Document Farmingtonnm_doc_42e1d677f3

F Fa ar rm mi in ng gt to on n M Me et tr ro op po ol li it ta an n P Pl la an nn ni in ng g O Or rg ga an ni iz za at ti io on n Adopted June 12, 2008 Updated June 10, 2010 Adopted by the FMPO Policy Committee: June 12, 2008 Adopted by the City of Bloomfield: July 14, 2008 Adopted by San Juan County: August 5, 2008 Adopted by the City of Aztec: August 5, 2008 Adopted by the City of Farmington: September 16, 2008 B Bi ic cyc cl le e a an nd d P Pe ed de es st tr ri ia an n P Pl la an n ---PAGE BREAK--- i Farmington MPO FARMINGTON MPO BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 3 1.1) Purpose and Need for the Plan … … … … 3 1.2) Goals and Objectives … … … … … … … … 4 1.3) Livability Principles … … … … … … … … … … 6 1.4) USDOT Policies … … … … … … … … … … … … 6 Chapter 2 History – Summary of Existing Plans and Studies 7 2.1) Farmington MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan … … … … … … … … … 7 2.2) City of Farmington Traffic Engineering … 7 2.3) City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan … 8 2.4) Unified Development Code/Subdivision Regulations … … … … … … … … … … … … … 8 2.5) San Juan County Growth Management Plan 8 2.6) Aztec Trails and Open Space Group … … … 8 SECTION PAGE Chapter 3 Existing Conditions 9 3.1) Pedestrian Network … … … … … … … … … 9 3.2) Current Conflict Areas and Gaps … … … … … 9 3.3) Bicycle Lanes and Routes … … … … … … … 11 3.4) Current Conflict Areas and Gaps … … … … 11 3.5) Walking and Biking Survey Data … … … … 13 3.6) Walking and Biking Statistics … … … … … 16 3.7) Walking and Biking Safety … … … … … … … 17 Chapter 4 Walking and Biking Improvements 18 4.1) Current and Near Term Projects … … … … 18 4.2) Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Group Voting 18 4.3) Regional Walking and Biking Facility Improvements … … … … … … … … … … … … 20 4.4) Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities … … … … 20 4.5) Local Walking and Biking Facility Improvements … … … … … … … … … … … … 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii Farmington MPO FARMINGTON MPO BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Chapter 5 Bicycle/Pedestrian Policies and Recommended Standards 33 5.1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies … … … … 33 5.2) Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommended Standards … … … … … … … … … … … … … 34 Chapter 6 Safe Routes to School 37 6.1) Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … … 37 6.2) Current Activities … … … … … … … … … … 37 6.3) Anticipated Activities … … … … … … … … … 38 Chapter 7 Other Elements Related to Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 39 7.1) Transit Connections … … … … … … … … … 39 7.2) ADA Requirements … … … … … … … … … 39 7.3) Equestrian Planning … … … … … … … … … 40 7.4) Pedestrian Safety Action Plan … … … … … 41 7.5) Multi‐Modal Paths and ATV Use … … … … 41 SECTION PAGE Chapter 8 Funding Sources and Strategies 43 8.1) Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … … 43 8.2) Federal Funding Sources … … … … … … … … 43 8.3) Federal Funding Strategies … … … … … … 44 8.4) Other Sources … … … … … … … … … … … … 44 8.5) Local Funding Strategies … … … … … … … … 44 Chapter 9 Implementation Strategies 45 Conclusion 48 Appendix A – Survey Data Summary 49 Appendix B – Complete List of Voting Results from the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Group 51 Appendix C – Criteria for Evaluating and Ranking Regional Improvements 57 Acronym List 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Farmington MPO FARMINGTON MPO BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLAN MAPS, FIGURES, & TABLES MAPS PAGE Map 1 – Existing Sidewalk Network … … … … … … 10 Map 2 – Existing Bicycle Facilities in the FMPO … … … 12 Map 3 – Existing Bike Lanes & Biking Routes Used … 14 Map 4 – Proposed Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Network … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 24 Map 5A – Proposed Farmington Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements … … … … … … … … … … … … 30 Map 5B – Proposed Bloomfield Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements … … … … … … … … … … … … 31 Map 5C – Proposed Aztec Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements … … … … … … … … … … … … 32 FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 – Summary of Survey Results … … … … … … 15 Figure 2 – Journey to Work Data in San Juan County 16 TABLES PAGE Table 1 – Crash Rates in San Juan County & New Mexico … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 17 Table 2 – Pedestrians in Crashes in Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield between 2006‐2008 17 Table 3 – Local & Statewide Crashes Involving Bicycles in 2008 … … … … … … … … … … … 17 Table 4 – Completed Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects in 2008, 2009, and 2010 … … … … … … … … 19 Table 5 – Current and Near‐Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects … … … … … … … … … 19 Table 6 – Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Farmington MPO … … … … … … … … 21 Table 7 – Mid Range (Tier 2) Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Farmington MPO … … … … … … … … … … … 22 Table 8 – Long Range (Tier 3) Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Farmington MPO … … … … … … … … … … … 23 Table 9 – Proposed Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Aztec … … … … … … … … 26 Table 10 – Proposed Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Bloomfield … … … … … 26 Table 11 – Proposed Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Farmington … … … … … 27 Table 12 – Identified Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Northeast Farmington/ Foothills Area … … … … … … … … … … … … 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- iv Farmington MPO Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FARMINGTON MPO City of Farmington Joe Delmagori – MPO Planner Mike Sullivan, Community Development Director Robert C. Messenger – MPO Associate Planner Steve Krest, Traffic Engineering Administrator Virginia Turney – MPO Administrative Aide Roger Drayer, Landscape Architect, Parks Dept. Dee Dee Moore – Administrative Aide, Parks Dept. Policy Committee San Juan County Mayor Bill Standley, City of Farmington TJ Richards, Public Works Dan Darnell, City of Farmington Dr. Jim Henderson, San Juan County City of Aztec Sam Hinson, City of Bloomfield Larry Marcum, Commissioner Mayor Sally Burbridge, City of Aztec Technical Committee New Mexico DOT Nica J. Westerling, City of Farmington Dr. Bob Widoe, MPO Liaison Martin Lucero, City of Farmington Phil Gallegos, District 5 Dave Keck, San Juan County David Martinez, District 5 Steve Christensen, City of Aztec Julie Baird, City of Bloomfield A Special Thank‐you to the core participants of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Group. Your dedication and commitment to assisting with the year long development of this Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is greatly appreciated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 1 Farmington MPO Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) has developed a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the cities of Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield and the surrounding communities of San Juan County in the Four Corners region of New Mexico. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is intended to provide residents and visitors with more options to get to and from their destinations. The plan is a guiding document that is the result of strong input from the general public and staff from the MPO member agencies. The work involved with this plan started in April 2007 and concluded in June 2008. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is a comprehensive study that provides more mode choice for travelers. Walking and biking are viable alternatives to driving because they promote a healthier environment. Walking and biking reduce the number of car trips, which relieves congestion on roadways and improves safety. The FMPO collected existing information on walking and biking facilities. In addition, entity comprehensive plans and parks plans were collected to understand where future projects were planned. Working with the member entities and a Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Group (BPAG), the FMPO has identified a number of improvements that expand upon those shown in the 2030 MTP and those described in other entity plans. Overall, the walking and biking system should provide more mode choices that help to preserve and enhance the quality of life in urbanized areas. In 2010, the FMPO adopted the update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the long range planning document that identified new transportation projects and listed several priorities for the Farmington area. The 2035 MTP prioritized the regional improvements that were identified in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. As a result, the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan was updated in June 2010 in order to link the two documents. Critical elements of this plan were incorporated into the 2035 MTP. Likewise, each document now includes the list of regional priorities, policies and recommended standards, and funding and implementation strategies. Additional policies were issued by USDOT in March 2010 and have been added as MPO actions to Chapter 9 of this plan. Purpose and Need of the Plan During development of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, several needs were identified by participants in the process as to why the plan should be completed: • Link communities • Provide access to parks, schools and businesses • Encourage walking and biking for commuting • Improve the health of the citizens and the communities • Serve those who do and those who do not currently bike and walk on a regular basis ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 2 Farmington MPO • Educate motorists and the general public about the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Network The FMPO worked closely with its members and the BPAG to identify projects to complete a regional walking and biking network. Local projects were also recognized as the links that will help support the regional system. This plan provides the local agencies and the MPO with corridors to preserve in order to complete a regional walking and biking network. The projects were prioritized in the fall of 2009 and are shown in Chapter 4. The FMPO will focus its efforts on funding regional projects. The individual governments will determine their own strategies for implementing the local projects. Policies and Recommended Standards As new projects are constructed, adopted policies and standards will be used to guide their implementation. The policies describe the opportunities to incorporate walking and biking improvements into future road construction. They also indicate how facilities should be implemented in safe and efficient manners. Recommended standards will ensure that facilities are designed in similar fashions within the MPO. Funding Sources and Implementation Strategies Developing the network will require a commitment to funding and support from all those involved in the planning process. Prioritization of regional projects during the MTP update was essential so the area can determine which projects will provide the most benefit. Several sources of funding are available at the federal, state, and local levels to construct walking and biking improvements. The FMPO and its members should also proactively seek out other means for funding projects. The FMPO will be responsible for coordinating and reviewing the plan while the municipalities will construct the elements of the plan. To implement the regional network, any opportunity to incorporate multi‐modal facilities into planning and design should occur. The member agencies should implement the plan through the use of encouragement and education to achieve the goal of a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 3 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization The Farmington MPO is the regional transportation planning forum for Aztec, Bloomfield, Farmington, and the urbanized area of San Juan County. The FMPO works in cooperation with the local entities, the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), Red Apple Transit and other local transit organizations, and the general public to create comprehensive long and short range transportation plans for its member agencies. Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning This Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan was built upon the basic elements of the MTP adopted by the MPO in April 2005. As part of the 2010 MTP update portions of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan were updated to establish a regional network of projects. Policies and standards have also been defined to guide future walking and biking development. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan outlines policies and recommended standards that have been adopted by the member agencies and will be implemented as new developments occur, new roads are built, and as existing infrastructure is reconstructed. The plan tries to create a balance between the walking and biking facilities needed by commuters and recreational users, understanding that the needs of one group will differ from the needs of the other. Various funding and implementation strategies are described in order to assist the agencies involved with planning and developing the preferred walking and biking network. This document was created through the significant efforts of members of the public and entity staff who devoted their time and ideas to make the MPO area a more walking‐ and biking‐friendly community. City planners and engineers provided details about ongoing and upcoming projects for their municipalities. Participants in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group (BPAG) met throughout the entire process to provide input on the direction of the plan. Staff acknowledges their efforts and appreciates their dedication. 1.1 PURPOSE and NEED To solicit public input and help guide the development of the plan, the MPO created a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group (BPAG) to define purpose and need statements. The following statement summarizes the plan’s purpose: v The purpose of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is to link communities, provide access to parks, schools, residences and businesses, encourage walking and biking for commuting, and improve the health of the citizens and the communities within the Farmington MPO boundaries. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 4 Farmington MPO Introduction Chapter 1 The Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan needs to accommodate all types of travelers and commuters. While the end result of a trip is to get to a particular destination, the means by which a commuter or a recreational user operates on pedestrian and bicycle facilities will differ. In addition, those with disabilities and the elderly may require special accommodations. This plan strives to provide a balance that meets the needs of all users of the system. The following statements summarize the need for the plan: v There is a need to serve those who do and those who do not currently bike and walk on a regular basis. These persons include: children; the elderly, commuters, students (elementary through college), and persons with disabilities. v There is a need to improve pedestrian and bicyclist access from residences to destinations such as parks, schools, medical facilities, shopping centers, libraries, and places of employment. v There is a need to educate motorists and the general public about the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians who use the roads and sidewalks, respectively. 1.2 GOALS and OBJECTIVES With assistance from the BPAG, a list of goals was developed, all of which fall within the framework of the goals described in the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. v Goal 1 ‐ Encourage kids to ride bikes as a life‐long, healthy habit. v Goal 2 ‐ Increase the quality and quantity of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a strategic manner. v Goal 3 ‐ Promote the idea of walking and biking for commuting as well as for recreation. v Goal 4 ‐ Educate motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians about bicyclist and pedestrian rights and responsibilities for the proper use of roads, sidewalks, and paths. In additional to these goals, the FMPO will investigate implementing these actions to further promote the plan: v Create a permanent bicycle and pedestrian committee to ensure that bicycle/pedestrian planning activities and projects constructed by the entities within the MPO are consistent with the strategies and policies outlined in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. v Create a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, which would be integrated into the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and would serve as a self‐contained document. v Assist local governments and the school districts with applying for federal Safe Routes to School funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 5 Farmington MPO Introduction Chapter 1 The following Objectives were identified to assist in attaining the goals: OBJECTIVE RELATED TO Link resources and programs, such as Safe Routes to School, to improve unsafe walking and biking locations. Goal 1 Encourage and support groups (e.g. bike clubs and stores, police departments) to provide bicycle safety equipment. Goal 1 Develop education programs that clearly define rules for safe walking and biking to motorists, children, and adults. Goals 1 and 4 Identify the current deficiencies in the bicycle/pedestrian network and develop a method to eliminate gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian system. Goal 2 Monitor TIP project descriptions to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included where appropriate. Goal 2 Identify locations for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities, such as bicycle racks at civic buildings and safe, convenient connections to transit stops. Goal 2 Develop the MPO to be the clearinghouse for collecting and updating data on bicycle and pedestrian activity (pedestrian counts, surveys) and making the data accessible for entity staff, elected officials, and the public. Goal 2 Increase public awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists. Goal 3 Support the efforts of local municipalities in including bicycle and pedestrian facilities as components of their capital programs and site review approval processes. Goal 3 Develop walking/biking and trails maps for use by local residents, visitors, and others. Goal 3 Publish information that outlines safety tips and rules of the road responsibilities for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians regarding the appropriate use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Goals 3 and 4 Encourage and promote multi‐modal strategies to all those involved with the planning and design of transportation facilities. Goals 3 and 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 6 Farmington MPO Introduction Chapter 1 1.3 LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES In 2009, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created six livability principles to help improve access to affordable housing, to provide more transportation options, and to lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities. These principles are factored into many of the goals and policies identified in this document: 1. Providing more transportation choices 2. Expanding access to affordable housing, particularly housing located close to transit 3. Enhancing economic competitiveness‐–giving people access to jobs, education and services 4. Targeting federal funds toward existing communities to spur revitalization and protect rural landscapes 5. Increasing collaboration among federal/state/local governments to better target investments and improve accountability 6. Valuing the unique qualities of all communities‐‐whether urban, suburban, or rural 1.4 USDOT POLICIES In March 2010 a new policy statement was issued by USDOT that places the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians equal to those of motorists and transit riders. The intention is that the policy will integrate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into federally funded road projects. The policy is a list of regulations for state and local governments. The regulations and their corresponding reference are as follows: REGULATION REFERENCE Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes 1.2) Goals and Objectives 5.1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities 1.1) Purpose and Need Go beyond minimum design standards 5.2) Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommended Strategies Strategy 1 (Chapter 9) Collect data on walking and biking trips MPO Actions (Chapter 9) Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling MPO Actions (Chapter 9) Protect sidewalks and shared­use paths the same way roadways are protected Strategy 4 (Chapter 9) Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects Strategy 1 (Chapter 9) ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 7 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 2 HISTORY ‐ A SUMMARY OF EXISTING PLANS AND STUDIES The entities that comprise the MPO have included bicycling and pedestrian elements in their transportation, parks, and comprehensive plans. Relevant portions of those plans were researched during initial development of the FMPO Bicycle Pedestrian Plan. The following summary provides a brief review of these plans. 2.1 FARMINGTON MPO METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN The 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), adopted in April 2010, includes critical elements of this Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. The MTP lists the regional priorities for the FMPO (Map The priorities are grouped into tiers. The first tier includes projects that connect the three cities. The second tier begins to fill in gaps within the region. The third tier outlines projects that will be more important to serving future development and neighborhoods as the cities continue to grow. The MTP also includes the policies, recommended standards, and strategies for implementing projects and accomplishing bicycle/pedestrian goals and objectives. 2.2 CITY of FARMINGTON TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Bicycle lane installation and bicycle facilities are under the jurisdiction of the City of Farmington Traffic Engineering Division. Its staff maintains records of bike lane mileage and develops maps showing bike lanes and routes. This information was integrated into the 2035 MTP. MPO staff works closely with Traffic Engineering on bicycle improvements. Traffic Engineering has been proactive in considering pedestrian and bicyclist improvements whenever and wherever possible; these considerations have become incorporated into their work and are not merely adjuncts to the work. For example, they have been proactive in providing bike lanes on roads that are being resurfaced or reconstructed. Also, its staff has developed maps that are used to show safe walking routes to Farmington elementary schools. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 8 Farmington MPO History Chapter 2 2.3 CITY of FARMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2002, includes several chapters that reference bicycling and pedestrian transportation, namely: Chapter 4 Land Use, Chapter 5 Growth and Annexation, Chapter 6 Transportation, Chapter 9 Parks and Recreation, Chapter 13 Downtown, and Chapter 14 Implementation. The City has developed its own bicycle route map and policies/objectives/actions related to walking and biking. The Farmington Comprehensive Plan is found at: http://www.fmtn.org and is available at the Community Development Office (805 Municipal Dr., Farmington, NM 87401). 2.4 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE and SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC), adopted in May 2007, contains subdivision development requirements that address pedestrian and bicycling facilities. In addition, some of the land use categories as defined in Article 3 emphasize biking and walking. The Farmington UDC can be found at: http://www.fmtn.org and is available at the Community Development Office. Aztec and Bloomfield each use subdivision regulations that describe typical criteria for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The subdivision regulation documents are available at the Aztec and Bloomfield City Hall buildings. 2.5 SAN JUAN COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The San Juan County Growth Management Plan (GMP) was accepted by the Commission in July 2007. In addition to information about biking and pedestrian transportation plans that came from the MTP, the transportation element in the GMP includes analyses and data on current biking and walking use as well as pedestrian and bicycle crash statistics. The GMP Transportation element ends with recommended goals and objectives that apply to the overall transportation system for the County. The Growth Management Plan is available at http://www.sjcounty.net and at the San Juan County Administrative Building. 2.6 AZTEC TRAILS and OPEN SPACE GROUP The Aztec Trails and Open Space (ATOS) Group is a community‐driven organization whose purpose is to promote awareness of natural resources by establishing and maintaining trails and open space in and around the City of Aztec. The group has built a wood chip trail from Riverside Park heading north along the Animas River. This trail is part of the Animas River Trail project that will eventually connect the parks, the Aztec Historic District, and the Aztec Ruins National Monument. This trail in the Aztec vicinity will become an integral part of a system of trails along both the Animas and San Juan Rivers that will link all of the cities within the MPO. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 9 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK Extensive sidewalk networks are typically found in many of the older neighborhoods of the three cities. With newer subdivisions, the common practice is that a sidewalk will be installed once the property is built; therefore, as the properties are developed, the sidewalk network is completed. But until the subdivision reaches full build‐out, the result is often gaps along several roads that access these subdivisions. Many arterial streets in the urban areas of the MPO have continuous sidewalks. A number of areas within the cities provide good sidewalk networks, or a series of inter‐connected sidewalks. Good examples of sidewalk networks on major roads include the downtown areas of Aztec and Farmington, and West Blanco Blvd, Broadway, and connecting local streets in Bloomfield. Trails are also found throughout the MPO. While most often used for recreation, the trails can provide connections between parks and residential neighborhoods while at the same time separating pedestrians from traffic. Good examples include the river trails along the Animas River in Farmington and Aztec and the river trail along the San Juan River in Bloomfield. Map 1 shows the existing sidewalk network and gaps on the regionally significant road system. 3.2 CURRENT CONFLICT AREAS and GAPS There are many examples in the MPO area where gaps and obstacles are found. Sidewalks simply end or existing parking lot space serves as a “quasi” sidewalk. Obstacles, such as signs and utility poles, are placed right in the center of the sidewalk. Some sidewalks become almost non‐traversable due to overhanging vegetation or parked cars. When several driveway cuts are placed in close proximity to access nearby businesses, they increase the potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles turning onto and off the road. In many of the low density portions of the county, sidewalks are completely non‐existent because it is not cost‐effective to build sidewalks in areas where use would be minimal. On US 64, US 550, and NM 516, the wide shoulder, whether paved or unpaved, provides space which pedestrians sometimes use as a sidewalk. However, this situation can pose a potentially unsafe condition for the pedestrian. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 10 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 Map 1 – Existing Sidewalk Network ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 11 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 Wide roads (4 or 6 lanes of traffic) can be intimidating for many pedestrians. On roads with a two‐way left turn lane pedestrians may elect to stand in the turning lane to wait for an opening. This situation puts the pedestrian at risk of conflicting with cars making turns in and out of nearby driveways. Another potential conflict for pedestrians includes high volume intersections. An intersection with multiple lanes of turning traffic poses several safety hazards to the pedestrian. As stated in the “How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” book published by the FHWA, the number of lanes a pedestrian must cross has a direct effect on the complexity of the crossing task and the pedestrian crash risk. To alleviate the danger, innovative pedestrian facilities can be implemented at these intersections. It is the intention of the FMPO to create its own pedestrian safety action plan to address many of these pedestrian issues. 3.3 BICYCLE LANES and ROUTES The City of Farmington has the most extensive system of bike lanes and designated bike routes within the MPO. The City of Aztec has signed wide shoulders on many of its arterial and collector streets. The City of Bloomfield has striped bike lanes on Ruth Lane and will construct bike lanes on 3 rd Street late in 2010. There are currently no bike paths or multimodal paths (bike/pedestrian/ equestrian) that parallel streets in the network. Rather, they are found along sections of the San Juan and Animas rivers in all three cities. The 2035 MTP calls for an expansion of the current system to include new bike lanes, routes, and paths. As noted earlier, the City of Farmington is proactive in adding bike lanes when reconfiguring existing roads. Map 2 shows the existing bike facilities within the MPO. 3.4 CURRENT CONFLICT AREAS and GAPS Conflict areas in the MPO include places where the bike lane, a wide shoulder, or a wide outside vehicle lane temporarily ends and forces a “pinch” point. For example, the area on Piñon Hills Blvd west of 30 th Street is a “pinch” point because the width of the paved shoulder is reduced, forcing bicyclists to operate much closer to motorists in the travel lane. It is important to ensure proper signage, in accordance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), has been installed to alert drivers and cyclists about these conflicts areas. During development of the plan, a segment of the East Main corridor in Farmington was noted as a safety concern for bicyclists. Heading westbound on East Main between Villa View and Old Aztec Hwy, bicyclists often need to share the driving lane with motorists due to an absence of paved shoulders. The MPO supports the need for funding bicycle facility improvements for this portion of East Main. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 12 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 Map 2 – Existing Bicycle Facilities in the FMPO ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 13 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 Throughout many areas of the FMPO, no bike lanes are present. Regional bike facilities between the cities, in Crouch Mesa, and Kirtland do not exist. Presently, those who do bike to and from these areas typically use the wide shoulders on state and US highways. In Map 4, routes used by bicyclists as identified during public meetings are compared to existing bike lanes. The map indicates that despite not having bike facilities, bicyclists still use many roads in the MPO between the cities and outlying areas. 3.5 WALKING and BIKING SURVEY DATA The MPO created a survey to better understand why people walk/bike, what factors influence their decision to walk/bike, and what areas they would like to see improvements. Surveys were issued to the BPAG participants and staff members of the entities. They were also available at the city hall buildings, the FMPO website, bike shops, local libraries, and nearby restaurants. Several participants in the BPAG handed out the surveys to their co‐workers. Figure 1 illustrates why people walk/bike and what factors influence their decision to walk/bike. Full results are summarized in Appendix A. While best efforts were made to distribute the survey equally among the municipalities, staff acknowledges that the surveys heavily favor current conditions and suggest improvements in the City of Farmington. Nevertheless, the results do provide a good assessment of facilities that work and areas that need improvement. The highest number of responses shows people typically walk and bike for exercise and recreation. Together, these activities represent over 55% of walking trips and biking trips. More people tend to bike to work than walk; however these types of trips occur much less compared to walking and biking for fun and exercise. As noted earlier, it is a goal of the FMPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan to increase the number of walking and biking trips to school and work. When asked what factors determine a walk or bike trip, participants were asked to rate the factors on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being an important factor and 1 being not much of a factor. From the survey results, having sidewalks present and bike lanes striped are the strongest factors that influence a walking or biking trip. Pedestrian facilities at intersections (e.g. pedestrian signals, crosswalks) and posted bike route signs were also important factors. The cost to own a car and connections to transit do not seem to greatly influence the respondent’s decision. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 14 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 Map 3 – Existing Bike Lanes & Biking Routes Used ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 15 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 Figure 1 – Summary of Survey Results Why People Walk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Recreation Exercise Work travel School travel Shopping Socialize Other Activity # of People Why People Bike 0 10 20 30 40 50 Recreation Exercise Work travel School travel Shopping Socialize Other Activity # of People Factors that Influence Biking 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1 2 3 4 5 Score Num. of People Bike Lanes Posted Bike Routes Secure bike parking Short distance Bike racks on buses Cost to own car Factors That Influence Walking 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 2 3 4 5 Score Num. of People Sidewalks present Ped facilities at intersection ADA compliant intersection Short distance Connection to bus Cost to own car ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 16 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 3.6 WALKING and BIKING STATISITICS As noted in the San Juan County Growth Management Plan, several factors play a role in the county’s lower than average walking and biking rates: v Roadways are built wide and designed for high‐speed travel v Limited public transportation v A scarcity of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure v Automobile parking that is free and abundant v Land uses are spread out and land development is often inaccessible to foot and bicycle travel v Jobs that require automobiles or trucks (especially oil and gas field jobs). From the Growth Management Plan, Census 2000 “Journey to Work” data show that approximately 79% of home‐to‐work trips in the county were made by people driving alone (Figure Trips made by foot accounted for about 2% of all work trips, and trips made by transit, biking, and combined accounted for less than 1% of all work trips. For further information, see the Transportation element of the GMP for data comparing San Juan County driving characteristics to other regional counties in the Four Corners. Figure 2 – Journey to Work Data in San Juan County (Sample Data from Census 2000, Summary File 4) (Source: San Juan County Growth Management Plan) Thus, given the factors stated about, the nature of the economy in this area, and limited county‐wide biking and walking facilities, it is not too surprising the primary mode transportation in San Juan County is the motor vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 17 Farmington MPO Existing Conditions Chapter 3 3.7 WALKING and BIKING SAFETY Addressing safety is a critical aspect of transportation planning. For this plan, overall crash rate and bicycle/pedestrian crash data were selected to provide a sampling of crash issues in San Juan County and in the MPO. Table 1 illustrates crash rates in San Juan County and New Mexico from 2006‐2008. Table 1 – Crash Rates in San Juan County & New Mexico Crashes per 100,000 residents 2006 2007 2008 San Juan Co. Avg 23.0 22.2 23.2 New Mexico Avg 25.0 25.0 23.0 The 2008 San Juan County Annual Report from the Traffic Safety Bureau indicates improper driving and driver inattention are the leading causes of crashes. Alcohol was involved in 48% of all fatal crashes and in 13% of all pedestrian deaths. Table 2 provides details on pedestrians in crashes in Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield from 2002‐2006. Table 2 – Pedestrians in Crashes in Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield between 2006‐2008 2006 2007 2008 Aztec 4 1 3 Bloomfield 2 1 4 Farmington 16 20 12 Table 3 shows the number of crashes involving bicyclists and the numbered of fatalities on the local and statewide level in 2008. Table 3 – Local & Statewide Crashes Involving Bicycles in 2008 New Mexico San Juan Co. Farmington Aztec Bloomfield Crashes Involving Bicyclists 371 (2007) 9 8 0 0 Fatalities 7 1 0 0 0 The MPO and its entities should work to achieve the following safety goals: • Publish information that outlines safety tips to educate motorists about the rights of bicyclists • The entities should inventory and prioritize sidewalks that need to be reconstructed or retrofitted • Build bike lanes or bicycle facilities and sidewalks at the same time new roads are built or major reconstruction of existing roads occurs • Develop a Complete Streets policy that promotes equal consideration of needs for motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians • Implement innovative crosswalk technologies that reduce vehicle speeds and make pedestrians more visible to motorists ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 18 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 4 WALKING AND BIKING IMPROVEMENTS This section includes walking and biking facility improvements that were originally identified during development of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and were prioritized by the FMPO during the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update. The FMPO gathered information from city plans, proposed river trails, and the MTP to inventory proposed improvements already identified. With input from the BPAG, additional improvements were incorporated into the plan’s development. Over 80 walking and biking improvement projects were identified. The FMPO performed ranking exercises during 2009 to prioritize the regional improvements. The regional priorities have been grouped into three tiers. The plan serves as a mechanism for the identification of corridors to preserve for future walking and biking improvements, especially those projects shown in the third tier. 4.1 CURRENT and NEAR TERM PROJECTS Before development of a proposed network began, staff collected information on current or near term pedestrian and bicycle projects with dedicated or anticipated funding. Projects identified from the Foothills/College Blvd Access and Circulation Study were also collected (Table The BPAG was informed so the participants were aware of ongoing and upcoming projects. Projects with federal funding (Transportation Enhancements) are programmed and are part of the TIP. Table 4 shows projects completed in the last three years. Table 5 lists current and near term bicycle and pedestrian projects. 4.2 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY GROUP VOTING The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Group (BPAG) assisted in identifying several walking and biking improvements in addition to what had been collected from entity plans. Once the identification of projects was complete, a series of BPAG meetings was held to give the public a chance to vote for their top projects. Their voting results helped the MPO and its members to understand what the public believes are the most important walking and biking improvements for this area. The complete list of voting results is shown in Appendix B. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 19 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 4 – Completed Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects in 2008, 2009, and 2010 Project From To Type Entity Source Year West Blanco (Phase III) Ruth Lane West City Limits Sidewalks Bloomfield STP/ Safety 2008 Ruth Lane US 64 W. Blanco Blvd Bike Lanes Bloomfield Local 2008 Animas River Trail NM 516 Riverside Park River Trail Aztec Local 2008 S Church Street US 64 Maple Sidewalks Bloomfield CDBG 2009 Vereda de Rio San Juan US 550 1st Street River Trail Bloomfield Recreational Trails Program 2009 Animas River Pedestrian Bridge Hartman Park Riverside Park Pedestrian Bridge Aztec Transportation Enhancements 2009 San Juan Blvd Butler Main St Sidewalks Farmington Transportation Enhancements 2009 US 64 Malta Hillside Sidewalks Farmington Transportation Enhancements 2009 West Maple South Church US 550 Sidewalks Bloomfield ARRA 2010 3 rd Street US 64 W. Blanco Blvd Bike Lanes/ Sidewalks Bloomfield State/Local 2010 Wildflower Pkwy Browning Yarrow Trail Bike Lanes/ Sidewalks Farmington ARRA 2010 Lt Plant Rd (NM 574) NM 516 Lydia Rippey Rd Sidewalks Aztec Safety 2010 Table 5 – Current and Near‐Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project From To Type Entity Source Est’d Cost East Arterial US 550 NM 173 Multimodal Sidepath Aztec Fed/State/Local $537,000 Foothills Holmes Dr Colbri/ End of Road Sidewalks Farmington Local $570,500 Foothills Holmes Dr Colbri/ End of Road Bike Lanes Farmington Local $530,000 Panther Trail English/ Pinon Hills Piedra Vista HS Bike Lanes Farmington Local 1 $166,000 College Blvd Sandalwood Hood Mesa Trail Bike Lanes Farmington Local 1 $149,000 Hood Mesa Trail College Lakewood Bike Lanes Farmington Local 1 $361,000 Lakewood Hood Mesa Trail Foothills Bike Lanes Farmington Local 1 $148,000 1 For these local projects, sidewalks will not be built at this time but ROW will be reserved for future construction of sidewalks ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 20 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 4.3 REGIONAL WALKING and BIKING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS After the identified list of proposed projects was completed, the FMPO divided the projects into regional and local lists. Regional projects are defined as those that connect two or more cities, get a person across town, or follow the rivers. These are the projects that the FMPO prioritized during the MTP update. Approved criteria, as described in Section 4.4, were used to rank and evaluate the regional projects. For many of the regional projects identified, this plan indicates where corridors should be preserved for future bicycle and pedestrian projects. 4.4 BICYCLE and PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIES The MPO performed ranking exercises to develop prioritized lists of the 33 regional bicycle/pedestrian improvements. Approved criteria were used to rank and evaluate the regional projects. The ranked projects are shown in Map 5. The first 10 projects (Table 6) will serve as the critical projects for the MPO. The Farmington MPO and the participating entities will work together to secure funding for these projects. The remaining ranked projects are shown in Tables 7 and 8 and are provided in the event additional funding becomes available. Near‐term improvements should first be incorporated into local Capital Improvement Plans (CIP). Regional priorities will then be added to the MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) as funding is programmed. Additional information about the criteria is provided in Appendix C. The criteria categories are as follows: v Economic Vitality – improving quality of life by having walking and biking facilities as viable options for commuting v Safety – reducing conflict points, obstructions, or barriers v Accessibility, Mobility, Congestion – conditions that make it easier to get around a destination or improve the flow of travel v Integration and Connectivity – improving the linkages between neighborhoods, transit, parks, and civic services v Funding and Costs – receiving high benefit compared to cost effectiveness Strategies on how to implement and fund the identified projects are further described in Chapters 8 and 9. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 21 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 6 – Tier 1 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Farmington MPO Map Num City or Area Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of Facility Location Type Surface Connects to Length Est. Cost Ranked Score 8 F Butler to San Juan College along Sunrise Butler San Juan College Multimodal Multi‐Use Path Concrete Residential, college, transit 4700 $137,000 20.6 38 B East Blanco Blvd US 550 N (1st St) US 64 Bike lanes & sidewalks On road Concrete Residential, school 14200 $831,000 20.1 43 F San Juan and East Main San Juan/ Butler E Main/ Piñon Hills Wide sidewalk/ path Multi‐Use Path Hard Residential, retail 24500 $712,000 18.6 14A F Pinon Hills Blvd 30th Sports Complex Bike lane (westbound) On road Hard Park 3500 $143,000 18.6 11 C Wildflower Parkway Approx. at Yarrow CR 350 Multimodal Multi‐Use Path Hard Residential 19500 $566,000 18.5 37 C CR 350 US 64 NM 516 Bike lanes On road Existing Residential, retail 39700 $1,622,000 18.4 21 B,F,C Path parallel to US 64 Andrea/US 64 Ruth Ln/US 64 Multimodal Multi‐Use Path Hard Retail 42000 $1,220,000 18.2 19 A,B Connect from Animas River trail to Bloomfield Hartman Park (Aztec) Blanco/Ruth Ln (Bloomfield) Multimodal Multi‐Use Path Hard Residential, school, park 37300 $1,084,000 17.8 49 A Oliver‐ McWilliams Trail 50 acre open space Ruins Road trail junction Multimodal On‐ and off‐road Hard Residential, school, park 8600' on‐rd & 4600' off‐rd $986,000 17.3 45 A Ruins Road Trail Chaco/NM 516 Trail Junction Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Aztec Ruins, residential 4600 $42,000 17.3 F = Farmington, A = Aztec B = Bloomfield, C = San Juan County Estimated Cost for Short Range Projects: (based on cost of materials times length) $7,343,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 22 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 7 – Mid‐Range (Tier 2) Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Farmington MPO Map Num City or Area Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of Facility Location Type Surface Connects to Length Est. Cost Ranked Score 25 C Kirtland path Troy King/ Twin Peaks CR 6675/ CR 6100 Bike rt on Twin Pks & CR 6500; Multi‐use path on CR 6400 & CR 6100 On road, multi‐use path Hard Residential, school 14100 $410,000 17.2 14B F, C Twin Peaks Rd from NM 170 to Troy King Road NM 170 Troy King Rd Bike lanes On road Hard Residential, park 6575 $269,000 17.1 55 A, B Hike/Mtn Bike trail Wilderness Park (west of Ruth) S. Rio Grande (Aztec) Multimodal (mtn bike/ hike) Off‐road Crusher fines 40800 $98,000 16.9 65 F, C Animas River/E. Main Gateway Park Farmington Lake Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Parks 42300 $102,000 16.6 22 F, C PHB Extension/ CR 3900 CR 390/ CR3900 PHB/ E Main Multimodal Multi‐use Path Hard Residential, retail 26000 $755,000 16.5 46 A Riverside Trail North end of River trail Aztec Ruins via River Trl Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines River 1200 $300,000 16.3 66 F Lions Wilderness Trail Lions Wild Pk Fmtn Lake Trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines 15800 $38,000 16.2 71 F, C La Plata River Sports Complex Jackson Lake Junction Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Park 22400 $54,000 16.1 72 F La Plata River Westland Park Sports Complex Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Parks 6700 $16,000 15.8 F = Farmington, A = Aztec B = Bloomfield, C = San Juan County Estimated Cost for Short Range Projects: (based on cost of materials times length) $2,042,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 23 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 8 – Long Range (Tier 3) Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Farmington MPO Map Num City or Area Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of Facility Location Type Surface Connects to Length Est. Cost Ranked Score 51 A Riverside Trl B Existing river trail Existing Riverside Pk loop trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Downtown, park 800 $52,000 15.8 18 A, F Animas River Trail South of Fmtn Lake Hartman Park (Aztec) Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Residential, park 34000 $82,000 15.7 27 C Old Aztec Hwy & CR 3050 NM 516/ CR 3520 NM 516/ CR 3050 Bike route On road Existing Residential 35000 $0 15.2 24 C CR 3000 Browning Pkwy US 550 Bike route On road Existing Residential 63200 $0 15.2 79 F, C San Juan River San Juan/ Animas River River Bend Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Parks 11300 $27,000 15.0 28 A. C Light Plant Rd NM 516 MPO boundary Bike route On road Existing Residential, school 30600 $0 14.6 20 B, C CR 5030 CR 350 US 550 Multimodal Multi‐use Path Hard 30600 $889,000 14.5 63 F, C Glade Road PHB/Glade Rd Farm Lake Trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines 20400 $49,000 14.3 73 F, C San Juan River San Juan/ Animas River CR 5500 Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines 44000 $106,000 14.3 41 A,F,C Farmington‐ Aztec route Farmington Lake US 550/ NM 173 Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines 44500 $107,000 13.9 64 F, C Farmington Lake Trail Jackson Lake Junction Farmington Lake Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines 43700 $105,000 13.6 26 C La Plata Rd (NM 170) US 64 North end MPO boundary Bike route On road Existing Residential, parks 63400 $0 13.5 23 B, C CR 5500 (West Hammond) US 64 US 550 Bike Route (Bike lanes) On road Existing Residential 39700 $0 13.3 42 B CR 4935 (Arroyo) Arroyo/ E. Blanco CR 4900 (Arizona)/ US 550 Bike route On road Existing Residential 16200 $0 12.5 F = Farmington, A = Aztec B = Bloomfield, C = San Juan County Estimated Cost for Short Range Projects: (based on cost of materials times length) $1,417,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 24 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Map 4 – Proposed Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Network ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 25 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 4.5 LOCAL WALKING and BIKING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS The remaining projects were labeled as local projects (Tables 6 through 9 and Map The local projects are ones that are found within a municipality and primarily serve specific neighborhoods or sections of town. The intention is these smaller projects will connect and support the regional system. The projects will be provided to the individual city. The individual entities will take ownership of their local projects and any type of prioritization or funding scheme will be at their discretion. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 26 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 9 – Proposed Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Aztec Map Ref. Number Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Estimated Cost* 44 Chaco & Main Walk Chaco/NM 516 Hartman Park Pedestrian walking route $115,000 45 Ruins Road Trail Chaco/NM 516 Trail Junction Multimodal $11,000 46 Riverside Trail North end of River trail Ruins Road Trail Multimodal $35,000 47 Main Street Connector Main/US 550 Martinez Lane Trail Multimodal $79,000 48 Martinez Lane Trail Chaco/ Main Trail Junction Multimodal $241,000 49 Oliver‐McWilliams trail 50 acre open space Ruins Road trail junction Multimodal $986,000 50 Riverside Trail A Existing Riverside Pk loop trail 50 acre open space Multimodal $7,500 51 Riverside Trail B Existing river trail Existing Riverside Pk loop trail Multimodal $2,000 52 Ditch Trail North of woodchip trail Riverside Trail A Multimodal $6,000 84 East Arterial Sidepath US 550 (south of Aztec) NM 173 Multimodal sidepath $537,000 10 Identified Local Projects $2,019,500 Table 10 – Proposed Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Bloomfield Map Ref. number Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Estimated Cost* 53 Bloomfield Blvd US 550/ Vereda de Rio SJ US 550/ US 64 Pedestrian walking route N/A 54 Fifth Street north Fifth St/ US 64 Fifth St/ Blanco Multimodal $78,500 56 Vereda de Rio San Juan to US 64 Existing Vereda trail US 64/ arroyo Multimodal $15,500 57 Bergin to Church path Mesa Alta Jr. High Church Multimodal $7,000 58 Gallegos wash Bergin‐Church path Blanco (east of Church) Multimodal $4,000 5 Identified Local Projects $105,000 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 27 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 11 – Proposed Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Farmington Map Ref. Number Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Estimated Cost* 1 Old Railroad ROW north of Broadway Downtown Berg Park Multimodal $8,000 2 New path connecting Berg Park to Fairgrounds Park (1 of 2) Scott/ San Juan Blvd Fairgrounds/ Main St. Multimodal $64,000 3 River trail continuation Boyd Park Berg Park Multimodal $10,000 4 Extend Harbor Lane to the Nature Center (and Berg Pk) Harbor Lane/Southside River Rd Animas River Park Multimodal $6,000 5 Connect Mossman Gladden Park to Malta/Broadway Camino Real area Malta/ Broadway Multimodal $38,000 6 Connect Boyd Park to Oscar Thomas Park to Downtown Boyd Park Downtown Multimodal $109,000 7 Auburn wash south to Apache School Auburn/ Boyd/Glade Apache/ existing Glade trail Multimodal $11,000 9 Arroyo Path Lions Wilderness Park (amphitheatre) Kingsway/ Windsor Multimodal $17,000 10 North English extension (current terminus) North English Hood Mesa Multimodal $11,000 12 Riverwalk to Northridge Park along Sullivan Road Sullivan/San Juan Blvd Northridge Park (Carlton/ 36th) Bike lanes $27,000 13 New trail from Foothills to Sandalwood to Hood Mesa Trail Hood Mesa Foothills Multimodal $18,000 15 New trail along Burnham Rd Animas Park CR 3000 (top of mesa) Dirt or gravel trail $8,000 16 New trail around Pinon Hills Golf Course Butler/Sunrise Farmington Ave/30th Street Dirt or gravel trail $22,000 17 New trail from Mesa Verde School to north end of Farmington Avenue Mesa Verde (College Blvd) Farmington Ave/30th Street Dirt or gravel trail $5,500 29 Pipeline ROW north of 38th Pinon Hills Blvd. College Multimodal $35,000 30 Ladera School arroyo Dustin/38th (Ladera Elem School) 20th/ Butler (Smith’s) Multimodal $17,000 31 Pipeline R/W south of 30th Dustin Farmington Ave Multimodal $11,000 32 Brookside Park Glade/Auburn 20th/Dustin Multimodal $116,500 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 28 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 11 – Proposed Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Farmington, continued Map Ref. Number Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Estimated Cost* 33 Farmington Avenue 15th 30th Multimodal $99,000 34 Browning Pkwy US 64 NM 516/ East Main Multimodal $293,500 35 Hogan‐Foothills Connector Hogan/Monteagle Foothills/Evergreen Multimodal $2,500 36 Piñon Hills Blvd Sidepath 30 th Street NM 516/E Main St. Multimodal $851,000 39 Boyd‐Cooper “Bike Boulevard” Auburn/Boyd/Glade Farmington Ave Bike route N/A 40 Riverwalk‐Animas Park Riverwalk/ US 64 Animas R. Park Multimodal $10,000 59 30th Street PHB/30th Dustin/30th on‐road $125,000 60 Glade Glade/Auburn Glade/30th on‐road $332,500 61 Animas River/East Main Animas River Park Gateway Park multimodal $8,500 62 South Glade trail Murray Brook Haven Pk multimodal $6,000 67 Auburn Auburn/Murray downtown on‐road $204,000 68 Orchard Orchard/Pinon Orchard/Broadway on‐road $52,500 69 Quince Auburn/Bell Boyd Park multimodal $6,500 70 San Juan River River Bend Park SouthGladeTrail multimodal $31,500 74 Animas River San Juan/Animas River junction Boyd Park multimodal $13,500 75 Animas River Gateway Park Farmington Lake multimodal $60,500 76 Drainage ditch E Main/Cliffside Beckland Hills Park multimodal $11,000 77 Glade drainage Brookhaven Pk Glade Park multimodal $8,000 78 Glade drainage Glade Park Brookside Park multimodal $5,500 80 Glade drainage Glade Park Glade Rd Trail multimodal $27,500 81 East Main St (NM 516 westbound) Villa View Old Aztec Hwy Bike Lane (shoulder) $250,000 90 Dustin/Orchard Main/Orchard 38 th /Dustin Bike Route N/A 40 Identified Local Projects $2,932,500 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 29 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Table 12 – Identified Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Northeast Farmington/Foothills Area Map Ref. Number Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Estimated Cost* 85 Foothills Dr Holmes Dr Colbri/ End of Road Continuation of Bike Lanes & Sidewalks $1,100,000 86 Hood Mesa Trail College Lakewood Bike Lanes $361,000 87 College Blvd Sandalwood Hood Mesa Trail Bike Lanes $149,000 88 Lakewood Hood Mesa Trail Foothills Bike Lanes $148,000 89 Panther Trail English/PHB intersection Piedra Vista HS Bike Lanes $166,000 5 Identified Local Projects $1,924,000 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 30 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Map 5A – Proposed Farmington Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 31 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Map 5B – Proposed Bloomfield Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 32 Farmington MPO Improvements Chapter 4 Map 5C – Proposed Aztec Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 33 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 5 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN POLICIES AND RECOMMENDED STANDARDS Policies provide guidelines for future development of the walking and biking network. The policies offer an overall framework as to how and why bicycle and pedestrian facilities need to be implemented as cities grow and new roads are built. 5.1 BICYCLE and PEDESTRIAN POLICIES The following policies will guide bicycle and pedestrian planning for the MPO and the local entities: v For all new residential and commercial development, encourage the provision of complete pedestrian and bicycle facilities to create consistent networks rather than installing these facilities on a piece‐meal basis at the time when the property is built. v For rural areas (or low density areas) reasonable efforts should be made to obtain right‐of‐way (ROW) for future construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. v Construct appropriate pedestrian and biking facilities simultaneously with the construction of new road projects and major road reconstruction projects for roads classified as collector and above. v Locate applicable bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a safe and efficient manner on all arterial and collector streets. For example, for arterial roads with a speed limit greater than 30mph, consider building a separated multi‐use trail in the vicinity of the road. Safety and convenience should be analyzed when determining whether to construct on‐ road or off‐road facilities. v Transit stops shall be ADA accessible and be connected to residential neighborhoods, commercial buildings, and retail shops by pedestrian and bicycle facilities. v Each road classification should have a typical road section that incorporates applicable bicycle and pedestrian facilities. v Maintain/preserve cross‐development access in new developments so that new construction does not block off planned biking/walking paths. v Provide a hearing process and public notification if a new development will block, disrupt, or interfere with an existing walk and/or bike route. v Provide posted signs and on‐road pavement markings to let motorists and bicyclists know when bike lanes end so that motorists and bicyclists know where/when to yield or merge. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 34 Farmington MPO Policies & Standards Chapter 5 v Publish the “rules of the road” for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists and make these publications available at public facilities such as libraries, city halls, motor vehicle division offices, and similar places. v Sweep highway shoulders and bike lanes on a regular basis to minimize debris that has the potential to cause accidents. v Preserve ROW for future facilities, use existing corridors, and ensure consistency with adopted plans. Bicycle and pedestrian projects can reduce or eliminate ROW acquisition costs when implemented in existing corridors. These policies and standards will be reviewed and amended to reflect proposed changes from the Federal Highway administration. The current USDOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including state DOTs, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. As these policies are outlined further the Farmington MPO Bicycle Pedestrian Plan will be amended accordingly to ensure compliance with all federal regulations. 5.2 BICYCLE and PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDED STANDARDS Standards provide specific criteria for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This enables users of the system to have certain expectations about where facilities are located, how they should look, and how they will function. The standards described here are recommended practices by the entities as they implement bicycle and pedestrian projects. Where applicable, it is strongly recommended that facilities are constructed based on guidelines set forth in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. For signage and markings, guidelines in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be followed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 35 Farmington MPO Policies & Standards Chapter 5 Facility Description Bicycle & Pedestrian Recommended Standards Sidewalks § Width § Buffer Zone § 4’ minimum (to meet ADA requirements) § 5’‐6’ recommended on minor/principal arterials and collectors § Between curb and sidewalk: 3’ minimum; 4’‐5’ recommended Curb Cuts § 2 curb cuts per corner § Install special texture at corners to identify crosswalk § See applicable ADA requirements (http://www.access‐board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm) Median Refuge Island § Recommend installing at intersections with roads of 5 lanes or more, where feasible Bicycle Lanes § Width § Lane Markings § Signage § 5’ minimum for all road classifications § Use appropriate markings as described in MUTCD § Use appropriate signage as described in MUTCD § Install signs alerting users to limited visibility areas Multi‐modal Paths § Location § Width § Markings § Corridors with minimal intersections and with available ROW § On rural roads in the vicinity of urban areas § 10’ minimum; 12’ recommended if used by both bicyclists and pedestrians § Use appropriate marking to delineate use by pedestrians and bicyclists Bicycle Routes § Install ‘share the road’ and ‘bicycle route’ signage as described in MUTCD § Provide additional lane width to outside travel lane where possible to accommodate bicyclists § Evaluate speed and volume of identified bike route corridors from a safety perspective Bicycle Traffic‐Actuated Signals § Ensure that loop detectors that detect bicycles are present at signalized intersections Special Bicycle Signal Timing § Provide additional time for bicycle movements through the intersection, where appropriate ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 36 Farmington MPO Policies & Standards Chapter 5 Additional Recommendations § Shoulders § Traffic Signals § Drainage Grates § Typically 8’ minimum for vehicle emergency § In lieu of sidewalks and/or bike lanes, provide 4’ minimum of asphalt for use by pedestrian/bicyclist, where feasible § Provide adequate green times for bicyclists § Provide adequate crossing time for pedestrians as outlined in MUTCD § Use countdown pedestrian signals § Install bars perpendicular to direction of travel ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 37 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 6 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 6.1 INTRODUCTION The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a federal‐aid program created by the 2005 transportation bill Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU). The purposes of the SRTS program are: v To enable and encourage children in elementary and middle schools, including those with disabilities, to walk or bicycle to school regularly, routinely and safely v To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation choice v To facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools Federal funding through this program was available to each state for fiscal years 2005‐2009. Continuation of funding for this program is contingent on the passage of a new transportation bill by Congress. The NMDOT Safe Routes to School Coordinator oversees the application process held annually. Any elementary school, school district, or municipality is eligible to apply. Applications consist of two phases: v Phase 1 – $15,000 to develop an action plan for a school. The action plan describes the needs and issues that impede walking and biking and developing strategies to overcome the issues. The strategies must address the 5 education, engineering, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. v Phase 2 – if an applicant has an action plan in place, they can apply for funding to implement the plan. This funding can be used for infrastructure improvements (e.g. build sidewalks) or non‐infrastructure activities (e.g. school walking event). Please visit www.nmsaferoutes.com for more information on the SRTS program, the application process, and awards previously given to schools in New Mexico. 6.2 CURRENT ACTIVITIES Although SRTS is relatively new at the federal level, many schools nationwide have started their own SRTS programs. Locally, the City of Farmington has hired a SRTS Coordinator to oversee the program. In 2008 a SRTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 38 Farmington MPO Safe Routes to School Chapter 6 Committee was created to perform SRTS activities. The committee consists of the Coordinator, staff from Traffic Engineering and the MPO, the Police Department, parent volunteers, and personnel from San Juan College and Farmington Municipal Schools. The City of Farmington was also successful in securing a $15,000 Phase I grant for the program. Each year, the City of Farmington issues Safe Walking Routes maps to the schools. The maps highlight pedestrian and bicycle facilities, crosswalks, and 15‐mph school zones within the vicinity of the school. 6.3 ANTICIPATED ACTIVITIES While the FMPO cannot directly apply for SRTS funding, it has made presentations to school boards and individual schools by request to inform them about the program and has encouraged their participation in SRTS. The FMPO is also willing to assist a school or an entity with their application. In the Spring of 2010, staff has been working with school and city personnel in Bloomfield in preparation for developing a SRTS program for the 2010‐2011 school year. Preparations include bringing together various stakeholders, identifying walking needs near the pilot school, and developing a list of possible SRTS activities. The role of the MPO in the SRTS program is primarily focused on evaluation. Staff conducts student arrival counts in the spring and fall at participating schools to track progress. These counts have been conducted at the three participating schools in Farmington since Fall 2008. One other possible MPO activity could be to assist with an assessment of schools to determine their potential as a SRTS candidate. Some criteria for the assessment may include: v Does the school have a high number of students living within two miles of the school? v Inventory the pedestrian and bicycle network around the school; highlight areas with good connection; identify missing sections or gaps in network. v Rate the quality and functionality of pedestrian amenities at intersections v Provide strategies to address safety concerns related to student pick‐up/drop‐ off. The FMPO will continue to encourage local agencies to participate in this program. Active SRTS programs help to achieve several goals and objectives as outlined in this plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 39 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 7 OTHER ELEMENTS RELATED TO BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLANNING 7.1 TRANSIT CONNECTIONS Effective public transportation is defined by routes that serve popular destinations, has reliable service, is cost‐ effective, and provides a reliable option as a mode choice. Transit is intrinsically linked to land development and mixed‐use activity centers. Furthermore, to support a fully multi‐modal system, pedestrian and bicycle facilities must be connected to transit. 1. Bus stops – All transit trips begin and end with a pedestrian trip. Whether one starts from home, work, or a parking lot, direct pedestrian connections to bus stops by sidewalks, paths, or trails are critical. 2. Buses equipped with bike racks – Many travelers start their trip by bicycle, take a bus, and complete their trip on bike again. Red Apple Transit has consistently equipped its fleet with bike racks and will continue to do so as buses are replaced and upgraded. 3. Transit Center – The location of an inter‐modal hub should be in close proximity to the urban core, with easy access to a variety of uses and safe connections to sidewalks, bike lanes, and other facilities. 7.2 ADA REQUIREMENTS New construction of sidewalks and intersection reconstruction are required to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Full requirements are found at http://www.access‐ board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm. A summary of requirements that will apply to new construction projects in the MPO are as follows: For Curb Ramps Location. Curb ramps shall be provided wherever an accessible route crosses a curb. Slope. Slopes of curb ramps shall have a 1:12 max slope. Transitions from ramps to walks, gutters, or streets shall be flush and free of abrupt changes. Maximum slopes of adjoining gutters, road surface immediately adjacent to the curb ramp, or accessible route shall not exceed 1:20. Width. The minimum width of a curb ramp shall be 36”, exclusive of flared sides. Surface. Surfaces of curb ramps shall be stable, firm, and slip‐resistant. Sides of Curb Ramps. If a curb ramp is located where pedestrians must walk across the ramp, or where it is not ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 40 Farmington MPO Other Elements Chapter 7 protected by handrails or guardrails, it shall have flared sides; the maximum slope of the flare shall be 1:10. Curb ramps with returned curbs may be used where pedestrians would not normally walk across the ramp. Built‐up Curb Ramps. Built‐up curb ramps shall be located so that they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes. Detectable Warnings. A curb ramp shall have a detectable warning, consisting of raised truncated domes with a diameter of nominal 0.9”, a height of nominal 0.2”, and a center‐to‐center spacing of nominal 2.35” and shall contrast visually with adjoining surfaces. The detectable warning shall extend the full width and depth of the curb ramp. Obstructions. Curb ramps shall be located or protected to prevent their obstruction by parked vehicles. Location at Marked Crossings. Curb ramps at marked crossings shall be wholly contained within the markings, excluding any flared sides. Diagonal Curb Ramps. If diagonal (or corner type) curb ramps have returned curbs or other well‐defined edges, such edges shall be parallel to the direction of pedestrian flow. The bottom of diagonal curb ramps shall have 48” minimum clear space. If diagonal curb ramps are provided at marked crossings, the 48” clear space shall be within the markings. If diagonal curb ramps have flared sides, they shall also have at least a 24” long segment of straight curb located on each side of the curb ramp and within the marked crossing. For Ramps General. Any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be considered a ramp. Slope and Rise. The least possible slope shall be used for any ramp. The maximum slope of a ramp in new construction shall be 1:12. Clear Width. The minimum clear width of a ramp shall be 36”. 7.3 EQUESTRIAN PLANNING Horseback riding is a popular activity in this area and there are times when riders need to use public highways to reach remote trail destinations. Horseback riders must ride defensively and always anticipate the unexpected. Interaction with bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists will often occur. Trail courtesy should be followed and respected when on multi‐use paths: bicyclists yield to pedestrians and each of these modes yield to horseback riders (see image below). ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 41 Farmington MPO Other Elements Chapter 7 The NMDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian/Equestrian (BPE) Committee distributes an Equestrian Awareness Brochure and the New Mexico Horse Council (www.nmhorsecouncil.org) provides rules on riding on public roads. Please consult these sources for more information. A few recommendations for proper riding behavior when on public highways include: v Ride with, not against traffic v Keep to the right as far from traffic as possible v Obey all regulatory signs and signals v When at an intersection, follow the same rules as a pedestrian 7.4 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is a plan developed by stakeholders who have a vested interest in improving pedestrian safety in their community. It is a guide designed to help those stakeholders know where to begin to address pedestrian safety issues, how to identify safety problems, and how to select optimal solutions. The safety action plan can indicate ways to improve pedestrian safety through street redesign and the use of engineering countermeasures as well as other safety‐related treatments and programs that involve the whole community (Federal Highway Administration “How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” February 2006). A typical pedestrian safety action plan includes the following steps: v Define Objectives v Identify Locations v Select Countermeasures v Develop an Implementation Strategy v Institutionalize Changes to Planning and Design Standards v Consider Land Use, Zoning and Site Design Issues v Reinforce Commitment v Evaluate Results In June 2007, NMDOT in partnership with FHWA conducted a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan workshop in the Farmington area. Those involved in the workshop ranged from planners and engineers to police officers and other walking advocates. The workshop developed the initial steps for creating a pedestrian safety action plan for this area. The FMPO will coordinate further work on the development of this safety plan in cooperation with a variety of local stakeholders. 7.5 MULTI‐MODAL PATHS AND ATV USE Cross‐country vehicles, such as All‐Terrain Vehicles (ATV) and motorbikes, are a popular off‐road recreation activity that occurs throughout many areas in and around the three cities. Miles of trails are available on BLM lands. As the cities continue to develop and annex county and BLM land, it is likely that some of these trails will become multi‐modal paths, as described earlier in this plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 42 Farmington MPO Other Elements Chapter 7 ATV users are required to stay on existing or designated roads and trails unless an area is specifically open for cross‐country travel. ATVs may not be operated on private property without the consent of the owner. All ATV users are required to follow ATV rules and safety regulations as outlined by New Mexico State Law. Often times, ATVs will interact with mountain biking and hikers. To ensure that one type of use does not interfere or disrupt another type of use, the following information is available from BLM on guidelines for using public lands: v Open Areas Open areas are available for all forms of cross‐country travel. Vehicles may be operated anywhere within the posted boundaries of open areas. v Limited‐Use Areas The majority of public lands are designated for limited use. In these areas, vehicle travel is limited to approved (or designated) routes of travel. No cross‐country vehicle travel is allowed in these areas. Approved routes of travel are most county roads, state highways, other roads and vehicle routes designated open to use through BLM's land‐use planning process. v Closed Areas Most closed areas are closed to all motor vehicle use by the general public. Hiking, bicycle riding, equestrian use, and other forms of non‐motorized recreation may be permitted in these areas. A few closed areas are closed to all use. These areas are closed for safety reasons or for the protection of special resource values which require a more stringent level of protection. No motorized or mechanized vehicles are allowed in wilderness areas. This includes mountain bikes. To prevent ATVs from using future multi‐modal paths and corridors, it will be important that the trails are clearly marked for intended use and that motorized vehicles are prohibited. Proper signage, and in some cases physical barriers, will be needed to ensure compliance with these rules. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 43 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 8 FUNDING SOURCES & STRATEGIES 8.1 INTRODUCTION There are several ways to secure funding for the proposed improvements described in this plan. Beyond common funding options from the federal, state, and local levels, the FMPO and the entities, along with other active participants, should proactively seek out other funding sources, whether through grants, private contributions, or creating a budget dedicated to funding the projects. Funding for the prioritized regional improvements will be a primary responsibility of the FMPO. If two or more local agencies are involved with funding a regional project, they can each provide their share of the required local match. The benefit is the full 15%‐20% required match would not fall onto one entity, but split accordingly by the participating agencies. Federal funding that is awarded to entities of the FMPO must be included in the TIP and subsequently added into the Statewide TIP (STIP). 8.2 FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES Walking and biking improvements that focus on serving a transportation commuting purpose stand the greatest chance of receiving federal funding. While not all‐ inclusive, many regional walking and biking improvements could be funded from the following programs: v National Highway System (NHS) – Used to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities located adjacent to roadways that are part of the NHS. v Surface Transportation Program (STP) – Used to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities that meet ADA requirements or non‐construction projects, such as maps or public service announcements. v Transportation Enhancements (TPE) – Part of the STP program, this source funds specific walking and biking improvements that create facilities, provide safety, or preserve rail corridors for conversion into walk/bike trails. v Hazard Elimination – Also part of STP, used for projects that provide safety or improve dangerous conditions for walkers and bicyclists. v Recreational Trails – Funding that is available for all types of trails projects. v Safe Routes to School (SRTS) – Focuses on the development of action plans or infrastructure improvements that improve safety and encourage more children to walk and bike to school. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 44 Farmington MPO Funding Chapter 8 8.3 FEDERAL FUNDING STRATEGIES The programs listed above are provided to the states based on formulas. They require application processes that determine the funding distribution. To secure funding, the FMPO and its members should: v Work closely with NMDOT and other State agencies to receive notice as to when funding is available and what is required through the application process. v Actively research and pursue other means to fund the regional projects 8.4 OTHER SOURCES The proposed improvements identified as local projects will likely be supported by local funding or through various grants. However, regional projects should not be excluded from receiving assistance from these sources either. v Local Funding – dedicate (or continue to dedicate) a portion of road funding in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to the construction or maintenance of new and existing facilities. v Parks Department ‐ dedicate (or continue to dedicate) a portion of the park’s department budget for the construction or maintenance of new and existing trails. v Grants – Investigate funding available from organizations that could assist with the development of on‐street and off‐road walking and biking facilities. Those involved with the development of this plan should actively pursue grant opportunities. v Contributions – Opportunities may present themselves where local land owners may negotiate with a city or the county to sell land to be used for recreational facility development. Contributions might also come from private companies or non‐profit organizations. 8.5 LOCAL FUNDING STRATEGIES To complement the development of the regional walking and biking system, local governments should consider: v Funding pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time new roads are built or existing roads are retrofitted. v Setting aside local funds that are dedicated to walking and biking improvements. v Road impact fees that may be used for motorized and non‐motorized improvements. Other types of strategies not described in these sections should be researched by the FMPO and its members in order to carry out the projects identified in this Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 45 Farmington MPO CHAPTER 9 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES In order for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan to be effective, there must be local buy‐in and acceptance of the goals, projects, and policies outlined in this document by the local agencies. Without their support, there is little assurance projects will be funded and that policies will be carried out and enforced. To that end, local adoption occurred shortly after FMPO adoption, indicating that all municipalities support and recognize the importance of the plan as well as the need to preserve corridors for future improvements. Strategy 1 – Responsibilities and Support The FMPO will coordinate the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. Activities will include: v Develop a prioritization process for regional projects as part of future updates v Seek federal funding and work with the local entities and NMDOT to obtain it v Monitor and update the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan as necessary v Ensure the plan is consistent with the 2035 MTP and other comprehensive transportation plans v Assist with development review to ensure new subdivisions and businesses follow approved policies v Consult with local organizations and the general public who are involved with walking and biking improvements The local governments will develop the elements of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. Activities will include: v Construct applicable walking and biking facilities in conjunction with maintenance projects v Incorporate applicable elements of this plan into local planning documents and processes v Dedicate local funding to the construction of new pedestrian and bicycle facilities v Modify the CIP to fund walking and biking improvements v Ensure that all traffic control plans comply with MUTCD v Review the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan as part of the subdivision and development review process v Coordinate local projects among the cities in preparation for the regional projects v Map out projects using assessor and township maps and aerial photography to better define locations for the projects ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 46 Farmington MPO Implementation Strategies Chapter 9 Strategy 2 – Multi‐modal Improvements The importance of incorporating multi‐modal aspects into all road projects is becoming increasing more critical. From the national level to the local level, legislation is being passed to implement “complete streets”, meaning roads must accommodate all types of users. The FMPO and its members should actively pursue ways to incorporate multi‐modal elements into new improvements. v Build typical road sections that include applicable bicycle and pedestrian facilities v Construct applicable bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the same time a new road is built v Use traffic calming where feasible to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety v Investigate roads that are good candidates for road diets (narrowing travel lanes to accommodate bike lanes) v Approve policies that heighten the awareness of walking and biking safety v Identify and develop pedestrian networks around transit stops and activity centers Strategy 3 – Educate and Encourage Walking and Biking Public awareness and acceptance of walking and biking as a viable means of transportation will require the use of effective education and encouragement methods. While the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan describes tools for providing more mode choice, there are several ways to get people involved and interested in walking and biking: v Create a system‐wide bicycle and pedestrian map for use by residents and visitors that illustrates facilities and trails and distances among popular destinations v Educate both motorists and bicyclists about the rules of the road. An effective tool could be a simple brochure for mass distribution that outlines responsibilities, right‐of‐way situations, and how to share the road. v Hold educational events for the public or at local schools (for example, sponsored by a police department) on the proper operation of a bicycle on the road network v Participate in national events (International Walk to School Day or Bike Week) to increase the awareness and importance of walking and biking v Advertise river trails and other off‐road recreational facilities to highlight the area’s assets ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 47 Farmington MPO Implementation Strategies Chapter 9 Strategy 4 – Maintain the Facilities Sufficient maintenance of current walking and biking facilities requires staff time and funding. Regular inspection, cleaning, and striping are important. The entities should continue to: v Clear debris (garbage, stones, broken glass) from bike lanes and sidewalks v Fix potholes and cracks in the pavement that present dangerous conditions to bicyclists v Install durable marking material for crosswalks v Regularly inspect pedestrian signals to ensure they work properly v Replace signage that may become damaged or vandalized Strategy 5 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities Pedestrians and bicyclists routinely need amenities to complement their walking or biking trip. Possible ideas for cities and local business to implement include: v Provide benches in high pedestrian activity centers v Install bike racks at all major civic and cultural buildings v Post signage to alert people where bike racks can be found v Post mileage signs indicating distance to popular destinations v Encourage businesses to build bike racks and provide lockers and showers for their employees who bike to work MPO Actions The Farmington MPO will investigate implementing these actions to further promote the plan: v Create a permanent bicycle and pedestrian committee to ensure that bicycle/pedestrian planning activities and projects constructed by the entities within the Farmington MPO are consistent with the strategies and policies outlined in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan v Create a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, which would be integrated into the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and would serve as a self‐contained document. v Collect data on bicycle and pedestrian trips in an effort to prioritize investments. v Establish bicycle/pedestrian targets for the creation of a mode split component in the MPO traffic model v Assist local governments and the school districts with applying for federal Safe Routes to School funding v Create a Bicycle Suitability Map v Create a budget that dedicates specific funding to bicycle and pedestrian projects annually ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 48 Farmington MPO Conclusion CONCLUSION The Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is a document that outlines goals and objectives expected to be achieved, identifies proposed projects and corridors to preserve to create a regional and local walking and biking network, describes policies and recommended standards to guide development, and provides funding and implementation strategies on how to carry out the plan. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan builds upon the efforts of local comprehensive plans and is integrated into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. This plan is focused on providing more mode choice for residents and visitors. It provides strategies for the local entities to incorporate walking and biking facilities into new roadway plans. The intention of this plan is to direct how this area should meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. The plan should be continually reviewed and revised to ensure it is an effective transportation document for bicycle and pedestrian planning. Through the support and efforts of the FMPO, its members, and the general public, the elements and projects outlined in this plan will be realized, helping this area to become a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 49 Farmington MPO APPENDIX A Survey Data Summary APPENDIX A – SURVEY DATA SUMMARY Biking Summary: The results of the MPO biking survey reveal the vast majority of people bike for either exercise (29%) or recreation There are percentages of people who bike to work to socialize (15%) and to shop Biking to school is also done, but at a very small percentage The highest numbers of bikers ride during the Summer, followed by the Spring and Fall, and with the winter being the least active time for bikers. The most frequent trip starting areas occur at intersections with Dustin and Butler. City parks are some of the destinations that people bike to; the most popular being Berg (15%) and Brookside Parks The school that people bike to most frequently is San Juan College San Juan Regional Medical Center as well as businesses along Butler Avenue and along 30 th Street have the highest number of employees biking to work. Bikers ride to shopping destinations such as Smiths Downtown Farmington and Safeway Other routes include La Plata Highway Foothills areas in Aztec and Kirtland and along NM 173 The typical routes used include Piñon Hills Boulevard, Main Street, 20 th Street, Dustin, 30 th Street, Butler, Foothills, and Sunrise Parkway. The deciding factors of why a biker would choose to ride on certain routes are the presence of bike lanes, followed by posted bike routes and secure bike parking. Short distances made some impact, whereas bike racks on buses and cost to own a car made relatively little impact on what routes were used and why a biker would choose to ride a bike over other forms of transportation. The survey indicated that wide paved shoulders, bike racks at the mall and shopping areas and San Juan College would be improvements that need to be made. Other improvements include dedicated bike paths, trail development and safe bike lanes on major thoroughfares such as NM 516. The top priorities for improvement, as shown in the surveys, include: 1. Continue bike lanes on Butler 2. Bike lanes on 30th 3. Downtown Farmington/Main St 4. 20th St 5. Bike lanes on E Main from PHB to city limits 6. Continue bike lanes on Foothills 7. NM 516 from Farmington to Aztec 8. LaPlata Hwy Walking Summary: The two main reasons people walk are for exercise (31%) and recreation The four other reasons people walk include ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 50 Farmington MPO APPENDIX A Survey Data Summary getting to work shopping socializing and going to school People walk most often during the summer. There is a slight drop off in the other months, but most walkers do continue walking throughout the year. Intersections on Dustin, Main and 30 th Street are some of the starting points for those walkers surveyed. Berg Park the Riverwalk and Brookside Park were listed as the most common park routes. San Juan College Ladera Elementary and Farmington High School are listed as the most common schools walked to. San Juan Regional and Downtown Farmington were listed as the places people walk to for employment. Shopping walking routes included Downtown Farmington and Animas Valley Mall Other walking destinations include the glade area and the College/Sandalwood/English area Walking routes include Dustin, Pinon Hills Boulevard, Main, Sunset, College, Auburn, Apache, and 20 th and 30 th Streets. The factors that most influenced the decision to walk are the presence of sidewalks, crosswalk facilities, short distances and ADA compliance. Neither the cost to own a car nor connection to transit was a huge factor in walking decisions. The highest walking improvement priorities shown in the surveys are: 1. Pedestrian Facilities on PHB 2. Pedestrian Facilities on E Main 3. Sidewalks on Foothills 4. Sidewalks on Butler 5. Sidewalks on 30th 6. Pedestrian Facilities on College Blvd 7. Sidewalks on Sunrise Pkwy 8. Sidewalks on Cliffside ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 51 Farmington MPO APPENDIX B Voting Results APPENDIX B – COMPLETE LIST OF VOTING RESULTS FROM THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY GROUP Map Num City or Area Location Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Location Type Surface Identified in other plans? Connects to Length (feet) EST. COST* TOTAL VOTES FROM BPAG 19 Aztec to Bloomfield Connect from Animas River trail to Bloomfield Hartman Park (Aztec) Blanco/Ruth Ln (Bloomfield) Multimodal Side path Asphalt MTP Bike Plan, north part of Aztec/ATOS “Chaco to Main” walking route parks, schools, residential 37300 $1,083,565 41 1 Farmington Old Railroad ROW north of Broadway from Downtown to Berg Park Downtown Berg Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines park, downtown 3200 $7,712 38 8 Farmington Butler to San Juan College along Sunrise Butler San Juan College Multimodal Side path Asphalt City of Farmington Bikeway Plan residential, college, transit 4700 $136,535 38 9 Farmington Path along arroyo from Lion’s Wilderness Park to Kingsway Lions Wilderness Park (amphitheatre) Kingsway/ Windsor Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Part of Farm. Parks future Animas R. – Lions Wild. Park trail residential, parks, school 7000 $16,870 23 20 Bloomfield, County, Farmington Connect Bloomfield to Crouch Mesa (CR 3900 and termini of PHB extension) along CR 5573 CR 3950/ PHB trail extension CR 5573/ US 550 Multimodal Side path Asphalt MTP Bike Plan route 15000 $435,750 21 30 Farmington Ladera School arroyo Dustin/38th (Ladera Elem School) 20th/ Butler (Smith’s) Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Residential, school, park 6900 $16,629 20 3 Farmington Continue river trail from Boyd Park to Berg Park along Animas River Boyd Park Berg Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed future facility parks, downtown, school 4000 $9,640 18 16 Farmington New trail in/around Pinon Hills Golf Course Butler/Sunrise Farmington Ave/30th Street Dirt or gravel trail Off‐road Crusher fines transit, residential 9100 $21,931 17 25 County (Kirtland) *Kirtland bike walk path Troy King/ Twin Pk CR 6675/ CR 6100 Bike rte; Multimodal path On‐road, Side path existing, Asphalt MTP Bike Plan route residential 14100 $409,605 17 32 Farmington Brookside Park Glade/Auburn 20th/Dustin Multimodal Multimodal path Concrete Park 2500 $116,600 16 34 Farmington Browning Pkwy US 64 NM 516/ East Main Multimodal Side path Asphalt MTP Bike Plan proposed bike lanes 10100 $293,405 16 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 52 Farmington MPO APPENDIX B Voting Results APPENDIX B – COMPLETE LIST OF VOTING RESULTS FROM THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY GROUP – Continued Map Num City or Area Location Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Location Type Surface Identified in other plans? Connects to Length (feet) EST. COST* TOTAL VOTES FROM BPAG 17 Farmington New trail from Mesa Verde School to north end of Farmington Avenue Mesa Verde (College Blvd) Farmington Ave/30th Street Dirt or gravel trail Off‐road Crusher fines school, residential 2300 $5,543 15 18 Aztec to Farmington Animas River trail from east Farmington to Riverside Park in Aztec Animas River (south of Farmington Lake) Hartman Park (Aztec) Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Aztec, MTP residential, parks 34000 $81,940 14 55 Aztec, Bloomfield Bloom.‐Aztec Hike/Mtn Bike trail Wilderness Park (west of Ruth) S. Rio Grande (Aztec) Multimodal (mtn bike/ hike) Off‐road Crusher fines City of Bloomfield Aztec, Bloomfield (Regional) 40800 $98,328 14 14 Farmington/ County Pinon Hills Blvd from 30th St to NM 170 & Twin Peak Rd from NM 170 to Troy King Road PHB/30th Twin Peak/Troy King Rd. Bike lanes On‐road Asphalt MTP Bike route park, residential 12350 $504,621 13 21 Bloomfield Farmington Path parallel to US 64 Andrea/US 64 Ruth Ln/US 64 Multimodal Side path Asphalt MTP Bike Plan route Bloomfield, Farmington (Regional) 42000 $1,220,100 13 41 Aztec, County, Farmington North Farmington‐Aztec route Farmington Lake US 550/ NM 173 (Navajo Dam Road) Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Aztec, Farmington (Regional) 44500 $107,245 13 75 Farmington, County Animas River GatewayPark Farmington Lake Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed MTP Bike Plan Path Regional (for recreation); parks, residential 25100 $60,491 13 36 Farmington Pinon Hills Path PHB/30th PHB/East Main (NM 516) Multimodal Side path Asphalt East and west Farmington (Regional) 29300 $851,165 12 65 Farmington, County Animas River/East Main GatewayPark FarmingtonLake Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks potential; MTP Bike Plan Path Parks 42300 $101,943 12 71 Farmington, County La Plata River SportsComplex JacksonLk Junction Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Park proposed; MTP Bike Plan Path Regional (for recreation) 22400 $53,984 12 29 Farmington Pipeline R/W north of 38th Pinon Hills Blvd. College Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines residential, park 14500 $34,945 11 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 53 Farmington MPO APPENDIX B Voting Results APPENDIX B – COMPLETE LIST OF VOTING RESULTS FROM THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY GROUP – Continued Map Num City or Area Location Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Location Type Surface Identified in other plans? Connects to Length (feet) EST. COST* TOTAL VOTES FROM BPAG 7 Farmington Auburn wash to Brookside, south to Apache School Auburn/Boyd/Glade Apache/ existing Glade trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed future facility parks, school 4500 $10,845 10 46 Aztec Riverside Trail North end of River trail Ruins Road Trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Aztec Parks 1200 $34,860 10 63 Farmington, County Glade Road PHB/GladeRd FarmLakeTrail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks potential; MTP Bike Plan Path 20400 $49,164 10 76 Farmington drainage ditch E Main/Cliffside Beckland Hills Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed Residential, parks, retail 4600 $11,086 10 4 Farmington Extend Harbor Lane to the Nature Center (and Berg Park) Harbor Lane/Southside River Rd Animas River Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines residential, park 2500 $6,025 9 15 Farmington New trail from Animas Park to top of mesa (CR 3000) along Burnham Rd Animas Park CR 3000 (top of mesa) Dirt or gravel trail Off‐road Crusher fines park 3200 $7,712 9 43 Farmington San Juan and East Main San Juan/Butler E Main/ Piñon Hills Wide sidewalk/bike path (south) Side path Asphalt MTP Bike Plan (bike lns) Residential, retail 24500 $711,725 9 72 Farmington La Plata River WestlandPark SportsComplex Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed Recreation, parks 6700 $16,147 9 12 Farmington Riverwalk to Northridge Park along Sullivan Road Sullivan/San Juan Blvd Northridge Park (Carlton/ 36th) Bike lanes On‐road and Off‐road Asphalt parks, residential, school NOTE: 4100 ft bike lanes, 900 path $26,965 8 38 Bloomfield Blanco Blvd. (east) US 550 N (1st St) US 64 Bike lanes and sidewalks On‐road Concrete City of Bloomfield, MTP Bike Plan Residential, school 14200 $830,700 8 77 Farmington Glade drainage Brookhaven Pk Glade Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed Residential, parks 3300 $7,953 8 80 Farmington Glade drainage Glade Park Glade Rd Trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed Regional (for recreation) 11300 $27,233 8 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 54 Farmington MPO APPENDIX B Voting Results APPENDIX B – COMPLETE LIST OF VOTING RESULTS FROM THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY GROUP – Continued Map Num City or Area Location Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Location Type Surface Identified in other plans? Connects to Length (feet) EST. COST* TOTAL VOTES FROM BPAG 2 Farmington New path connecting Berg Park to Fairgrounds Park Scott/San Juan Blvd Fairgrounds/ Main Multimodal On‐road and Off‐road Asphalt parks NOTE: 2200 path and 2250 on‐ road $64,360 7 33 Farmington Farmington Avenue 15th 30th Sidewalks (E side only) On‐road Concrete Residential, Library 3400 $99,110 7 37 County CR 350 US 64 NM 516 Bike lanes On‐road Asphalt Crouch Mesa, Flora Vista (Regional) 39700 $1,622,142 7 50 Aztec Riverside Trail A Existing Riverside Pk loop trail 50acre open space Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Aztec Downtown, park 3000 $7,230 7 51 Aztec Riverside Trail B Existing river trail Existing Riverside Pk loop trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Aztec Downtown, park 800 $1,928 7 52 Aztec Ditch Trail North of trail Riverside Trail A Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Aztec Downtown, park 2400 $5,784 7 60 Farmington Glade Glade/Auburn Glade/30th Sidewalks On‐road Concrete Farmington Parks potential Residential, park 5700 $332,310 7 13 Farmington New trail from Foothills to Sandalwood to Hood Mesa Trail Hood Mesa Foothills Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines park, residential 7400 $17,834 6 40 Farmington Riverwalk‐Animas Park Riverwalk/ US 64 Animas R. Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Residential, park 4150 $10,002 6 44 Aztec Chaco & Main Walk Chaco/NM 516 Hartman Park (Aztec) Pedestrian Walking Rte On‐road Concrete Aztec Park 3960 $115,434 6 49 Aztec Oliver‐McWilliams trail 50 acre open space Ruins Road trail junction Multimodal On‐ and Off‐ road Concrete, Asphalt City of Aztec Residential, school, park NOTE: 8600 on‐road and 4600 path $986,406 6 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 55 Farmington MPO APPENDIX B Voting Results APPENDIX B – COMPLETE LIST OF VOTING RESULTS FROM THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY GROUP – Continued Map Num City or Area Location Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Location Type Surface Identified in other plans? Connects to Length (feet) EST. COST* TOTAL VOTES FROM BPAG 56 Bloomfield Vereda de Rio SJ to Broadway Existing Vereda trail US 64/ arroyo Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Bloomfield Residential, park 6400 $15,424 6 61 Farmington Animas River/East Main Animas Riv Park GatewayPark Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks potential Retail, parks 3500 $8,435 6 74 Farmington, County Animas River SanJuan/AnimasRive r junction Boyd Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed MTP Bike Plan Path Regional (for recreation); parks, residential 5500 $13,255 6 5 Farmington Connect Mossman Gladden Park to Malta/Broadway Camino Real area Malta/ Broadway Multimodal Side path Asphalt residential, downtown, park, school 1300 $37,765 5 59 Farmington 30th Street PHB/30th Dustin/30th Multimodal Side path Asphalt Farmington Parks potential Residential, school, park 4300 $124,915 5 64 Farmington, County FarmingtonLake Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks potential 43700 $105,317 5 66 Farmington LionsWildPk FarmLakeTrail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks Planned 15800 $38,078 5 70 Farmington, County San Juan River River Bend Park SouthGlade Trail Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks potential; MTP Bike Plan Path Residential, park 13100 $31,571 5 73 Farmington, County San Juan River SanJuan/AnimasRive r junction CR 5500 Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed Regional (for recreation) 44000 $106,040 5 10 Farmington North English extension current terminus to Hood Mesa Trail North English Hood Mesa Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Might duplicate Farmington Parks trail (to be constructed by 2008/09) residential, park 4600 $11,086 4 47 Aztec Main Street Connector Main/US 550 Martinez Lane Trail Multimodal On‐ and Off‐ road Crusher fines City of Aztec Downtown, Aztec Ruins 2500 $78,650 4 58 Bloomfield Gallegos wash Bergin‐Church path Blanco (east of Church) Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Bloomfield Residential, school 1700 $4,097 4 62 Farmington South Glade trail Murray BrookHavenPk Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks potential Parks, transit 2400 $5,784 4 79 Farmington, County San Juan River SanJuan/AnimasRive r junction River Bend Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed Regional (for recreation) 11300 $27,233 4 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 56 Farmington MPO APPENDIX B Voting Results APPENDIX B – COMPLETE LIST OF VOTING RESULTS FROM THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY GROUP – Continued 7 City or Area Location Road/Facility Name From Road/ Place To Road/ Place Type of facility Location Type Surface Identified in other plans? Connects to Length (feet) EST. COST* TOTAL VOTES FROM BPAG 48 Aztec Martinez Lane Trail Chaco/ Main Trail Junction Multimodal On‐ and Off‐ road Crusher fines City of Aztec Aztec Ruins, School 7650 $240,669 3 57 Bloomfield Bergin to Church path Mesa Alta Jr. High Church Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines City of Bloomfield Residential, school 3000 $7,230 3 68 Farmington Orchard Orchard/Pinon Orchard/Bdwy Multimodal On‐road Concrete Farmington Parks potential Downtown 1800 $52,470 3 6 Farmington Connect Boyd Park to Oscar Thomas Park to Downtown Boyd Park Downtown Multimodal On‐road and Off‐road Concrete, Asphalt parks, downtown 2250 path and 1500 on‐ road $109,388 2 22 Farmington, County From Andrea/Wildflower, connect #18, #20 and #21 trails along proposed PHB extension Andrea/US 64 PHB/ CR 390 Multimodal Side path Asphalt Included as part of Pinon Hills Blvd (PHB) extension; MTP Bike Plan route residential, retail 26000 $755,300 2 35 Farmington Hogan‐Foothills Connector Hogan/Monteagle Foothills/ Evergreen Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Residential, school, park 900 $2,169 2 54 Bloomfield Fifth Street north Fifth St/ US 64 Fifth St/ Blanco Multimodal Side path Asphalt City of Bloomfield Residential, school, transit 2700 $78,435 2 67 Farmington Auburn Auburn/Murray downtown Multimodal On‐road Concrete Farmington Parks potential Downtown 3500 $204,050 2 78 Farmington Glade drainage Glade Park Brookside Park Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Farmington Parks proposed Residential, parks 2300 $5,543 2 11 Farmington/ County Wildflower Parkway Browning Pkwy CR 3962 Multimodal Side path Asphalt Was a City of Farmington MAP project; MTP Bike Route residential 4400 $127,820 1 31 Farmington Pipeline R/W south of 30th Dustin Farmington Ave Multimodal Off‐road Crusher fines Parallels MTP proposed bike lanes on 30th park, residential 4450 $10,725 1 69 Farmington Quince Auburn/Bell BoydPark Multimodal On‐ and off‐ road Crusher fines Farmington Parks potential Downtown, park 2700 $6,507 1 * Estimate based on cost of construction material times length of project. No engineering, ROW, etc costs are available at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 57 Farmington MPO APPENDIX C Criteria for Improvements APPENDIX C – CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AND RANKING REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS • Economic Vitality ‐ Transportation costs for motorized vehicles may prevent persons from seeking work in the MPO area and elsewhere. By improving walking and biking facilities, and especially walking and biking connections to transit, options become available to facilitate transportation to employment areas for persons who otherwise give up seeking work because of transportation issues. Biking and walking improvements that lead to greater transit use may benefit area employers as well by providing them a larger pool of applicants. Criteria: Will the pedestrian/bicycle improvement provide a direct link from a residential neighborhood to employment and to transit? Criteria: Does the improvement provide a travel or recreational option for tourists to this area? Criteria: Can the project improve quality of life by providing multimodal alternatives? • Safety – Facilities for pedestrians and cyclists should have as few conflict points as possible. Intersections are the areas of the most interactions among motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Visual obstructions (high walls, overgrowth) should be kept to a minimum and buffer zones between sidewalks and high‐speed, high‐volume roads should be provided wherever possible. Adequate lighting is needed for off‐street facilities. Bike racks should be available at civic buildings and at major employment centers. Criteria: Does the improvement provide pedestrian amenities (lighting, painted crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc) that could reduce accidents and fatalities? Criteria: Does the improvement require bicyclists to interact with vehicles? Criteria: Does the project provide a wide shoulder for a cyclist? • Accessibility, Mobility & Congestion ‐ The site‐specific conditions that make it easier/difficult to get in and out of a destination. Accessibility would consider walking and biking improvements and ADA‐compliance for facilities located within a development/activity center as well a 1/4 mile around the center. Mobility determines the flow of travel and congestion occurs when volumes are higher than the road’s capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 58 Farmington MPO APPENDIX C Criteria for Improvements Increase the number of destinations that are accessible by pedestrian and bicycle routes sidewalks, bike lanes, and multimodal paths). Destinations include: a) Schools and school bus routes. b) Parks and cultural facilities c) Major employment centers d) Government buildings e) Shopping centers f) Other community facilities such as places of worship and non‐profit civic associations. g) Transit stops. h) High density residential areas Criteria: Does the pedestrian/bicycle improvement serve and increase accessibility to one or more of these destinations? Criteria: Is the improvement located within a ¼ mile of a transit stop and ADA compliant? • Integration and Connectivity ‐ The network‐level conditions that make it easier/difficult to get from one destination to another. This would include the links that serve between activity centers, major intersections, and critical corridors. Increase the number of destinations that are connected by pedestrian and bicycle routes sidewalks, bike lanes, and multimodal paths). Destinations include: a) Schools (elementary through college) b) Parks and cultural centers c) Major Employment centers d) Government buildings e) Shopping centers f) Other community facilities such as places of worship and non‐profit civic associations. g) Transit locations h) High density residential neighborhoods Criteria: How many of the identified destinations are connected by the pedestrian/bicycle improvement? • Funding & Costs – Some pedestrian and bicycle improvements can be integrated into road construction costs. Others, which may be stand alone or entirely new facilities, will typically involve higher costs. Criteria: Can the improvement be completed simultaneously during new road construction or during retrofit? Criteria: Does the project provide a significant benefit to the region at a low cost? ---PAGE BREAK--- Adopted June 12, 2008; Updated June 10, 2008 59 Farmington MPO Acronym List ACRONYM LIST AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management BPAG Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Group BPE Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian DOT United States Department of Transportation EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final environmental impact statement FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMPO Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal year LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MPO Metropolitan planning organization MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NHS National Highway System NMDOT New Mexico Department of Transportation Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments NWRPO Northwest Regional Planning Organization PC Policy Committee of the Farmington MPO PPP Public Participation Plan ROW Right‐of‐Way SAFETEA‐ LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users SRTS Safe Routes to School STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program TC Technical Committee of the Farmington MPO TPE Transportation Enhancements TIP Transportation Improvement Program UPWP Unified Planning Work Program USDOT United States Department of Transportation