired physical character of city growth. Last Thoughts The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan is a roadmap to creating a bicycling network for users of varying abilities in Everett. The goal of implementing the recommended connections and Tier 1 projects over the next ten years will move Everett significantly forward along that roadmap. It should be remembered that the Everett Bicycle System Master Plan is a living document, and should be revisited periodically to ensure that the system being developed continues to meet the needs of all residents of Everett. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- I-1 I. Introduction Setting The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan is the product of a coordinated effort between Everett’s residents, civil servants and elected officials. This plan lays out a roadmap for including bicycling as a safe, convenient and ultimately viable transportation option. The goal is to increase bicycle mode share by developing facilities and programmatic support that encourage more people in Everett to use their bicycle for utilitarian trips (to travel to work, the store, restaurants, etc.). Everett residents ride their bicycles, both for recreation and utilitarian trips. The vast majority of the routes found in this plan were suggested by Everett residents as a part of this and previous planning efforts. These dedicated cyclists continue to discover and share the best ways to get around the City on two wheels. The foundation of a bikeway network is already in place in Everett. The Downtown core offers a network of connected streets and frequent bikeable destinations. Surrounding neighborhoods have well-connected streets, many of which serve as bicycling routes. Previous investments in bicycle facilities include numerous bicycle lanes and trails that traverse the City. Everett residents and leaders now desire to make their community even more attractive for bicyclists. In some areas, bicycle system upgrades are needed including; intersection improvements, completing bikeway network gaps, and establishing new connections. The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan will help to continue to develop a bicycle network built on the foundation of past development. This plan presents the vision of a fully-developed bicycle system as well as an implementation strategy and design suggestions to bring top priority routes to reality. A complete bikeway network will increase overall connections within the community, provide residents with greater travel choices, increase the number of utilitarian and recreational bicycle trips, and promote the overall health of Everett residents by including bicycling as a safe, comfortable and attractive travel mode. Purpose of the Everett Bicycle System Master Plan The transportation element of Everett’s Comprehensive Plan, which was updated in 2006, contains a map of existing bicycle facilities and a map of a future bicycle network. These maps were created with the assistance of Everett citizens, who used their familiarity with bicycling conditions in Everett to identify existing facilities and offer suggestions for potential future improvements to Everett’s bicycle network. The 2006 Plan proposes a comprehensive network of bicycle facilities, but lacks detail about route prioritization, physical design and programmatic support that are necessary for successful implementation. In 2008, with significant public support, the City decided to develop an implementation plan to direct long term planning and construction of this theoretical bikeway system. ---PAGE BREAK--- I-2 The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan provides an updated inventory and assessment of Everett’s bikeway network and updates the bicycle element of the City’s 2006 Transportation System Plan Update. This plan lays out comprehensive strategies for system-wide improvements and specifies what needs to be done to achieve the City’s goal of becoming a great bicycling community. These strategies will help Everett compete for the necessary funding and other resources needed to achieve this goal. Increasing bicycle mode share is the ultimate goal of the Everett Bicycle System Master Plan, which can be achieved by developing facilities that attract more recreational riders, and convert recreational riders to commuters, part-time commuters to more regular commuters and attract new bicycle commuters. The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan provides more design detail than a typical master plan, and will serve as a good starting point for the development of preliminary designs of the recommended solutions. Cost estimates were calculated for the various elements of a given project, including the removal or addition of striping, signage, pavement, etc. The design details provided will help leverage grant funding to implement the bicycle improvement projects included in this plan. Contents of the Plan This master plan is intended to provide a resource for policy makers, planners, engineers, public officials and interested citizens. This plan lays out a comprehensive system connecting key bicycling destinations and surrounding areas. The suggested system was developed based on input from City staff, stakeholder groups and Everett residents. The network also builds upon recommendations from previous and on-going planning efforts. The system includes a variety of facilities including; bike lanes, shoulder bikeways, signed bicycle routes including bicycle boulevards, multi-use trails and intersection improvements. The plan contains an evaluation of Everett’s current bicycle facilities and recommends improvements to make them more appealing for bicycling. Many of these improvements are low cost and can be completed in the short term while other recommendations may be implemented as roadways are re-paved or re-striped. Project descriptions are provided for all Existing Facilities, Connections to Existing Facilities, Tier 1 and Tier 2 routes. These routes complete gaps in the bicycle network and provide connections between key bicycling destinations including the north end of the Interurban Trail, downtown Everett, Everett Station and the entrance to the US 2 trestle. Equally important to the bikeway network are support programs. Previous investments in bicycling have laid a solid foundation for a comprehensive bicycle network. A more coordinated effort would facilitate the integration of bicycles into transportation planning and engineering in Everett. This plan includes several key resources that will help to guide successful implementation of this plan over time. The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan is organized as follows:  Chapter I. Introduction provides an overview of the plan and its purpose  Chapter II. Existing Conditions describes Everett’s past planning efforts, existing climate and topography, and the data collection effort involved in this planning process.  Chapter III. Recommended Bikeway Facilities identifies the recommended bikeway network through an analysis of the existing facilities and identification of the proposed facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- I-3  Chapter IV. Recommended Programs highlights existing and proposed education and outreach effort, as well as recommended maintenance strategies and a wayfinding signage plan.  Chapter V. Design Standards provides design standards for new bikeway facilities.  Chapter VI. Project Descriptions provides descriptions of many of the recommended projects.  Chapter VII. Funding Strategies identifies federal, state, regional, and local funding sources for bikeway projects.  Appendices includes among other sections project guidelines, cost estimating, relationship to other planning documents, and end-of-trip facilities analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- I-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- II-1 II. Existing Conditions Past Planning Efforts Bicycle planning in Everett benefits from previous investments that lay a strong foundation for the projects recommended in this plan. The planning and implementation of bicycle facilities in Everett dates back to 1973, when the City completed projects along West Marine View Drive and Mukilteo Boulevard. Many of Everett's core bicycle routes were put into place in the early 1990s. Initial work on the Interurban Trail took place between 1995 and 1997, with a second phase of work completed in 2004-05. Bike lanes were installed on Holly Drive in 2001 and 2006. Planning efforts include an informal stakeholder process which ultimately resulted in the existing and future bicycle system maps found in the 2006 update to the transportation element of Everett's Comprehensive Plan. The routes found on these maps served as a starting point for this master plan. To the extent feasible, this plan has incorporated existing local plans and priorities as part of its recommendations. Appendix B provides a more detailed summary of the plans reviewed, which include:  Everett Comprehensive Plan  Land Use Element  Transportation Element Update  Everett Development Code  Everett Downtown Plan  Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040  A Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan for Everett’s Snohomish Riverfront (1987)  Everett Shoreline Public Access Plan (2003) Climate & Topography Summers in Everett are ideal for riding a bicycle, with mild temperatures and extremely dry weather. Everett experiences the mild but rainy winter weather typical of the Pacific Northwest. While rain can be an obstacle to bicycle riding, similarly rainy Portland, Oregon reports winter bicycling rates that are approximately half of summer ridership levels. Experience from well-known international bicycling cities, such as Copenhagen, Denmark, indicate that investment in bicycling facilities can result in impressively high rates of bicycling, despite rainy weather conditions. Bicycle mode share in ---PAGE BREAK--- II-2 Figure 2 – Elevation profile of Evergreen Way and parallel routes Copenhagen is in excess of 20% of all trips; an even higher 36% of work commute trips are made by bike3. Everett’s hilly topography presents challenges for cyclists in certain parts of the city. In some areas outside the central city, this difficulty is compounded because there are few parallel facilities and many streets have narrow lanes. As the network currently exists, in these areas cyclists are forced to choose between either a long detour or being uncomfortably close to passing motor vehicle traffic. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the significant elevation change along east-west and north-south routes. Hills can be a deterrent for new cyclists, so it is important to provide alternate routes that minimize hills to the extent feasible. A further issue is that hills can significantly slow bicycle speeds, presenting conflicts between cars and bicycles where a bicycle facility is not provided. One alternative for cyclists is to put their bike on transit for the uphill portion of a trip. Many of Everett’s transit providers, including the new BRT line, accommodate bikes on board. In areas with limited amounts of right-of-way, bicycles can be accommodated with a bike lane in the uphill direction only. 3 World Transport Policy & Practice, Volume 13. Number 3. December 2007 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Distance (feet) Elevation (feet) 3rd Avenue 4th Avenue Broadw ay View Drive Firland Place Alta Drive Wetmore Avenue Beaumont Drive Colby Avenue Figure 1 – Elevation profile of proposed bicycle climbing lane along 52nd St SE and Lowell Road ---PAGE BREAK--- II-3 Transportation Infrastructure Roadway Network Everett is characterized by two roadway network patterns. The northern part of Everett is characterized by a well-connected grid-based streets system typical of older urban development patterns. The southern part of Everett, by contrast, has a curvilinear roadway network with less street connectivity more typical of newer suburban style developments. A well-connected grid is highly supportive of bicycling, providing cyclists with greater route choice, including low-volume alternatives to high volume arterial streets and direct routes between destinations. It is for this reason that cyclists recognize north Everett as being more favorable for bicycling. A lack of street connectivity, by contrast, results in fewer route choices for cyclists and generally results in longer trip distances to get from one point to another. While such a roadway pattern keeps traffic volumes down on particular streets, it presents many challenges to providing good cycling routes. This plan recommends that street connectivity be a priority in new developments in Everett, with vehicle traffic volumes managed by the use of traffic calming features rather than through a curvilinear roadway design or non-connecting streets. The city and the county should work together to plat roads that provide connectivity for all modes, rather than creating super-blocks. City design standards for these new growth areas should also be developed cooperatively and encourage a mix of land uses to make non-motorized transportation modes more convenient and attractive. Transit Service Everett is served by municipal and regional bus services, as well as commuter rail and ferries which provide important opportunities for fostering symbiosis between bicycle transportation and mass transit. In 2009, Washington’s first bus rapid transit system, known as Swift, began operations along a 17 mile route from Everett Station to the Aurora Village Transit Center. Three interior bike racks are available on each bus, accessed through the third door at the rear of the bus. Key transit stations in Everett include Everett Station, College Station at Everett Community College and Mall Station at Everett Mall. Everett Station is serviced by Sounder Commuter Rail, which provides space for up to four bicycles per train car. Bicycle lockers and short-term bicycle parking are also available at Everett Station. Transit options in Everett include Everett Transit, Community Transit, Sound Transit (including Sounder train service), Skagit Transit, Island Transit, Amtrak, Greyhound, and Northwestern Trailways. If there is insufficient bike storage at a particular transit stop or station, contact bike coordinator Jim Ozanne with locations and he can work with the particular agency to address the issue. Bicycling Conditions Bike lanes, multi-use trails, roadway shoulders, widened sidewalks, and shared roadways on low- volume streets comprise Everett’s current bikeway network (Figure 3: Existing Routes by Type). The quantity and quality of existing facilities varies by location, ultimately appealing to different types of bicyclists - recreational vs. commuter (Figure 4: Existing Routes – Recreational and ---PAGE BREAK--- II-4 Commuter; It should be noted that these designations may change or evolve in the future as the bicycle system develops.) Elements contributing to a positive bicycling environment include:  A core set of bicycle routes  Presence of a multi-use trail (Interurban Trail) through much of the city  Good street system connectivity  Warning signage advising motorists of bicycle traffic  Presence of available right-of-way for future bikeways System weaknesses include:  Major roads serving as barriers to bicycling roads that are difficult to bicycle along or cross)  High volume arterials that lack parallel low volume streets  Existing routes that do not connect to each other due to gaps in facilities  Limited street connectivity, particularly in south Everett  Hilly topography along key connections – elevation varies from 6’ to 650’  Constrained right-of-way in some locations  Lack of wayfinding tools to orient bicyclists  Maintenance issues debris in bike lanes and on the Interurban Trail)  Lack of bike parking facilities in many areas ---PAGE BREAK--- II-5 Figure 3. Existing Routes by Type ---PAGE BREAK--- II-6 Figure 4. Existing Routes – Recreational and Commuter ---PAGE BREAK--- II-7 Figure 5 – Tour de Muk 2008 Route Bicycling Events Everett hosted the 100 mile long Everett Classic Bike Race on May 23rd, 1992. The race was won by 20-year old Bobby Julich, who had recently placed 10th overall in the prestigious Tour DuPont stage race. Julich commented, "This is a great course. From the minute I got here, I felt perfectly at home. If the sponsors stay with it, this could be a national-championship race sometime down the road." More recently, the second annual Tour de Muk bicycle ride took place in Everett in 2008. Riders had the choice of a 3.2 mile family route down Mukilteo Boulevard, a 23 mile ride though Everett and Mukilteo, or a challenging 16 mile ride through the hillier parts of town. More than 120 riders participated, a significant increase over the 47 riders in 2007. A map of the 2008 Tour route is displayed in Figure 5. Data Collection Effort Summary Public Involvement The Project Team conducted stakeholder interviews to identify bicycle issues from the standpoint of various interest groups and organizations. Community workshops were held throughout the project’s duration, enabling residents and other interested individuals to express concerns and ideas for improvements. Throughout the project, City of Everett Senior Engineer Jim Ozanne served as the point contact person to community members and the project team, fielding calls and emails from Everett residents adding their input to the project. Project kick-off meeting An initial project kick-off meeting was held between the Project Team and City staff. The project schedule, data needs and previous plans were all discussed. After the meeting, the Project Team received a tour of various parts of the city before meeting with City staff and interested citizens that evening. The following day, the Project Team enjoyed a sunny cool morning ride around Everett with several of the citizens and visited Sharing Wheels, Everett’s community bike co-op. Open house There was an excellent turnout at the first open house, which took place on Tuesday March 10th, 2009. According to the sign-in sheet, there were 69 people in attendance. This was a great show of ---PAGE BREAK--- II-8 enthusiasm for the work the City is doing to improve its implementation of bicycle facilities. The open house began with a 20 minute introduction, which was followed by several activities designed to obtain citizen input and feedback on preliminary maps and facility recommendations. The meeting ended with a short question and answer session. The event also received excellent media coverage, with an article appearing in both the Herald and the Tribune. See Email Update #3 in Appendix F for a detailed description of the meeting activities and results. Final Open house A final open house took place on January 24, 2011. This open house provided a forum to discuss the comments received on the draft plan. A large portion of the final open house was dedicated to discussing outstanding items from the public comment period, including the resolution of conflicting comments. After a discussion of these items, such as selecting between alternate routes or potential new bicycle treatments, the meeting concluded with a review of the final bicycle routes map, non-motorized spending, and next steps. Draft Distribution The draft was made available to over 200 stakeholders and copies of both CD’s and printed copies were distributed to staff for review. The review/comment period was one month long and comments were compiled and were addressed at the final public meeting. Periodic newsletter updates The Project Team developed email newsletter updates every few months to keep the public and other interested parties aware of the status of the planning effort. The email list was comprised of people who had signed up at the public meetings or who had emailed either the City or the Project Team requesting to be added to the list. Newsletters were also an effective means of soliciting feedback on the accuracy of the existing bicycle facilities map, difficult areas in the City for bicycling, etc. See Appendix F for all of the newsletter updates. Stakeholder interviews Prior to the open house, seven stakeholder interviews were conducted with 10 residents and representatives of organizations selected to represent a diverse cross-section of Everett’s population. The results of the stakeholder interviews are found in Appendix E. The purpose of the interviews was to discuss conditions for bicyclists in Everett. This effort provided important information regarding:  Destinations needing bicycle access (Everett Station, the waterfront, Boeing, Downtown, etc.)  Major barriers to bicycle travel (Evergreen Way, Everett Mall Way, Broadway, I-5, terrain)  Major gaps in the network (such as the end of the Interurban to Downtown)  Specific locations in need of improvements (including at specific intersections) The following organizations participated in the interviews: ---PAGE BREAK--- II-9  Sharing Wheels Community Bike Shop - works with low-income, homeless and youth populations.  B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County - has approximately 130 members and is organized mostly around road/recreational riding. B.I.K.E.S. also supported the Everett Bicycle System Implementation Plan by conducting outreach at Bike to Work Day on May 15, 2009, where they distributed project information and provided a sign-up sheet for plan updates.  Cascade Bicycle Club - headquartered in Seattle, it is more focused on promoting utilitarian bicycle trips, and reached out to approximately 100 of its members in the Everett area in anticipation of the interview.  Community Transit - an employee spoke to the needs of people who make bike-transit connections.  Snohomish Health District - an employee added the perspective of Healthy Communities, a community-based effort to improve health through active living and healthy eating.  Individuals interviewed included those who travel exclusively by bicycle, occasional commuters and recreational riders.  Everett Parks and Recreation – added information and made suggestions for linking the bicycle network with existing parks and open spaces. Summary of fieldwork The goal of this planning effort was to evaluate the adequacy of Everett’s existing bicycle infrastructure, assess the feasibility of the proposed routes found in the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan and recommend additional facilities. Recommended new facilities fall into several different categories, including connections between existing facilities and new routes that connect to important local and regional destinations. Connections are especially important, as cyclists have been shown to highly prefer continuous facilities to discontinuous ones. The adequacy of all existing and proposed facilities was evaluated during an initial field visit. During this step, deficient points were noted along existing routes and a list of spot improvements was assembled. A second field visit was completed after the proposed network was refined based on public input during the open house process. Information gathered during this field visit was used to develop the project sheets and summary tables found in Chapters III and VI. Collision data Collision data was analyzed for collisions involving bicycles from 2005-2007. There were 93 collisions over the three year period, although five of the 93 collisions did not involve a motor vehicle. Though it provides an important sample, the data does not fully represent bicycle collisions in Everett as many bicycle collisions, especially those not involving a motor vehicle, go unreported. Furthermore, as is explained in Appendix C, the number of bicycle collisions at a given location is an incomplete measure of safety without knowing an approximate number of bicycles that travel in that area. Keeping this caveat in mind, the analysis highlights the prevalence of collisions on particular ---PAGE BREAK--- II-10 streets and at particular intersections. It also highlights common turning movements and offers possible causes of bicycle collisions. The complete collision analysis is found in Appendix C. Employer survey The Project Team developed an online survey that was sent to employers that participate in Everett’s Commute Trip Reduction Program. The purpose of the survey was to assess the types of facilities and programs being offered by employers to support employees bicycling to work. Of the forty-one employers currently enrolled in the program, sixteen employers representing more than 8,000 employees responded to the online survey. Most employers that responded to the survey provide their employees with showers and lockers. Outdoor parking is generally provided, with about half of the employers reporting the availability of covered parking. A few employers offer controlled access bicycle parking rooms. A full analysis of the survey results is presented in Appendix D. Distribution of Draft Report The draft report was distributed electronically to the email list for review and comment in anticipation of the final open house. Submission of these comments formed the basis of the final meeting to resolve important issues for creating the final report. The comments were divided into three categories – project team agrees, project team disagrees and optional treatments to be discussed at the final meeting. Any comments excluded were distributed at the final plan meeting. Important comments that were contradictory or conflicted with the plan formed the basis of the discussion for the final meeting. ---PAGE BREAK--- III-1 III. Recommended Bikeway Facilities Everett has developed a foundation to build on and transform itself into one of the region’s most bikeable communities. Although challenges lie ahead, the foundation of the system already exists. This chapter lays out a long-term plan for improving this system. The recommended network builds upon previous and on-going local and regional planning efforts, and reflects the extensive input offered by City staff, stakeholder groups and Everett residents. The recommended bikeway network includes a comprehensive and diverse set of bicycle facilities connecting key destinations in and around Everett. System improvements include bicycle lanes, signed routes on low-volume streets, multi-use trails and upgrading intersections for bicycle crossings. Chapter IV describes programmatic strategies to enhance Everett’s bicycling environment. This chapter evaluates both existing and proposed facilities. Existing facilities have been separated into three categories: 1. Fair – these routes are usually deemed uncomfortable to recreational riders and more suitable for experienced riders. 2. Good – these routes are facilities that meet the recommended width for Everett bicycle facilities, but in many cases, minor improvements would greatly enhance the quality of the current facility. 3. Better – these routes exceed the recommended guidelines for Everett bicycle facilities and are what the City of Everett is striving to provide throughout the city. Proposed facilities fall into two categories: 1. Connections between existing facilities complete network gaps between existing facilities. 2. Proposed facility additions are located in areas not currently served by the bicycle network. These facility additions are further categorized into the following:  Tier 1 (1-10 years out)  Tier 2 (10-20 years out)  Tier 3 Facilities (Grant Funding required)  Corridor Replacement Project Required  Other Agency Projects ---PAGE BREAK--- III-2 Existing Facilities Analysis This section provides an analysis of existing on-street bicycle routes in Everett. General comments are also provided on Everett’s multi-use trails (See Appendix A. Project Concept Guidelines for further guidance on multi-use trail design). While it is a priority to add new facilities to complete the bicycle network in Everett, it is also important to ensure that the existing facilities are usable and promote recreational use that may later convert to commuter or other regular trips resulting in a change in mode share. Just over half of the facilities in Everett are rated “Good” or “Better”, though many could use minor improvements, such as more frequent stenciling in the bike lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- III-3 Figure 6 – Existing Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- III-4 “Fair” Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis The following table identifies existing bicycle facilities in Everett that have been categorized as “Fair”. The bike lanes on these facilities are generally considered too narrow for the traffic volumes on the particular street to be convenient for bicycle travel. Project description sheets are provided in Chapter VI. Table 1. Fair Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis Facility ID Facility Type Facility Location From To EF-A Lane 100Th St SE 19Th Ave SE 31St Ave SE EF-F Lane 4Th Ave W Corbin Dr Holly Dr EF-G Lane 5Th Ave W W Casino Rd Corbin Dr EF-H3 Lane 7Th Ave SE 100Th St SE 112Th St SE EF-I1 SW Airport Rd W Casino Rd Kasch Park Rd EF-I2 Lane Airport Rd Kasch Park Rd 94Th St Sw EF-L1 Sidewalk E Marine View Dr Skyline Dr 16Th St EF-L2 Sidewalk E Marine View Dr 16Th St Summit Ave EF-L3 Grand Marine View Everett EF-M1 Lane Glenwood Ave Mukilteo Blvd 5700 Block EF-M3 Lane Glenwood Ave 6300 Block Sievers-Duecy Blvd EF-M4 Lane Madison St Sievers-Duecy Blvd E Cady Rd EF-M5 Lane Madison St Rainier Dr Berkshire Dr EF-O Lane Hardeson Rd Merrill Creek Pky W Casino Rd EF-Q11 Lane Interurban Trail W Mall Dr Se Everett Mall Way EF-Q12 Trail Interurban Trail Se Everett Mall Way 128Th St SE EF-Q8 Sidewalk Interurban Trail E Casino Rd 84Th St SE EF-R Trail Lowell Riverfront Trail 4300 Block Rotary Park EF-S Lane Merrill Creek Pky Glenwood Ave Seaway Blvd EF-T1 Lane Mukilteo Blvd Grandview Ave Dogwood Dr EF-W2 Sidewalk W Marine View Dr Alverson Bridge North View Park EF-W3 Sidewalk W Marine View Dr North View Park 18Th St EF-W4 Sidewalk W Marine View Dr 18Th St Everett Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- III-5 “Good” Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis The following table identifies existing bicycle facilities in Everett that are good, but would benefit from additional treatments including spot improvements at particular locations. Note that all existing and recommended bike lane widths are inclusive of the gutter pan. The primary recommended improvements are: Widen bike lanes by allocating space from travel lanes or the center turn lane. For many of these facilities, the bike lanes are not so narrow to be deemed fair, but there is available curb-to-curb width in the roadway that could be utilized to enhance and create a more comfortable facility. These improvements could be completed the next time the roadway is re-paved or restriped. Paint more frequent bicycle stencils in the bike lanes. Infrequent stencils in the bike lane are a common shortcoming of bike lanes, resulting in bike lanes that can be mistaken for shoulders or parking lanes. Bicycle stencils remind drivers of bicyclists’ right to the roadway. This low-cost improvement can be completed at any time and would help to identify the place used by bicycles on Everett roads. Appendix A. Project Concept Guidelines provides recommendations on the use of bicycle stencils. ---PAGE BREAK--- III-6 Table 2. Good Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis Facility ID Facility Type Facility Location From To EF-AA Sidewalk Smith Ave 41st St 3600 Block EF-B1 Lane 112Th St Sw Airport Rd Evergreen Way EF-B2 Lane 112Th St Sw Evergreen Way Silver Lake Rd EF-C Lane 19Th Ave SE 112Th St SE 132Nd St SE EF-E Sidewalk 41St St Colby Ave S 3Rd Ave EF-I3 Lane Airport Rd 100Th St Sw Evergreen Way EF-K1 Signed Route Colby Ave 5Th St 9Th St EF-K2 Lane Colby Ave 9Th St 19Th St EF-K3 Lane Colby Ave 19Th St 24Th St EF-N Lane Everett Ave E Grand Ave Harrison Ave EF-P2 Lane Holly Dr 100Th St Sw Airport Rd EF-Q10 Trail Interurban Trail 1400 Block W Mall Dr EF-Q13 Trail Interurban Trail 128th St 148th St EF-Q3 Lane Interurban Trail Alta Dr 52Nd St SE EF-Q6 Trail Interurban Trail Madison St Adams Ave EF-T2 Lane Mukilteo Blvd Elm St Mukilteo Ln EF-V2 Lane W Casino Rd 5Th Ave W Casino Square W Drwy EF-W1 Sidewalk W Marine View Dr Skyline Dr Alverson Bridge EF-X Trail Port Waterside Trail (along the sound) Everett Ave Pigon Creek 1 EF-Y Signed Route Bond St Hewitt Ave Port Waterside Trail (along the sound) EF-Z1 Trail 10th St/14th St W Marine Dr W Marine Dr EF-Z2 Trail 18th St W Marine Dr W Marine Dr EF-Z3 Trail Federal Ave 42nd St SW Federal Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- III-7 “Better” Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis The following table lists facilities that are considered better. No improvements are recommended. Table 3. Better Rated Bicycle Facilities Analysis Facility ID Facility Type Facility Location From To EF-B3 lane 112th Silver Lake 19th EF-D1 Lane 19Th St Summit Ave Mcdougall Ave EF-D1 Lane 19Th St Summit Ave Mcdougall Ave EF-H1 Lane 7Th Ave SE 84Th St SE 92Nd St SE EF-H2 Lane 7Th Ave SE 92Nd St SE 95Th Ct SE EF-H4 Lane 7Th Ave SE 95Th Ct SE 100Th St SE EF-J Signed Route Alverson Blvd W Marine View Dr Colby Ave EF-M2 Lane Glenwood Ave 5700 Block 6300 Block EF-P1 Lane Holly Dr 4Th Ave W 100Th St Sw EF-Q2 Trail Interurban Trail 41st St SE Alta Dr EF-Q4 Trail Interurban Trail 52Nd St SE Commercial Ave EF-Q5 Lane Interurban Trail Commercial Ave Madison St EF-Q7 Trail Interurban Trail Adams Ave W Casino Rd EF-Q9 Lane Interurban Trail 84Th St SE 1400 Block EF-U Trail Smith Island Trail Langus Park 4Th St SE EF-V1 Lane W Casino Rd Airport Rd 5Th Ave W ---PAGE BREAK--- III-8 Trails Appendix A contains project concept guidelines for the construction of multi-use trails. Everett design guidelines in the past developed the current foundation for trails, used improving designs but, the implementation of these trail projects has been inconsistent. Sidewalks as Trails Construction of facilities for bicycles on sidewalks is generally not recommended, particularly where there are frequent driveway or roadway crossings. However, wider sidewalks can adequately serve bicycle traffic in areas where a connection is missing (and cannot be filled by an on-street facility) or where expected bicycle volumes are low. In general, multi-use trails should offer a cycling experience that is truly separate from vehicular traffic. Interurban Trail The Interurban Trail offers a comfortable cycling experience separate from vehicular traffic. The following recommendations are made for enhancing conditions on the Interurban trail:  Develop a standard, highly visible treatment for application at all entrances and access points to the Interurban Trail  Improve crossings of major roadways the crossing of 112th St SE, terminus @ Colby).  Add signage in the proximity of trail entrances to alert cyclists to their location.  Improve connections from the end of the trail at 43rd and Colby to downtown, Everett Station, the US 2 trestle and neighborhoods east of Evergreen Way/Rucker Avenue  Improve shoulder treatments in some areas where asphalt is crumbled, or gravel is soft. Add edge of trail improvements such as plantings.  Continue to maintain vegetation and trim growth regularly. Figure 7. Examples of potential signage for the Interurban Trail in Everett. ---PAGE BREAK--- III-9 Proposed Facilities Guiding principles were developed to lay out the best possible future bicycle network by identifying the features of a network most important to the residents of Everett. The goal was to identify project priorities so that the City may focus funding and funding applications for projects. Specific principles driving the development of the recommended network include:  Overcomes Obstacles: The project provides a way to cross a barrier such as a freeway or waterway.  Connectivity: To what degree does the project fill a missing gap in the bicycle system?  Activity Intensity: The improvement increase accessibility for employees that work for employers that participate in the Commute Trip Reduction program, or increases accessibility to stores, restaurants, employment, etc.  Connects Residents to the Bicycle Network: The improvement connects existing or future housing to the bicycle network.  Lack of Alternative Routes: The improvement is especially important because alternative routes do not exist.  Recreational Value: The improvement will provide enhanced recreational riding opportunities.  Community Stated Need: The project addresses a deficiency in the network voiced by the community.  Topography Requires Facility: The project provides facilities on a road where steep slopes, and the resulting slower bicycling speeds, necessitate a bicycle facility.  Suitable: The project is on a street with traffic volume, speeds, etc. where the presence of bicycles would be appropriate.  Provides Access to Transit: The project improves the ability of cyclists to connect with transit routes. Using the guiding principles above, the Project Team ranked each project based on information obtained from site visits, field work, City officials, and the public; and grouped the projects into the following categories:  Connections to Existing Facilities  Tier 1 (0-10 years out)  Tier 2 (10-20 years out) and;  Tier 3 (long-term, grant funding required) priorities. Additionally, other important projects to the overall Everett bicycle system were identified as being part of a potential corridor replacement project or as belonging to outside agencies. The priorities ---PAGE BREAK--- III-10 may change according to available funds, changing priorities, new roadway projects that coincide, new development and redevelopment opportunities, or other factors. It should be noted that the purpose of the groupings is to understand the relative priority of the projects so that the City may apportion available funding to the appropriate projects. Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects are also important, and may be implemented at any point in time as part of a development or public works project. The ranked lists should be considered a “living document” and should be reviewed to reflect current Everett priorities. The following tables contain streets and multi-use paths in the future Everett bicycle network, shown in Figure 8 – Recommended Bicycle Facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- III-11 Figure 8 – Recommended Bicycle Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- III-1 Connections between Existing Facilities The following proposed facilities complete gaps between Everett’s existing bicycle facilities, helping to create a complete network by connecting existing facilities to each other. Table 4. Connections between Existing Facilities Facililty ID Planned Facility Type Facility Location From To CEF-A1 Lane 100Th St SW Airport Rd Dakota Way CEF-A2 Lane 100Th St SW Dakota Way Evergreen Way CEF-D Sidewalk 36Th St Smith Ave Lowell Riverfront Trail CEF-E Signed Route 36Th St Hoyt Ave Smith Ave CEF-F Sidewalk 41St St S 3Rd Ave Lowell Riverfront Trail CEF-H1 Lane Dogwood Dr/Beverly Lane Mukilteo Blvd 79Th Pl SE CEF-H2 Signed Route Beverly Ln 79Th Pl SE W Casino Rd CEF-J Trail Lowell Riverfront Trail Rotary Park City Limits CEF-K Lane Madison St Berkshire Dr Broadway CEF-L Lane Mukilteo Blvd Dogwood Dr Elm St CEF-P Lane Summit Ave E Marine View Dr 19Th St ---PAGE BREAK--- III-2 Proposed Facility Additions The following additional facilities, located in areas not currently served by existing facilities, serve to create a comprehensive bicycle network in Everett. Tier 1 Table 5. Tier 1 Facility ID Planned Facility Type Facility Location From To T1-A1 Bike Blvd 35Th St Federal Ave Hoyt Ave T1-C1 Lane California St W Marine View Dr I-5 T1-F1 Bike Blvd Federal Ave 35Th St 42Nd St SE T1-F10 Bike Blvd Fleming St 52Nd St SE 56Th St SE T1-F11 Bike Blvd Fleming St 56Th St SE Madison St T1-F2 Trail Trail And Overcrossing 42Nd St SE Elk Hill Dr T1-F3 Bike Blvd Elk Hill Dr E Mukilteo Blvd Federal Ave T1-F4 Bike Blvd Federal Ave Elk Hill Dr 4400 Block T1-F5 Bike Blvd Federal Ave 4400 Block Alger Ave T1-F6 Bike Blvd 46th St SE Federal Ave College Ave T1-F7 Bike Blvd College Ave 46th St SE Alpine Dr T1-F8 Bike Blvd College Ave Alpine Dr 52Nd St SE T1-F9 Bike Blvd 52Nd St SE College Ave Fleming St T1-G1 Bike Blvd Hoyt Ave Alverson Blvd 41st St T1-H2 Bike Blvd Lombard Ave 10Th St 26Th St T1-H3 Lane 26th St Lombard Ave Oakes Ave T1-H4 Bike Blvd Oakes Ave 26Th St Everett Ave T1-H6 Bike Blvd Oakes Ave Pacific Ave 32Nd St T1-H7 Lane 32Nd St Oakes Ave Lombard Ave T1-H8 Bike Blvd Lombard Ave 32nd St 36Th St T1-J3 Bike Blvd Fulton St Pacific Ave Hewitt Ave T1-J4 Bike Blvd Fulton St Hewitt Ave California St T1-Q Bike Blvd 23Rd St Grand Ave E Grand Ave T1-R Bike Blvd Summit Ave 23rd 19Th St T1-S Bike Blvd Harrison Ave Everett Ave 23rd St T1-T Bike Blvd Wall St Broadway Smith Ave T1-U Bike Blvd Smith Ave Wall St 32Nd St T1-V Sidewalk Path Broadway Wall St California St T1-W Lane Kasch Park Rd Airport Rd Kasch Park T1-Z Trail Riverside Business Park SR529 Pacific Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- III-3 Tier 2 Table 6. Tier 2 Facility ID Planned Facility Type Facility Location From To T2-A Trail 75Th St SE Seaway Blvd Hardeson Rd T2-B Lane 12Th St Broadway Chestnut St T2-BB Sidewalk Pacific Ave Smith Ave Fulton St T2-C Trail Trail And Overcrossing 42Nd St SE Elk Hill Dr T2-CC Sidewalk Tower St Broadway N Broadway T2-D Sidewalk 41St St Hoyt Ave Interurban Trail/Colby Ave T2-DD Bike Blvd Harrison Ave Everett Ave Pacific Ave T2-E Bike Blvd Baker Ave/ Poplar St 12Th St Hewitt Ave T2-F Lane Brookridge Blvd Beverly Lane Glenwood Ave T2-G Lane 10Th St Grand Ave Tower St T2-H Trail Japanese Gulch W Mukilteo Blvd Sr 526 T2-I Trail Japanese Gulch Connector Seaway Blvd Sr 526 T2-J Lane Larimer Rd S 2Nd Ave City Limits T2-K Bike Blvd Grand Ave Alverson Blvd 35Th St T2-L Bike Blvd Pigeon Creek Rd Mukilteo Blvd Puget Sound T2-N Lane Sievers-Duecy Blvd Hardeson Rd Glenwood Ave T2-O Sidewalk W Marine View Dr Everett Ave California St T2-P Sidewalk W Marine View Dr California St Pacific Ave T2-Q Lane Norton Ave Pacific Ave Grand Ave T2-R Bike Blvd Grand Ave Norton Ave 43rd St SE T2-S Bike Blvd 43rd St SE Grand Ave Colby Ave T2-T Lane E Casino Rd Beverly Blvd 7th Ave SE T2-V Bike Blvd 75th St/Hamlet Ln Broadway 81st Pl T2-W Trail Japanese Gulch Connector Seaway Blvd Japanese Gulch Trail T2-X Trail Hamlet Ln 81st Pl Gold Way T2-Y Bike Blvd Oakes Ave Everett Ave Pacific Ave T2-Z Sidewalk Smith Ave Pacific Ave 3600 Block ---PAGE BREAK--- III-4 Tier 3 Table 7. Tier 3 Facility ID Planned Facility Type Facility Location From To T3-A Lane S 2Nd Ave 47Th St SE Lenora St T3-B Lane S 3Rd Ave 41St St 47Th St SE T3-C Lane Ross Ave/Smith Island Rd Langus Park SR 529 T3-D Lane Seaway Blvd 36Th Ave W SR 526 T3-E Lane Silver Lake Rd 19Th Ave SE 112Th St SE T3-F Lane Colby Ave 44th St SE Beverly Blvd T3-G Lane 25Th St Hoyt Ave Lombard T3-H Lane Mukilteo Ln Mukilteo Blvd 1St St T3-I Lane Olympic Blvd Mukilteo Blvd Mukilteo Blvd T3-J Lane Beverly Blvd Colby Ave Broadway T3-K Overcrossing Evergreen Way Holly Dr Holly Dr T3-L Trail Lowell Riverfront Trail Extension Pacific Ave Lowell Riverfront Trail T3-M Trail Kasch Park Trail Kasch Park 18th Ave W T3-N Shared Route 18th Ave W end 100th St SW T3-O Shared Route Pecks Drive Fleming St Brookridge Blvd T3-P Trail 41st St W of Smith Ave Lowell Riverfront Trail ---PAGE BREAK--- III-5 Corridor Replacement Project Needed Providing bicycle improvements in these corridors would be difficult as significant corridor reconstruction is required. In addition, significant right-of-way needs to be acquired to provide the appropriate facilities. Table 8. Corridor Replacement Facility ID Planned Facility Type Facility Location From To CRPR-A Lane 116Th St SE 19Th St SE 25Th St SE CRPR-B Lane 19Th Ave SE 112Th St SE 100Th St SE CRPR-C Lane 19th Ave SE El Capitan Way 100th St SE CRPR-D Lane 41St St Crescent Ave Colby Ave CRPR-E Lane 100th St SE Holly Dr SW Everett Mall Way CRPR-F Lane 100th St SE 7th Ave SE 19th Ave SE CRPR-G Lane 4Th Ave W Holly Dr 104Th St SE CRPR-H Lane 52Nd St Fleming St Larimer Rd CRPR-I Lane 100th St SE SE Everett Way 7th Ave SE CRPR-J Lane 75Th St Beverly Ln Beverly Blvd CRPR-K Lane Broadway Sr 526 41St St CRPR-L Lane Broadway California St West of SR 529 CRPR-L Lane Broadway Wall St West of SR 529 CRPR-N Lane E Casino Rd Evergreen Way Interurban Trail CRPR-O Lane Evergreen Way Pacific Ave 128Th St SE CRPR-P Lane Se Everett Mall Way SR 526 Evergreen Wy CRPR-Q Lane Holly Dr 4Th Ave W E Casino Rd CRPR-R Lane Lenora St 2Nd Ave SE Lowell-Snohomish River Rd CRPR-S Lane Madison St Cady Rd Rainier Dr ---PAGE BREAK--- III-6 Other Agency Projects Other agency projects are those projects that have been identified through this master planning process as projects that provide key connections to areas outside of the City of Everett. The City will encourage the development of these corridors by adjacent government agencies. Table 9. Other Agency Projects Facility ID Planned Facility Type Facility Location From To OAP-A NA 100Th St SE 31St Ave SE 35Th Ave SE OAP-B NA 112Th St SW 9Th Pl W Meridian Ave S OAP-C NA 116Th St SE 25Th Dr SE 35Th Ave SE OAP-D NA 128Th Pl SE 4Th Ave SE 19Th Ave SE OAP-E NA 132Nd St SE 19Th Ave SE Seattle Hill Rd OAP-F NA 35Th Ave SE 100Th St SE 148Th St SE OAP-G NA 4Th Ave W 104Th St SW 128Th St SW OAP-H NA 51St St SE Seattle Hill Rd Larimer Rd OAP-I NA Airport Rd City Limits City Limits OAP-J NA Beverly Park Rd Mukilteo Spdw Airport Rd OAP-K NA Larimer Rd City Limits Seattle Hill Rd OAP-L NA Snohomish River Broadway 42nd Pl NE OAP-M NA Airport Rd 94th St 100th St SW OAP-N NA 129th St Evergreen Way 4th Dr SE OAP-O NA Seattle Hill Rd 132Nd St SE Larimer Rd OAP-P NA SR 526 Airport Rd Seaway Blvd OAP-Q NA 84th ST SE/19th Ave SE Interurban Trail El Capitan Wy OAP-R NA 27th Ave SE Gold Wy 100th St SE ---PAGE BREAK--- III-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-1 IV. Recommended Programs: Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, & Evaluation The recommended bicycle network should be complemented by programs and activities designed to promote bicycling. There are many existing efforts to promote bicycling in Everett, including efforts by local agencies, individual residents and active community groups such as the B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County. The Everett Bicycle System Master Plan recognizes these efforts and encourages the City of Everett to support, promote and build upon these efforts. There are a number of programmatic elements that can help advance Everett to the next level of bicycle planning and implementation. A critical issue in Everett is the lack of a centralized location for bicycle planning. Bicycle facilities are planned as a part of a variety of projects, often without uniform standards. The project concept guidelines in this plan will help address this issue. Bicycle planning commonly talks about the five “Es”: engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation. While Chapter III identifies facility improvements for enhancing the bikeway network, this chapter addresses education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation measures. Bike sharing is one particular strategy that was analyzed in detail (see Appendix Bike sharing is not recommended at this time due to a number of factors, including Everett’s population size, density and lack of a comprehensive bicycle network. Existing Education and Outreach Efforts The City of Everett, in conjunction with various teaming partners, has produced a number of valuable educational materials aimed at bicyclists and motorists alike. Several clubs have activities aimed at encouraging people to ride bicycles, both recreationally and for transportation. Existing Materials  Washington State Bicycle Commute Guide: http://data.memberclicks.com/site/pt/Bicycle%20Commute%20Guide.pdf  Sound Transit Bicycle Page: http://www.soundtransit.org/x117.xml  Community Transit – Snohomish County Area Bicycling & Trail Map: http://www.commtrans.org/FAQs/BikeMaps.cfm  Community Transit – Commuter Tips: http://www.communitytransit.org/Programs/BikeToWork_Tips.cfm  Community Transit – Riding Safety: http://www.communitytransit.org/Programs/BikeToWork_RideSafely.cfm  Community Transit - Bikes on Buses: http://www.commtrans.org/FAQs/Bikes.cfm ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-2 Clubs and Organizations  Cascade Bicycle Club: http://www.cascade.org/  Sharing Wheels Community Bike Shop: http://mysite.verizon.net/res1liz9/index.html  Bicycle Alliance of Washington: http://www.bicyclealliance.org/ B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County has approximately 130 members and is organized mostly around road/recreational riding. B.I.K.E.S has contributed to improving bicycling in Everett in various ways, including sponsoring Bike to Work Day and the Snohomish County bicycle map (published by Community Transit), supporting city bike counts, and has granted money for a bike rack and supported bike education and safety through other local grants. www.bikesclub.org Sharing Wheels Community Bike Shop is a small community bike shop that operates as a co-op ($50/year membership). Their aim is to serve people just getting into biking and people just getting back onto their feet. Sharing Wheels accepts donated bikes which they refurbish and get back onto the street. Their ‘Work for Wheels’ program helps homeless people and kids earn a bike for transportation while learning to repair and maintain a bicycle. They also provide Christmas House with 200+ bikes during the winter holidays. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) offers a Smart Cycling course that teaches adults and children to ride their bicycles safely and confidently. The Smart Cycling courses are taught by League Certified Instructors (LCIs). There are currently seventeen League-Certified Instructors within twenty-five miles of Everett. For more information: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/index.php ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-3 Recommended Education and Outreach Efforts Group Health Basics of Bicycling (A Cascade Bicycle Club program) Target audience Current and potential cyclists aged 10-14 Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Cascade Bicycle Club, Everett School District, Group Health, Everett Fire Department Key elements Classroom and on-bike sessions Time frame On-going Cost $ - Potential funding sources Low cost; may not require outside funding Sample programs http://www.cbcef.org/youth-bike-basics.html With the 10 - 14 age group suffering from the highest number of bicycle collisions - nearly twice that of any other age group, the goal of Basics of Bicycling is to help kids beat this statistic and develop skills and habits that will continue with them into adulthood. The curriculum includes two classroom and five on-bike lessons. Students learns basic traffic concepts such as stopping at stop signs and how to avoid the most common accident types such as riding out of a driveway without looking. Kids are also taught the importance of wearing a helmet. More information can be found here: http://www.cbcef.org/youth-bike- basics.html Students in a classroom session learning basic traffic concepts before participating in an on-bike lesson. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-4 Cascade Bicycle Club Programs Target audience Current and potential cyclists Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Cascade Bicycle Club, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Everett School District, Everett Fire Department Key elements Lectures, maps, in-class and on-bike instructions Time frame On-going Cost $ - (depending on design and scope) Potential funding sources Low cost; may not require outside funding Sample programs http://www.cbcef.org/youth-bike-rodeos.html, http://www.cbcef.org/classes-bike.html The Cascade Bicycle Club offers extensive student and adult/non- school based programming. These programs include:  Riding with Confidence  Urban Cycling Techniques - learn tips for riding effectively on city streets and on group rides  Back to Basics of Bicycling (for Seniors)  Intro to Bike Commuting  GeaRS (Group Riding Skills)  Paceline and Group Riding Clinics  Clinics for Cascade Training Series  Urban Riders (for Teens)  Adult Beginners' Learn-2-Ride  A beginners’ bicycling class getting mid-class instructions. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-5 SmartTrips programs are proven to reduce drive-alone trips by approximately 10% and increase bicycling, walking and transit use within a target area. The program invites residents or employees of the target areas to order a customized information packet containing travel information (e.g. an event calendar, walking and bicycling maps, a bicycling guide, transit maps and schedules, etc.). Customized packets are assembled and delivered (by foot or by bicycle where possible) to residents at their homes or employees at their workplaces, along with an incentive gift of their choice. In addition to the customized information packet, the program also hosts numerous encouragement activities such as group walks, guided bicycle rides and classes and workshops. Trained staff appear at community or employer events to answer questions about walking, bicycling and transit use. This approach is based on the annual award-winning City of Portland SmartTrips program, which has consistently shown a 9-13% reduction in drive-alone trips in the selected target area since 2004 at a cost of approximately 20 USD per household. More information on Portland SmartTrips: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=43801 This evidence-based program should be a key aspect of Everett’s efforts to increase cycling. A thoughtful rollout strategy will select appropriate target areas based on factors known to indicate that a SmartTrips program can be successful (moderate to high residential density, availability of walking/bicycling infrastructure and transit service, commercial and community destinations within reasonable distance of homes, etc.) and work closely with municipalities and Everett regional transit to implement a program. Smart Trips Target audience Potential cyclists and pedestrians Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Bicycle Alliance of Washington, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Cascade Bicycle Club, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Transit agencies, Everett Transit CRT Key elements Resources, maps and map orders, safety, events, groups Time frame On-going Cost $ - (depending on design and scope) Potential funding sources Low cost; may not require outside funding Sample programs http://www.walkbikemarin.org/waytogo/, http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=43801 Residents often do not know where to find walking and cycling resources; a SmartTrips program delivers brochures, maps and incentives directly ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-6 City of Everett Bicycle Website Target audience Current and potential cyclists Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Bicycle Alliance of Washington, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Cascade Bicycle Club, Bicycle Advisory Committee Key elements Resources, maps and map orders, safety, events, groups Time frame On-going Cost $ - (depending on design and scope) Potential funding sources Low cost; may not require outside funding Sample programs Boulder:http://ci.boulder.co.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8839&Itemid=3278 Portland: http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=34772 Many cyclists or potential cyclists do not know where to turn to find out about laws, events, maps, tips, and biking groups. The City of Everett should develop a “one-stop shop” website aimed at bicyclists. (The URL “http://www.bikeeverett.org” is available at time of writing.) The Everett bicycle website should contain:  A list of all walking and bicycling groups, including clubs, racing teams, and advocacy groups  Information about specific Everett Boards and Commissions that discuss bicycle and pedestrian issues (how to get involved, meeting times and dates, agendas and minutes)  Information about current projects and how to get involved public meetings, comment periods)  Maps and brochures links to online maps and brochures, where to find in person, and how to request mailed materials)  Links to laws and statutes relating to walking and bicycling  Links to all relevant local jurisdictions and their bicycle and pedestrian contacts (City of Seattle, Snohomish County, etc.)  Information about cycling events rides, classes, volunteer opportunities)  A list of local bike shops, including phone number and address  Relevant phone numbers or an online request form to request pothole repair, parking enforcement, bike rack installation request, trail maintenance, etc.) The website may also feature:  Events calendar  Request form for route planning assistance  Message boards ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-7  Blog featuring stories and news  Photo galleries from events and submitted by readers  Popular riding routes Note that these additional features may increase the cost to set up and maintain the website. A one-stop bike website will not be difficult to set up, but it will only be successful if the site is both easy to use and updated regularly. Corners should not be cut in either design or in maintenance of the site and its information. All website content should be reviewed annually for accuracy. The bicycle community can assist in keeping the site up to date. The City of Everett will add bike issues to the agenda for the Transportation Advisory Committee and discuss bicycle website concerns as needed. Bike Parking Installation Program Target audience Everett cyclists Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Interested citizens, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County Key elements Bike rack request system that allows citizens and businesses to request bike racks at locations around Everett. Time frame Anytime Cost (for database upkeep and installation coordination) Potential funding sources CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality) funds; federal flexible transportation; public transportation funds Sample programs City of Chicago Bike Program http://www.chicagobikes.org/bikeparking/ It is recommended that the City of Everett develop and implement a bike parking installation program that distributes racks across the city through a request system. The request system will allow for citizens and businesses to assist in the distribution of racks to locations that are in need of bicycle parking. Such distribution method can include a hotline, website, and mail-in form. The City of Everett will then need to determine the feasibility of the request and then coordinate the installation while following the bike parking guidelines that are laid out in Appendices A and G. The B.I.K.E.S. club currently has a program that provides mini-grants to businesses that wish to install bike racks. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-8 Safe Moves set up their bike rodeo and we got to see over 100 kids walk or bike through the city learning about traffic safety at the SR2S booth at Santa Clarita's Earth Day/Arbor Day Festival A sample diagram for a bike rodeo Bike Rodeos Target Children and youth Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Bicycle Alliance of Washington, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Cascade Bicycle Club, Mukilteo School District, Everett School District, Everett Fire Department Key elements Drop-in event aimed at teaching kids basic skills and safety rules. Often organized by Police or Fire Departments. Can include free or low-cost helmet distribution. Time frame Fall and spring, annually Cost $ Potential funding sources Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets; traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance companies Sample programs http://www.cbcef.org/youth-bike-rodeos.html#rodeos http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/pdfs/lessonplans/RodeoManualJune2006.pdf Burden/Williams Bike Rodeo Guide (http://stores.kepubs.com/-strse-76/0184/Detail.bok) Bicycle rodeos are a safe cycling event that includes bicycle safety checks, safety talk that includes rules of the road and the importance of wearing a helmet, and the interactive learning experience of riding through a “chalk street” course. Bicycle rodeos usually focus on ages 5 through 14. The rodeos allow young bicyclists to learn and practice skills needed for competent bicycling in a protected environment. It is also recommended that the City of Everett coordinate with local school districts to create painted “safety cities” on school playgrounds to enable students to practice safe road behavior skills year-round. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-9 Cycling Skills Courses and Curriculum Target Children, youth, and adults Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Everett School District, Everett Fire Department, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Cascade Cycling Club Key elements Organized classes for cyclists taught by trained instructors on handling skills, rules of the road, and on-bike training. Time frame Fall and spring, annually Cost $ Potential funding sources Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets; traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance companies Sample programs http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/canbike/canbike.htm http://bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php http://www.wordspacepress.com/instructor.php CAN-bike and League of American Bicyclists teach on-bicycle skill lessons for children and adults. Trained instructors teach adult and teenage cyclists about the rules of the road and bicycle handling techniques. The most common program is the League of American Bicyclists courses (including Road I, Road II, and Commuting), taught by League Certified Instructors. Course cover bicycle safety checks, fixing a flat, on-bike skills, crash avoidance techniques, and traffic negotiation. Technical Training for Transportation Professionals Target Government agency planners and engineers Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Washington State Department of Transportation Key elements Bike/ped facilities & policy training for agency planners & engineers Time frame One time with refresher courses offered bi-annually Cost Potential funding sources Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Administration Sample programs http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/summerworkshop2009.php http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/professional.php Bicycle related education should be targeted to City of Everett staff with a focus on planners, engineers and safety officers. Outside experts can be brought in to conduct trainings for City staff. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-10 Create Bicycle Maps Target Current and potential cyclists Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Snohomish County, Washington Department of Transportation, Community Transit, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County Key elements Clear symbology, destinations, and services attractive for cyclists, good selection of routes Time frame One-time, with regular updates; can happen at any time Cost Potential funding sources Bicycle program or general city outreach budget. Local businesses may be interested in sponsorship. Sample programs http://www.sfbike.org/download/map.pdf http://www.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/bikemap/keymap.html http://www.nycbikemaps.com/ Create Bicycle Map One of the most effective ways of encouraging people to bicycle is through the use of maps and guides showing that the infrastructure exists, to demonstrate how easy it is to access different parts of the city by bike, and to highlight unique areas, shopping districts or recreational areas. Bicycling maps can be used to promote tourism, encourage residents to walk, or promote local business districts. Maps can be citywide, district-specific, or neighborhood/family-friendly maps. As the on- and off-street bikeway system is further developed, the City of Everett should update the bike map. This map will be produced as part of this study, and updated periodically as new routes are developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-11 Conduct Annual Bicycle Counts Target Current cyclists Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Washington State Department of Transportation, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Cascade Cycling Club Key elements Follow significant locations annually and use standard count methodology to accurately track bicycling patterns over time Time frame Annually during June - September Cost Potential funding sources Bicycle program or general city outreach budget. Program may be supplemented by recruiting advocacy organizations and interested citizens to assist by donating volunteer time. Sample programs http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44671& http://bikepeddocumentation.org/ http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/count.htm Annual bicycle counts are an important tool cities can use to monitor where cyclists are riding and where there may be gaps in the bicycle network. In addition to providing information that helps prioritize facility improvements, quality bicycle counts can help cities obtain funding for new projects. Most grant programs require awardees to monitor the results of funded projects, which cannot be done without first establishing a baseline count. Thus, cities with established bicycle count programs may have an advantage when pursuing outside funding assistance for bicycle facilities. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation (NBPD) project provides assistance to help cities begin taking bicycle counts in line with standard methodology, and also collects count information from cities to help monitor cycling on a national level. Count programs should begin by monitoring bicycling patterns in peak season during fair weather conditions in late summer (September), and can expand when funding allows. Counts should be taken during morning and evening peak hours on weekdays for bicycle facilities with primarily utilitarian users, and during midday peak hours on weekend days for facilities with primarily recreational users. In 2008, WSDOT launched the Washington Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project building on the NBPD methodology. WSDOT has coordinated annual counts around the state, including in Everett. In 2010, counts were performed at eight locations in Everett. The 2010 results showed an increase in non-motorized travel over 2009, with an increase in AM and PM count volumes of 12.6% and 37.3%, respectively. The full results of this annual count effort can be found on the WSDOT website at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/count.htm. City staff may perform counts themselves, or assist partner agencies or volunteers in performing the counts. The City of Everett should also handle tracking, analysis, and reporting. If desired, further bicycle and pedestrian data collection opportunities may be pursued, including:  Include before-and-after bicycle/pedestrian/vehicle data collection on priority roadway projects  Require counting of bicyclists/pedestrians in all traffic studies ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-12 Bicycle Legal Guide Target Current and potential cyclists, motorists, law enforcement Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Bicycle Alliance of Washington, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Cascade Cycling Club, Washington State Department of Transportation, WTSC Key elements Digested state and city laws regarding bicycles rights and responsibilities Time frame One-time, with regular updates; can happen at any time Cost Potential funding sources Bicycle program or general city outreach budget. Advocacy organizations may be interested in funding. Sample programs http://www.stc-law.com/pdf/PP6thEdition.pdf http://www.sfbike.org/?bikelaw_guide http://www.biketraffic.org/content.php?id=30_0_6_0 A bicycle legal guide is a useful and important tool for bicyclists, motorists, and law enforcement agencies. Bicyclists have rights to and responsibilities on the roadway. Often times the laws regarding bicyclists’ rights can change from one jurisdiction to another. Therefore, a legal guide can assist in helping bicyclists, motorists, and law enforcement agents understand the laws for bicyclists in Everett. Tips are located on the bicycling map. Bike to Work Month Target Current and potential cyclists Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Bicycle Alliance of Washington, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Cascade Cycling Club, local businesses Key elements Publicize Bike to Work Month in May. Offer classes, rides and events. Time frame May, annually Cost - (depending on scope and length of program) Potential funding sources Local businesses and bike shops (in-kind or cash support); hospitals and insurance companies; City of Everett Sample programs Bay Area Bike to Work Day: http://www.bayareabikes.org/btwd/index.php Bike Commute Challenge (Oregon): http://www.bikecommutechallenge.com/ The City of Everett participates annually in both Bike to Work day and the month-long Group Health Bike Commute Challenge in May. Community Transit is the primary coordinator of Snohomish County Bike to Work Day. Everett Transit and the City of Everett have been major partners in that effort for the past 10 years, as has Snohomish County Public Works, B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County, Boeing and other sponsors. These events are important tools in raising awareness and promoting bicycling, especially for recruiting new bicyclists. The City should continue and expand its involvement with the promotion in ways like sponsoring events, assisting with publicity, tabling, and providing materials (maps, brochures, and resource stickers). The City of Everett should take the lead in further expanding Bike to Work activities during the month of May, ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-13 offering additional commute classes, weekly rides, presentations on bicycling for employees, and raffles or other incentives. Helmet Giveaways Target audience Parents, schoolchildren Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Local hospital or rehabilitation clinic, Everett Fire Department, SAFE Kids Key elements Low-cost or free helmets provided to children at special events or at schools. Time frame Beginning of school year or spring, annually Cost $ Potential funding sources Insurance companies, local hospitals Sample programs Trauma Nurses Talk Tough and Legacy Health System http://www.legacyhealth.org/body.cfm?id=1015 Helmet giveaway programs and low-cost helmet distribution programs are a great encouragement tool for helmet use among children and youth. Helmets can be purchased at a low cost and can be distributed at schools and bicycle events such as bike rodeos. The distribution of the helmets can be coupled with information on how to wear a helmet properly and bicycle safety checks. Fall and spring at the beginning and end of the school year, as well as other special events such as International Bike and Walk to School Day in October, are good candidates for new helmet giveaway events. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-14 Media Safety Campaign Target audience General public Primary agency City of Everett Potential Partners Snohomish County, Washington State Department of Transportation, WTSC Key elements Bicycling and Safety campaign with billboard, radio and/or TV spots Time frame Late spring or early summer, in conjunction with Bike to Work Month or back to school Cost $ - (depending on whether ad space is purchased or donated) Potential funding sources Local transit agencies (for donated airtime), traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance companies Sample programs New York City Department of Transportation “Look” Safety Campaign: www.looknyc.org A marketing campaign that highlights cyclists’ safety is an important part of creating awareness of bicycling. They are an effective way to reach the general public and reinforce other education and outreach messages. A well-produced safety campaign will be memorable and effective. One stellar example is the “LOOK” campaign produced by the New York City Department of Transportation; it combines compelling ads with an easy-to-use website focused at motorists and cyclists. It is recommended that the City of Everett create a safety campaign similar to the “LOOK” campaign that places safety messages near high-traffic corridors on billboards, in bus shelters, and in print publications). It is also suggested that this campaign be kicked off in conjunction with Bike to Work Month (May) or back to school in the fall. Example of NYC’s LOOK Bicycle Safety Campaign ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-15 Collision Data Review Procedure Since we can never escape the fact that human beings will make mistakes or be inattentive (both motorists and cyclists), it is important to enhance the roadway environment design to minimize the likelihood of mistakes resulting in collisions between bicycles and motorists. This plan includes a detailed collision analysis which should be repeated every few years to identify collision locations and recommended solutions for these locations. This could be done as a part of a periodic ‘bicycling report card’ that documents relevant cycling metrics, including new bikeway miles, major completed projects, number of riders, collision analysis, user satisfaction, public perception of safety, etc. This periodic review should be used to create updates to the Bicycle System Master Plan that can tune the plan’s implementation strategies to respond to changing safety and ridership patterns. Maintenance Maintenance includes street sweeping of bicycle lanes and shoulders, repainting/replacing bicycle lane striping lines, and replacing missing or damaged signage. Guidance on maintenance activities are found in Appendix A. Project Concept Guidelines. This plan recommends the following maintenance related actions:  Street sweeping. As motor vehicles travel along the roadway, debris is pushed to the outside lanes and shoulder. Debris also collects at the center of intersections. Roads striped with bike lanes or designated as bicycle routes should be swept more frequently than roads without designated bikeways because these have higher volumes of bicyclists. Street sweeping on these roadways should include removing debris on the shoulder and at intersections.  Proactively sweep streets after collisions. In addition to regular street sweeping, the City should work closely with the local law enforcement to ensure that streets are swept after automobile collisions.  Minor repairs and improvements. Potholes and cracks along the shoulder of roadways primarily affect bicyclists and should be completed within a timely manner. All repairs should be flush to the existing pavement surface.  Drainage grates. When repaving or maintaining roadways, drainage grates should be inspected to ensure that grate patterns are perpendicular to the road. For grates with drainage slots aligned parallel to the direction of travel, longitudinal gaps longer than four inches are potentially hazardous. If immediate replacement is not an option, the AASHTO Guide recommends the temporary treatment of welding metal straps across the grate, perpendicular to the direction of travel, at four inch center-to-center spacing. Replacement of bicycle-unfriendly drainage grates should be standard practice.  Street resurfacing. When streets are resurfaced, utility covers, grates and other in-street items should be brought up to the new level of pavement. Similarly, the new asphalt should be tapered to meet the gutter edge and provide a smooth transition between the roadway ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-16 and the gutter pan. Where streets have shoulders, the full extent of the shoulder should be uniformly overlaid.  Proactive identification of and response to maintenance needs. The City should consider a 24-hour phone hotline and online request service to identify needed repairs to roadways. The City can promote this service as a way of identifying maintenance needs for on-street bikeways. The City’s 24-hour dispatch service can be used for this purpose.  Regular maintenance of multi-use paths. Shared-use paths require regular maintenance, including trimming adjacent vegetation, sweeping, plowing, and removing trash and debris. Paths should be monitored, checking paving surfaces, debris and litter, signage, and vandalism and schedule maintenance repairs. Pathway maintenance is the responsibility of the parks department. Table 10. Recommended Bikeway Maintenance Activities Maintenance Activity Frequency Pavement sweeping/blowing As needed, once every 8 weeks Pavement sealing, potholes 5 - 15 years Culvert and drainage grate inspection 1- 5 years Pavement markings replacement 1 – 3 years Signage replacement 7 years Shoulder plant trimming (weeds, trees, brambles) As needed by owner Tree and shrub plantings, trimming As needed by owner Major damage response (washouts, fallen trees, flooding) As quickly as possible ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-17 Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Plan The ability to navigate through a town or city is informed by landmarks, natural features, and other visual cues. Placing signs throughout the town indicating to bicyclists their direction of travel, location of destinations, and the riding time/distance to those destinations will increase users’ comfort and accessibility to the bicycle system. Wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and should use caution. Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bicycle routes, including the intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than per vehicle signage standards. For signs along bikeways located in the roadway, refer to MUTCD Section 2A.18 Mounting Height and Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset. Signage must also meet sight triangle clearance guidelines. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including:  Helping to familiarize users with the bikeway system  Helping users identify the best routes to destinations  Helping to address misperceptions about time and distance  Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people who do not bicycle often “interested but concerned” cyclists) Costing about $125 each, wayfinding signs are a relatively cost-effective means for improving the walking and bicycling environment. A community-wide Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Plan would identify:  Sign locations along existing and planned bicycle routes  Sign type – what information should be included and design features  Destinations to be highlighted on each sign – key destinations for bicyclists  Approximate distance and riding time to each destination Figure 10. Wayfinding Signage Concept) Figure 9. Model MUTCD-Approved Wayfinding Signage ---PAGE BREAK--- IV-18 ---PAGE BREAK--- V-1 V. Design Standards Design Standards The following pages contain design standards that are recommended. To utilize the design standards, use one travel lane cross-section and one or two side treatment cross-section, based on conditions of the site or corridor. For example, if a bike lane is desired next to a curb and gutter and sidewalk, the design would be Travel Lane Cross Section A + Side Treatment Dimension 1. Figure 11. Applications of Design Standards ---PAGE BREAK--- V-2 Figure 12. Nonmotorized Transportation Facility Design Standards: Travel Lane Cross Sections ---PAGE BREAK--- V-3 Figure 13. Nonmotorized Transportation Facility Design Standards: Side Treatment Dimensions ---PAGE BREAK--- V-4 Standard Bicycle Lane Signage and Pavement Marking MUTCD GUIDELINES Part 3 of the MUTCD covers roadway markings, while Part 9 of the MUTCD covers signs, pavement markings, and highway traffic signals specifically related to bicycle operation on both roadways and shared-use paths. SECTION 9C. 04 Markings for Bike Lanes It is recommended that placing stencils after most intersections to alert motorists and cyclists of the exclusive nature of bicycle lanes. For long street segments with few intersections, the appropriate frequency of stencils is calculated by multiplying the street’s design speed by 40. For instance, stencils should be placed every 1,400 feet on streets with a 35 MPH designated speed. Figure 14. Sign and Legend Spacing: Bicycle Lanes on a Two-Way Street ---PAGE BREAK--- V-5 Standard Shared Lane Signage and Pavement Marking Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking The Shared Lane Marking may be used to: A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle, B. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane, C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. Guidance:  The Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph.  If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings should be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.  If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.  If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter. Figure 15. Sign and Legend Spacing: Sharrows on a Two-Way Street ---PAGE BREAK--- V-6 Transitions from street to sidewalk facility Figure 16. Transition from Street to Sidewalk Facility ---PAGE BREAK--- V-7 Bike Lanes at Intersections Loop Detectors Guideline Summary Recommended Design Figure 17. Loop Detectors • Facilitate bicycle movement at intersections Discussion Intersections operate also can help make them more “friendly” to bicyclists. Improved signal timings for bicyclists, bicycle-activated loop detectors, and camera detection can make it easier for cyclists to cross intersections. Bicycle-activated loop detectors may be installed within the roadway to allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in the traffic signal. This allows the cyclist to stay within the lane of travel and avoid maneuvering to the side of the road to trigger a push button. Loops are recommended to detect bicycles in a bike lane, where bicycle placement is generally predictable. Loop detection of bicycles in unpredictable locations or in wide lanes should be supplemented with a stencil that indicates proper placement that will maximize the chances of detection. The City of Everett intends to begin installing markings (as shown in Figure Some types of loop detectors are more likely to detect vehicles when they are placed over a certain portion of the loop. The City of Portland, Oregon operates a program within their Bureau of Transportation that installs markings (as shown in Figure 4) to identify the optimal placement. Traffic crews can bring a bicycle to identify detection problems and to determine the correct settings for the loop detector and if a bicycle detection pavement marking needs to be placed. . If feasible, markings should be installed to indicate the appropriate location for a bicycle to activate the signal at all intersections with loop detection. In the City of Everett, the detector works best if you find center of lane, put front tire approximately 2’ from center of lane with front tire on the intersection edge of the stop bar and tilt bicycle 15° from vertical, as shown in the diagram to the right. ---PAGE BREAK--- V-8 Bike Lanes at Intersections Bike Lanes With Right Turn Pockets Guideline Summary Recommended Design Continuing a bike lane straight while providing a right-turn pocket reduces bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts Figure 18. Bike Lanes with Right Turn Pockets Bike Lane Width: • Bike lane should be at least 4’ wide preferred) Discussion The appropriate treatment at right- turn lanes is to place the bike lane between the right-turn lane and the right-most through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient, to drop the bike lane entirely approaching the right-turn lane. The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage indicating that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. The dashed lines in this area are currently an optional treatment. Dropping the bike lane should only be done when a bike lane cannot be accommodated at the intersection. 5’ 11-12’- ---PAGE BREAK--- V-9 Bike Lanes at Intersections Shared Bicycle/Right Turn Lane Guideline Summary Recommended Design Shared bike-right turn lanes use warning signage as well as pavement markings Figure 19. Shared Bicycle/Right Turn Lane Width: • Shared turn lane – min. 12’ width • Bike Lane pocket – min. 4’-5’ preferred Discussion This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate a standard bike lane and right turn lane. The shared bicycle/right turn lane places a standard-width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dashed strip delineates the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared lane. This treatment includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of proper positing within the lane. This treatment works best on streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less). Advantages of the shared bicycle/right turn lane: • Aids in positioning of cyclists at intersections with a dedicated right turn lane without adequate space for a dedicated bike lane. • Encourages motorists to yield to bicyclists when using the right turn lane. • Reduces motor vehicle speed within the right turn lane. Disadvantages/potential hazards: • May not be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with long right turn lanes. • May not be appropriate for intersections with large percentages of right-turning heavy vehicles. 5’ - min 12’ - ---PAGE BREAK--- V-10 Bike Lanes at Intersections Bike Boxes Guideline Summary Recommended Design Bike boxes can be installed at intersections where right- turning motorists conflict with through bicyclists Figure 20. Bike Boxes at Intersections Bike Box Dimensions: • 14’ deep to allow for bicycle positioning within the travel lane. Signage: • Appropriate signage as recommended by the MUTCD applies. Signage should be present to prohibit ‘right turn on red’ and to indicate where the motorist must stop. Discussion A bike box is generally a right angle extension of a bike lane at the head of a signalized intersection. The bike box allows bicyclists to move to the front of the traffic queue on a red light and proceed first when that signal turns green. Motor vehicles must stop behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box. Bike boxes can be combined with dashed lines through the intersection for green light situations to remind right-turning motorists to be aware of bicyclists traveling straight, similar to the colored bike lane treatment described earlier. Bike Boxes can be installed with striping only or with colored treatments to increase visibility. Bike Boxes should be located at signalized intersections only, and right turns on red should be prohibited. On roadways with one travel lane in each direction, the bike box also facilitates left turning movements for cyclists. Bike boxes are not appropriate for all intersections, as prohibiting right turn movements on red by motor vehicles may significantly affect roadway capacity. Bike boxes are most appropriate at intersections with a high incidence of right hook crashes, where motor vehicles have a tendency to turn across the bike lane without noticing people traveling by bicycle. Bike volumes need to be greater than 250 bicyclists per day to consider a bike box. ---PAGE BREAK--- V-11 Standard MUTCD signs (part 1) Figure 21. MUTCD Signs and Plaques for Bicycle Facilities, Part 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- V-12 Standard MUTCD Signs (part 2) Figure 22. MUTCD Signs and Plaques for Bicycle Facilities, Part 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- V-13 Standard Drainage Grate Drainage grates are typically located in the gutter area near the curb of a roadway and typically have slots through which water drains into the municipal sewer system. Bicycle-friendly design of drainage grates from the City of Everett are shown below. Figure 23. Standard Drainage Grate Standard Bicycle Rub Railing Wherever a bicycle facility is built next to fence, a rub railing should be provided for bicyclists to prevent handlebars from getting caught within the fence, resulting in a crash. Figure 24. Standard Bicycle Rub Railing ---PAGE BREAK--- V-14 Figure 25. ADA Path Development ---PAGE BREAK--- V-15 Off-Street Trail: Sight Distances The importance of sight distances along a trail cannot be overstated. Bicyclists generally travel at higher speeds than other path users and thus require larger sight distances to give them time to react to terrain, curves, or other situations ahead. On average, bicyclists have a reaction time of 2.5 seconds with an assumed eye height of 4.5 feet. Combined with travel speed and poor or wet braking conditions this delay requires adequate sight distances that will allow the bicyclist to come to a complete stop. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) provides specific details and formulas for calculating bicycle stop distances under various conditions. The formula below demonstrates how to calculate the minimum clearance that should be used for line of sight obstructions and horizontal curves. Figure 26. Off-Street Trails: Sight Distances ---PAGE BREAK--- V-16 Off-Street Trail: Design Speed On shared-use paths, the AASHTO recommendation is to assume a design speed that is at least as high as the preferred speed of the faster bicyclists, which will typically be 20 mph. The Bikeway may be used by bicyclists that could be categorized as “serious enthusiasts” that would require a higher design speed; however, as indicated below, the necessary horizontal and vertical alignments to accommodate this group could create a disproportionate disturbance to the landscape.  A 20 mph design speed should be utilized in most instances. To successfully implement this design speed it may be necessary to include design and traffic controls to decrease the speed of the fastest bicyclists.  Situations requiring a greater design speed, including long downhill sections or areas with a consistent tailwind, should be accommodated where necessary, but otherwise minimized. Figure 27. Off-Street Trail: Design Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- V-17 Bike Lane Design with Diagonal Parking In certain areas with high parking demand such as urban commercial areas, diagonal parking can be used to increase parking supply. When conventional diagonal parking is utilized, additional space between the parking area and the bike facility should be provided to improve sight distances for both drivers and bicyclists. The minimum width for a bike lane adjacent to diagonal parking bays is 5 feet. In addition, the bike lane should be separated from the parking lane by a 4” stripe. Parking bays should be sufficiently long to accommodate most vehicles—this minimizes the risk of parked vehicles encroaching into the bike lane. Where diagonal parking is going to be used, it is recommended that the parking be back-in diagonal parking, for the following reasons:  Greater visibility for and of both drivers and bicyclists  Easier for drivers to exit the parking space in a safe manner  Safer for drivers loading and unloading cargo Figure 28. Bike Lane Design with Diagonal Parking ---PAGE BREAK--- V-18 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-1 VI. Project Descriptions Project descriptions are provided for all Existing Facilities, Connections to Existing Facilities, Tier 1 and Tier 2 routes. These routes complete gaps in the bicycle network and provide connections between key bicycling destinations including the north end of the Interurban Trail, downtown Everett, Everett Station and the entrance to the US 2 trestle. The existing facility project sheets were developed for all projects that were categorized as either Fair or Good with the improvements noted to increase their comfort level. All of the costs identified are planning-level cost estimates and have been rounded to the nearest thousand. They should be considered a ballpark figure to allow for some comparative analysis between projects. In finding additional width for bike lanes, opportunities for re-striping were identified as the preferred option, but in many cases widening the roadway was the only feasible option. The following table of design treatments (Table 11) is intended to serve as a key for the on-street facility treatments recommended in the project sheets that follow. Appendix A contains a comprehensive discussion of project concepts. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-2 Traffic Side Treatments Name Description Installation Notes Usage Notes A Standard 6 inch stripe Use except traffic side treatment B. B Intersection approach/ merge area 6 inch dashed stripe Stripe 2 foot long dashes with 6 foot center break between dashes. Use in areas where vehicle traffic may merge across the bike lane. May be used in conjunction with facility treatment D, or independently. Facility Treatments Name Description Installation Notes Usage Notes C Standard Standard bike lane marking Refer to Project Concept Guidelines Section 2.4 for information on bike lane pavement markings. Use except facility treatment D. D High conflict/ merge area Colored bike lane treatment Green thermoplastic resin. Refer to Project Concept Guidelines Section 2.5 for information on colored pavement markings. Use near intersections with right turn lanes and locations with a history of “right hook” crashes. E Shared lane Shared lane marking (“sharrows”) Refer to Project Concept Guidelines Section 3 for information on shared lane markings. Use instead of bike lane in constrained areas where a bike lane is not feasible. Indicates designated bicycle route, and encourages proper lane placement. Edge Treatments Name Description Installation Notes Usage Notes F Standard 6 inch stripe Use when outer edge of bike lane is adjacent to a travel lane G Intersection approach/ merge area 6 inch dashed stripe Stripe 2 foot long dashes with 6 foot center break between dashes. Use in areas where vehicle traffic may merge across the bike lane. Use in conjunction with traffic side treatment B. May be used in conjunction with facility treatment D, or independently. H Curb Curb edge No striping. Use in areas where the bike lane is curb tight. I Shoulder Shoulder edge Hard shoulder: bike lane width should not include soft shoulder. No striping. Use in areas where the bike lane is on the outside of the roadway and roadway is not curbed. J Parking 4 inch stripe Use when bike lane is adjacent to a parking lane K High‐turnover parking 4 inch stripe, parking stall T markings Outside stripe of bike lane should be 1.5 feet from parking stall T markings. Use in urban areas where neither bike lane nor parking lane is constrained. Table 11. Recommended Design Treatments ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-3 Figure 29. Existing Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-4 “Fair” Existing Facilities EF-A 100th St SE 19th Ave SE – 31st Ave SE Cost: $57,000 Existing 2-lane local roadway with a center turn lane and no parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 42.5 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to two 11' wide travel lanes and a 10' center turn lane allows for the striping of two wide bike lanes. EF-F 4th Ave W Corbin Dr. – Holly Dr. Cost: $34,000 Existing 2-lane collector roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 44 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to widen the travel lanes from 10'6" to 11' while narrowing the center turn lane to 11' provides sufficient room to stripe two bike lanes 5'5" in width. EF-G 5th Ave W W Casino Rd. – Corbin Dr. Cost: $298,000 Existing 2-lane local roadway with a center turn lane and no parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 42.2 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to two 11' wide travel lanes and a 10' center turn lane allows for the striping of two wide bike lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-5 EF-H3 7th Ave SE 100th St. SE – 112th St SE Cost: $57,000 Existing 2-lane local roadway with a center turn lane and no parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 42.2 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to two 10'5" wide travel lanes and an 11' center turn lane allows for the striping of two 5'8" wide bike lanes. EF-M1 Glenwood Ave Mukilteo Blvd – 5700 Block Cost: $61,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 50.5 ft. Proposed The bike lanes can be widened from 3.4' to 5.75' with the removal of on-street parking from one side. EF-M3 Glenwood Ave 6300 Block – Sievers-Duecy Blvd. Cost: $25,000 Existing 3-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 50.5 ft. Proposed The bike lanes can be widened from 4.5' to 5.75' by restriping all vehicle travel lanes to 12' wide. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-6 EF-O Hardeson Rd Merrill Creek Parkway – W Casino Rd Cost: $133,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 44.6 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to two 11' wide travel lanes and an 11' center turn lane allows for the striping of two 5'8" wide bike lanes. EF-S Merrill Creek Parkway Glenwood Ave – Seaway Blvd. Cost: $112,000 Existing 2-lane local roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 44.7 ft. Proposed Restriping the road to have 11 foot travel lane widths and an 11 foot wide center turn lane provides sufficent room to stripe two bike lanes just under 6' in width. EF-I2 Airport Rd. Kasch Park Rd. – 94th St. SW Cost: $751,000 Existing 6-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 72.7 ft. Proposed To gain additional room for adding bike lanes, the roadway will require widening by 16 feet. This will result in travel lanes 11' wide, plus an 11' wide center turn lane and two 6' wide bike lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-7 EF-L1 / EF-L2 E Marine View Dr. Skyline Dr. – Summit Ave Cost: $1,100,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with a center median and no on-street parking. Existing sidewalk is 10.4 ft wide. Total ROW varies from 37.0 feet to 48 feet. Proposed Existing sidewalk bike path. Widening the sidewalk to 12' wide requires an additional 1.6 feet of width. EF-Q8 Interurban Trail E. Casino Rd. – 84th St. SE Cost: $109,000 Existing 2-lane roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing sidewalk is 9.2 ft wide. Total ROW is 49.0 ft. Proposed Existing conditions north of 7th Ave. Widening the sidewalk to 12' wide requires an additional 2.8 feet of width. EF-Q11 Interurban Trail W.Mall Dr. – SE Everett Mall Way Cost: $222,000 Existing 2-lane roadway with no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 4 ft wide. Total ROW is 28.1 ft. Proposed To gain additional room for providing bike lanes, the roadway will require widening the roadway by 2.9 feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-8 EF-Q12 Interurban Trail SE Everett Mall Way – 128th St SE Cost: $74,000 Existing The current trail is 10.9 ft wide. Proposed Existing conditions at 112th St. SE An additional 1.1 feet in width will need to acquired to widen the trail from 10'9" to 12'. EF-R Lowell Riverfront Trail 4300 Block – Rotary Park Cost: $92,000 Existing The existing trail is 9.6 ft wide. Proposed An additional 2.4 feet in width will need to acquired to widen the trail from 9'6" to 12'. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-9 EF-T1 Mukilteo Blvd. Grandview Ave – Dogwood Dr Cost: $628,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with no on- street parking. Existing bike lanes are less than 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 31.5 ft. Proposed To gain additional room for widening bike lanes, the roadway will require widening by 1.5 feet. This will result in two travel lanes 11' wide and two 5'5" wide bike lanes. EF-W2/EF- W3/EF-W4 W Marine View Dr. Alverson Bridge – Everett Ave. Cost: $2,100,000 Existing 4 and 5-lane arterial roadway with center turn lane in some locations with no on-street parking. Existing sidewalk varies in width from 8.4 feet- 10.8 feet. Total ROW varies from 57 feet to 77 feet. Proposed Existing trail conditions below pedestrian bridge. Widening the sidewalk to 12' wide requires up to an additional 3.6 feet of width. The City of Everett Shoreline Public Access Plan recommends also installing physical separation (a jersey- barrier or equivalent) to provide greater protection to path users. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-10 “Good” Existing Facilities EF-B1 112th St. SW Airport Rd. – Evergreen Way Cost: $46,000 Existing 4-lane local roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 68.0 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to two 11' wide travel lanes and an 11' center turn lane allows for the striping of two 6'5" wide bike lanes. EF-B2 112th St. SW Evergreen Way – Silver Lake Rd. Cost: $149,000 Existing 4-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5 ft wide. Total ROW is 66.0 ft. Proposed Narrowing the center turn lane to 11' provides additional width to widen the bike lanes to 5'5" wide. EF-C 19th Ave. SE 112th St. SE – 132nd St. SE Cost: $135,000 Existing 4-lane arterial with a center turn alne and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are 5.0 feet wide. Total ROW is 67.3 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to two 11' wide travel lanes and an 11' center turn lane allows for the striping of two wide bike lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-11 EF-D2 19th St. Lombard Ave. – Grand Ave. Cost: $38,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5’2” wide. Total ROW is 51.3 ft. Proposed Restriping the travel lanes to narrow from 13'6" to 13' allows for widening the bike lanes to 5'6". EF-K1 Colby Ave. 5th St. – 9th St. Cost: $17,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with on-street parking. Street is a signed bicycle route. Proposed Existing conditions at 6th St. Adding additional/appropriate signage. EF-K3 Colby Ave. 19th St. – 24th St. Cost: $40,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5’9” wide. Total ROW is 63.7 ft. Proposed Restriping all vehicle lanes (travel and center turn lane) to 12' wide allows for striping bike lanes just over 6' wide. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-12 EF-N Everett Ave. E. Grand Ave. – Harrison Ave. Cost: $21,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5’1” wide. Total ROW is 68.5 ft. Proposed Restriping the travel lanes from over 15' in width to 13' wide allows for striping 7' wide bike lanes. EF-P2 Holly Dr. 100th St. SW – Airport Rd. Cost: $78,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway no on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5.0 ft wide. Total ROW is 36.6 ft. Proposed Restriping the travel lanes from just over 13' in width to 12' in width allows for the striping of wide bike lanes. EF-Q3 Interurban Trail Alta Dr. – 52nd St. SE Cost: $21,000 Existing 2-lane local roadway no on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5.0 ft wide. Total ROW is 31.0 ft. Proposed Restriping the travel lanes to create two 10' travel lanes provides an additional 1' of width that can be allocated to the bike lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-13 EF-T2 Mukilteo Blvd. Elm St. – Mukilteo Ln. Cost: $222,000 Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. The existing bike lanes are 5’3” wide. Total ROW is 43.9 ft. Proposed Restriping the roadway to narrow the travel lanes (11') and center turn lane (10') allows for widening the bike lanes to just under EF-I1 Airport Rd. W. Casino Rd. – Kasch Park Rd. Cost: $114,000 Existing 7-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. The existing sidewalk facility is 11’8” wide. Total ROW is 90.6 ft. Proposed Existing conditions at the intersection with Kasch Park Rd. Widening the sidewalk to 14' wide requires an additional 2’2” of width. EF-I3 Airport Rd. 100th St. SW – Evergreen Way Cost: $1,937,000 Existing 6-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are 5.0 ft wide. Total ROW is 81.0 ft. Proposed To gain additional room for widening bike lanes, the roadway will require widening by 8 feet. This will result in travel lanes 11' wide, plus an 11' wide center turn lane and two 6' wide bike lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-14 EF-K2 Colby Ave. 9th St. – 19th St. Existing 2-lane arterial roadway with a center median and on-street parking. Bike lane width varies from 4’5” feet to 4’9” in width. Total ROW is 65.4 ft. Proposed No action possible at this time. EF-Q6 Interurban Trail Madison St. – Adams Ave. Cost: $4,000 Existing The existing trail is 10.9 ft wide. Proposed Existing conditions at the intersection with Madison St. Widening the trail to 12' wide requires an additional 1.1 feet of width. EF- Q10 Interurban Trail 1400 Block – W. Mall Dr. Cost: $26,000 Existing The existing trail is 11.8 ft wide. Proposed Existing conditions at 100th St. SE Widening the trail to 14' wide requires an additional 2.2 feet of width. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-15 EF-V2 W. Casino Rd. 5th Ave. W – Casino Square W Driveway Cost: $433,000 Existing 4-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane and no on-street parking. Existing bike lanes are 5’2” wide. Total ROW is 63.7 ft. Proposed To gain additional room for adding bike lanes, the roadway will require widening by 2’3”. This will result in travel lanes 11' wide, plus an 11' wide center turn lane and two 5'5" wide bike lanes. EF-W1 W Marine View Dr. Skyline Dr. – Alverson Bridge Cost: $588,000 Existing 4-lane arterial roadway with a center median and no on-street parking. The existing sidewalk facility is 11.0 ft wide. Total ROW is 66.8 ft. Proposed Existing conditions south of Skyline Dr. Widening the trail to 14' wide requires an additional 3 feet of width. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-16 EF-M4:M5/CEF-K Madison Street – Sievers-Duecy Blvd to Broadway The existing bike lanes on Madison Street are less than 4 feet in width. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan map shows this existing facility extending to Broadway. However, the bike lane striping currently ends one block east of Evergreen Way. The bike lane should be striped to Broadway at the same time that the existing bike lanes are widened. Project Length: 1.7 miles Implementation Madison Street: Sievers-Duecy Blvd to E. Cady Road Bike lanes on this section of Madison range from 3.5 to 4 feet wide. A center turn lane runs the length of this segment, although there are few large driveways. Bike lanes should be widened to 6 feet by widening and restriping the roadway.  Traffic Side Treatment: A  Facility Treatment: C ,6 feet  Edge Treatment: J (WB), H (EB) Madison Street: E. Cady Road to Rainier Drive This is identified as a corridor replacement project. Madison Street: Rainier Drive to Berkshire Drive Bike lanes on this section of Madison range from 3.5 to 4 feet wide. A center turn lane runs the length of this segment, although there are few large driveways. Bike lanes should be widened to 6 feet by removing the center turn lane. Madison Street: Berkshire Drive to Broadway Madison is 48 feet wide from curb to curb in this area, and can accommodate 5 foot bike lanes in each direction while maintaining the existing two travel lanes and on-street parking. Intersection at Beverly Boulevard The bike lane should not be dropped, and should be striped up to the intersection.  Intersection Treatment: Continue bike lane to intersection. Constrained conditions west of Evergreen Way place bicycles into conflict with parked vehicles. Madison Street: Rainier Drive to Berkshire Drive Planning Level Cost Opinion $ 1,300,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-17 Figure 30. Connections to Existing Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-18 Connections to Existing Facilities CEF-A1 100th St SW Airport Rd. – Dakota Way Cost: $46,000 Description Re-allocating the roadway width through re-striping provides for the striping of two bike lanes just under 6’ wide. CEF-E 36th St. Hoyt Ave. – Smith Ave. Cost: $17,000 Description A new low-traffic bike route with new signage that connects the proposed north-south bike route on Hoyt Ave with the transit center. Existing conditions at 36th St. and Broadway CEF-H2 Beverly Ln. 79th Pl. SE – W. Casino Rd. Cost: $16,200 Description A low-traffic bike route with new signage connecting from the SR 526 overcrossing to W/ Casino Rd to proposed bike lanes on Beverly Lane. Existing conditions south of 75th St. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-19 CEF-M Pacific Ave. & Rucker Ave. Cost: $239,000 Description Installing new detection at this intersection will improve the ability of bicyclists to be recognized by the signal. Intersection at Pacific Ave. and Rucker Ave. CEF-P Summit Ave. E. Marine View Dr. – 19th St. Cost: $21,000 Description Re-striping the roadway to narrow the travel lanes provides additional width to stripe an uphill bike lane connecting E. Marine View Dr. with 19th Street. CEF-F 41st St. S 3rd Ave. – Lowell Riverfront Trail Cost: $1,200,000 Description Developing a bike sidewalk path at 41st St. provides a vital connection to the existing Lowell Riverfront Trail ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-20 CEF-A2 100th St SW Dakota Way – Evergreen Way Cost: $915,000 Description The existing roadway is a narrow two-lane road with no additional space for the installation of bike lanes. The roadway will require widening by about 12 feet to provide for two 6-foot wide bike lanes. CEF-C 19th St. Lombard Ave. – McDougall Ave. Cost: $217,000 Description To maintain the existing vehicle cross-section while providing bike lanes, the roadway will require about 10 feet of widening, resulting in two travel lanes, a center turn lane, and two 5’6” wide bike lanes. CEF-H1 Dogwood Dr./Beverly Ln. Mukilteo Blvd. – 79th Pl. SE Cost: $3,042,000 Description Two 6-foot wide bike lanes are provided for enhanced bicycling conditions through a roadway widening project that maintains the existing vehicle capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-21 CEF-J Lowell Riverfront Trail Rotary Park – City Limits Cost: $200,000 Description This trail project extends the existing Lowell Riverfront Trail to the city limits and connects the path to a planned county pathway. CEF-D 36th St. Smith Ave. – Lowell Riverfront Trail Cost: $732,000 Description In conjunction with the roadway project, a new bike route that continues the proposed 36th St. bike route, connecting Smith Ave. and the transit center with the waterfront trail. The eastbound bike lane ends before Paine but should continue to Smith Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-22 CEF-L Mukilteo Blvd. Dogwood Dr. – Olympic Blvd. Cost: $162,000 Description Widening the existing roadway by 18.5 ft. provides the necessary space to accommodate 5+ ft. bike lanes and designated on-street parking. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-23 Figure 31. Tier 1 Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-24 Tier 1 Facilities T1-A1 35th St. Federal Ave. – Hoyt Ave. Cost: $30,000 Description Exist ing cond ition s at Colby Ave. This is a 2-lane roadway with no on- street parking and no existing bicycle facilities. Adding signage and optional pavement sharrow stencils provides a desirable bicycle connection between proposed bicycle facilities on Federal and Hoyt. T1-G1 Hoyt Ave. Alverson Blvd. – 41st St. Cost: $32,000 Description Creating a parallel bike route to the bike lanes on Colby Ave provides an alternate bicycle connection through northwest Everett, connecting residences in the north with downtown and the Interurban Trail. Implementation will involve signage and optional sharrow stencils. Existing conditions south of Alverson Blvd. T1-J3 / T1-J4 Fulton St. Pacific Ave – California St. Cost: $32,000 Description This signed bike route provides a connection from the transit center to proposed facilities along California Street. Existing conditions at Everett Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-25 T1-R / T1-S Summit Ave Harrison Ave 23rd St. – 19th St. California St. – 23rd St Cost: $33,000 Description This signed bike route identifies a connection between the existing facilities on 19th Street and destinations on the east side of the freeway via a short connection on the proposed facilities on 23rd Street. Existing conditions at 22nd St. T1-T / T1-U Wall St. Smith Ave Broadway – Smith Ave Smith Ave – 32nd Cost: $32,000 Description This signed route provides a connection from the bike lanes on California to the Everett transit center. Existing conditions looking toward 33rd St. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-26 T1-Q 23rd St. Grand Ave. – E Grand Ave. Cost: $29,000 Description A new low traffic bicycle route with signage providing a vital east-west connection between Grand Ave and the sidewalk path at E Grand Ave. 23rd St. approaching Pine St. T1-W Kasch Park Rd. Airport Rd. – Kasch Park Cost: $25,000 Description Re-striping the roadway provides the necessary width to accommodate 6 ft. bike lanes. T1-Z Riverside Trail SR 529 – Pacific Ave Cost: $125,000 Description On the Port’s Riverside Business Park, if the site develops with water-dependent uses, the path will follow the existing north-south road where the existing paths can be widened to 12 feet. If the site develops with non-water dependent uses, the path will be aligned along the shoreline. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-27 T1-C1 California Street – West Marine View Drive to I-5 California Street is an east-west route through downtown Everett that connects the US 2 trail to Marine View Drive. Project Length: 1.1 miles Implementation California Street: Pine Street to Virginia Avenue Cyclists traveling westbound from the US 2 trail connect to California via Hewitt and Pine. From Pine Street to Fulton Street, California Street is 62 feet wide curb to curb and 52 feet from Fulton Street to Virginia Avenue. Traffic volumes are low and on- street parking is used. These conditions provide ample room for bike lanes, even at intersections such as Cedar where curb extensions reduce the curb to curb width to 36 feet.  Traffic Side Treatment: A  Facility Treatment: C, 6 feet  Edge Treatment: F or G California Street: Virginia Avenue to Broadway Near the PUD building at Virginia, parking along California is heavily used, with head-in angle parking the south side of the street and parallel parking on the north side of the street. Angle parking should be replaced with parallel parking, gaining the space to add six foot bike lanes.  Traffic Side Treatment: A  Facility Treatment: C, 6 feet  Edge Treatment: F California Street: Broadway to Marine View Drive This section of California is 52 feet wide from curb to curb. Some blocks in this area feature angle parking with a minimal clear zone, where parked cars partially block the travel lane. This should be replaced with parallel parking.  Traffic Side Treatment: A  Facility Treatment: C, 6 feet  Edge Treatment: F or G Intersection at Broadway Broadway is the most difficult crossing for cyclists traveling on California Street. It is currently California Street near the PUD building looking east from McDougall Avenue. Changing angle parking to parallel parking will provide room for bike lanes on California Street. Existing and Proposed configuration for California Street ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-28 T1-C1 California Street – West Marine View Drive to I-5 unsignalized, and prohibits through traffic, forcing a right turn on Broadway. Broadway has high peak traffic volumes and stopped cars often block the intersection. This intersection should be treated with an actuated traffic signal and median diverter that allows bicycle through traffic while continuing to prohibit vehicle through movements. Refer to Project Concept Guideline Section 4.3 Intersection Treatments for more information on this treatment and other crossing treatment options. Planning Level Cost Opinion $149,100 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-29 T1-F1:F11 Fleming Street/College Avenue/Federal Avenue – Madison Street to 35th Street Fleming Street, College Avenue and Federal Avenue are all low speed, low traffic streets that parallel Evergreen Way/Rucker Avenue. This signed route will provide a new bicycle connection from Madison Street to Mukilteo Boulevard where bicycles do not have to ride next to high volumes of vehicle traffic. It connects to the proposed signed route on Grand Avenue as well as to Everett Station via 36th Street. Project Length: 2.6 miles Implementation All segments of this project should be treated with wayfinding signage and traffic calming treatments as described in the Project Concept Guidelines Section 4 on bicycle boulevards. Fleming Street/College Avenue: Madison Street to 46th Street Fleming Street and College Avenue are residential streets with parking and no centerline. They require minimal treatment to become a bicycle facility, but will benefit from traffic calming and other treatments described in Project Concept Guidelines Section 4. 46th Street to Charles Avenue North of 46th Street, Federal Avenue is a two lane road with a centerline and no parking. Federal has a constrained width for bike lanes. Shared lane markings and increased signage in this area will improve cyclist comfort. The route utilizes the existing pedestrian bridge in Forest Park to cross Mukilteo Boulevard. North of Mukilteo Boulevard, Federal features traffic calming speed bumps.  Traffic Side Treatment: None  Facility Treatment: C  Edge Treatment: None Charles Avenue to 35th Street Federal has a steep grade between Charles Avenue and 35th Street. In this area, travel lanes should be reduced to 10 feet to accommodate a five foot southbound bike lane for cyclists climbing the hill to Charles Avenue.  Traffic Side Treatment (SB only): A  Facility Treatment (SB only): C, 6 feet  Edge Treatment (SB only): H Intersections Attention should be paid to wayfinding and route signage at several intersections where the route turns or jogs. Confirmational signage after directional Cyclists will use the existing pedestrian bridge to Forest Park to complete an otherwise difficult crossing of Mukilteo Boulevard. Looking south on Federal Avenue from 35th Street, southbound cyclists will benefit from the addition of a climbing lane uphill to Charles Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-30 T1-F1:F11 Fleming Street/College Avenue/Federal Avenue – Madison Street to 35th Street changes and controlled intersections will help cyclists navigate and stay on the route. These intersections include:  Fleming Street and Pecks Drive  Fleming Street and 57th Street  Fleming Street and 56th Street  56th Street and College Avenue Additional Treatments The gates and bollards near the Forest Park pedestrian bridge over Mukilteo Boulevard should be replaced with a different design that novice cyclists can pass without dismounting, and that accommodates two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Planning Level Cost Opinion $190,200 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-31 T1-H2:H3:H6:H8 Lombard Avenue/Oakes Avenue - 10th Street to 37th Street This signed route will connect northwest Everett to downtown, Everett Station, and the Fleming/College/Federal signed route to southern Everett. Project Length: 2.4 miles Implementation All segments of this project should be treated with wayfinding signage and traffic calming as described in Project Concept Guidelines Section 4 Bicycle Boulevards. Lombard Avenue: 10th Street to 26th Street Lombard is a residential street with a posted speed of 25 mph, little through traffic and parking on both sides. Few stop signs make the route convenient for bicyclists traveling parallel to Broadway. Traffic calming will improve the comfort of non-motorized users on the street while discouraging cut-through traffic during peak hours. Intersections at 13th Street and 14th Street These intersections will need to be all way stops as they are access routes to the hospital from Broadway. Oakes Avenue: 26th Street to 37th Street The route turns west on 26th Street from Lombard, to use the signalized crossing of Pacific Avenue on Oakes Avenue. Oakes benefits from existing traffic calming with traffic circles at 33rd Street and 35th Street. Confirmational signage after turns and controlled intersections help cyclists navigate the route. Intersections to note include:  Lombard Avenue and California Street  California Street and Oakes Avenue  Oakes Avenue and Pacific Avenue Intersection at Everett Avenue At five lanes wide, Everett Avenue is the only potentially problematic crossing on this portion of the route. Treatments that could improve this crossing include high visibility crosswalks, curb extensions to reduce crossing distance or a median refuge island so bicyclists can complete the crossing in two stages. See Project Concept Guidelines Section 4.3 Intersection Treatments for more information. Lombard is a residential street, appealing to both new and experienced cyclists. Everett Avenue is the only difficult crossing for cyclists traveling on Lombard. The route uses the existing signal on Oakes to cross Pacific Avenue, which is five lanes wide with high traffic volumes .to Charles Avenue. Planning Level Cost Opinion $224,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-32 Figure 32. Tier 2 Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-33 Tier 2 Facilities T2-E Baker Ave/Poplar St 12th St. – Hewitt Ave. Cost: $22,000 Description An existing two lane north- south road that will serve as a bicycle connection between downtown and destinations in North Everett, including Hawthorne Elementary School and the Boys and Girls Club. This will be signed as a bicycle route, with the use of sharrows as an optional treatment. Baker Avenue at 19th Street, facing south T2-K Grand Ave Alverson Blvd. – 35th St. Cost: $26,000 Description Grand Avenue is a low speed, two lane road that travels along the ridge in northwest Everett. Providing lovely views of the sound, this bicycle route will provide a north-south connection in northwest Everett while providing an alternate route to Hoyt and Colby. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-34 T2-L Pigeon Creek Rd. Mukilteo Blvd – Port Waterside Trail Cost: $4.5 million Description This bicycle route with new signage connects the Port Waterside Trail on the waterfront up through to Forest Park and the existing bike lanes on Mukilteo Blvd. A grade separated railroad crossing will be required. T2-Q / T2-R / T2-S Norton Ave / Grand Ave / 43rd St SE Pacific Ave – Grand Ave Norton Ave – 43rd St SE Grand Ave – Colby Ave Cost: $61,000 Description This proposed bike route provides a connection between the existing sidewalk facilities on W Marine View Drive south through west central Everett while providing a connection to the Interurban Trail. Intersection of Norton Avenue and Grand Avenue, facing north ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-35 T2-Z Smith Ave Pacific Ave – 3600 Block Cost: $438,000 Description This project connects the transit center to the existing facilities further south on Smith that connect via Paine up to 41st, providing connections to the Interurban Trail and other facilities. This will be signed with sharrows as a shared route. Smith Avenue at the 3600 block, facing north T2-DD Harrison Ave./California St. / Highland Ave. /Hewitt Ave./ Chestnut St. Everett Ave. – Pacific Ave. Cost: $91,000 Description An existing two lane collector that will serve as a bicycle connection between Everett And Pacific Ave. This will be signed as a bicycle route, with the use of sharrows as an optional treatment. Hewitt Avenue east of State Street ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-36 T2-V 75th St SE/Hamlet Ln Broadway – 81st Pl. Cost: 29,000 Description A signed bike route along this network of local streets provides a connection between neighborhoods and nearby business establishments along Broadway. 75th Street SE at McDougal Avenue, facing SE T2-B 12th St Broadway – Chestnut St. Cost: $40,000 Description New 6’ bike lanes provides an east-west connection in north Everett while connecting to the proposed bike route along Poplar St./Baker Ave. T2-F Brookridge Blvd Beverly Ln. – Glenwood Ave. Cost: $19,000 Description A proposed 6’4” east-west bike lane that continues the existing bike facilities from Merrill Creek Parkway, connecting to proposed facilities on Dogwood Dr./Beverly Ln. and Pecks Drive. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-37 T2-J Larimer Rd. S 2nd Ave – City Limits Cost: $4,382,000 Description A proposed 6-foot bike lane on Larimer Rd up to the city limits and a proposed other agency project. This project will require widening the roadway. T2-Y Oakes Ave Everett Ave. – Pacific Ave Cost: $242,000 Description 5’6” wide bike lanes are added on Oakes Avenue between Everett Ave and Pacific Ave as the downtown portion of the Lombard Ave bicycle boulevard. Oakes Avenue south of Hewitt Avenue facing south T2-T E. Casino Rd Beverly Blvd. – 7th Ave SE Cost: $27,000 Description New 7’ bike lanes on E. Casino Rd. provides connections to the Interurban Trail and the commercial businesses along E. Casino Rd. This will require removing parking from one side of the street. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-38 T2-G 10th St. Grand Ave. - Broadway Cost: $491,000 Description New 5’6” wide bike lanes on the east- west running 10th Street connect several existing and proposed north-south routes in north Everett while connecting into Everett Community College. This will require widening the road by just over seven feet. T2-O / T2-P W Marine View Dr Everett Ave. – California St. / California St. – Pacific Ave (Norton Ave) Cost: $865,000 Description These two projects continue the existing sidewalk path that is found on the west side of W Marine View Drive. This will require the widening of an existing sidewalk from approximately 8 feet wide to 12 feet wide to provide a comfortable cycling facility. West Marine View Drive, south of California Street T2-BB Pacific Ave Smith Ave. – Fulton St. Cost: $171,000 Description This is a short project that widens the sidewalk on the south side by a little over 4 feet to provide a connection between the Smith Ave bicycle facilities and the Fulton Street bicycle route. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-39 T2-CC Tower St Broadway – N. Broadway Cost: $236,000 Description This is a short project that widens the north sidewalk by 6 feet to 12 feet, providing a connection into Everett Community College and the Western Washington Everett campus. Towner Street facing SE towards the intersection of N Broadway T2-D 41st St. Colby Ave.(Interurban Trail) – Hoyt Ave Cost: $15,000 Description This short, one-block project is a widened sidewalk on the north side of 41st St. that provides a connection between the Interurban Trail and the proposed bike route on Hoyt Ave. Existing conditions at 41st and Colby Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-40 T2-N Sievers-Duecy Blvd Hardeson Rd. – Glenwood Ave. Cost: $17,000 Description Given right-of-way constraints within the existing curb-to-curb width, a widened sidewalk (to 12-feet wide) on the north side of the roadway, connecting existing facilities on Hardeson Road and Glenwood Avenue. T2-A 75th St SE Seaway Blvd – Hardeson Rd. Cost: $94,000 Description Given right-of-way constraints within the existing curb-to-curb width, a new 12’ trail (in the form of a widened sidewalk) along the north side of the roadway provides a connection to business and industrial locations. Shared lane markings in the downhill direction will alert motorists to the presence of cyclists that prefer to cycle in the road rather than on the widened sidewalk. 75th street at Seaway Blvd, facing NE T2-H Japanese Gulch Trail W. Mukilteo Blvd. – SR 526 Cost: $1,800,000 Description A proposed 12-foot trail that connects from W Mukilteo Blvd to SR 526. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-41 T2-I Japanese Gulch Connector 1 Seaway Blvd. – Mukilteo Blvd Cost: 1,000,000 Description A proposed 12-foot trail that connects from Seaway Blvd to SR 526. T2-W Japanese Gulch Connector 2 Seaway Blvd. – Japanese Gulch Trail Cost: 500,000 Description A proposed 12-foot trail that connects from Seaway Blvd to the Japanese Gulch Trail T2-X Gold Way Trail Seaway Blvd. – Japanese Gulch Trail @ 75th St SE Cost: 900,000 Description A proposed trail that connects two neighborhoods to Broadway at the north and 19th Ave SE at the south end, bypassing the current difficult crossing of I-5 and SR526. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-42 T2‐C US 2 Trestle Access Improvements @ Hewitt Ave and Walnut Street Trail users leaving and entering the US 2 trail at Hewitt and Walnut must currently navigate an undercontrolled intersection with a slip lane highway entrance, missing sidewalks and crosswalks. Cyclists must choose between several blocks of out of direction travel on busy roads or illegal movements to get to downtown. As a result, the movements of cyclists in the area are often unpredictable. The trail entrance and intersection should undergo a redesign process and ultimately be signalized, and a new trail connection should be developed to connect to recommended bicycle facilities on California. The following treatments are interim measures only. Project requires the cooperation of WSDOT for improvements at the US 2 access. Project Length: n/a Implementation A. Widen sidewalk along west side of Maple from California to Hewitt Ave to trail width to serve as bicycle/pedestrian connection into downtown 1. Check ramps for ADA specifications. Update or add new ramps as necessary. Preferably install wide ramps that can better accommodate bicycles turning or entering the ramp at an angle. 2. Close or move ramp. 3. Stripe path through median. Leave ample width for two‐way traffic. Enhance visibility. 4. Add new crosswalk and change yield sign to stop sign. 5. Extend sidewalk approximately 75 feet from existing terminus. Consider expanding to 8 feet. 6. Enhance crosswalk and add crossing signage at Walnut and Hewitt. 7. Paint bollards at trail entrance a bright color. 8. Add new bike lanes on Walnut St. 9. Add wayfinding signage. 10. Cut gap in median curb to allow access for cyclists coming from Chestnut Street. Planning Level Cost Opinion $185,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-43 State Highway Access SR 529 to Marysville Improving access to SR 529 to Marysville was one of the most popular routes during the prioritization activities at the open house. A decommissioned vehicle onramp currently functions as an access point for bicycle and pedestrians on the E Marine View Drive sidewalk to connect to SR 529 northbound to Marysville. This access could be improved in the short term. Although SR 529 is not equipped with any bicycle facilities, many bicycles use the route for lack of any other feasible connection between Everett and Marysville. Some sections along the corridor have a shoulder where bicycles may travel without mixing with 55 mph vehicle traffic, but other areas are more constrained, and the shoulder width is inadequate for a bicycle facility. Highway entrances and exits on SR 529 between Everett and Marysville also present potential conflict points where bicycles traveling on the shoulder must merge across the exit or entrance lane, where high speed motorists may not expect them. The four bridges over the Snohomish River, Union Slough, Steamboat Slough and Ebey Slough are the most difficult choke points for creating an adequate bicycle facility on SR 529 connecting the two cities. Although each bridge does have a sidewalk, all of them are narrow and under the recommended minimum width for a bicycle facility. For instance, the sidewalk over the Snohomish River on SR 529 northbound is only 3.5 feet wide, with a barrier on either side including the rail along the outside of the bridge and a crash barrier between vehicle lanes and the sidewalk. This leaves inadequate “shy” distance for bicycles to maintain a safe buffer distance from the rail to avoid catching their handlebars, which could cause a crash. Another example is the bridge over the Steamboat Slough southbound on SR 529. Although the bridge has a sidewalk, the sidewalk is located on the east side of the bridge, which is the left side of the road for southbound traffic. This means that bicycles traveling on the right side shoulder must merge across two lanes of 55mph vehicle traffic to the left side shoulder, and then merge back to the right side after crossing the bridge. To construct an improved facility on SR 529, improvements to each bridge will be necessary to add width or to move the sidewalk to the correct side, as with the bridge southbound over the Steamboat Slough. Several cities have had success in adding cantilevered sidewalks to bridges in order to accommodate an improved bicycle and pedestrian facility. However, a thorough engineering review of each bridge will be required to develop the appropriate solution, and to discover possible constraints. Because of the conflicts with highway entrances and exits that would exist for a shoulder bikeway along SR 529, it may be preferable to develop a separate bicycle and pedestrian path, detached from the highway. This could also have the benefit of providing accommodation to pedestrians, for whom a facility on a highway shoulder without a sidewalk may not be appropriate. Marysville has funding in place to build a new bridge at their end of this corridor, while the City of Everett has not at present identified funding for bridge improvements/replacement. The City of Everett strongly encourages WSDOT to upgrade the bridges on this corridor to provide bicycle access. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-44 Because of the complexity of this project, its potential expense and the coordination it will require between the City of Everett, Marysville, Snohomish County and the Washington Department of Transportation, it is ranked as a Tier 2 project. It should be emphasized, though, that this is a high priority project for the local bicycling community and an essential component the regional bicycle network. The City of Everett should organize a coordinated effort with the other jurisdictions mentioned to plan an improved bicycle facility along this route. SR 526 SR 526 is managed by the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The City of Mukilteo has a grant to extend bike lanes to the north perimeter road. The City of Everett encourages WSDOT to provide bike lanes through the 526 corridor to tie into bike system at the overcrossing west of Evergreen Way and to connect to 20th street for access to the Boeing main parking lot (see more about bicycle access to Boeing below). Access to Boeing Bicycle access to Boeing, one of the largest employers in Everett, is complicated by the existence of the Boeing Freeway (SR 526) and Seaway Boulevard, both of which are high-capacity high-speed roads. Implementation of the Tier 1 route on 75th St SE will facilitate access to Boeing from the east. This facility ends at Seaway Boulevard, a Tier 3 route. Designing convenient bicycle facilities along Seaway requires either a major street redesign, additional signalization or the construction of a separated facility in order to accommodate bicycle turn movements to access different parts of the Boeing campus. Access to Boeing is also potentially possible from the west via Mukilteo Boulevard and a multi-use trail along 44th Avenue W (accessed from 92nd St SW off of Mukilteo). The trail on 44th Avenue W ends at 84th St SW near the beginning of SR 526. The shoulder from Casino to the Boeing receiving entrance is narrow, creating a difficult approach for bicycles on SR 526 to the entrance of Boeing. An alternate route from the end of the 44th Ave W trail continues straight on 44th Avenue W, turns right onto 78th Ave W and right again on 40th Ave W. This circuitous route leaves cyclists closer to the Boeing entrance, though a multi-use trail would still be required to allow cyclists to safely complete their trip along SR 526 to Boeing. It may also be possible to implement a connection to Boeing by way of Airport Road. It is recommended that the City work with WSDOT, Snohomish County, Mukilteo and Boeing to identify, plan and implement the optimal route or routes to access the various Boeing facilities. A survey of Boeing employees can help identify where Boeing employees travel from and where on the campus they are trying to reach by bicycle. A private trail on the Boeing facility might be an effective means to facilitate bicycle travel around the campus for cyclists who enter the campus far from their final destination. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI-45 ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-1 VII. Funding Strategies Grant funding sources are identified on Federal, State and Local levels, as well as anticipated City budget for improvements from existing revenue sources. An implementation strategy follows, which presents a targeted methodology for how Everett can implement recommended projects and programs under different funding availability scenarios. Federal, State, and Regional Funding Sources Federal Funding Sources Federal funding is primarily distributed through a number of different programs established by the Federal Transportation Act. The latest federal transportation act, The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted August 2005, as Public Law 109-59. SAFETEA-LU authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009. Federal funding is administered through the state (Washington State Department of Transportation) and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections. Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. SAFETEA-LU There are a number of programs identified within SAFETEA-LU that provide for the funding of bicycle projects. The specific types of eligible projects and required funding match by the local jurisdiction are discussed further below. National Highway System (NHS) This program funds improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the National Highway System (NHS), including the interstate system. Bicycle facilities within NHS corridors are eligible activities for NHS funds. This includes US2, SR 525, SR 526, SR 527, SR 529, and SR 99 through Everett. Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides states with flexible funds which may be used for a wide variety of projects on any Federal-aid Highway including the National Highway System, bridges on any public road, and transit facilities. Eligible bicycle improvements include on-street facilities, off-road trails, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals, parking, and other ancillary facilities. SAFETEALU also specifically clarifies that the modification of sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act is an eligible activity. As an exception to the general rule described above, STP- ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-2 funded bicycle facilities may be located on local and collector roads which are not part of the Federal-aid Highway System. In addition, bicycle-related non-construction projects, such as maps, coordinator positions, and encouragement programs, are eligible for STP funds. Highway Safety Improvement Program This program funds projects designed to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, bikeways and walkways. This program includes the Railway-Highway Crossings Program and the High Risk Rural Roads Program. This program replaces the Hazard Elimination Program from TEA-21. Railway-Highway Crossing Program (RHC) Administered by the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), this program is funded by a set-aside of STP funds and is designated for improvements to highway-rail grade crossings to eliminate safety hazards. Funding for this program comes out of Highway Safety Improvement Program funds. Transportation Enhancements (TE) Administered the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), this program is funded by a set-aside of STP funds. Projects must serve a transportation need. These funds can be used to build a variety of pedestrian, bicycle, streetscape and other improvements that enhance the cultural, aesthetic, or environmental value of transportation systems. Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program of the Federal Transportation Bill provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other non-motorized and motorized uses. These funds are available for both paved and unpaved trails, but may not be used to improve roads for general passenger vehicle use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along roads. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:  Maintenance and restoration of existing trails  Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment  Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails  Acquisition or easements of property for trails  State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a State’s funds)  Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a State’s funds) In Washington, The National Recreational Trails Program is administered by the Recreation and Conservation Office. The timeline for funding application is as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-3  February: Application workshops  Early March: Letter of Intent due  May 1: Application due  August 1: Evaluation Packets due  October: Awards announced Information about the program, and links to information about the application process can be found online at: http://www.rco.wa.gov/rcfb/grants/nrtp.htm Safe Routes to School (SR2S) The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools program is to provide children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. The SR2S Grants were established to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety near schools. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Federal Highways and Local Programs is responsible for administration of SR2S funding. Application for these funds is open to any public agency. Agencies providing a funding match will be given preference. Eligible projects may include three elements: 1. Engineering Improvements. These physical improvements are designed to reduce potential bicycle and pedestrian conflicts with motor vehicles. Physical improvements may also reduce motor vehicle traffic volumes around schools, establish safer and more accessible crossings, or construct walkways, trails or bikeways. Eligible improvements include sidewalk improvements, traffic calming/speed reduction, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and secure bicycle parking facilities. 2. Education and Encouragement Efforts. These programs are designed to teach children safe bicycling and walking skills while educating them about the health benefits, and environmental impacts. Projects and programs may include creation, distribution and implementation of educational materials; safety based field trips; interactive bicycle/pedestrian safety video games; and promotional events and activities assemblies, bicycle rodeos, walking school buses). 3. Enforcement Efforts. These programs aim to ensure that traffic laws near schools are obeyed. Law enforcement activities apply to cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles alike. Projects may include development of a crossing guard program, enforcement equipment, photo enforcement, and pedestrian sting operations. All projects must be within two-miles of primary or middle schools More information about the Safe Routes to School Program may be found online at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/funding.htm and http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/SafeRoutes/funding.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-4 New Freedom Initiative SAFETEA-LU creates a new formula grant program that provides capital and operating costs to provide transportation services and facility improvements that exceed those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program is a National Parks Service program which provides technical assistance via direct staff involvement, to establish and restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds and open space. The RTCA program provides only for planning assistance—there are no implementation monies available. Projects are prioritized for assistance based upon criteria that include conserving significant community resources, fostering cooperation between agencies, serving a large number of users, encouraging public involvement in planning and implementation and focusing on lasting accomplishments. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Land and Water Conservation Fund is a federally funded program that provides grants for planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including trails. Funds can be used for ROW acquisition and construction. These funds are administered by the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program The Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program provides federal funding for transit oriented development, traffic calming and other projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers. The program is intended to provide communities with the resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. The Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program funds require a 20 % match. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program The Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funding for projects and programs in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter which reduce transportation related emissions. These federal funds can be used to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities that reduce travel by automobile. Eligible bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs include:  Constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (paths, bike racks, support facilities, etc.) that are not exclusively recreational and reduce vehicle trips  Non-construction outreach related to safe bicycle use  Establishing and funding State bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions for promoting and facilitating nonmotorized transportation modes through public education, safety programs, etc. (Limited to one full-time position per State) ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-5 States may choose to transfer a limited portion of their CMAQ apportionment to the following Federal-aid highway programs: Surface Transportation Program (STP), National Highway System (NHS), Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Interstate Maintenance (IM), Recreational Trails Program (RTP), and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). State Funding Sources Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants The Washington State Legislature included $74 million to support pedestrian and bicycle safety projects such as pedestrian and bicycle paths, sidewalks, safe routes to school and transit. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants were established to address the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. More information is may be found at www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Ped_Bike_Program.htm, concerning the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants. Project proposals are due in early May. Transportation Improvement Board Sidewalk Program The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) was created by the Washington State Legislature to encourage state investment in high quality local transportation projects. The board distributes grant funding generated by statewide gas tax. To date more than 320 cities and counties throughout the state have been recipients of TIB funding. Eligible grant recipients are cities and counties. Typically, state applications are accepted in the summer of each year, with submission closing in late August. The Sidewalk Program is intended to provide safe sidewalks for transportation on federally classified routes (principal, minor or collector). Projects should aim to improve safety, access, connectivity and continuity while conforming to standards created by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A minimum 20% match is required on all urban Sidewalk Program projects. While this project does not directly fund bicycle facilities, a successful application would allow a greater allocation of existing city funds to be applied to the construction of bicycle facilities. More information on the Sidewalk Program is available at http://www.tib.wa.gov/grants/urban/SP.cfm. Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program The Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation provides state funds for acquisition and development of local and state parks, water access sites, trails, critical wildlife habitat, natural areas, and urban wildlife habitat. Traffic Safety Grants Washington Traffic Safety Commission provides state funding for programs, projects, services and strategies to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that result from traffic crashes. Funds may be used for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The funding cycle begins April each year Intersection and Corridor Safety Program WSDOT provides federal funding to safety improvement projects that eliminate or reduce fatal or injury accidents by identifying and correcting hazardous locations, sections and/or elements. The goal of the Corridor Safety Program is to “reduce fatal and disabling collisions on roadways using low-cost, near-term solutions through partnerships with community groups, business, engineering, ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-6 enforcement, education, and emergency service organizations.”4 These include activities for resolving safety problems at hazardous locations and sections, and roadway elements that constitute a danger to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists. Corridors are selected for designation based on statistical evidence of a significant crash problem in one or more locations. The problems identified must have the potential low-cost, near term solutions. Selected projects must have significant local level support to undertake a corridor project. More information on this program is available at http://www.corridorsafetyprogram.com. The US 2 corridor running from Everett to Steven’s pass has been a part of this program since 2008. Regional and non-traditional funding sources American Greenways Program Administered by The Conservation Fund, the American Greenways Program provides funding for the planning and design of greenways. Applications for funds can be made by local regional or state-wide non-profit organizations and public agencies. The maximum award is $2,500, but most range from $500 to $1,500. American Greenways Program monies may be used to fund unpaved trail development. Bikes Belong Grant Program The Bikes Belong Coalition of bicycle suppliers and retailers has awarded $1.2 million and leveraged an additional $470 million since its inception in 1999. The program funds corridor improvements, mountain bike trails, BMX parks, trails, and park access. It is funded by the Bikes Belong Employee Pro Purchase Program. City of Everett Funding Sources Existing Funding Sources Public Works – Street Improvements Fund 1195 The Street Improvement Fund was established to fund “overall systematic transportation CIP’s and associated infrastructure improvements.” Funding is provided through a General Fund property tax allocation and an allocated share of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax administered by WSDOT. It is estimated that this fund will provide about $2.5 million dollars of funding in 2009. Public Works – Streets Fund 1206 This fund is dedicated to the maintenance and preservation of the City’s “sidewalks, streets, and right-of-way structures.” Funding for this program is provided by the Motor Vehicle Gas Tax estimated to be $1.6 million and a General Fund property tax contribution. It is estimated that this fund will provide about $2.3 million dollars of funding in 2009. 4 http://www.corridorsafetyprogram.com/aboutprogram.html 5 Everett, Washington 2009 Budget. (http://www.everettwa.org/default.aspx?ID=1431). Accessed January 26, 2009. 6 Everett, Washington 2009 Budget. (http://www.everettwa.org/default.aspx?ID=1431). Accessed January 26, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-7 Potential Funding Sources Transportation User Fees Transportation user fees are any group of additional fees that could be used to fund maintenance and improvement projects for non-motorized uses. Properties would be assessed fees based on the traffic generation by land use or business activity as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The fee could be a Street Maintenance Fee, to fund maintenance of the existing roadway system to free up dollars from the state gasoline tax for capital projects. Transportation Benefit District (TBD) A TBD can fund any transportation improvement contained in any existing state or regional transportation plan that is necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. This can include maintenance and improvements to city streets, county roads, state highways, investments in high capacity transportation, public transportation, transportation demand management and other transportation projects identified in a regional transportation planning organization plan or state plan. TBD’s have several revenue options subject to voter approval: 1. Property taxes – a 1-year excess levy or an excess levy for capital purposes; 2. Up to 0.2% sales and use tax; 3. Up to $100 annual vehicle fee per vehicle registered in the district; and 4. Vehicle tolls. Local Bond Measures The City could issue bonds to fund bicycle improvements. This would spread the cost of the improvements over the life of the bonds. Certain types of bonds would require voter approval. The debt would have to be retired, so funding for repayment on the bond and the interest would be required. Tax Increment Financing/Urban Renewal Funds Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance the current improvements that will create those gains. When a public project shared-use path) is constructed, surrounding property values generally increase and encourage surrounding development or redevelopment. The increased tax revenues are then dedicated to finance the debt created by the original public improvement project. Tax Increment Financing typically occurs within designated Urban Renewal Areas (URA) that meet certain economic criteria and approved by a local governing body. To be eligible for this financing, a project (or a portion of it) must be located within the URA. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-8 Street User Fees The revenue generated by the street user fee is used for operations and maintenance of the street system, and priorities are established by the Public Works Department. This type of fee may free up more general fund money for off-street projects. Implementation of street user fees would require a public vote. Local Gas Tax Everett could use revenues from a local gasoline tax to provide for on-street bikeways and shared- use path improvements. Such a tax would likely require voter approval, which is an uncertainty, especially with the ever increasing costs of gas. However, once established the tax would be a relatively stable funding source for improvements. Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are most often used by cities to construct localized projects such as streets, sidewalks or bikeways. Through the LID process, the costs of local improvements are generally spread out among a group of property owners within a specified area. The cost can be allocated based on property frontage or other methods such as traffic trip generation. TOPS-style Sales Tax TOPS (Trails, Open Space and Parks), is the process used by the City of Colorado Springs to administer the Trails, Open Space and Parks ordinance passed by voters in April of 1997. The sales tax, 1/10 of one percent, generates about $6 million annually for trails, open space and parks. The process, administered by the Parks and Recreation Department of Colorado Springs, provides for the prudent acquisition, development and preservation of Trails, Open Space and Parks (TOPS) in the Pikes Peak region. More information on the TOPS program, including maps of trails, open space and parks, as well as funding of projects is available at the TOPS web site. To fund a project, an application is submitted to the City of Colorado Springs. Implementation of a TOPS-style Sales Tax would require a public vote. Bike Tax The City of Colorado Springs has a $4.00 per bike tax to provide funding for bikeway improvements. The tax generates nearly $100,000 annually and has been used for both on- and off- street projects. It is used primarily to provide a local match for other grants such as the Colorado State Trails Program or SAFETEA-LU grants. A bike tax is an annual fee; implementation would require a pubic vote. RCW Chapter 35.75 of Washington State law clarifies legal interpretation and uses of such funds: RCW 35.75.030 - Every city and town by ordinance may establish and collect reasonable license fees from all persons riding a bicycle or other similar vehicle within its respective corporate limits, and may enforce the payment thereof by reasonable fines and penalties. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII-9 Other Local taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations ‘adopt’ a bikeway way and help maintain the facility. Foundation grants, volunteer work, and donations of in- kind services, equipment, labor or materials are other sources of support that can play a supporting role in gathering resources to design and build new bicycle facilities.