Document Moscow_doc_54f412c781

ESTABLISHING MULTI-MODAL STRATEGIES I CHAPTER 4 ROADWAY & TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STRATEGY To serve planned growth, the future transportation system needs multi-modal improvements and strategies to manage the forecasted travel demand. This chapter presents a detailed strategy to improve Moscow’s roadway network and traffic operations over the next 20 years, including network connectivity options, regional circulation enhancements, intersection modifications, and multi-modal street design guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move I 4-1 Supporting the guiding principles of Moscow on the Move, the Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy strives to provide a truly multi-modal transportation system and improve safety, access, and mobility for all street users by identifying strategies, policies, and projects that help achieve Moscow’s vision for mobility and access. This strategy of Moscow on the Move identifies opportunities to retrofit existing streets in Moscow and develops the street grid to improve citywide connectivity for motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. This strategy specifically provides an overview of the existing traffic conditions and how conditions might change by 2035, a street network plan, various design tools that could be applied throughout the city, and descriptions of recommended street projects. FUTURE DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS Existing and future roadway and traffic operation conditions were assessed to determine the needs and deficiencies of the system. The key areas projected to require improvement or to present future challenges are summarized below. Roadway Connectivity Within the city limits, Moscow has a fairly well-connected street network overall; however, the area adjacent to the City limits, just inside and outside, will require new minor arterial and collector connections. As development occurs, future connections will need to be made to the existing street network. Considering Moscow as four quadrants, divided by US-95 in the north-south direction and SH-8 in the east-west direction, there are some connectivity issues, particularly in the northwest and southwest quadrants.  In the northwest quadrant, there are no arterial streets connecting US-95 and SH-8. A Street is a minor arterial that is used as an alternative to SH-8, but it is primarily residential in nature. The only other street providing connectivity between these routes is C Street, a local street that is not an appropriate route for providing connectivity between a national highway and a principal arterial.  In the southwest quadrant, connectivity is limited by the University of Idaho campus. There are no arterial routes connecting SH-8 and US-95, and the collectors that connect these key routes go through the University campus.  There is limited development in the southeast quadrant with large parcels used for agriculture.  With the exception of Third Street, connectivity in the northeast quadrant is relatively good, with several arterials and collectors providing east-west connectivity and Mountain View Road providing north-south connectivity. Connections north of SH-8 are partially blocked by the cemetery. A parallel route to Mountain View Road further to the east would be beneficial. This Transportation Commission “check mark” icon signifies which actions have unanimous support from the Commission. The icon is a way to illustrate the level of support for implementation. 4 ROADWAY & TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STRATEGY ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-2 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Neighborhood Traffic With the lack of arterial and collector street connectivity described above, motor vehicles are likely to use travel routes that are not desirable for through traffic, such as local streets in residential areas. Intersection Operations With planned growth both in the City of Moscow and the region through 2035, there is need for capacity improvements at select study intersections. The forecasted 2035 growth was first evaluated for a baseline network condition that assumes the existing transportation system plus reasonably fundable improvements would be in place. This provides a future baseline condition to compare to other scenarios and measures the benefits of roadway improvements. Reasonably fundable improvements may not have a dedicated funding source today but are considered likely to be constructed by the 2035 horizon year. Roadway projects identified as reasonably fundable by 2035 within the City include:  A Street/Line Street – relocate stop signs with A Street uncontrolled and Line Street stop sign controlled, add separate northbound right turn lane with eastbound receiving lane on A Street, and close north leg of intersection  Sixth Street/Mountain View Road – considering roundabout installation  Mountain View improvements including the Mountain View/SH8 signal  A Street extension Several locations in the transportation system do not have adequate roadway capacity to serve the expected 2035 travel needs. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) requires Level of Service (LOS) C at intersections within urban areas. LOS C is a relatively high standard to apply in an urban environment and may trigger the need for transportation investments (such as wider roadways) that do not support local goals. LOS D was used to evaluate City study intersections, which would allow higher vehicle delay and potentially support complete street projects. In general, study intersections would experience an increase in traffic volume, which would result in higher vehicle delays. Under the 2035 baseline scenario, several study intersections are expected to operate below standard (LOS D at signalized intersections and LOS E at unsignalized intersections) during the evening peak hour:  SH-8/US-95 (South Couplet) would operate at LOS D  US-95/Styner Avenue/Lauder Avenue would operate at LOS F on the side street  SH-8/Styner Avenue/White Avenue would operate at LOS F on the side street  Sixth Street/Mountain View Road would operate at LOS E on the side street  White Avenue/Mountain View Road would operate at LOS E on the side street  Line Street/A Street would operate at LOS F on the side street The remaining study intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the evening peak hour. Intersections studied for Moscow on the Move The following 18 intersections were evaluated while developing this Plan:  SH-8/Farm Road  A Street/Line Street  SH-8/Line Street  Third Street/Jackson Street  Sixth Street/Jackson Street  Third Street/Main Street  Sixth Street/Main Street  Third Street/Washington Street  Sixth Street/Washington Street  SH-8/US-95  US-95/Styner Avenue/Lauder Avenue  SH-8/White Avenue/Styner Avenue  Third Street/Hayes Street  Sixth Street/Hayes Street  SH-8/Mountain View Road  SH-8/Mountain View Road  Sixth Street/Mountain View Road  D Street/Mountain View Road ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-3 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Safety A review of historic ITD collision data reporting and a survey of the city’s roadway system were conducted to help identify motor vehicle safety needs. The locations with the highest number of vehicle collisions recorded were on SH- 8 intersections at Farm Road (37 collisions reported in five years), at Peterson Drive (35 collisions reported in five years), and in the section from Lilly Street to Jackson Street. An overall contributing factor is that SH-8 west of downtown carries the highest volume of traffic in the City. A field survey of the Farm Road and Peterson Drive intersections on SH-8 was conducted and found no apparent contributing factors to indicate inherent safety issues. Both intersections provide adequate sight distance, appropriate intersection geometry, and roadway signals, signing, and striping are in good condition for all users. A field survey of SH-8 between Lilly Street and Jackson Street found several factors that could be contributing to safety issues (more than 50 collisions reported in five years). There are many active alleys and driveways along the corridor located close to intersections and other driveways. A moderate number of vehicles were observed entering and exiting the driveways, which resulted in potential vehicle conflicts and reduced the capacity of SH-8. Pedestrians were observed crossing SH-8 both at the designated crossings and mid-block where there are no pedestrian crossing treatments. A field survey of the roadway striping on Sixth Street at Jackson Street currently has the eastbound through lane aligned with the westbound left turn lane, which is likely contributing to a safety issue (24 collisions reported in five years). This intersection configuration requires eastbound through traffic to maneuver from the center lane to the outside lane over a short distance within an intersection. The safety concern is non-attentive drivers traveling eastbound through the intersection may not transition to the appropriate lane and a head-on collision could occur. Existing roadway striping on Sixth Street at Jackson Street Has the eastbound through lane aligned with the westbound left turn lane, which could lead to a head-on collision. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES To serve planned growth, the future transportation system needs multi-modal improvements and strategies to manage the forecasted travel demand. The extent and nature of the needed multi-modal improvements for Moscow are significant. The impact of future growth will be significant without investment in transportation improvements. Strategies for meeting automobile facility needs include the following:  Network Connectivity Improvements  Regional Circulation Enhancements  Intersection Modifications  Multi-modal Street Design Standards ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-4 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan The following sections outline the type of improvements necessary for a long-range transportation plan. Phasing of implementation will be necessary since all of the improvements cannot be done at once. This will require prioritization of projects and periodic updating of the plan to reflect current needs. Most importantly, it will be understood that the improvements are a guide to managing the impact of growth in Moscow as it occurs over the next 20 years. Network Connectivity Improvements There are a number of locations in Moscow where, due to the lack of alternative routes, traffic is channeled through a single street, corridor, or neighborhood access. A well-connected transportation network ensures that travel by motorists, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit is direct and reduces vehicle miles traveled within the city. Several roadway extension projects are recommended to:  Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by limiting out of way travel patterns for all modes  Disperse traffic levels between various streets  Limit traffic cut-through on the University of Idaho campus  Provide an adequate roadway system for future local development  Reduce emergency vehicle response times and improve public safety A poorly-connected street system can result in the need for wider roads, traffic signals, and turn lanes, which can negatively impact overall traffic flow. A number of potential arterial and collector street connections that were identified in the Thoroughfare Plan and discussed at public meetings were tested in the travel demand model to determine how much traffic is likely to use each route. Routes were evaluated based on the Motor Vehicle Evaluation Criteria developed for this plan (presented in Chapter The potential roadway connections evaluated are summarized below. The potential Third Street Bridge at Paradise Creek (west of Mountain View Road) was evaluated separately and is presented in the following section.  Trail Road: Orchard Avenue to Mix Road  Darby Road: Mountain View Road to Orchard Avenue  Thatuna Avenue: Extend east to Mountain View Road  Third Street: Mountain View Road to D Street and Mountain View Road extension (from west to east, then south to north)  D Street: Extend to Robinson Park Road  F Street: Extend east to Third Street extension  Carmichael Road: SH-8 to Notting Hill Drive  Blaine Street: Palouse River Drive to SH-8  A Street: Farm Road to Warbonnet Drive  Farm Road: A Street to Mix Road  Baker Street: A Street to Farm Road  Rodeo Drive: Main Street (US-95) to Almon Street The daily forecast 2035 traffic volumes for the street network with the potential roadway connections in place are shown in Figure 4-1. These potential roadway connections were found to help disperse both existing traffic volumes and traffic growth forecasted for 2035. Figure 4-2 assesses future daily volumes on the future connections and existing roadways. A potential Thatuna Avenue extension looking west from Mountain View Road was one of the road sectons evaluated. Image from DKS Associates ---PAGE BREAK--- n n G Æc " " " " n D St F St A St Polk Extension Palouse River Dr Almon St C St Baker St First St Main St Blaine St B St Itani Dr White Ave Lynn Ave Logan St Lilly St Line St Taylor Ave Mountain View Rd Harrison St Asbury St Morton St Public Ave Mabelle St Sixth St Alturas Dr Park Dr Grant St Moser St Elm St Sweet Ave Third St Farm Rd Daves Ave Concord Ave Nursery St Garfield St Eighth St Fifth St Conestoga Dr Fairview Dr Pintail Ln Adams St Granville St Lenter St Mckinley St Kenneth St Cleveland St Styner Ave Hayes St Shoshone St Lieuallen St Weymouth St Slonaker Dr Quail Run Dr Residence St Empire Ln Mountain View Rd Panorama Dr Ford St Ridge Rd Susan Dr Southview Ave Victoria Dr Washington St Levick St Lincoln St Colt Rd Lexington Ave Brent Dr Lewis St Stadium Dr Britton Ln College St Hirschi Rd Lemhi Dr Joseph St Ash St Cambridge Ct Homestead St Jefferson St Damen St Crestview Dr Jackson St Ekes Rd Flint St Sixth St Rodeo Dr E St Harold St Arborcrest Rd Hayes St B St Orchard Ave Third St Adams St Blaine St Sixth St White Ave A St Sixth St Sixth St Mountain View Rd N ez Per ce Dr Old Pullman Rd Perime t er Dr D St Blaine St Palouse River Dr W A St Warbonet Dr Mountain View Rd Mountain View Rd Darby Rd Trail Rd Robinson Park Rd Robinson Park Rd Lenville Rd Farm Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Plant Science Rd Carmichael Rd Palouse River Dr WalMart Goodwill City Hall Friendship Square University of Idaho Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place Gritman Medical Center Moscow Jr. High Moscow Senior High Intermodal Transit Center 1912 Center Moscow Charter School Disability Action Center 550 2,000 3,150 2,700 3,700 1,000 3,000 1,000 150 900 2,000 1,200 1,000 -1,500 -600 -300 -3,000 -2,500 -2,300 -1,000 -700 4,000 50 0 0.25 0.5 Miles WASHINGTON U V 8 IDAHO 95 Data Sources: City of Moscow, State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS U V 8 95 State Boundary Trails Downtown District University of Idaho City Limits Future Roadway Connection Æc Library Civic/Social n School Shopping G Medical Major Transit Stop " Figure 4-1 Future Roadway Connections XXXX -XXX 2035 Daily Volume 2035 Volume Change with New Connections To Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport To Lewiston To Troy To Potlatch / Palouse ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-7 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Figure 4-2 Daily Forecast Volumes on Proposed Roadway Connections (2035) Location Existing Daily Volume 2035 Daily Volume 2035 Daily Volume with Connections Proposed Connections Trail Road Extension - - 550 east of Polk 2,000 west of Polk 3,150 west of US-95 Darby Road Extension - - 150 Thatuna Avenue Extension - - 1,000 Third Street Extension - - 900 – 1,200 D Street Extension - - 2,000 F Street Extension - - 50 Carmichael Road Extension - - 800 – 1,000 Blaine Street Extension - - 50 A Street Extension - - 3,000 Farm Road Extension - - 2,700 – 3,700 Baker Street Extension - - 1,000 Rodeo Drive Extension - - 4,000 Existing Roadways A Street east of Line Street 8,200 13,000 10,500 SH-8 east of Farm Road 21,000 24,000 21,000 Mountain View Road south of Sixth Street 8,500 9,200 8,200 SH-8 west of White Avenue 13,500 17,300 15,800 Third Street west of Almon Street 18,600 23,000 22,300 Main Street north of D Street 18,000 21,000 17,700 Nez Pierce Drive west of Blake Avenue 5,400 6,500 6,200 Styner Avenue east of US-95 5,800 8,500 7,900 Source: City of Moscow historic count data, DKS Associates travel demand model forecasts The key findings from the future roadway assessment include:  The proposed F Street, Darby Street, and Blaine Street connections are not expected to carry significant traffic volumes but would provide an important connection for pedestrians, bicyclists, and local motor vehicle trips  The extensions of Trail Road, Farm Road, A Street, D Street, and Rodeo Road would serve significant traffic volumes (over 2,000 vehicles per day in 2035)  Several existing roadways would operate with current traffic levels in 2035 with the connections in place, such as portions of SH-8, Mountain View Road, and Main Street RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action RT1. Improve roadway connectivity for all users by expanding the collector and minor arterial street system with the high priority roadway projects described in the Action Manual (Chapter ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-8 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Third Street Bridge Third Street is designated as a collector west of Hayes Street in the City’s Thoroughfare Plan. It provides connectivity between downtown and residential neighborhoods, terminating at Paradise Creek just west of Mountain View Road, a minor arterial providing key access north and south on the east side of Moscow. Third Street has a gap approximately 250 feet west of Mountain View Road and traffic traveling between downtown and the east side of Moscow must divert to parallel routes such as D Street approximately 2,000 feet to the north and Sixth Street approximately 1,000 feet to the south. Sixth Street is classified as a collector, D Street is classified as a minor arterial and both provide a direct link between downtown and Mountain View Road. If Third Street were to be connected, it would provide a direct connection between downtown Moscow and Mountain View Road and neighborhoods on the east side of town. It would also provide a key connection for pedestrians and bicyclists in an area where east-west connectivity is lacking. The connection would require an approximately 60-foot bridge between Roosevelt Street and Mountain View Road. Key issues and concerns to address in the evaluation include:  Connecting Third Street may attract additional traffic volume to the route from B Street or Sixth Street at the east end of the route (likely between Hayes Street and Mountain View Road)  Third Street is fronted by residential (single- and multi-family) property  Lena Whitmore Elementary School is located on Blaine Street approximately 100 feet north of Third Street  East City Park is located on Third Street between Hayes Street and Monroe Street The Third Street Bridge project was evaluated under three alternatives to allow a comparison of findings, such as future traffic volumes and changes in neighborhood travel patterns. A description of the alternatives with potential benefits and impacts are described below. Third Street looking east at Paradise Creek, west of Mountain View Road, is one opportunity to improve connectivity between residential neighborhoods and downtown Moscow. Image from DKS Associates ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-9 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Alternative 1: Pedestrian and bicycle connection only  Provides a much needed pedestrian and bicycle connection, reducing out-of-direction travel for these modes significantly.  Currently, pedestrians and people on bicycles near Roosevelt Street/ Third Street trying to reach Mountain View Road/Third Street are required to divert via one of the following routes:  North: travel via Cleveland Street and B Street to access Mountain View Road (approximately 3,250 feet versus 400 feet with the connection).  South: travel via Cleveland Street (south), a pedestrian and bicycle connection to Sixth Street and Sixth Street to Mountain View Road (approximately 2,700 feet versus 400 feet with the connection). Alternative 2: Full access multi-modal connection providing facilities for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles.  Provides a much needed pedestrian and bicycle connection, reducing out-of-direction travel for these modes significantly.  Attracts new users for all travel modes (motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle).  Encourages vehicular traffic to use the Third Street collector route (versus B Street, a local facility), and would minimize out-of-direction travel for all modes.  Improves motor vehicle connectivity and keeps motor vehicles on a route designated as a collector.  Reduces turn movements at Sixth Street with the extension.  Currently, people driving motor vehicles near Hayes Street/Third Street trying to reach Mountain View Road/Third Street are required to divert via one of the following primary routes:  North: travel via Hayes Street and B Street to Mountain View Road (~4,300 feet versus ~2,100 feet with the Third Street connection).  South: travel via Hayes Street and Sixth Street to Mountain View Road (~3,750 feet versus ~2,100 feet with the Third Street connection). Alternative 3: Full access multi-modal connection providing facilities for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles with traffic calming measures implemented on Third Street.  Although this alternative would attract new traffic from all travel modes, the intent is that the traffic calming measures would encourage some traffic to continue to use D Street and Sixth Street to access the east side of Moscow and Mountain View Road.  Traffic calming measures that would be considered for Third Street east of Jefferson include horizontal deflection techniques such as curb extensions, chicanes, neckdowns, and other pedestrian crossing enhancements. These improvements can reduce speeds by between 7-11% and features like chokers/neckdowns can decrease volumes by up to 20%. The alternatives were assessed using the travel demand model to forecast 2035 volumes. The travel demand model used included the future roadway connections previously discussed. The existing and future forecast volumes on key roadways in the Third Street Bridge study are illustrated in Figure 4-3. These volumes depict the potential change in vehicle travel patterns as a result of the new vehicular connection. Example of a chicane (top) and a curb extension/neckdown (bottom). Images from Nelson\Nygaard ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposed Third Street Bridge Location City Hall Moscow High Moscow Jr High Friendship Square J. Russell Elementary Gritman Medical Center D St F St Almon St Polk St Main St Third St Jefferson St E St Van Buren St Mountain View Rd Howard St Garfield St Hayes St Harrison St Washington St Moore St Second St Monroe St Cleveland St Jackson St Adams St Fifth St Eighth St Adams St Garfield St Hayes St Hayes St D St Blaine St C St Monroe St A St Third St Lincoln St Lincoln St Grant St Sixth St First St Fifth St B St Jefferson St Eighth St Seventh St Van Buren St Blaine St Sixth St 0 250 500 Feet Data Sources: City of Moscow, Google Map, State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS 3,300 2,500 2,650 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 2,800 6,600 6,400 7,200 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 6,200 5,800 6,300 5,500 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 5,000 6,700 6,600 7,400 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 6,300 5,800 4,000 4,350 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 5,600 6,200 5,600 5,950 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 5,400 1,300 3,500 2,800 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 1,200 4,600 3,900 4,300 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 3,900 7,800 8,200 7,700 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 7,500 800 1,000 800 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Forecast Volumes for Future Connection 50 2,300 1,800 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Forecast Volumes for Future Connection Figure 4-3 Third Street Connection Assessment (Daily 2035 Forecast Volumes) Library Æc Civic/Social Service n School G Medical " 2035 Daily Forecast Traffic Volumes Pedestrian and Bike Only Bridge Full Bridge + Traffic Calming Full Bridge Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Downtown District Trails Note: Alt 1 is the 2035 baseline condition Existing 2012 Baseline 95 U V 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-13 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Evaluation criteria were developed as a means to ensure that the Moscow on the Move Guiding Principles and Goals are reflected in transportation decisions. Figure 4-4 summarizes the evaluation of alternatives against project criteria pertaining to the proposed Third Street extension. The evaluation findings provide a comparison against the current Third Street roadway with no bridge provided. Figure 4-4 Third Street Bridge Alternatives Evaluation Guiding Principle/Goals Roadway and Traffic Operations Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 (Active Modes Only) Alternative 2 (Full Access) Alternative 3 (Full Access + Traffic Calming) Mobility and Access Facilitate multi-modal access Improves pedestrian and bicycle access only Improves access for all modes Improves access for all modes Maintain minimum level of service No benefit or impact Reduces vehicle delay at intersections on D Street and Sixth Street Reduces vehicle delay at intersections on D Street and Sixth Street Proximity of facility to truck route No benefit or impact Improves goods movement and delivery access by all modes Improves goods movement and delivery access by all modes Land Use, Design, and Quality of Life Level of impact to existing land uses/property Project within available right of way Project within available right of way Project within available right of way Level of impact to residential street traffic Increases pedestrian and bicycle trips on Third Street (collector west of Hayes Street); negligible impact to vehicular traffic Increases vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle trips on Third Street (collector west of Hayes Street); redistributes residential street traffic Increases vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle trips on Third Street (collector west of Hayes Street); redistributes residential street traffic Safe Streets Improve street segment/intersection safety No benefit or impact Reduces overall vehicle miles traveled in neighborhood Reduces overall vehicle miles traveled in neighborhood Level of impact to vehicle speeds No impact No impact Reduces speeds on Third Street Active and Healthy Living Provides facilities for active transportation Fills walking and bicycle network gap Fills walking and bicycle network gap Fills walking and bicycle network gap Improves access to basic services Improves walking and biking access to Lena Whitmore Elementary School Improves walking, biking, and motor vehicle access to Lena Whitmore Elementary School Improves walking, biking, and motor vehicle access to Lena Whitmore Elementary School RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action RT2. Construct a full access multi-modal bridge over Paradise Creek to provide a connection to Third Street and provide traffic calming measures on Third Street from the new bridge west to Jefferson Street. Traffic calming recommended for use includes curb extensions, chicanes, and/or neckdowns. Traffic calming should extend east of Mountain View Road when the current street end is constructed into a full street connection. The final proposed traffic calming features and their location will be determined by a future design and community outreach process. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-14 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Regional Circulation Enhancements: Ring Road Concept The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), in association with the City of Moscow, conducted a study of US-95 and SH-8 through Moscow in 2004. The purpose of the study was to determine whether ITD should plan improvements to the existing corridors or the future construction of an alternate highway route (ring road concept). Three potential alternate routes were considered:  South-West connection  North-West-South connection  East-South-West connection The study concluded that the projected 2035 traffic needs did not appear to justify a bypass. The capacity needed to accommodate future traffic volumes could be provided through widening and signalization improvements to the existing US- 95 and SH-8 corridors outside downtown. If a bypass were to be built, it would not eliminate the need for improvements to the downtown corridors such as striping parking and possibly narrowing sidewalks. Since a bypass route was included in the Moscow Comprehensive Plan, further analysis was conducted to evaluate the long-term merits of a bypass or ring-road system, including the use of a detailed travel demand forecasting model to evaluate changes in land use patterns and potential street system improvements. Bypass Case Studies A number of studies have been completed nationwide regarding potential bypass impacts on communities where they are built. The bypass studies reviewed are listed below:  California Bypass Study (2006)  Presented nine case studies of highway bypasses around the US – communities in Danville, VA, Richmond, CA, Fort Wayne, IN, Appleton, WI, Roanoke, VA, Imperial Valley, CA, Lewistown, MT, and Stonewall, OK  Economic Impacts of Highway Bypasses on Communities (1998)  Presented an assessment of bypasses in 17 communities in Wisconsin with populations ranging from 300 to 28,000 people  Case Studies of the Economic Impacts of Highway Bypasses in Kansas (January 2004) Lessons from Similar Bypass Case Studies A number of bypass studies have been conducted to determine the impacts a bypass has on a community. Case Study #1 (South Corvallis Bypass, OR) This bypass was built to provide an alternate route for through traffic and to reduce congestion, improve safety, and reduce noise and air pollution in the downtown area. The bypass:  Allowed additional development and infill of industrial lands in South Corvallis by providing better access.  Decreased traffic in the downtown Corvallis couplet by 20%.  Was generally viewed as positive by businesses and residents for reasons of access, capacity, safety, and appearance. Source: Oregon Department of Transportation Case Study #2 (Danville, Virginia, I-785 Bypass) Before-and-after comparison demonstrated that the bypass:  Reduced downtown truck traffic and increased local vehicles (no decrease in ADT)  Provided no evidence of negative impacts on downtown businesses  Resulted in major negative impact on new industrial sites near bypass interchanges. Source: California Bypass Study, May 2006 Case Study #3 (Hollister, CA, SR-156 in San Benito County, 1997) The motivation for the bypass in this agricultural and residential community was to reduce traffic congestion and trucks and improve safety. The bypass:  Did not hurt the local agricultural and bedroom community economy. Source: California Bypass Study, May 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-15 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy  Presented an assessment of bypasses in nine communities in Kansas  Oregon Department of Transportation Bypass Case Studies (2002)  Presented an assessment of bypasses in 16 communities in Oregon The following findings were generally consistent among many of the bypass studies reviewed.  In most communities, highway bypasses have little adverse impact on overall economic activity. The economies of smaller communities (populations less than 2,000) have a greater potential to be adversely impacted by a bypass.  Over the long term, average traffic levels on the “old routes” in medium and large bypassed communities are close to or higher than pre-bypass counts, indicating continued strong economic activity in those communities and the opportunity for retail trade to flourish.  Very little retail flight has occurred in bypassed communities, meaning that few businesses have relocated or developed new operations in areas adjacent to the bypass route.  Communities view their bypasses as beneficial overall and understand that further action is required after construction of the bypasses to achieve their overall goals; such as implementing new/revised ordinances and improving existing infrastructure.  Bypasses are seldom either devastating to or highly beneficial to a community’s downtown business district, at least in terms of business access or retail spending.  The locational shift in traffic can cause some existing businesses to turn over or relocate, but the net economic impacts on the broader community are usually relatively small (positive or negative).  Common benefits are better overall traffic flow and congestion relief. The elimination of trucks and seasonal traffic from local streets make traffic patterns safer and more predictable in a community.  No concrete conclusions can be drawn from case study research regarding safety impacts; however, the expectation is that traffic safety would be improved or at least not worsened.  Interviews indicated the potential to increase the “perception of pedestrian safety,” even if it’s not measurable, which may be just as important to the public.  Traffic impact depends on the distance from original facility and time savings. Ring Road Assessment An assessment of the Ring Road project was conducted to forecast the demand for future users on the facility and identify potential local benefits such as lower auto and truck volumes downtown and better connectivity on the edge of the city. The Ring Road concept was based on the characteristics shown in Figure 4-5. The Ring Road would be located outside the Moscow city limits and would be located in Washington State on the western edge of the project. The assessment of the Ring Road project included supporting roadway connections in addition to the future roadway connections. All future connections are shown in Figure 4-6. The future roadway connections previously described and the Ring Road concept were modeled together to forecast future 2035 traffic volumes. Overall, the Ring Road attracted daily volumes ranging from 6,500 vehicles on the SW Roadway and to 1,200 vehicles on the NE Roadway. With the Ring Road, future daily traffic volumes would be reduced on several key roadways:  Downtown roadways reduced up to 1,300 vehicles (65 freight trucks) on Washington Street and 2,300 vehicles (115 freight trucks) on Jackson Street  SH-8 west of downtown reduced by 3,500 vehicles  US-95 north of downtown reduced by 1,000 vehicles  SH-8 east of downtown reduced by 2,000 vehicles ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-16 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan  Future Trail Road Extension (west of US-95) reduced by 2,500  Future Farm Road Extension reduced by 3,000 Figure 4-5 Ring Road Concept Location Classification Speed Lanes Access Control Access Spacing Roadway Connections SW Roadway ITD Highway Design 55 mph 2 mainline Uncontrolled None US-95; SR-270 (WA); Palouse River Drive; Old Pullman Road (grade separated) NW Roadway Arterial 45 mph 2 mainline + center turn lane Traffic signals ¼ to ½ mile SR-270 (WA); Warbonnet Drive; Baker Street; Mix Road; US-95 NE Roadway Arterial 45 mph 2 mainline + center turn lane Traffic signals ¼ to ½ mile US-95; Polk Road; North Mt. View Road; Moscow Mt. Road; Darby Road; Robinson Park Road; Parker Road; SH-8 SE Roadway Arterial 45 mph 2 mainline + center turn lane Traffic signals ¼ to ½ mile SH-8; Mill Road; Lenville Road; South Mt. View Road; Paradise Ridge Road; US-95 Key findings from the future 2035 operations assessment are summarized below:  The Ring Road is not expected to have significant impacts to local freight routing. Trucks could use the west side roadways to avoid urban conflicts (such as on-street parking maneuvers and pedestrians) and congestion downtown during peak hours. However, traveling through town north to south or east to west would take more time using the Ring Road compared to the existing highway system.  The southwest quadrant of the Ring Road would serve the highest traffic demand with up to 6,500 daily vehicles.  The addition of the Ring Road does not significantly improve intersection operations downtown or on parallel routes. The intersection of Third Street/Washington Street would continue to serve a high northbound left turn volume and operate at LOS B during the evening peak hour.  Preliminary cost estimates based on the Ring Road concept would range from $110 to $140 million including right of way.  With new NW/SW roadways in place (no east side Ring Road), the future Ring Road would experience a 10 to 20 percent reduction in demand compared to the current forecast and downtown would remain the same (compared to the full Ring Road). RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action RT3. Conduct a transportation study of the Ring Road Southwest quadrant corridor based on federal requirements to identify potential impacts and select the preferred project (alignment, cross-section, and access). Once a corridor alignment has been selected, work towards obtaining project right-of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- Ring Rd NE Quadrant Ring Rd SE Quadrant Ring Rd SW Quadrant Ring Rd NW Quadrant City Hall Friendship Square Moscow Charter School Moscow Jr. High Moscow Senior High 1912 Center Disability Action Center WalMart Goodwill Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place Gritman Medical Center Intermodal Transit Center University of Idaho Mill Rd Polk Ext Old Moscow Rd Sand Rd Pullman Airport Rd Guske Rd Olsen Rd Parker Rd Paradise Ridge Rd Tomer Rd Youmans Ln Pavel Ct Midway St Schaper St D St F St A St Palouse River Dr Almon St Baker St First St Main St Blaine St B St Itani Dr White Ave Lynn Ave Logan St Line St Taylor Ave Mountain View Rd Harrison St Morton St Public Ave Mabelle St Sixth St Alturas Dr Park Dr Grant St Moser St Elm St Sweet Ave Third St Farm Rd Daves Ave Concord Ave Nursery St Eighth St Fifth St Conestoga Dr Fairview Dr Pintail Ln Adams St Granville St Lenter St Mckinley St Kenneth St Cleveland St Styner Ave Hayes St Shoshone St Weymouth St Quail Run Dr Residence St Empire Ln Mountain View Rd Panorama Dr Ford St Ridge Rd Susan Dr Victoria Dr Washington St Levick St Lincoln St Colt Rd Lexington Ave Lewis St Stadium Dr Britton Ln College St Hirschi Rd Joseph St Ash St Cambridge Ct Homestead St Jefferson St Damen St Crestview Dr Jackson St Ekes Rd Sixth St Rodeo Dr E St Harold St Arborcrest Rd B St Orchard Ave Third St Blaine St Sixth St White Ave A St Sixth St Sixth St Mountain View Rd N ez Per ce Dr Old Pullman Rd Perime t er Dr D St Blaine St Palouse River Dr W A St Warbonet Dr Mountain View Rd Mountain View Rd Darby Rd Trail Rd Robinson Park Rd Robinson Park Rd Lenville Rd Farm Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Plant Science Rd Carmichael Rd Palouse River Dr To Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport To Lewiston To Troy To Potlatch / Palouse U V 8 95 U V 8 95 WASHINGTON Data Sources: City of Moscow, SMART State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS IDAHO 0 0.2 0.4 Miles State Boundary Trails Downtown District University of Idaho City Limits Future Ring Road Æc Library Civic/Social n School Shopping G Medical Major Transit Stop " Figure 4-6 Ring Road Daily Traffic Volume (2035) XXXX +XX 2035 Daily Volume -XXX 2035 Volume Change with Ring Road 1,300 2,400 3,700 6,500 1,200 4,000 -2,500 -2,300 1,200 1,600 4,700 3,900 4,500 -8,300 -2,200 -3,500 -1,300 -1,000 -2,100 -12% -1,200 -2,000 -800 -400 +700 -1,000 -1,300 -2,600 -300 -400 Washington Third -100 -10% ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-19 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Multi-modal Street Design Standards Moscow’s streets have always served a variety of functions—including mobility, retail access, civic action, and more. Likewise, streets in Moscow have always accommodated a variety of street users, which has created challenges as vehicle ownership and use increased up until the beginning of the 21st Century. In Moscow today, more people are traveling by walking, bicycle, and transit than in the recent past as residents and University affiliates expand the ways they access their daily needs. Because of these shifting demands, Moscow’s streets need to balance mobility requirements with mode choice and the community-serving functions that streets have traditionally provided. Street types by function Two criteria are used to assess functional classification: the extent of connectivity and the frequency of the facility type. The frequency or need for regional, city, and neighborhood facilities of certain classifications is not routine or easy to package into a single criterion. Although traditional spacing standards call for arterial spacing of a mile, collector spacing of a quarter to a half-mile, and neighborhood connections at an eighth to a sixteenth of a mile, this does not form the only basis for defining functional classification. Changes in land use, environmental issues or barriers, topographic constraints, and travel demand also influence the required spacing. Spacing standards can be a guide, but other features and potential long term development in the area must also be considered. The current roadway functional classifications provided in the Thoroughfare Plan were reviewed based on the criteria described above and forecasted growth areas in the city. Based on the review, only one revision to the roadway classifications is recommended: Blaine Street – From Palouse River Drive to Sixth Street, Blaine Street should be classified as a collector. Further modifications to the functional classification system are being considered by the City. These are shown in the Figure 4-7 but have yet to be accepted by ITD. Blaine Street, south of E White Avenue, should be classified as a collector. Image from Google ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n G Æc " " " " n D St F St A St Polk Extension Palouse River Dr Almon St C St Baker St First St Main St Blaine St B St Itani Dr White Ave Lynn Ave Logan St Lilly St Line St Taylor Ave Mountain View Rd Harrison St Morton St Public Ave Mabelle St Sixth St Alturas Dr Park Dr Grant St Moser St Elm St Sweet Ave Third St Farm Rd Daves Ave Concord Ave Nursery St Garfield St Eighth St Fifth St Conestoga Dr Fairview Dr Pintail Ln Adams St Granville St Lenter St Mckinley St Kenneth St Cleveland St Styner Ave Hayes St Shoshone St Lieuallen St Weymouth St Quail Run Dr Residence St Empire Ln Mountain View Rd Panorama Dr Ford St Ridge Rd Susan Dr Southview Ave Victoria Dr Washington St Levick St Lincoln St Colt Rd Lexington Ave Brent Dr Lewis St Stadium Dr Britton Ln College St Hirschi Rd Lemhi Dr Joseph St Ash St Cambridge Ct Homestead St Jefferson St Damen St Crestview Dr Jackson St Ekes Rd Flint St Sixth St Rodeo Dr E St Harold St Arborcrest Rd Hayes St B St Orchard Ave Third St Blaine St Sixth St White Ave A St Sixth St Sixth St Mountain View Rd N ez Per ce Dr Old Pullman Rd Perime t er Dr D St Blaine St Palouse River Dr W A St Warbonet Dr Mountain View Rd Mountain View Rd Darby Rd Trail Rd Robinson Park Rd Robinson Park Rd Lenville Rd Farm Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Plant Science Rd Carmichael Rd Palouse River Dr WalMart Goodwill City Hall Friendship Square University of Idaho Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place Gritman Medical Center Moscow Jr. High Moscow Senior High Intermodal Transit Center 1912 Center Moscow Charter School Disability Action Center 0 0.25 0.5 Miles WASHINGTON U V 8 IDAHO 95 Data Sources: City of Moscow State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS U V 8 95 State Boundary Trails University of Idaho City Limits Future Roadway Connections Æc Library Civic/Social n School Shopping G Medical Major Transit Stop " Figure 4-7 Recommended Functional Classifications Principal Arterial National Highway Minor Arterial Street Designations Collector Note: The recommended functional classification system does not include the proposed Ring Road alignment or any minor arterials that feed into the alignment per the recom- mended actions established in this chapter. The City can include the Ring Road in the functional classsification map in future years, as necessary. To Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport To Lewiston To Troy To Potlatch / Palouse ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-23 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Design standards for citywide application A review of roadway cross-sections by functional classification was conducted to establish appropriate design characteristics for motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit needs. Because the actual design of a roadway can vary from segment to segment due to adjacent land uses and demands, the objective was to define a system that allows standardization of key characteristics to provide consistency. It also provided criteria for application that offers some flexibility, while meeting the design standards. The design standards reviewed for this plan are the City’s 2012 draft standards as proposed by the Transportation Commission and will soon be in the adoption process. Figure 4-8 shows a summary of draft design standards by functional classification. Additional design elements should be considered for the draft street design standards. Recommendations are summarized below:  Minor Arterial standard - require 6-foot bike lanes with option for 8-foot buffered bike lane  Add a Minor Arterial standard cross-section with options for bike lane buffering  Mid-block pedestrian crossings standards  Disallow single family driveways on Collector and Arterial facilities, if alley access is a feasible alternative RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action RT4. Make revisions to the draft citywide street design standards based on the recommendations listed above. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-24 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Figure 4-8 Summary of 2012 Citywide Street Design Standards Street Design Element State Highways Principal Arterials Minor Arterial w/ Left Turn Lane Minor Arterial Collector w/ Left Turn Lane Collector 34’ Local Street 28’ Local Street Large Lot Subdivision Street Right-of-way 100-120’ 100-120’ 90’ (min.) 90’ (min.) 80’ (min.) 70’ (min.) 60’ (min.) 60’ (min.) 60’ (min.) Curb-to-curb width Varies 22-36’ 48’ 34’ 46’ 34’ 34’ 28’ 28’ Design/posted speed Max Safe Speed – (ITD Design Manual) 25-45 mph Posted 35 mph 35 mph 30 mph 30 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph Lane per direction Varies Varies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Travel lane dimensions Varies 9-12’ 12’ 14’ (with median) 12’ 14’ (with median) 12’ 14’ (with median) 12’ 14’ (with median) 9’ (18’ two- way) 10’ 14’ with 2’ shoulders Median widths Varies Varies Center median option (10’ minimum Residential, 11’ minimum Commercial Industrial)– Requires travel lane increase of 2’ adjacent to median Center median option (10’ minimum Residential, 11’ minimum Commercial Industrial)– Requires travel lane increase of 2’ adjacent to median Center median option minimum) – Requires travel lane increase of 2’ adjacent to median Center median option minimum) – Requires travel lane increase of 2’ adjacent to median N/A N/A N/A Bicycle lanes (BL) / Shared lane markings (SLM) / Neighborhood greenways (NG) Minimum 6’ BL SLM not appropriate Minimum 6’ BL SLM not appropriate Minimum 5’ BL SLM not appropriate Minimum 5’ BL SLM not appropriate NG only for short segments NG only for short segments SLM and NG preferred SLM and NG preferred SLM and NG preferred On-street parking Allowed in urban areas Allowed in urban areas 9-10’ 9-10’ 9-10’ 9-10’ 8’ both sides 8’ one side Not Allowed Sidewalk width Varies Varies 6’ minimum (Residential) 8’ minimum (Commercial/Industrial) 6’ minimum (Residential) 8’ minimum (Commercial/Industrial) 5’ minimum 5’ minimum 5’ minimum 5’ minimum None 2’ shoulder Furniture zone/planting Varies Varies Varies minimum) Varies minimum) Varies (can be narrowed to Varies (can be narrowed to 8’ (can be narrowed to 10.5’ (can be narrowed to 8’ Note: Standards based on City’s 2012 draft standards that are currently in the adoption process. There is no adopted standard for Principal Arterials. Consider for adoption when revising the City’s Street Design Standards in future years. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-25 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Neighborhood Traffic Management toolbox As the result of continued growth in the community, there is potential for neighborhoods to be impacted by increased traffic volumes and speeding. In many cities, no one issue generates more citizen comment than traffic on residential streets. A Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) toolbox is a set of measures that can be used to address the negative impacts of unchecked speed and volume on neighborhood streets. Successful application of these tools can help to fix existing traffic issues, and also avoid simply shifting the problem to another area. NTM should be applied along with strategies that ensure adequate arterial and collector capacity and connectivity are in place to serve future travel needs. This plan addresses the need for future capacity and/or lack of connectivity that can result in traffic infiltration through neighborhoods. With a well-planned functional classification system in place, streets should be designed and built to operate at their designated speed and volume. NTM projects in Moscow will use appropriate tools that match the designated street category (no speed humps on arterials, for example). Measures will also enhance safety and not impede the multi-modal use of the streets measures respect the demands and needs of transit, emergency response, school buses, delivery vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles as well as maintenance activities). The Moscow on the Move Bicycle and Pedestrian Design toolbox provides the community with a variety of means to either slow, discourage, or redirect traffic away from certain routes. A variety of NTM tools are available for various route types. For example, a tool that might be effective in reducing traffic on a residential street would likely not be appropriate on a cross-town collector route. An Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) survey measured performance on a variety of NTM measures. Figure 4-9 summarizes the results of the survey and indicates public satisfaction with each measure. Figure 4-9 Surveyed Neighborhood Traffic Management Performance Measure No. of Studies Speed Reduction (MPH) Volume Change (ADT) Public Satisfaction Low High Average Low High Average Speed Humps 262 1 11.3 7.3 0 2,922 328 79% Speed Trailer 63 1.8 5.5 4.2 0 0 0 90% Diverters 39 - - .4 85 3,000 1,102 72% Circles 26 2.2 15 5.7 50 2,000 280 72% Enforcement 16 0 2 2 0 0 0 71% Neighborhood traffic or speed watch program 85 .5 8.5 3.3 0 0 0 98% Chokers 32 2.2 4.6 3.3 45 4,100 597 79% Narrow Streets 4 5 7 4.5 0 0 0 83% Source: Survey of Neighborhood Traffic Management Performance and Results, ITE District 6 Annual Meeting, by R S. McCourt, July 1997. The functional classification of the street can help guide the use of the most appropriate traffic calming measure. The City of Moscow Thoroughfare Plan shows highway and arterial routes that should carry the majority of through traffic in Moscow. Ideally, local streets would serve only to provide access to adjacent land use. Moscow does have a relatively well-connected grid system in the core of the city, which makes it easier for cross-town trips to use some local streets. Those routes that are more likely to attract cross-town trips are prime candidates for NTM. Specific areas in the city that may benefit from NTM projects are the University of Idaho campus and neighborhoods east of downtown. The types of NTM measures that would be appropriate for each of the functional classifications in Moscow are described below: ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-26 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan National Highway/Principal Arterial/Minor Arterial These routes provide regional connections to and through Moscow and adjacent cities/areas. These would be appropriate routes for access control to preserve capacity. These routes primarily carry through traffic. All of these routes are emergency and snowplow routes, which limits the spectrum of NTM measures that would be appropriate. Some NTM measures that may be appropriate for these routes (primarily the minor arterials) include:  Curb Extensions/Medians  Pavement Texture  Landscaping/Street Trees Collector These routes provide both access and circulation within residential and commercial/industrial areas providing more of a citywide circulation function. They do not require as extensive control of access as the National Highway/Principal Arterial/Minor Arterial group (but still should have some access management). These routes penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips to the local street system. Some collectors are emergency or snowplow routes which would require special consideration. Some NTM measures that may be appropriate for these routes include:  Pavement Texture  On-Street Parking  One-Way Streets  Curb Extensions/Medians  Chicanes  Landscaping/Street Trees Local These routes provide access to fronting properties. Some NTM measures that may be appropriate for these routes include:  Chicanes  Diverters  Speed Humps  Speed Cushions  Pavement Texture  On-Street Parking  One-Way Streets  Curb Extensions/Medians  Landscaping/Street Trees For new construction (not retrofit), also consider:  Curvilinear Street Design  Street Grid  Shared Space slow, curbless streets that allow mixing of pedestrians, bicycles, and motorists; more detailed guidance should be developed for inclusion as a street type; currently, a developer would need to apply for a variance to construct this type of street.) The needs and priorities for applying NTM to roadways are based on a number of criteria. These factors need to be evaluated to determine if NTM is justified and appropriate for a roadway. This includes collecting data for existing conditions, assessing the street system and nearby land uses and estimating future conditions with NTM solutions in place. A transportation analysis should be conducted to assess these criteria to help define the issues and potential solutions.  Traffic Speed (average and 85th percentile)  Traffic Volume (existing or estimated future)  Proximity to Schools and Parks (designated School Zone)  Pedestrian Activity  Bicycle Activity and Classification (neighborhood greenway)  Cut Through Traffic (existing or estimated)  Safety/Accident History ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-27 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Figure 4-10 Neighborhood Traffic Management Toolbox Tool Sample What is it? What does it do? How much does it cost? Chicanes Channelization or curb extension that realigns the straight path of a street; deflects straight vehicle movement. Speed reduction (3 - 4 MPH) Low volume reduction and diversion $3,000 to $20,000 Curb Extensions/ Medians A roadway narrowing. This could be a curb extension at an intersection (also called bulb outs) to reduce the roadway width at a selected location. This could be a median placed in the middle of the roadway. Medians can be used for pedestrian refuge and/or access control to restrict turning movements. Speed reduction (3 MPH) Moderate volume reduction and diversion $5,000 to $15,000 Diverters Channelization or islands that restrict movements at an intersection. Typically, allows right turns, not through traffic. There are full and partial diverters depending upon the number of movements restricted or diverted at an intersection. Speed reduction (1 MPH) High volume reduction, high diversion impact $3,000 to $15,000 Enhanced Corridor Performance Providing adequate capacity, spacing, and connectivity for arterials and collectors allows longer trips to stay on these facilities and not on neighborhood routes. Coordinated traffic signals can be effective in keeping through traffic on arterials. Moderate speed reduction in neighborhoods can be attained by facilitating travel on arterials and collectors Can significantly reduce volume where congestion exists Cost depends on the type and extent of enhancement. However, street improvements are very expensive. Typically not considered NTM projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-28 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Tool Sample What is it? What does it do? How much does it cost? Landscaping/ Street Trees Provides a visual narrowing of the street and separates the sidewalk from the vehicle travel lane. Speed reduction varies Limited volume reduction $10,000 to $20,000/block One-Way Streets Takes the entry to a neighborhood area and makes the access road one-way (typically out). Similar in some respects to a diverter. Can be used in connection with entry treatments. Speed reduction (no data) Significant volume reduction and diversion $5,000 to $30,000 Pavement Texture/Markings Instead of smooth pavement surface, create roughness by using raised markers, pavers, colored concrete with patterns. Can be used to emphasize pedestrian crossing location or create channelization or narrowing. May not be compatible with snow routes. Limited speed reduction Limited volume change Increases driver awareness of changed conditions (entering a neighborhood or pedestrian zone) $1,000 to $15,000 Parking On-street Many streets less than 32' do not allow parking on one or both sides. By allowing parking, the traveled way is narrowed. Speeds must be slow for safe sight distance. Moderate speed reduction Limited volume reduction $0 - $10,000/block Part Time Restrictions Uses signs to limit vehicle movements during key times (typically school times or peak hours). Can be turn restrictions, truck restrictions, through traffic restrictions, etc. Difficult and expensive to enforce and can have high violation rates. Moderate speed reduction (if through traffic removed) Moderate volume reduction (if restrictions enforced) $500 - $5,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-29 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Tool Sample What is it? What does it do? How much does it cost? Road Closure Uses islands or barricades to close the end of a street. Creates a cul- de-sac for vehicles; can remain open for pedestrians and bicyclists. Contrary to emphasis on vehicular connectivity. Speed reduction limited to site of closure Significant volume reduction and diversion $2,000 - $15,000 Shared Space “Woonerf” A concept where there are no curbs in the roadway right-of-way. The road area is shared among various users, using bollards, chokers, and landscape elements to help define user areas. Speed reduction Significant volume reduction and diversion $10,000 - $50,000 Speed Cushions A device similar to a speed hump, but designed to allow buses or emergency vehicles with larger wheel bases to pass over without impact. Speed reduction (7 MPH) Low volume reduction or diversion $1,500 - $3,000 Speed Humps Raising of pavement surface about 3" over about 10 to 20 feet. Similar to this measure are speed tables, raised pedestrian crossings, and raised intersections. Speed reduction (7 MPH) Low volume reduction or diversion $3,000 to $5,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-30 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Tool Sample What is it? What does it do? How much does it cost? Speed Trailer A trailer unit with a reader board that indicates the approaching vehicle speeds. Portable and can be moved from site to site. Can be reinforced with actual police enforcement on a selective basis. Speed reduction (4 MPH) however, reduction occurs only when trailer is present No volume reduction $10,000 - $25,000 purchase + labor Speed Zone Changes Typically, for collector and arterial streets, the 85th percentile speed is used as a guide. Past studies have proven that unrealistically low speed zones are ignored by drivers. Little speed or volume change (without enforcement) $20,000 (for signs and studies) Stop Signs Warrants determined by MUTCD. Significant research on unwarranted stop signs and their negative impact. MUTCD specifically indicates stop signs are not to be used for speed control. Mixed findings on speed reduction (some up some down) Low volume reduction and diversion A device for traffic control and safety, generally not NTM $250 - $2,500 (including studies, staff time and installation) Sources: Traffic Calming, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 456, July 1995. Handbook for Walkable Communities, Burden & Wallwork. Civilised Streets: A Guide to Traffic Calming, Environmental & Transport Planning, Brighton, Great Britain, 1992. Note: Cost Estimates are in 2010 dollars. Average construction cost inflation per year based on 10-year data is 2-3% per year. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-31 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy The traffic calming toolbox provides the City and community with resources to manage traffic and improve neighborhood livability by reducing vehicle speeds, reducing traffic volumes, and addressing other traffic-related issues. As neighborhood traffic issues arise, the City should work with the community to understand the needs and consult the toolbox for guidance on appropriate solutions. It is important that traffic calming projects are supported by initial community education and follow up enforcement. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action RT5. Education – Provide citizens information and tools necessary to make informed decisions regarding neighborhood traffic concerns. Action RT6. Engineering – Implement traffic calming solutions when appropriate based on engineering principles and community input. Action RT7. Enforcement – Support community-identified solutions by targeted police and parking enforcement. Access spacing standards Access management is a broad set of techniques that balance the need to provide efficient, safe, and timely travel with the ability to allow access to individual properties. Proper implementation of access management techniques will deliver reduced congestion, reduced crash rates, less need for roadway widening, conservation of energy, and reduced air pollution. Access management refers to the control of vehicular access to and from land uses located on arterial and collector facilities; it is important to maintain the capacity of the facilities and preserve their functional integrity. Numerous driveways can erode the capacity of arterial and collector roadways. Preservation of capacity is particularly important on higher volume roadways for maintaining traffic flow and mobility. Whereas local and neighborhood streets function to provide access, collector and arterial streets serve greater traffic volume. Numerous driveways or street intersections increase the number of conflicts and potential for collisions and decrease mobility and traffic flow. Moscow, as with every city, needs a balance of streets that provide access with streets that serve mobility. New development and roadway projects located on City street facilities should meet access spacing standards. Access points include public streets (including alleys), private streets, and private commercial or residential driveways. A variation to the access spacing standards may be granted by the City in areas with limited property frontage and/or environmental constraints. It is recommended that any variation to these spacing standards would require an access management plan to be approved by the City Engineer. With higher traffic volume in the future, the need for access control on all arterial and, potentially, collector roadways is critical – the outcome of not managing accesses properly is additional wider roadways which have much greater impact to the community than access control. The general criteria used for providing local connections for new residential or mixed-use developments are:  Every 330 feet, a connection for pedestrians and bicycles  Every 660 feet, a connection for automobiles To protect existing neighborhoods from potential traffic impacts of extending stub end streets, connector roadways should incorporate neighborhood traffic management strategies into their design and construction. All stub streets should have signs indicating the potential for future connectivity “This Road Will Be Extended In The Future”). Additionally, new development that constructs new streets, or street extensions, should provide a proposed street map that:  Provides full street connections with spacing of no more than 660 feet between connections except where prevented by barriers  Provides bike and pedestrian access ways in lieu of streets with spacing of no more than 330 feet except where prevented by barriers ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-32 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan  Limits use of cul-de-sacs and other dead-end street systems to situations where barriers prevent full street connections  Includes no dead-end street longer than 200 feet or having no more than 10 dwelling units RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Access management strategies to improve local access and mobility include: Action RT8. Implement access spacing standards shown above. Action RT9. Implement specific access management plans for arterial streets (such as Third Street west of downtown) to maximize the capacity of the existing facilities and protect functional integrity. Action RT10. Work with land use developers during the development application process to consolidate driveways where feasible. Action RT11. Provide left turn lanes where warranted for access onto cross streets. Action RT12. Construct raised medians to provide for right-in/right-out driveways as appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-33 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy Intersection Modifications Intersection Mobility and Signal Standards Traffic operations at City intersections are generally described using a measure known as “level of service” (LOS). Level of service represents ranges in the average amount of delay that motorists experience when passing through the intersection. As shown in Figure 4-11, LOS is measured on an (best) to (worst) scale. At signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all vehicles entering the intersection. At two-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by the critical movement at the intersection, typically a left-turn from a stop-controlled street. Figure 4-11 Summary of Intersection Level of Service Conditions Level of Service Average delay per vehicle Traffic flow characteristics LOS A Less than 10 seconds; most vehicles do not stop at all Virtually free flow; completely unimpeded LOS B 10.1 to 20 seconds; more vehicles stop than LOS A Stable flow with slight delays; reasonably unimpeded LOS C 20.1 to 35 seconds; individual cycle failures may begin to appear Stable flow with delays; less freedom to maneuver LOS D 35.1 to 55 seconds; individual cycle failures are noticeable High Density, but stable flow. Common goal for urban streets during peak hour. LOS E Font size55.1 to 80 seconds; individual cycle failures are frequent; poor progression Operating conditions at or near capacity; unstable flow. Common standard in larger urban areas, where some roadway congestion is inevitable. LOS F More than 80 seconds; not acceptable for most drivers Forced flow, breakdown conditions The City of Moscow does not have adopted transportation performance standards. Therefore, the following minimum motor vehicle operating standards are recommended to be applied to City streets and intersections: LOS D is considered acceptable at signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections if the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is not higher than 1.0 for the sum of critical movements. LOS E is considered acceptable for the poorest operating approach at two-way stop intersections. The operating standards should be flexible based on specific project goals, adjacent land use function, and corridor function at the discretion of the City Engineer. Lower mobility standards should be considered with amendments to comprehensive plans that promote City goals such as allowing a mix of uses or targeted density within a set area boundary. These relaxation factors are critical to ensure the City makes context-sensitive and cost-effective investments that ensure the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists are not jeopardized. Traffic signal spacing standards are also important to consider when evaluating potential intersection control options. Appropriate traffic signal spacing depends on a variety of factors, including adjacent land use, facility type, speed, and traffic volume. Traffic signals that are spaced too closely on a corridor can result in poor operating conditions and safety issues due to the lack of adequate storage for vehicle queues. Optimum traffic signal spacing allows for the coordination of traffic signals along a corridor resulting in reduced overall vehicle delay. The City will update the minimum traffic signal spacing for minor arterials and collector facilities to 1,000-feet and 600-feet, respectively, as urban conditions permit. Signal spacing closer than 1,000 feet is not desirable as they start to queue back to the next signal and create capacity and safety issues. A variation to the traffic signal spacing ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-34 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan standard may be granted in areas with limited property frontage and/or environmental constraints. Any variation to the traffic signal spacing standard requires the approval of the City Engineer. Potential Intersection Improvements With the addition of the proposed roadway extensions described in the previous sections, the 2035 preferred scenario was developed to forecast study intersection volumes. The operational analysis found that some improvements would be required at the study intersections to accommodate forecast traffic growth. A number of solutions can be used to solve operational problems at intersections. The following are typical treatments and situations where they would normally apply:  Turn lanes: Installation of dedicated turn lanes, particularly left turn lanes, may improve operations and/or queuing at an intersection by separating left turning traffic from through and/or right turning traffic, allowing turn movements to operate simultaneously.  Traffic control: A number of methods of traffic control may be used to improve traffic operations at an intersection.  All-way-stop control: This treatment would typically be installed where a two-way stop controlled intersection has a high volume of left turning traffic relative to the through traffic on the mainline. This type of intersection control typically works best where traffic volumes are balanced between intersection approaches, but volumes are not so high as to warrant a traffic signal.  Traffic signals: A traffic signal would typically be installed when Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) traffic signal warrants are met. These warrants evaluate various conditions to determine if a traffic signal is justified at a specific location. Typical conditions would include a high volume of left turning traffic from the side street conflicting with high mainline traffic volume.  Roundabouts: This treatment should be considered where a traffic signal would be warranted, but traffic volumes are reasonably balanced between approaches or where left turning traffic volumes are high.  Traffic signal timing and coordination: Optimized traffic signal timing may improve operations at an intersection by allocating the signal green time based on the vehicle demand and reducing overall delay. Signal coordination maximizes vehicle throughput in a corridor with reduced overall stops and delay; however, side street traffic typically experiences longer wait times.  Intersection geometrics: Design treatments can be applied at intersections to improve operations and safety for all users. Treatments vary widely depending on the specific need and intersection characteristics. Examples include design treatments for access management, traffic calming, heavy vehicles, and non- traditional intersection layouts. Under the 2035 preferred scenario with the future roadway connections in place, several study intersections are expected to operate below standard during the evening peak hour (LOS C or better on ITD facility and LOS D or better on City facility). The 2035 future performance at the study intersections is illustrated in Figure 4-12. ---PAGE BREAK--- " G " n n Æc n " " n " WalMart Goodwill City Hall Moscow High Disability Action Center Moscow Jr High Friendship Square Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place J. Russell Elementary Gritman Medical Center Living Learning Community University of Idaho Moscow Charter School 1912 Center D St F St A St C St Almon St Polk St First St Main St Blaine St B St Palouse River Dr White Ave Lynn Ave Logan St Lilly St Line St Taylor Ave Mountain View Rd E St Asbury St Orchard Ave Baker St Public Ave Harrison St Mabelle St Sixth St Alturas Dr Indian Hills Dr Park Dr Grant St Itani Dr Moser St Sweet Ave Third St Farm Rd Concord Ave Nursery St Fifth St Conestoga Dr Fairview Dr Camas St Harold St Pintail Ln Eisenhower St Adams St Pine Cone Rd Lenter St Kenneth St Styner Ave Panorama Dr Spotswood St Hayes St Shoshone St Borah Ave Weymouth St Vista St Slonaker Dr Quail Run Dr Shelby Ln Residence St Hathaway St Kouse St Lauder Ave Ford St Ridge Rd Susan Dr Southview Ave Travois Way Cleveland St Victoria Dr Castleford Washington St Veatch St Levick St Sunnyside Ave Lincoln St Colt Rd Lexington Ave Roosevelt St Rolling Hills Dr Brent Dr Lewis St Ridgeview Dr Cherry St Julie Dr Nez Perce St Peterson Dr Vandal Dr Appaloosa Rd Hillcrest Dr Fourth St Sherwood St Daves Ave Britton Ln Lieuallen St Home St Northwood Dr Meadow St Lemhi Dr Monroe St Truman St Deakin Ave Joseph St Cambridge Ct Ilene Dr Thatuna Ave Robinson Park Rd Mckinley St Homestead St Granville St Chinook St Railroad St. Paradise Dr Henley St Walenta Dr Damen St Alpowa Ave Highland Dr Crestview Dr Moore St Kennedy St Jackson St Pinto Dr Henry Ct Conestoga St Sunrise Dr Lathen St Harding St Rowe St View St Wildrose Dr Virginia Ave Leith St Boyde Ave Ventura St Cayuse Dr C St Home St Fifth St Rodeo Dr Victoria Dr Eighth St Palouse River Dr Seventh St Grant St Second St Third St First St Morton St Harding St E St Blaine St A St Adams St Sixth St Seventh St Styner Ave White Ave Van Buren St A St Eighth St Hayes St E St Lewis St Jefferson St Garfield St D St Sixth St Ridge Rd Blaine St C St Daves Ave E St Cleveland St A St Joseph St Blake Ave West View Dr Moore St Panorama Dr Hayes St Lewis St Jefferson St Garfield St Mountain View Rd Lincoln St Polk St Howard St Ash St Grant St College St Lincoln St E St Mountain View Rd Harold St Garfield St Fifth St B St Third St Kenneth St Sixth St Eighth St Vandal Dr University Ave Idaho Ave Farm Rd Mix Rd Carmichael Rd Mountain View Rd C C B B B B D D C C A A A A E F A A A C D B F Data Sources: City of Moscow, State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS 0 0.2 0.4 Miles WASHINGTON U V 8 £ ¤ 95 U V 8 £ ¤ 95 U V 8 Figure 4-12 Future Intersection Performance (2035 PM Peak Hour) State Boundary Downtown District City Limits Landmarks Library Æc Civic/Social Service n School Shopping G Medical " Level of Service C B D E A F Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E Level F Note: Includes potential roadway connections Future Street Connections Signalized, Roundabout or All-Way Stop Intersection Intersection Type X Unsignalized Two-Way Stop Intersection Major Street Minor Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-37 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy The future 2035 intersection performance and recommended projects to improve below-standard intersections are summarized below.  With the planned reasonably funded improvements, Line Street/A Street would operate at LOS E on the side street approach (Line Street only) due to a high volume of northbound right turning vehicles and the short length of the receiving lane on A Street. Although the northbound right turn movement is free (not stop sign controlled), vehicles would need to merge with eastbound through traffic. During peak traffic periods, the eastbound traffic flow may not allow continual merging for northbound right turning vehicles and congested conditions may occur. The intersection would not meet peak hour signal warrants based on the forecast 2035 volumes. No improvements are recommended.  SH-8/US-95/Washington Street (South Couplet) would operate at LOS D overall and LOS F (volume to capacity (v/c) over 1.0) for the eastbound through movement. Eastbound through traffic is currently served with one lane at the intersection (double eastbound right turn lanes also provided). The addition of a second eastbound through lane would improve overall intersection operations to LOS C and reduce the eastbound through movement v/c to under 1.0. This improvement would require significant widening on SH-8 to provide two eastbound through lanes through the intersection (approximately 1,000 feet to the west and east) and retain the existing double right turn lanes. The roadway widening would require additional right-of-way and, depending on how far east the new lanes extend, impact fronting buildings on the south side of the highway. Improvements to this intersection will require coordination between the City and ITD.  Mountain View Road/White Avenue would operate with LOS D on the side street which does not trigger required improvements. However, the 2035 forecasts indicate that the approach volumes would be fairly balanced and that two-way stop sign control may not be the most effective treatment. A roundabout controlled intersection would reduce overall vehicle delay and eastbound/westbound approach queues in the future. As intersection traffic operations degrade, the installation of a roundabout is recommended over a traffic signal due to the close spacing to the planned signal at SH-8/Mountain View Road. The future forecasts indicate that roundabout control would provide adequate operations well beyond the 2035 horizon year.  US-95/Styner Avenue/Lauder Avenue would operate at LOS F on the side street approaches but would not meet signal warrants in the future. Although the side street delay would be high, it only occurs for a small number of mostly right turning vehicles.1 A traffic signal is not recommended but a pedestrian signal should be considered to improve the safety of crossing US-95. Improvements (including a potential HAWK signal) to this intersection will require coordination between the City and ITD.  SH-8/Styner Avenue/White Avenue would operate at LOS F on the side street approaches but would not meet signal warrants in the future. Although the side street delay would be high, it only occurs for a small number of vehicles. The intersection currently provides separate northbound and southbound right turn lanes which allow the highest side street movements to turn right without being blocked by the left and through movements. No at grade improvements are recommended, but a bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing is proposed in the Active Transportation Strategy (Chapter An additional roadway project is recommended that would affect operations at study intersections. These projects and impacts to future 2035 operating conditions are summarized below. The downtown couplet improvement project would remove the outside vehicle travel lanes on Jackson Street from C Street to College Street and Washington Street from Lewis Street to Second Street. Jackson Street (one-way southbound) and Washington Street (one-way northbound) would be reconfigured to a two-lane cross-section with a bike lane and on-street parking. The Jackson Street and Washington Street signals at Third Street and Sixth Street would operate at LOS C or better with the reduction of vehicle capacity. 1 The side street’s left turning vehicles would have higher delay than right turning vehicles. However, right turn volumes are much higher than the left turn volumes. Thus, a new signal would benefit only a small number of vehicles. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-38 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Traffic Control Plan A traffic control plan was developed for the City to show future needs for various traffic control methods at key intersections. The recommendations are based on 2035 forecast volumes and two levels of analysis. Future intersection turn movement volumes were available for the study intersections; therefore, a detailed level of analysis was conducted at those locations. Preliminary traffic signal warrants2 were evaluated at all unsignalized study intersections under year 2035 preferred scenario. Intersections meeting evening peak hour traffic signal warrants will be analyzed at a future date based on Eight Hour Warrants before installation of a traffic signal occurs. Meeting traffic signal warrants does not guarantee that a signal will be installed but provides criteria to be utilized along with engineering judgment. The installation of a roundabout or four-way stop sign control was also considered for each unsignalized study intersection with substandard performance. For other key intersections in the City, a high level analysis of future roadway approach volumes (not detailed turn movement volumes) was conducted to approximate the need for traffic signals, roundabouts, and stop signs. Changes in intersection traffic control are recommended at several intersections in 2035 based on the analysis to improve traffic operations and safety for both motor vehicle operators and pedestrians. Recommendations are summarized in Figure 4-13. Further considerations in determining appropriate intersection traffic control are:  Traffic signals and roundabouts are both used for traffic control at higher traffic volume locations.  Roundabouts should be considered where they are expected to perform better than other control modes. Key performance considerations are vehicle delay, safety due to conflicting vehicle movements or other operational problems.  Roundabouts tend to work better when traffic volumes are evenly balanced on all approaches and where there are a high number of left turning vehicles.  Traffic signals can cause unnecessary delay for many reasons. Some of the reasons include:  The need to provide minimum green time to every movement, every cycle, regardless of whether there are vehicles entering the intersection on that movement.  There is “lost time” associated with startup and termination of a green phase.  Left turns in shared lanes can impede other movements in the shared lane.  Heavy left turn demands can rob signal time from other major movements.  Signals are dependent upon power, which may fail on occasion or may not be available at an intersection. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action RT13. Intersection Improvements – Construct recommended solutions to mitigate future operational problems at intersections. Action RT14. Traffic Control Plan – Implement the plan as future intersection volumes increase and capacity improvements are needed. Action RT15. Intersection Mobility Standards – Adopt intersection mobility standards with flexibility under specific conditions. Action RT16. Traffic Signal Spacing – Require a minimum signal spacing of 1,000-feet on minor arterials and 600-feet on collectors. . 2 Preliminary Signal Warrants, MUTCD Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Vehicular Volume). ---PAGE BREAK--- n n G Æc " " " " n D St F St A St Polk Extension Palouse River Dr Almon St C St Baker St First St Main St Blaine St B St Itani Dr White Ave Lynn Ave Logan St Lilly St Line St Taylor Ave Mountain View Rd Harrison St Morton St Public Ave Mabelle St Sixth St Alturas Dr Park Dr Grant St Moser St Elm St Sweet Ave Third St Farm Rd Daves Ave Concord Ave Nursery St Garfield St Eighth St Fifth St Conestoga Dr Fairview Dr Pintail Ln Adams St Granville St Lenter St Mckinley St Kenneth St Cleveland St Styner Ave Hayes St Shoshone St Lieuallen St Weymouth St Quail Run Dr Residence St Empire Ln Mountain View Rd Panorama Dr Ford St Ridge Rd Susan Dr Southview Ave Victoria Dr Washington St Levick St Lincoln St Colt Rd Lexington Ave Brent Dr Lewis St Stadium Dr Britton Ln College St Hirschi Rd Lemhi Dr Joseph St Ash St Cambridge Ct Homestead St Jefferson St Damen St Crestview Dr Jackson St Ekes Rd Flint St Sixth St Rodeo Dr E St Harold St Arborcrest Rd Hayes St B St Orchard Ave Third St Blaine St Sixth St White Ave A St Sixth St Sixth St Mountain View Rd N ez Per ce Dr Old Pullman Rd Perime t er Dr D St Blaine St Palouse River Dr W A St Warbonet Dr Mountain View Rd Mountain View Rd Darby Rd Trail Rd Robinson Park Rd Robinson Park Rd Lenville Rd Farm Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Mix Rd Plant Science Rd Carmichael Rd Palouse River Dr WalMart Goodwill City Hall Friendship Square University of Idaho Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place Gritman Medical Center Moscow Jr. High Moscow Senior High Intermodal Transit Center 1912 Center Moscow Charter School Disability Action Center 0 0.25 0.5 Miles WASHINGTON U V 8 IDAHO 95 Data Sources: City of Moscow State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS U V 8 95 State Boundary Trails Downtown District University of Idaho City Limits Future Roadway Connections Æc Library Civic/Social n School Shopping G Medical Major Transit Stop " Figure 4-13 Intersection Traffic Control Plan Future Signal Existing Signal Future Roundabout Existing Roundabout To Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport To Lewiston To Troy To Potlatch / Palouse ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-41 I Roadway & Traffic Operations Strategy MOSCOW ON THE MOVE STREET NETWORK PLAN Networked Street Improvement Approach Moscow on the Move recommends that the City of Moscow pursue a network strategy comprised of a “patchwork” of smaller projects to address peak hour traffic congestion, manage roadway capacity issues, improve street connectivity, and address safety issues. These projects would build out the street grid in partially developed or undeveloped areas and improve connectivity in more established neighborhoods. A key outcome of this approach is to expand opportunities for all modes of travel on streets that are currently designed for automobiles only. The alternate approach that many cities have tried is to expand the capacity of individual roadways through widening and adding lanes. Although some street projects may be recommended for capacity improvements in Moscow on the Move, using this approach as a blanket tool often yields diminishing returns. The congestion-reduction benefits of this scenario is typically short-lived as the capacity attracts additional vehicle trips from other routes, times, and modes of travel. Such roadways become less attractive to walking and bicycling and eventually evolve into significant barriers within a community. Moscow on the Move aims to keep traffic moving, but in a way that does not detract from the livability of Moscow’s neighborhoods or the economic health of its downtown and business areas. Roadway and traffic operations project types Using the street improvement patchwork approach, the roadway and traffic operation improvement projects recommended in Moscow on the Move can be categorized into six primary project types. The project types include corridor improvements and operational improvements at intersections. The project types include:  Reasonably Funded Projects Reasonably funded improvements may not have a dedicated funding source today but are considered likely to be constructed by the 2035 horizon year. This project type is separated to allow comparison between future baseline conditions and other street improvement scenarios.  Complete Street (CS): Complete Streets are streets that safely and comfortably accommodate all modes of travel, including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, motor vehicles, and freight depending on the unique role and requirements of each street. Complete Streets are streets and intersections planned, designed, and operated to consider the needs of all travelers, including people of all ages and abilities who are taking public transit, biking, walking, or driving. The City of Moscow should formally adopt a Complete Streets policy and design standards as an implementation tool of Moscow on the Move. It is recommended that all street projects – new and retrofits – for all street classes be developed using Complete Street policies and standards.  Retrofits/Road Diet (RD): “Road Dieting” is a tool used to reconfigure or redesign streets with excessive capacity that do not integrate well with their surrounding land use context, or that pose significant safety concerns spurring from speeding. Road diets are typically conducted on streets with traffic volumes less than 20,000 ADT (average daily traffic). The highest daily volumes in Moscow are on SH-8 west of downtown which serves approximately 15,000 vehicles a day. A common example is to reconfigure a four lane arterial or collector down to three lanes – one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane and bike lanes. The center turn lane increases safety and compensates for the loss of a through travel lane, since turning vehicles no longer block a travel lane of traffic, and turning drivers have better visibility of oncoming vehicles. Depending on the roadway function and surrounding land use context, the street can be restriped to introduce on-street parking. A common benefit derived from road diets is that reconfigured lanes may be narrower than existing lanes, which, combined with on-street parking and other arterial traffic calming features, can result in lower motor vehicle speeds.  Grid Connectivity Improvements (GC): In parts of Moscow that have already been developed with cul- de-sacs or where topography or creeks create barriers to efficient travel, poor street connectivity increases walking times and distances, making it less attractive to walk to retail establishments or to access transit. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-42 I City of Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan This plan identifies street connections that expand travel options by all modes – car, bicycle, walking, and transit. In parts of Moscow that are planned for development, particularly in areas south of Troy Highway and east of Mountain View Road, street connectivity guidelines developed in the sections above should guide street network expansion.  Traffic Calming Projects (TC): Traffic calming is a set of measures used to address the negative impacts of unchecked speed and volume on neighborhood streets. Traffic calming projects enhance safety and do not impede the multi-modal use of the streets (measures should not limit the use of the street by public transit, emergency response, maintenance activities, school buses, delivery vehicles, pedestrians, or bicycles). Ideal locations for traffic calming treatments are roadways that are used for through trips to avoid using a parallel route that would take more time and roadways with active pedestrian and bicycle use.  Intersection Improvement (II): Intersection improvement projects can include new traffic control (signals, roundabouts, and all-way stop), signal timing optimization, and other signal system/traffic management improvements. The intersection improvement needs in Moscow are primarily triggered by future capacity and safety deficiencies.  Downtown Streetscape Improvements (DS): Projects that target investments in downtown placemaking and streetscape beautification features such as decorative street lighting, bollards, curb extensions, and street trees. All projects are prioritized and phased for implementation in the Plan’s Action Manual. See the Capital Improvement Program in Chapter 8 for a detailed list of projects and a comprehensive project map. ---PAGE BREAK--- ESTABLISHING MULTI-MODAL STRATEGIES I CHAPTER 5 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY This chapter presents strategies and projects to address challenges and barriers to walking and bicycling in Moscow, including providing a variety of facility types and designs, education and outreach, signage and wayfinding, end-of-trip facilities, maintenance policies, improved roadway crossings, signal design and timing, and a sidewalk completion policy. ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move I 5-1 The City of Moscow has all of the ingredients to become a great walking and bicycling city. The city has walkable and bikeable distances no point within the city limit is farther than 1¾-miles from downtown Moscow or the University of Idaho), a well-used trail system, and an active bicycle advocacy community. This Active Transportation Strategy provides potential strategies and recommendations to address challenges and barriers, and to improve the walking, bicycling, and access to transit experience in Moscow. This strategy seeks to remove the element of apprehension associated with walking and bicycling in Moscow by implementing measures that will reinforce walking and bicycling as pleasant and reasonable choices for short trips for a sizable segment of the City’s population. The Active Transportation Strategy will help the City maintain its current bicycle and walking commute mode share (over 25% of all commute trips by bike or on foot) and increase the number of non-commute trips shopping, medical, recreation trips) made on foot or by bicycle. These are not only key City objectives, but also indicators of community walk- and bicycle-friendliness. Images from Jen Heiber (top), Latah Trail Foundation (left), and Nelson\Nygaard (right) CORE ACTIONS: CREATING A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE CITY Chapter 2, Getting Around Moscow Today, and more comprehensively, the Transportation Fact Book, clearly lay out the issues and challenges related to navigating Moscow’s streets on foot and by bike. These challenges range from topography to difficulty crossings of arterials and highways. Based on these unique issues, the Active Transportation Strategy establishes a core group of solutions that will enhance walking and bicycling conditions for people of all ages and abilities. Figure 5-1 summarizes these solutions and the sections below illustrate how each solution address issues that impact the walking and bicycling experience in Moscow. This Transportation Commission “check mark” icon signifies which actions have unanimous support from the Commission. The icon is a way to illustrate level of support for implementation. 5 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-2 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Figure 5-1 Core Active Transportation Actions for Moscow Core Actions Variety of Facility Types and Designs. Not all bicyclists want, or have the skill level, to use bike lanes on Moscow’s major streets. Providing a variety of facilities, from bike lanes to shared lanes markings (sharrows) to neighborhood greenways to trails allows users of all ages and abilities to reach many destinations on foot or by bike. Education and Outreach. Education and outreach about sharing the road safely, and about the resources available to all roadway users, can be conducted in a variety of ways. The City should identify the most effective way to reach the community and help educate them. Signage/Wayfinding Plan. Wayfinding signs displaying destinations, distances, and “riding/walking time” can dispel common misperceptions about bicycle travel time and distance while increasing users’ comfort and understanding of the non-motorized network. Wayfinding signs also alert motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and should use caution. End-of-Trip Facilities. Bicycle parking is an important component in encouraging people to use their bicycles for everyday transportation. Studies have shown that people are willing to bicycle more frequently if better end-of-trip bicycle facilities are provided. Maintenance Policies. The quality and condition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities are essential to the long term success of the networks. If the systems are well maintained and cared for, it will ensure both the safety and enjoyment of the residents and visitors who use them. This includes the need to maintain key bicycle and pedestrian routes during snow events. Improved Roadway Crossings/Pedestrian-Friendly Intersections. Improvements of major crossings are an important part of overcoming barriers. The City should prioritize and pursue improvements whenever possible. High-visibility markings, lights, and other visual cues can be effective. Crossings may also include a refuge island. Signal Design & Timing. Accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians at traffic signals can be challenging for traffic engineers as the needs and characteristics of bicycles, pedestrians, and motor vehicles vary. The difference in acceleration and speed provides some challenges that can be addressed with signal timing Sidewalk Infill/Completion Policy. Completing sidewalk gaps improves pedestrian connectivity by providing a continuous, barrier-free walkway easily accessible for all users. The City should prioritize and pursue sidewalk improvements whenever possible. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-3 I Active Transportation Strategy Facility Variety Sidewalks, shared-use paths, bike routes, and crosswalks should facilitate the mobility of residents of all ages and abilities. The pedestrian and bicycle network should employ principles of universal design designing for older adults, youth, and persons with mobility and cognitive impairments). Bicyclists have a range of skill levels, and facilities should be designed with a goal of providing for inexperienced and recreational bicyclists (especially children and seniors) to the greatest extent possible. See the Active Transportation Toolkit (Appendix B) for additional guidance on the design and application of a variety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bicycle Facility Types Shared Roadways are bikeways where bicyclists and motorists operate within the same travel lane, either side by side or in single file depending on roadway configuration. This facility provides continuity with other bicycle facilities (usually bike lanes), or designates preferred routes through high-demand corridors. Shared roadways may also be designated by pavement markings, signage, and other treatments including directional signage, traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers and/or other traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes. Such treatments often are associated with Neighborhood Greenways—a key component of Moscow’s future bicycle network. Separated bikeways, such as bike lanes, use signage and striping to delineate the portion of the roadway where bicyclists have priority and where general purpose travel lanes are present. Bike lanes encourage predictable movements by both bicyclists and motorists. Cycle Tracks are exclusive bike facilities that combine the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of conventional bike lanes. Shared Use Paths are facilities separated from roadways for use by bicyclists and pedestrians. Expanding Moscow’s Bicycle Network Currently, the City of Moscow has a limited number of bicycle facilities that make up the bulk of the bicycle network—consisting of bike lanes on the highway and several sections of major roadways, the Paradise Path, and signed bike routes—and limited sidewalk coverage particularly in areas outside of downtown. Identifying and providing a more complete bicycle and pedestrian network that incorporates Neighborhood Greenways and expands the bike lane and sidewalk network will provide greater connectivity and opportunity for biking and walking. See Figure 5-14 on page 5-23 for Moscow’s planned bikeway network at build out. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-4 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Figure 5-2 Facility Variety Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Rethinking Auto-Centric Street Design Using the Active Transportation Toolkit (Appendix B) and the updated Street Standards, Moscow should explore the opportunity to modify the cross-sections of certain existing roads (within the curb-to-curb width), as well as roadways programmed for improvements (including right-of-way acquisition) to provide bicycle facilities. Identified roads include: White Avenue (west of Mountain View Road) Line Street Farm Road Jackson Street/Washington Street couplet Conversion of underutilized roadways can enhance vehicular safety and provide an opportunity to add on-street bicycle lanes/buffered bicycle lanes. Overcoming Topography Pedestrians and cyclists alike select their route based on topography. As such, identifying a connected network of Neighborhood Greenways to provide low-traffic, low-stress routes for bicyclists and pedestrians that follow the topographic lines will provide routes that have easier grades and encourage active transportation in Moscow. Identified roads include: Lynn Avenue /Monroe Street /Lincoln Street Park Drive/Cleveland Street E Street Second Street/Van Buren Street/B Street The City should implement a pilot neighborhood greenway to familiarize citizens to the design features and benefits of this type of bicycle and pedestrian improvement. The pilot project can include lower cost, temporary installations before investing in more costly permanent traffic calming features. In addition, some of the trail connections throughout town are stairways, and the opportunity to retrofit the stairways with runnels or wheel gutters wherever feasible should be explored. Runnels are wheel channels installed on the side of stairways to facilitate carrying a bicycle up or down stairs. Expanding Connections and Sidewalk Coverage Providing a variety of facilities will help Moscow fill in gaps in the existing bicycle network. See the recommended network map for all proposed facilities and how they form a connected network. The City of Moscow has worked consistently over the last several years to implement the Mobility Task Force’s 2010 recommendations for priority sidewalk segments. Additional recommendations on addressing the priority sidewalk infill needs are addressed further in the next section. Facilitating Downtown Access/Commercial Center Access Providing safe bicycle access through a variety of facility types – bike lanes, sharrows, neighborhood greenways, and the path system – will allow bicyclists of all abilities to ride to and from downtown and other commercial and activity centers on a facility they are comfortable riding on. Expanding Bikeways with City Expansion As the City of Moscow expands, the bikeway network must expand with it. As a general matter of policy, new street connections that are to be classified as collector and arterial roadways—or that will effectively serve a function of thoroughfare connection, regardless of their classification—should be equipped with on-street bicycle lanes. These roads include: Mountain View Road Palouse River Drive D Street F Street Third Street RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT1. Utilize the Active Transportation Toolkit to develop a variety of facilities useable by people of all ages and abilities. Action AT2. Retrofit existing stairway connections with wheel channels to facilitate moving bikes up and down stairways. Action AT3. Expand the bicycle network as the city’s collector and arterial street network expands. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-5 I Active Transportation Strategy Education & Outreach The infrastructure recommendations in this strategy will provide safer, more comfortable places for further growth in bicycling, walking, and trail use. However, while improving infrastructure is critical to increasing non-motorized transportation rates, the importance of outreach, education, and evaluation efforts should not be underestimated. Bicycling and walking programs are an essential and effective complement to infrastructure investments. The goals of education and encouragement programs are to:  Disseminate walking and bicycling information widely to residents and visitors  Increase expertise, knowledge, and acceptance of walking and bicycling  Raise Moscow's profile within its resident population as a great place to walk, bicycle, and use trails  Support a sustainable tourism industry based on active recreation  Foster a culture of bicycling and walking as safe, convenient modes of transportation. Programs can ensure that more residents will know about and use new and improved facilities, learn about the benefits of bicycling and walking, and receive positive reinforcement about why and how to integrate bicycling and walking into their everyday lives. In essence, these efforts market bicycling and walking to the general public and provide the maximum "return on investment" in the form of more people bicycling and walking and a higher degree of safety and awareness around non-motorized transportation. Expanding Active Transportation Education and Awareness Campaigns The City of Moscow has the opportunity to increase education and outreach materials available to all residents through citywide efforts and partnership efforts with established groups/organizations like the University of Idaho, the Paradise Path Task Force, Safe Routes to School Moscow, and Smart Growth Idaho. Figure 5-3 Education & Outreach Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Rethinking Auto-Centric Street Design Sharing facilities with other road users requires education of all the users about their rights and responsibilities, as well as how to behave courteously, safely, and visibly. Due to the growing need to address concerns of both cyclists and drivers as they use Moscow roads and multiuse paths, a citywide “Share the Road” campaign is recommended. A citywide campaign utilizing Public Service Announcements (PSAs), billboards, advertising on transit vehicles and benches, signage; as well as other outreach methods, will communicate the “Share the Road” message to all roadway users. Improving Bicyclists’ Behavior Moscow can work with partners to develop an outreach effort aimed at bicyclists. Educating bicyclists on being courteous to other roadway users and lawful riding will address behavior issues (perceived and actual) such as wrong way riding, sidewalk riding, and safe riding habits (clothing, helmets, etc). Potential partners include: local bike shops, Safe Routes to School Moscow, the University of Idaho, Bike for Life, and various employers in the city. Improving Legibility In conjunction with a citywide wayfinding system (Action AT3 above), provide maps and educate all residents about what different bicycle facilities look like. Exposing citizens to Neighborhood Greenways, how they perform, and how they connect throughout the city will be important to increasing active transportation use. Cultivating Public Awareness Communicating the connected nature of the variety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities through different outreach methods- PSAs, specific events and celebrations, booths at citywide gatherings (Farmer’s Market, etc) – and letting residents and visitors know about the active transportation network and how to use it is a key step to seeing more people out walking and biking. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT4. Expanding upon recent safety and Safe Routes to School efforts, develop a branded and coordinated Active Transportation education, encouragement, and public awareness campaign with community partners. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-6 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Signage/Wayfinding Plan Navigating through Moscow by bicycle or on foot should be facilitated by wayfinding aids that help orient people to new routes or modes of travel. Placing signs throughout Moscow indicating to bicyclists the location of destinations and the riding time/distance to those destinations will increase users’ comfort and accessibility to the bicycle system. Wayfinding signs also alert motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and should use caution. Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bicycle routes, including intersections. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including:  Familiarizing users with the bikeway system  Helping users identify the best routes to destinations  Addressing misperceptions about time and distance  Overcoming a “barrier to entry” for people who do not bicycle often ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists) Wayfinding signs are a cost-effective means of improving the walking and bicycling environment. A community-wide Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Plan would identify sign locations along existing and planned bicycle routes and sign design information related to destinations to be highlighted on each sign and approximate distance and riding time to each destination). Defining Bicycle Routes and Improving Network Understanding As noted earlier, one of the strategies for addressing challenges to walking and biking, such as topography, indirect connections, and auto-centric street design, is to provide a variety of facilities for users of all abilities. Developing a comprehensive signage and wayfinding system to complement that network of facilities should be a priority for the City of Moscow. More information on developing a signage/wayfinding plan can be found in the Active Transportation Toolkit (Appendix Figure 5-4 Signage/Wayfinding Plan Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Improving Highway Crossings As noted in the previous section, crossing SH-8 and US-95 can be a difficult endeavor for bicyclists and pedestrians. A wayfinding and signage system could direct non-motorized users to enhanced or signalized crossings, making the crossing easier and safer for all roadway users. Expanding Direct Connections With the topographic challenges and gaps in the connectivity of the street network, providing a comprehensive wayfinding plan will provide a branding or identity for the overall bicycle network while communicating to all roadway users the most direct route along the various bicycle facilities. Facilitating Commercial Center Access People seeking to access commercial centers outside of downtown, such as the Eastside Marketplace or the Palouse Mall, by bicycle or on foot will be aided greatly by a comprehensive wayfinding system that identifies the most bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly routes with travel times. Improving Legibility Attracting new users to a bicycle network becomes easier when the bicyclist is confident of navigating throughout the city. A potential option to improve system legibility is to install a network of wayfinding that communicates to cyclists the safest and quickest routes to key destinations. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT5. Produce a Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Plan identifying sign locations, sign information, and an attractive brand/sign design. Implementing this plan should be an interim implementation step to building the 20- year bikeway network. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-7 I Active Transportation Strategy End-of-Trip Facilities Just as car trips vary in purpose and duration, so too do bicycle trips. Because of the varied nature of bicycle trips, different types of bicycle parking should be provided to accommodate these needs. These needs can be met by providing both short-term and long-term bicycle parking. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) addresses the distinction between short- and long- term parking in the Bicycle Parking Guide, 2nd Edition, 2010. Communities use different metrics for assigning appropriate levels of bicycle parking, including:  Unit count  Percentage of building square footage  Building occupancy  Percentage of car parking The recently updated APBP Guidelines recommend decoupling bike parking supply from car parking supply. The reason for this is that using percentage of car parking supply is not necessarily a good measure of the number of cyclists who would be expected to travel to a particular destination, especially in densely urbanized areas or where multiple travel options exist. We recommend a land use-based approach with location-specific measures of supply such as parking spaces per square footage of retail. Expanding End-of-Trip Facilities in Moscow At present, a large amount of bicycle parking is provided in Downtown Moscow, but parking options are limited in many areas outside of downtown and demand is beginning to surpass available supply in key locations. To expand bike parking options and availability, Moscow should consider adopting general bicycle parking requirements that extend to all land uses. Since this has been a difficult issue in the past, the City of Moscow should engage in a citywide (or perhaps downtown district-wide) discussion focused on the benefits of additional bike parking how more bike parking can benefit local businesses) with the goal of cultivating business-led bicycle parking improvements with the potential to develop a future bicycle parking ordinance. In the near-term, the City should serve as the lead implementer of downtown bicycle parking. The expansion of bicycle parking will encourage more trips to be made by bicycle. Figure 5-5 End-of-Trip Facility Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Overcoming Topography With topographic challenges clearly identified as an issue for many potential bicycle users in Moscow, the ability to maintain access to a bicycle at a second location (work, school, etc) for completing trips around town becomes a way to support active transportation in Moscow. Having secure, covered, long-term bike parking would allow residents to have access to a bike when needed, but still walk, drive or take transit as part of their work commute. Facilitating Downtown/Commercial Center Access As the city of Moscow’s bicycle network develops (including wayfinding signage to direct people to destinations throughout town), the need for secure short- and long-term parking at those destinations increases. Bike parking serves both employee and employers by providing an incentive to bicycle to work. The knowledge that there will be a safe and secure location to lock-up a bicycle at their work or shopping destination also encourages residents to consider biking to work or shopping. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT6. Conduct an extensive education and engagement process with the community and business stakeholders to adopt a downtown bicycle parking improvement program and/or a citywide bicycle parking ordinance. Action AT7. Create a supply of covered bicycle parking in downtown and at other commercial centers. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-8 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Maintenance Policies The quality and condition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities are essential to the long term success of the networks. If the systems are well maintained and cared for, it will ensure both the safety and enjoyment of the residents and visitors who use them. A proper maintenance program will reduce long-term costs by extending the life of the components and it will also win the continued support of the residents, homeowners, and businesses. Improving City Response to Maintenance Needs As with any community, the City of Moscow must continually address reduced quality in bicycle and pedestrian facility conditions. Some streets of Moscow exhibit potential hazards, such as sidewalk cracking, pavement drift, and exposed railroad tracks, that need to be addressed through regular maintenance programs and policies. Responsibility for sidewalk maintenance, including repair and snow removal, primarily lays with property owners, and in some cases the City. The City should catalog all existing maintenance needs to better understand maintenance priorities and reevaluate available tools to make improvements. The City is actively pursuing this maintenance catalog. Figure 5-6 Maintenance Policy Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Ensuring Regular Maintenance On- and off-street walkways and bikeways require regular maintenance and repair. Walkway maintenance includes fixing potholes, sidewalk decay, damaged benches, and re-striping crossings. Sidewalk repair is usually the responsibility of individual property owners and the City of Moscow sponsors a sidewalk improvement program to assist property owners with repairs and encourage a more functional system. On-street bikeways are typically maintained as part of standard roadway maintenance programs. Extra emphasis should be put on keeping bike lanes and roadway shoulders clear of debris and keeping vegetation overgrowth from blocking visibility or creeping into the roadway. Repairing/Replacing Damaged Sidewalks Sidewalk surfaces become degraded over time, with tree roots, weather, and other factors creating an uneven surface. Moscow should continue its program of repairing and replacing damaged and deteriorated sidewalks where surfaces have cracked or pavement has heaved. Areas that have high pedestrian use or where the condition of sidewalks is particularly problematic should be targeted for improvements first. Maintaining Facilities During Winter Winter weather conditions can create challenges both in terms of cyclist and pedestrian use and system maintenance. Frequent snow events require plowing of major roadways after most snow falls to make the roadways traversable for all users. Frequent plowing reduces the lifetime of paint and other materials used to mark bicycle lanes or shared roadways, unless the roadway surface is ground out and markings installed below the level of the plow blade. Sidewalks require specialized equipment to remove the snow efficiently, so sidewalk snow removal should be prioritized along with the vehicle snow routes, with priorities based on the sidewalk infill criteria established in the following section. Additional strategies are located in the Snow Removal section below. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT8. Develop a maintenance database that catalogs all existing maintenance needs to better understand maintenance priorities and reevaluate available tools to make improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-9 I Active Transportation Strategy Crossings & Intersections Crossing beacons and signals facilitate crossings of roadways for pedestrians and bicyclists. Beacons make crossing intersections safer by clarifying when to enter an intersection and by alerting motorists to the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists. Flashing amber warning beacons can be utilized at unsignalized intersection crossings. Push buttons, signage, and pavement markings may be used to highlight these facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings at Highways and Arterials Crossings at various locations along SH-8 and US-95 have limited visibility, sightline issues, and signal delay for pedestrians. In addition, clear and legible connections to the regional trails were identified as a challenge by residents of Moscow during outreach activities. Determining which type of signal or beacon to use for a particular intersection depends on a variety of factors. These include speed limits, traffic volumes, and the anticipated levels of pedestrian and bicycle crossing traffic. If any of those identified factors preclude the use of an at-grade crossing, then the feasibility of an over- or undercrossing should be explored. Troy Highway has two such locations where the presence of a grade separated crossing would provide a critical non- motorized system link by connecting the businesses and neighborhoods north of the highway with the Paradise Path. Those locations are identified below, along with additional potential crossing improvements. More information on crossing types may be found in the Active Transportation Toolkit in Appendix B. Key Principles of Bicycle and Pedestrian-Friendly Intersection Design Attributes of bicycle and pedestrian-friendly intersection design include:  Clear Space: Corners should be clear of obstructions. They should also have enough room for curb ramps and for transit stops where appropriate.  Visibility: It is critical that pedestrians on the corner have a good view of vehicle travel lanes (depending on traffic speeds) and that motorists in the travel lanes can easily see waiting pedestrians.  Legibility: Symbols, markings, and signs used at corners should clearly indicate what actions pedestrians and bicyclists should take.  Accessibility: All corner features, such as curb ramps, landings, call buttons, signs, symbols, markings, and textures, should meet accessibility standards and follow ADA or universal design principles.  Separation from Traffic: Sidewalks should be furnished with buffers from traffic including planter strips (widths vary by land use, traffic speeds, and volume) and /or on-street parking.  Lighting: Adequate lighting is an important aspect of visibility, legibility, and accessibility at crossings. These attributes will vary with context but should be considered in all design processes. A popular, yet challenging highway crossing at S Washington Street and Lewis Street. Image from Nelson\Nygaard ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-10 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Establishing more comfortable crossings at highways and arterials is a key element of Moscow on the Move’s Active Transportation Strategy. Image from Nelson\Nygaard Figure 5-7 Crossings & Intersections Improvement Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Improving Highway Crossings/Trail Connections The state highways (SH-8 and US-95) act as a barrier to bicycle and pedestrian travel with their high-traffic volumes, higher speed vehicles (except in the downtown couplet), limited number of protected crossing opportunities, and short crossing times at some signalized intersections. Potential solutions include developing well-lit and signed grade separated crossings and installing high visibility crossings with user actuation. Signalized crossings should support walking speeds of 3.5 feet per second during green walk phases. Highway crossing improvements and potential types were identified for the following locations: US-95 at E Street (median island with new signage) US-95 at Styner/Lauder Avenue (bicycle/pedestrian signals with countdown signal head) SH-8 at White/Styner Avenue (grade-separated undercrossing) South Couplet (signal phase timing adjustment) Facilitating Downtown Access Along with the highway crossings, several crossings of local roadways were also identified for improvements, to coordinate with the expanded bicycle and pedestrian network. Those locations include: Asbury Street at Third Street (Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons with signage and pedestrian refuge; see the Active Transportation Toolbox for more information on this signal type) Almon Street at Third Street with signage and pedestrian refuge) Almon Street at A Street with signage and pedestrian refuge) Liueallen Street at Pullman Road with signage and pedestrian refuge) Sixth Street at Main Street (install green left turn queue box [pictured] on the southeast corner of the intersection to facilitate eastbound left turns onto Main Street; this will require a right turn on red restriction for northbound traffic on Main Street) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-11 I Active Transportation Strategy Signal Design and Timing Bicyclists and pedestrians have unique needs at signalized intersections. Pedestrians typically travel more slowly than motor vehicles and can find themselves with inadequate time to clear an intersection before the conflicting green phase begins if the signal time is not adequate. Depending on signal phasing through a corridor, bicyclists may travel at the same rate as motor vehicles. To incorporate bicyclists and pedestrians into signal design and timing, the time allowed for reacting to the change in signal, starting up and accelerating to free flow speed, plus the time to clear the width of the intersection, must be accommodated within the combined time of the green plus amber change intervals. The duration of both the green and amber intervals of signals is typically determined by the expected motor vehicle startup, acceleration, and speed through an intersection, which may be faster than the average cyclist speed when signal phasing prioritizes motor vehicle throughput. Methods for better accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians once they have been detected at an intersection include:  Increase the minimum green interval to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to clear the last conflicting lane. Bicyclists may have slower speeds and accelerations than motor vehicles and even if they are at the head of the vehicle queue when a green light is given, the bicyclist may still lack sufficient time to clear the intersection during the green. This is particularly important at highway crossings.  Install pedestrian countdown heads at all future signalized crossings. These countdown signals provide immediate feedback to the pedestrian or bicyclist, indicating the amount of crossing time still available.  Lengthen the amber change interval of the intersection to allow for the slower acceleration and speed of bicyclists. This should be only part of the solution as longer amber intervals can also encourage motor vehicles to enter intersections under this phase.  Lengthen the ‘all red’ clearance interval of the intersection. This allows any pedestrians, motorists, or bicyclists still in the intersection to clear before a green interval is given to opposing traffic. The maximum length of the ‘all red’ phase should not generally be greater than three seconds.  If demand warrants, rest the signal in green on the street that serves the high priority bicycle network.  Time coordinated signals in the urban core to keep travel speeds relatively low, such as 20 miles per hour, which will also accommodate bicyclists traveling 10 miles per hour. This strategy makes it possible to alter signal timing to provide ‘green waves’ for bicyclists without significantly impeding motor vehicle flow.  Install “bicycle only” traffic signals in areas of high conflict or unique geometry to trigger a bicycle only phase.  Use signal detection to detect moving bicyclists. Video detection technology can be programmed to detect the presence of bicyclists and trigger a bike phase or extend the green phase based on their presence in a bike lane. An example of a pedestrian countdown head. Image from Nelson\Nygaard ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-12 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Designing Multi-modal Traffic Signals Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and accessibility in Moscow could be improved through modifying signal design and timing. For example, downtown signals at Jackson Street and Washington Street force pedestrians to actuate the signal instead of providing an automatic WALK phase, contributing to pedestrian delay. Figure 5-8 Signal Design and Timing Improvement Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Reducing Pedestrian Delay in Downtown and Along Highways The state highways (SH-8 and US-95) act as barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel with their high-traffic volumes, higher speed vehicles (except in the downtown couplet), limited number of protected crossing opportunities, and short crossing times at the signals. Along with the recommendations in the previous strategy and the guidelines identified above, Moscow should identify the high-use signalized crossings within the city and change the operations of the pedestrian signals from pedestrian actuation to having an automatic WALK phase. Intersections recommended for this improvement include: Third Street @ Jackson Street Third Street @ Washington Street Sixth Street @ Jackson Street Sixth Street @ Washington Street D Street @ Main Street RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT9. Apply methods for better accommodating bicyclist and pedestrian detection at intersections in the downtown core when adjusting signalized intersection timing. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-13 I Active Transportation Strategy Sidewalk Infill/Completion Policy The Sidewalk Infill Program places emphasis on completing sidewalk gaps along major pedestrian routes and near major pedestrian destinations. Completing some sidewalk links can be challenging, especially in older residential areas where residents have developed fencing and landscaping within the public right-of-way and may consider those areas to be part of their property. In addition, some residents may not want traditional sidewalks due to the look of their neighborhoods and potential impacts to mature landscaping and trees. Regardless, the public right-of way that is generally located on either side of the paved driving and parking area is intended for walking, whether or not a sidewalk currently exists. The primary method for sidewalk development in new development or redevelopment is through requiring the property developer to provide sidewalks that conform to the municipal code. Because the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires non-single family development to address accessibility needs, there is particular precedent for requiring properly-constructed sidewalk infill when a property is improved. Although developer requirements are an important mechanism for constructing sidewalks, this mechanism alone is generally inadequate for addressing sidewalk infill needs, as there is no correlation between important gaps in the sidewalk network and the likelihood of a property redeveloping. Most communities will find that additional measures will be needed that allow for greater control over where and how sidewalk infill happens. It is important to note that a pedestrian environment that is strategically built to be accessible for people with disabilities is also more accessible for all other users. Curb ramps, for instance, can accommodate strollers, shopping carts, and dollies for the movement of goods. Accessible intersection crossings can increase safety for people regardless of ability. In recognition of this, the City’s philosophical approach is to create pedestrian environments that are attractive, functional, and accessible to all people. Expanding Moscow’s Sidewalk Network In Moscow today, a large number of gaps in the sidewalk network present a challenge for pedestrians traveling to destinations within the city, including transit users trying to access SMART Transit and those with mobility or visual impairments. The City should continuing the existing Sidewalk Infill Program with updated investment criteria based on the Mobility Task Force’s recommendations (see Action AT12). Figure 5-9 Sidewalk Infill/Completion Benefits Issue/Challenge Addressed Benefits/Improvements Expand Direct Connections and Sidewalk Coverage Moscow should continue its existing Sidewalk Infill Program, whereby City staff periodically inventory the street network to identify sidewalk gaps and develop strategies, project prioritization criteria, and funding sources for completing these gaps. This Active Transportation Strategy also includes additional input on sidewalk gap prioritization in the Supporting Actions section. Asbury Street is a key university access route for students, faculty, and staff, but it offers no sidewalks and limited separation from traffic. Image from Nelson\Nygaard ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-14 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan SUPPORTING ACTIONS Building on the challenges discussed and strategies identified in the sections above, the following section makes recommendations to improve and expand Moscow’s active transportation environment, including a recommended Complete Streets policy and strategies related to pedestrian and bicycle network development, transit access, and winter snow removal. Complete Streets in Moscow Moscow should adopt a Complete Street policy to ensure its streets can accommodate all modes of travel. Developing a Complete Streets policy or codified ordinance in Moscow will formalize the City’s intent to plan, design, and maintain streets so they are safe for users of all ages and abilities. This type of policy would direct City staff from all departments that have a stake in the design and operation of streets to consistently design and construct the right-of- way to accommodate all anticipated roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, motorists, and freight vehicles. In practice, a Complete Street is a street that, in addition to general purpose vehicular travel lanes, allocated space for sidewalks, bike lanes or shoulders, bus lanes, transit stops, crosswalks, median refuges, curb bulbouts, appropriate landscaping, and other features that add to the usability and livability of the street as determined by context. Legislation on the subject has been passed in 25 states and almost 300 other jurisdictions throughout the country. In addition to making streets in Moscow more livable, safe, and accessible, developing a Complete Streets ordinance can make many of the projects proposed in this plan eligible for new state and federal funds that prioritize Complete Streets or livability projects. According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, an ideal policy should:  Include a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets.  Specify that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as operators of trucks, buses, and automobiles.  Apply to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right-of-way.  Make any exceptions specific and set a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.  Encourage street connectivity and aim to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes.  Be adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.  Direct the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs.  Ensure that Complete Streets solutions will complement the context of the community. Developing and implementing a Complete Streets policy will require a collaborative process with private and public actors that have a stake in the public right-of-way. Figure 5-10 illustrates five steps (post-policy adoption) needed to understand and modify Moscow’s existing processes and standards that govern how streets are planned, designed, and built. The City is already achieving several of these steps, particularly in the areas of staff and community education and establishing stakeholder working groups. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-15 I Active Transportation Strategy Figure 5-10 Complete Streets Implementation Process (Post-Policy Adoption) The City has recently developed draft amendments to its Street Design Standards, which generally incorporate principles of Complete Streets design. However, additional detail related to intersection, transit, and bicycle facility design could be included to ensure all modes are safely accommodated, particularly where potential conflicts could arise between modes. Changes to consider include elements of intersection design, bus bulb outs and other transit priority features, bike lane widths exclusive of gutter pan widths, standards for continuing bike lanes through intersections, and considerations for lane widths that are less than 12’ wide on collectors and minor arterials. A Complete Street Design Overlay is another street design tool that requires multi-modal street design, while considering key dimensional, operational, and modal priority tradeoffs. The Overlay is placed “over” the base street design standards to modify its regulating ability. The recently released NACTO Urban Street Design Guide could provide additional guidance in developing the Overlay. The Draft Street Design Standards should be adopted now and any additional street design standards based on Complete Street principles can be included as a Complete Streets Overlay or supplement after the City’s formal Complete Streets policy is adopted. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT10. Adopt a Complete Streets policy to build out transportation facilities for all users. Action AT11. Complement the City’s street design standards with a Complete Street Design Supplement to ensure all users are accommodated along and across the street (including intersection design). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-16 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Pedestrian Network Development One of the ways in which communities can promote walking is through infrastructure improvements that complete the pedestrian network – often referred to as sidewalk infill.1 The goal of sidewalk infill programs is to connect fragmented segments of a community’s existing sidewalk network through the construction of new sidewalks as a means of improving the network’s continuity and connectivity. Sidewalk Infill Project Criteria Moscow’s Sidewalk Infill Program is helping make progress toward a safe, complete sidewalk network within the city. Funds expended through this program should be targeted to result in greater community benefit by using criteria to guide investment decisions. Strategic sidewalk infill consists of performing inventory and analysis of the community’s existing sidewalk network to identify network gaps, prioritizing gaps based on community needs and funding requirements, and filling in these gaps as funding becomes available. Figure 5-11 provides recommended sidewalk infill criteria for the City of Moscow. In addition to the infill criteria, Moscow should pursue the recommendations and implementation considerations from the Mobility Taskforce’s 2010 Report to the Transportation Commission. Figure 5-11 Sidewalk Infill Project Criteria Guiding Principle/Goal Criteria Mobility and Access  Within 1/4-mile of transit stop  Any gap along an arterial/collector roadway  Any gap along identified neighborhood greenway  Any gap along a city identified snow route Downtown and University Public Spaces  Any gap in the downtown core  Within 1/8-mile of the University of Idaho Land Use, Design, and Quality of Life  Within 1/4-mile of a school  Within 1/4-mile of a community center  Within 1/4-mile of a medical center  Within 1/4-mile of a senior center  Within 1/4-mile of a multi-family development RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT12. Use Sidewalk Infill Project Criteria to guide investment decisions of the Sidewalk Infill Program. 1 Sidewalk infill is a program that specifically seeks to eliminate gaps in the citywide sidewalk network. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-17 I Active Transportation Strategy Bicycle Network Expansion and Improvements The City of Moscow’s existing bicycle network (illustrated in Figure 5-12) is comprised of the local and regional trail system, bike lanes located throughout the city, and streets identified as bike routes (typically signed with little infrastructure improvements). The City is currently working with the Transportation Commission to further develop a connected bicycle network to better serve bicyclists in Moscow. In addition to this, the community participated in two Moscow on the Move open houses and developed maps identifying existing deficiencies within the current bicycle network and where new facilities/connections were desired. Each of these efforts helped to inform the recommended bicycle network and crossing improvements proposed in this section. The desired connections and linkages identified by the community are shown in Figure 5-13. Community members suggest potential bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway projects in Moscow during a public workshop. The active transportation suggestions stemming from this workshop are summarized in Figure 5-13. Image from Nelson\Nygaard ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n G " Æc " " D St F St A St tS klo P Palouse River Dr tS n o m lA C St Baker St First St tS nia M tS e nialB Indian Hills Dr B St Itani Dr White Ave e v A n n y L tS n a g o L tS ylliL tS e niL Taylor Ave d R w eiV niatn u o M tS n o sirr a H tS y ru b s A Morton St Public Ave Mabelle St Sixth St Alturas Dr r D kr a P tS tn a r G Castleford Moser St tS m lE Sweet Ave Third St d R m r a F Daves Ave Concord Ave tS y r e sru N tS dleifr a G Eighth St Fifth St Conestoga Dr r D w eivria F tS s a m a C Pintail Ln tS s m a d A Granville St tS r etn e L Mckinley St Kenneth St tS d n ale v elC Styner Ave tS s e y a H tS e n o hs o h S tS n ella u eiL Weymouth St r D r e k a n olS Quail Run Dr Residence St Empire Ln Panorama Dr Ridge Rd Susan Dr Southview Ave Travois Way Victoria Dr tS n otg nihs a W tS k civ e L tS nlo cniL Colt Rd Lexington Ave r D tn e r B Lewis St r D n o sr ete P e v A d r a h cr O Britton Ln College St Hirschi Rd Lemhi Dr Joseph St tS hs A Cambridge Ct Homestead St tS n o sr e ff e J Damen St Crestview Dr tS n o sk c a J Ekes Rd Flint St Sixth St Rodeo Dr E St Harold St d R ts e rcr o b r A tS s e y a H B St e v A d r a h cr O Third St tS s m a d A tS e nialB White Ave A St Sixth St D St tS e orn o M Cleveland St S Meadow St tS e cr e P z e N Mountain View Rd Paradise Path Paradise Path Bill Chipman Palouse Trail Paradise Path WalMart Goodwill City Hall St. Augie's Friendship Square St. Mary's School University of Idaho Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place J. Russell Elementary Gritman Medical Center Moscow Jr. High Disability Action Center Moscow Senior High Intermodal Transit Center Moscow Charter School 0 0.25 0.5 Miles WASHINGTON IDAHO Data Sources: City of Moscow, SMART, State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS, U V 8 95 U V 8 95 State Boundary Downtown District City Limits c Library Civic n School Shopping ^ G Medical " Social Service Landmarks Transfer Point Bike Lanes Bike Routes Trails Bicycle Network " Figure 5-12 Existing Bicycle Network ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n G " Æc " " D St F St A St Polk St Palouse River Dr Almon St C St Baker St First St Main St Blaine St Indian Hills Dr B St Itani Dr White Ave Lynn Ave Logan St Lilly St Line St Taylor Ave Mountain View Rd Harrison St Asbury St Morton St Public Ave Mabelle St Sixth St Alturas Dr Park Dr Grant St Castleford Moser St Elm St Sweet Ave Third St Farm Rd Daves Ave Concord Ave Nursery St Garfield St Eighth St Fifth St Conestoga Dr Fairview Dr Camas St Pintail Ln Adams St Granville St Lenter St Mckinley St Kenneth St Cleveland St Styner Ave Hayes St Shoshone St Lieuallen St Weymouth St Slonaker Dr Quail Run Dr Residence St Empire Ln Panorama Dr Ridge Rd Susan Dr Southview Ave Travois Way Victoria Dr Washington St Levick St Lincoln St Colt Rd Lexington Ave Brent Dr Lewis St Peterson Dr Orchard Ave Britton Ln College St Hirschi Rd Lemhi Dr Joseph St Ash St Cambridge Ct Homestead St Jefferson St Damen St Crestview Dr Jackson St Ekes Rd Flint St Third St Sixth St Rodeo Dr E St Harold St Arborcrest Rd Hayes St B St Orchard Ave Third St Adams St Blaine St White Ave A St Sixth St D St Monroe St Cleveland St S Meadow St Nez Perce St Mountain View Rd Latah Trail Paradise Path Bill Chipman Palouse Trail Latah Trail WalMart Goodwill City Hall St. Augie's Friendship Square St. Mary's School University of Idaho Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place J. Russell Elementary Gritman Medical Center Moscow Jr. High Disability Action Center Moscow Senior High Intermodal Transit Center Moscow Charter School 0 0.25 0.5 Miles WASHINGTON IDAHO Data Sources: City of Moscow, SMART, State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS, U V 8 95 U V 8 95 State Boundary Downtown District City Limits c Library Civic n School Shopping ^ G Medical " Social Service Landmarks Transfer Point Bike Lanes Bike Routes Trails Existing Bicycle Network " Figure 5-13 Bicycle Network and Crossing Improvement Needs Identified by the Community On-Street Gaps and Connections Requested Trail Connections Crossing Improvements Identified Needs ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-21 I Active Transportation Strategy Tiered Bicycle Network Supplemented by detailed field observations, Moscow on the Move expands upon the historical bicycle network recommendations illustrated above to create a 20-year vision for bikeway network development. The proposed network identifies roadways and other off-street connections that:  Are already well-suited to bicycle travel  Are already well-used by bicyclists  Close gaps in the existing bicycle network  Provide east-west and north-south connections  Support the development of more dedicated bicycle facilities like bike lanes and buffered bike lanes within the existing curb-to-curb width The 20-year vision for bikeway network development illustrated in Figure 5-14 below provides a variety of facility options suitable for different bicycle users, whether they are old, young, experienced, or novice. Moscow’s proposed bicycle network fills current bike lane gaps, provides off-street connections and neighborhood shortcut connections, as well as a dense network of neighborhood greenways. Moscow’s proposed bicycle network applies a system of shared lane streets on critical connections through the University of Idaho campus and on the north side of the city and it proposes new bicycle lanes connections toward the southern periphery of the city, among other improvements. Critical crossing improvements are also proposed, improving two important at- and sub-grade junctions at Mountain View Drive/ SH-8 and Lauder Avenue/ US-95. A complete list of prioritized short- and long-term bicycle network recommendations and its corresponding short- and long-term network map can be found in Chapter 8 of Moscow on the Move (the Action Manual). Moscow’s tiered bicycle network provides a variety of facility types for bicyclists with a variety of comfort levels. Image from Nelson\Nygaard ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dog Park Skate Park Kiwanis Park Alturas Park Ghormley Park East Gate Park East City Park Mountain View Park Lena Whitmore Park Jim Lyle Rotary Park Berman Creekside Park Anderson Frontier Park Almon Asbury Lieuallen Park Hamilton-Lowe Aquatics Center Requires corridor study and coordination with ITD Pending University of Idaho Approval WASHINGTON Data Sources: City of Moscow, State of Idaho Department of Lands GIS g ( g ) 0 0.2 0.4 Miles 8 8 95 95 D St F St A St Polk St Palouse River Dr Almon St C St Baker St First St Main St Blaine St Itani Dr White Ave Lynn Ave Logan St Lilly St Line St Taylor Ave Mountain View Rd Asbury St Morton St Public Ave Mabelle St Sixth St Troy Dr Park Dr Grant St Castleford Moser St Elm St Sweet Ave Farm Rd Daves Ave Concord Ave Nursery St Garfield St Conestoga Dr Fairview Dr Lenter St Kenneth St Cleveland St Styner Ave Hathaway St Slonaker Dr Quail Run Dr Empire Ln Mountain View Rd Howard St Panorama Dr Ridge Rd Victoria Dr Washington St Lincoln St Colt Rd Lewis St Peterson Dr Orchard Ave Britton Ln College St Lemhi Dr Joseph St Jefferson St Damen St Crestview Dr Jackson St Ekes Rd Third St Sixth St Rodeo Dr E St Harold St Hayes St B St Orchard Ave Third St Adams St Blaine St White Ave A St Sixth St Mountain View Rd Meadow St Monroe St E St Spotswood St Harding St Eisenhower St Eighth St Eighth St Jefferson St Buren St Indian Hill Rd Blaine St Nez Perce St E St Deakin Ave Po nder osa D r B St R ol l i ng Hi l l s D r Lauder Ave Wale nta Dr D St Blake Ave Lieuallen St Fifth St Pullman Rd Third St Cleveland St Sixth St P e rime t er Dr WalMart Goodwill City Hall Friendship Square St. Mary's School University of Idaho Palouse Mall / Winco Eastside Market Place J. Russell Elementary Gritman Medical Center Moscow Jr. High Disability Action Center Lena Whitmore Elementary A.B. McDonald Elementary Moscow Senior High New Saint Andrews College Idaho Department of Labor Office Idaho Department of Health & Welfare Paradise Creek Regional Alternative School University of Idaho Student Health Services Intermodal Transit Center Sojourners Alliance Logos School Moscow Charter School Palouse Surgeons Lewis Clark Early Childhood West Park Elementary Palouse Prairie Charter School White Pine Montessori 1912 Center Gritman Wellness Center n n n n n n n n n n n G G G G G G G G " " " Æc " " " n n " Figure 5-14 Planned (20-year) Bikeway Network State Boundary Downtown District City Limits University of Idaho Landmarks Library Æc Civic/Social Service Major Transit Stop n School Shopping G Medical " Existing Bike Network Future Bike Network Existing Bike Lanes (or highway shoulders) Up Hill Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Future Bike Lane Existing Shared Use Path Future Shared Use Path Crossing Improvement Roundabout Intersection Improvements Path connection to highway underpass Requires coordination with Moscow School District Path connection through Fairgrounds requires County approval Shared Lane Markings Neighborhood Greenways ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow on the Move MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-25 I Active Transportation Strategy ACCESS TO TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS Providing safe and easy access to transit contributes to the safety, convenience, and comfort of transit riders. Seamless and safe access attracts new riders, increases ridership among existing transit users, and makes for a more complete transportation network for all users. Connecting people to transit will require complete sidewalks and accessible intersection design. Gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks, high speed roads, and inadequate transit stop facilities all negatively influence transit system access and quality. To address these issues, while being cognizant of budget constraints, the City of Moscow should strive to focus investments along streets that directly connect to transit. Quality pedestrian facilities include more than complete sidewalks. Access should be direct and barrier-free. Safe crossings with automatic WALK phases for pedestrians, on-demand push button lights at all signals without automatic phases, pedestrian-scale street lighting, curb extensions, ADA-compliant curb ramps, marked crossings, and a host of traffic calming strategies all contribute to improved access to transit. To expand the range and catchment area of transit riders, bicycle facilities should connect to transit stops. At a base level, providing bicycle parking at stops and linking stops to bicycle facilities encourages multi-modal riders. A higher level of service for bicycle riders may include covered, secured bicycle parking (particularly at the Intermodal Transit Center, University of Idaho, and other places where long-term bicycle parking is needed), buses with multiple bike racks, and transit stops that are linked to off-street shared use paths. Finally, access should be visually pleasing and create a pleasant environment. The current transit network intersects with a number of problem areas identified in the pedestrian network. Generally, pedestrian access downtown offers adequate to excellent sidewalk facilities and adequate to excellent intersection conditions. Residential pedestrian facilities are often disconnected. Where sidewalks have been completed, they are often on only one side of the street and are often narrow and in competition with vehicle parking in residential areas. Locations with high transit usage and inadequate pedestrian facilities include Eastside Market Place where adjacent parts of Mountain View Road lack complete sidewalks and safe crossings. There is no ADA access along Blaine Street from south of Third Avenue. The pedestrian environment near Palouse Mall/Winco along Farm Road and along the western section of SH-8 near the Palouse Mall, Walmart, and Goodwill either have no sidewalks or the sidewalks need improvement. Bicycle Access Bicycle access to transit is currently limited by route availability and stop amenities such as adequate and safe bicycle parking. The existing bike network provides limited access to existing transit routes with major gaps near the Eastside Market Place and neighborhoods north of D Street. Some SMART transit vehicles operating in Moscow are equipped with on-board bike racks, improving access for bicyclists. Currently, bicycle parking facilities are limited to high demand transit stops. Per the Transit Strategy in Chapter 6, bicycle racks at transit stops should only be provided at Enhanced Stop locations. Recommendations Moscow should focus investments on building sidewalks and curb ramps that facilitate access to transit stops. Investment Prioritization As reflected in the sidewalk infill criteria, sidewalk and pedestrian improvements should be prioritized along streets that immediately connect with transit stops. A pedestrian catchment for transit in Moscow is up to a half mile. At a minimum, quality pedestrian facilities should be located on all streets one-quarter mile from stops—particularly ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-26 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan along direct access routes—and include safe, comfortable crossings, and complete sidewalks on both sides of the street. A catchment of one to two miles attracts bicycle riders and comfortable, convenient routes should be available to connect bicyclists to transit stops. Transit should act as a critical emergency ride home option in event of a mechanical issue flat tire), injury, or undesirable weather. Enhanced Transit Access to High Activity Stops Moscow should employ a more comprehensive approach to improving bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit, merging enhanced transit passenger facilities like those highlighted in the Transit Strategy (see Chapter 6) with focused capital investments around high activity transit stops. A high activity transit stop is a stop location where either multiple transit routes or services intersect (much like the Super Stop concept illustrated in the Transportation Fact Book’s transit best practices) and/or high quality stop facilities are located due to transit demand. Dovetailing with the Transit Strategy’s plans for expanding and supporting existing enhanced transit stop facilities, these high activity transit stops provide a pleasant and convenient transfer between transit routes and comfortably connect passengers to key destinations in the community. Features that enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to transit include marked and visible crossings, complete sidewalks, bicycle storage, and lighting. Covered bicycle parking, small public bicycle self-repair stations (including tools and tire pumps), and maps of the bicycle network encourage bicycle and transit connections. Enhancing access to transit in Moscow will elevate the transit experience for current users and may encourage higher transit ridership. Investment should be focused on access improvements at stop locations where enhanced transit shelters are already available. Transit access enhancements, particularly access route improvements, should be focused near the Palouse Mall/Winco, downtown near Friendship Square, near the Disability Action Center, and on North Main Street in eastern Moscow near Mountain View Road, F Street, and the Eastside Market Place. Making improvements in these locations will provide a well-developed network of stop amenities and enhanced access to those amenities for riders throughout the city. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT13. Building upon existing enhanced transit stops, enhance access to high activity transit stops. Many of Moscow’s high activity transit stops are furnished with enhanced passenger amenities, including benches, shelter from wind and rain, and bicycle racks. Other amenities could include attractive lighting, bicycle repair stations (along major bicycle routes), greater bicycle rack capacity where needed and long-term bicycle storage in downtown and the University. Images from Nelson\Nygaard ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-27 I Active Transportation Strategy SNOW REMOVAL RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Moscow currently exercises a coordinated strategy to ensure timely and safe removal of snow from public streets. The primary focus of the current strategy, generally, is to allow passage of motor vehicles and, more specifically, for emergency response vehicles and through-traffic. The goal of the City is to remove snowfall, first from arterials and major streets, followed by neighborhood streets, within 36 hours. Through streets, such as SH-8/ Pullman Road/ Troy Road and US-95/ Main Street, are prioritized for removal while major transit stops such as the Intermodal Transit Center are not part of the Snow Route. During all snowfall events, residents are asked to park off- street to allow crews to clear as much of the roadway as possible. In 2009, the City Council adopted several recommendations designed to improve plowing of prioritized streets, including Moscow City Snow Plowing Ordinances Numbers 2009-20 and 2009-22. These ordinances direct residents to clear sidewalks and hydrants of snow and allow the Mayor to make Snow Removal Proclamations in the event of major snowfall. The Proclamation gives residents 12 hours notice to move vehicles from the Snow Route. Together with existing code, these ordinances support the adopted snow management strategies of the City. Streets not designated as Snow Routes are cleared as quickly as possible and as directed by the City Public Works Director. Figure 5-15 City of Moscow Existing Snow Routes Source: City of Moscow ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-28 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan Criteria for Snow Removal Key destinations for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit users, such as the Disability Action Center, are not served by the current Designated Snow Routes. By expanding the criteria for snow removal beyond accommodating motor vehicles and through traffic, the City will better serve the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. Snow removal criteria should include prioritization of transit routes, key bicycle connections, access to schools, health, and human services, and removal of snow on major streets with steep hills such as Sixth Street. Recommendations Updating snow removal routes and procedures should balance the City’s cost burden with the multi-modal needs of residents. The following recommendations should be considered by the City when updating snow management strategies: Snow Routes Based on a review of the current Snow Route network (pictured in Figure 5-15), the current snow route network adequately accommodates auto-mobility needs for the City. However, the City of Moscow should update the designated snow route network to include two new snow route designations: Primary and Secondary snow routes. Primary snow routes consist of the existing designated snow routes and should be the first streets in the designated snow route network to be plowed. Secondary snow routes will be newly designated snow routes consisting of the most direct east-west and north-south neighborhood greenways, as they are implemented. Initial Secondary snow routes may include the following future neighborhood greenways:  Lynn/Monroe/Lincoln Streets (Project NG1 in the Action Manual; see Chapter 8)  E Street (Project NG3 in the Action Manual; see Chapter 8)  Second / First Streets (Project NG4 in the Action Manual; see Chapter 8)  Eighth / Lynn / Harold / Lemhi / Lewis Streets (Project NG5 in the Action Manual; see Chapter 8) Plowing along these facilities should adhere to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Route Snow Removal Guidelines listed below. Plowing along the neighborhood greenways should only occur after the Primary snow routes are plowed. Bicycle and Pedestrian Route Snow Removal Guidelines  The City of Moscow’s snow removal operations should continue considering the operational needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. The City should incorporate explicit consideration of the additional needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in inclement weather.  Plowing operations should aim to limit impacts on pedestrian facilities and access to transit. Plowing should clear transit stops and the City should ensure transit users can easily access stops and do not have to step on snowbanks or slushy snow accumulation to reach the transit vehicles.  On streets with bike lanes and on neighborhood greenways, snow removal should clear snow thoroughly and completely off the bicycle lanes. The mass of motor vehicles tends to clear slush and snow from vehicle travel lanes, pushing it toward bike lanes. The lower mass of bicycles does not effectively clear snow by weight alone. Facility Design  Where possible, bike lanes that occur with on-street parking should be striped wide enough to accommodate parked cars and bicycle lane space when snow accumulates along the curb. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-29 I Active Transportation Strategy  When redeveloping streetscapes, the City should incorporate vegetated buffers. This allows for the planting of street trees, makes for a more comfortable walking experience, and provides room for snow storage off of sidewalks.  Street markings should be resistant to plow damage. All lane markings, especially the Green Shared Lane on A Street, should be marked with paint (e.g. StreetBond CL, which is used in Salt Lake City) or thermoplastic resistant to damage caused by plows. City Policy  Property owners should be required to remove all snow on sidewalks, natural and displaced by plowing. The current City ordinance does not require property owners to remove snow displaced by City plows. This may present a hazard for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Education  Through public information, drivers should be aware of the specialized needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in snowy conditions. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT14. Improve snow removal procedures to ensure safe and functional bicycle and walking conditions during snow events—particularly in the areas of major bicycle and pedestrian route preservation, facility design, City policy and operations, and education. Action AT15. Update the existing designated snow route network to include Primary existing routes) and Secondary key, direct neighborhood greenways) snow routes. Secondary Routes should only be plowed upon completion of Primary routes. Action AT16. Design streets and sidewalks to better store snow out of bike lanes and off of sidewalks. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-30 I City of Moscow Multi-modal Transportation Plan PROMOTING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND RECREATION An important part of promoting walking and bicycling in Moscow is to create a culture of active transportation. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, including focused investment in pedestrian and bicycle network development, education, promotional campaigns, and enforcement. Another opportunity that Moscow is well-suited to pursue is to establish a coordinated bicycle tourism campaign that ties the city’s identity to active transportation and recreation. The Moscow Chamber of Commerce has already begun marketing the City as an active city, but the City should provide support to further promote Moscow’s trail network and proximity to mountain biking opportunities. A coordinated effort between the City and the Chamber of Commerce could include further investigation into whether Moscow could be marketed as a bicycle tourism hub. Prior to making any major investment in bicycle tourism, the City (in coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and other local and regional stakeholders) should determine which types of bicycle tourism are viable and which bicycle tourists should be targeted for marketing. More detail on how to implement this strategy can be found in the Action Manual, in Chapter 8. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR MOSCOW Action AT17. Evaluate opportunities to support a citywide or regional bicycle tourism campaign or program to further promote active transportation and recreation in Moscow. A recent promotional campaign that highlights Moscow bicycle culture. Image from Moscow Chamber of Commerce