Page 1

City of Nampa Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan August 2011 PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.


Table of Contents 1

2

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1

Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

The Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3

Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4

Outreach .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 2.1.1

Sidewalks ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.2

Pathways (Figure 2.8 – Figure 2.13) ..................................................................................................................16

2.1.3

Crosswalks (Figure 2.14 – Figure 2.19)............................................................................................................ 23

2.1.4

Curb Ramps (Figure 2.20 –Figure 2.25) .......................................................................................................... 31

2.2 2.2.1 2.3

3

Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Bike Parking ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

2.3.1

High Crash Location (HCL) Review ............................................................................................................... 42

2.3.2

Prioritization and Implementation of Countermeasures ........................................................................... 47

2.3.3

General Trends Review ........................................................................................................................................ 47

2.4

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Destinations ................................................................................................................... 49

2.5

Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................................................................... 49

2.5.1

Opportunities ......................................................................................................................................................... 49

2.5.2

Constraints .............................................................................................................................................................. 53

User Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.1

Needs and Types of Bicyclists.................................................................................................................................. 63

3.2

Needs of Pedestrians .................................................................................................................................................. 65

3.3

Nampa Walking and Biking Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 66

3.4

Predicting Walking and Bicycling Demand ........................................................................................................ 69

3.4.1

Demand and Benefit Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 70

3.4.2

Potential Future Walking and Bicycling Trips ............................................................................................. 75


4

5

Recommended Walkway and Bikeway Network ....................................................................................................... 80 4.1

Development of the Pedestrian and Bicycle System .......................................................................................... 80

4.2

Recommended Network Maps ............................................................................................................................... 80

4.3

Project Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................ 81

4.3.1

Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................................................... 86

4.3.2

Pathway Gap Closures ......................................................................................................................................... 86

4.3.3

Sidepaths .................................................................................................................................................................. 88

4.3.4

Bicycle Boulevards ................................................................................................................................................. 89

4.3.5

Bike Lanes and Shared Lane Markings ............................................................................................................ 94

4.3.6

Crossings .................................................................................................................................................................. 99

4.3.7

Intersection Improvements ............................................................................................................................... 100

Design Standards ................................................................................................................................................................ 104 5.1

On-Street Facility Standards ................................................................................................................................. 105

5.2

On-Street Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 105

5.2.1 5.3

Sidewalks ............................................................................................................................................................... 105 Intersections ............................................................................................................................................................... 107

5.3.1

Marked Crosswalks ............................................................................................................................................ 107

5.3.2

Mid-Block Crossings .......................................................................................................................................... 109

5.4

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design .......................................................................................................................... 110

5.4.1

Facility Selection................................................................................................................................................... 110

5.4.2

Shoulder Bikeways ................................................................................................................................................ 111

5.4.3

Bike Lanes ............................................................................................................................................................... 112

5.4.4

Shared Lane Markings ........................................................................................................................................ 120

5.4.5

Bicycle Boulevards ................................................................................................................................................ 121

5.5 5.5.1

Bicycle Parking........................................................................................................................................................... 134 Bicycle Racks ........................................................................................................................................................ 138

5.6

On-Street Wayfinding Standards......................................................................................................................... 140

5.7

Off-Street Pathway Design Standards ................................................................................................................ 142

5.8

Pathway Design Standards ..................................................................................................................................... 143

5.8.1

Pathway Design - General ................................................................................................................................. 144

5.8.2

Pathway Design: Erosion Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 145


5.8.3

Mid-Block Crossings .......................................................................................................................................... 146

5.9

Pathway Wayfinding Standards ........................................................................................................................... 147

5.10

Pathway Construction Essentials ........................................................................................................................ 149

5.10.1

Soil............................................................................................................................................................................ 149

5.10.2 Silt Loams............................................................................................................................................................... 149 5.10.3 Sandy Loams ......................................................................................................................................................... 149 5.10.4 Erosion .................................................................................................................................................................... 150 5.10.5 Re-vegetation and Engineered Bank Stabilization ..................................................................................... 150 5.10.6 Paths through Wetlands and Riparian Areas .............................................................................................. 152 5.10.7 Flooding .................................................................................................................................................................. 152 6

Education Enforcement, Encouragement and Evaluation ...................................................................................... 153 6.1

Existing Education and Outreach Efforts .......................................................................................................... 153

6.2

Recommended Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 156

7

6.2.1

Education and Outreach .................................................................................................................................... 156

6.2.2

Enforcement ........................................................................................................................................................... 161

6.2.3

Encouragement..................................................................................................................................................... 163

6.2.4

Evaluation and Policy ......................................................................................................................................... 166

Implementation Plan ..........................................................................................................................................................175 7.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................175

7.2

Implementation Process ...........................................................................................................................................175

7.2.1

Funding....................................................................................................................................................................175

7.2.2

System Management ............................................................................................................................................176

7.3

Maintenance Management Plan ........................................................................................................................... 180

7.3.1

On-Street Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 180

7.3.2

Off-Street Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 182

7.3.3

Temporary Pathway Closures .......................................................................................................................... 183

7.4

Pathway Monitoring and Safety ........................................................................................................................... 184


Tables Table 1.1: Public Involvement Summary..................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 1.2: Relvant Public Comments from Other Planning Efforts ................................................................................... 4 Table 2.1: Reported High Crash Locations (2000-2009) .................................................................................................... 39 Table 2.2: Characteristics of the 11th Avenue South/1st Street South Intersection ....................................................... 42 Table 2.3: Characteristics of the 12th Avenue/Colorado Avenue Intersection .............................................................. 43 Table 2.4: Characteristics of the Canyon Street/Caldwell Boulevard Intersection ....................................................44 Table 2.5: Characteristics of the Lake Lowell Avenue/Midland Boulevard Intersection ..........................................44 Table 2.6: Characteristics of the 12th Avenue/Valley Drive Intersection ........................................................................ 45 Table 2.7: Characteristics of the 12th Avenue South/9th Street South Intersection ..................................................... 46 Table 2.8: Characteristics of the Midland Boulevard/Flamingo Avenue Intersection ................................................ 46 Table 3.1: Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian Trips ...................................................................................... 65 Table 3.2: Existing Pedestrian Demand Model Results ....................................................................................................... 71 Table 3.3: Existing Bicycle Demand Model Results ............................................................................................................. 72 Table 3.4: Air Quality Benefits from Pedestrian Trips1 ........................................................................................................ 73 Table 3.5: Air Quality Benefits from Bicycle Trips 1 .............................................................................................................. 74 Table 3.6: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reduction for Pedestrian Trips ........................................................................................ 74 Table 3.7: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reductions for Bicycle Trips ............................................................................................. 75 Table 3.8: Future Pedestrian Demand Model Results ......................................................................................................... 76 Table 3.9: Future Bicycle Demand Model Results ................................................................................................................ 77 Table 3.10: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reduction for Pedestrian Trips ...................................................................................... 78 Table 3.11: Air Quality Benefits from Pedestrian Trips1 ....................................................................................................... 78 Table 3.12: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reduction for Bicycle Trips ............................................................................................. 79 Table 3.13: Air Quality Benefits from Bicycle Trips1 ............................................................................................................. 79 Table 4.1: High Priority Sidewalk Table .................................................................................................................................. 85 Table 4.2: Pathway Gap Closure Ranking Results............................................................................................................... 87 Table 4.3: Sidepath Ranking Results ........................................................................................................................................ 89 Table 4.4: Bicycle Boulevard Ranking Results .......................................................................................................................91 Table 4.5: Bike Lane Ranking Results ...................................................................................................................................... 95 Table 4.6: Shared Lane Marking Ranking Results ............................................................................................................... 98


Table 4.7: Crossing Ranking Results ........................................................................................................................................ 99 Table 4.8: Intersection Ranking Results ................................................................................................................................ 101 Table 7.1: Public Works Asset Management Table .............................................................................................................176 Table 7.2: Recommended Bikeway Maintenance Activities ............................................................................................. 181 Table 7.3: Suggested Maintenance Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 182 Table 7.4: Maintenance Cost of Bikeway Network ............................................................................................................ 183

Figures Figure 2.1: Existing Conditions Key Map .................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.2: Sidewalk Existing Conditions, Area 1 ..................................................................................................................10 Figure 2.3: Sidewalk Existing Conditions, Area 2 ................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2.4: Sidewalk Existing Conditions, Area 3 .................................................................................................................12 Figure 2.5: Sidewalk Existing Conditions, Area 4 ................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2.6: Sidewalk Existing Conditions, Area 5 ................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2.7: Sidewalk Existing Conditions, Area 6 ................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2.8: Pathways Existing Conditions, Area 1 ................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2.9: Pathways Existing Conditions, Area 2 ................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 2.10: Pathways Existing Conditions, Area 3 ...............................................................................................................19 Figure 2.11: Pathways Existing Conditions, Area 4 .............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2.12: Pathways Existing Conditions, Area 5 ...............................................................................................................21 Figure 2.13: Pathways Existing Conditions, Area 6 .............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 2.14: Crosswalk Existing Conditions, Area 1 ............................................................................................................ 25 Figure 2.15: Crosswalk Existing Conditions, Area 2 ............................................................................................................ 26 Figure 2.16: Crosswalk Existing Conditions, Area 3 ............................................................................................................ 27 Figure 2.17: Crosswalk Existing Conditions, Area 4 ............................................................................................................ 28 Figure 2.18: Crosswalk Existing Conditions, Area 5 ............................................................................................................ 29 Figure 2.19: Crosswalk Existing Conditions, Area 6 ............................................................................................................ 30 Figure 2.20: Curb Ramps Existing Conditions, Area 1 ........................................................................................................ 32 Figure 2.21: Curb Ramps Existing Conditions, Area 2 ........................................................................................................ 34 Figure 2.22: Curb Ramps Existing Conditions, Area 3 ....................................................................................................... 35 Figure 2.23: Curb Ramps Existing Conditions, Area 4 ....................................................................................................... 36


Figure 2.24: Curb Ramps Existing Conditions, Area 5 ....................................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.25: Curb Ramps Existing Conditions, Area 6 ....................................................................................................... 38 Figure 2.26: Crash Map ................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 3.1: Bicyclist Types by Overall Population ................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 3.2: Walking and Biking Survey Results .................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 3.3: Frequency of Walking or Biking Trips Less Than Two Miles ..................................................................... 68 Figure 3.4: Biggest Barriers to Biking and Walking ............................................................................................................. 68 Figure 3.5: Top Five Most Needed Public Recreation Facilities ....................................................................................... 69 Figure 4.1: Sidewalk Gap Priority Infill Map.......................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 4.2: Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Map ............................................................................................. 83


City of Nampa, Idaho

1 Introduction A high-quality non-motorized transportation network is the hallmark of desirable communities that are pleasant to live, work, and play in. Nampa has been taking incremental steps over the past 15+ years to increase walking and biking opportunities. The City’s decision to fund a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project is a giant step toward realizing Nampa’s walkable and bikable potential.

1.1 Background The City of Nampa began developing trails and “greenbelt” pathways in the mid-1990s when new subdivision development began to boom. Around 1995, the City acquired the right-of-way along the railroad corridor between Locust Lane and Iowa Avenue and constructed a rail-to trail project. As subdivision development accelerated in the late 1990s to the mid-2000s, the City recognized the importance of identifying trail or pathway routes in order to leverage development dollars to get pathways and trails constructed. The City began to require developers to dedicate rights-of-way for, and construct, pathways as land was developed. The section of the Wilson Creek pathway through the Middle Creek Subdivision is a good example of the pathway construction requirement. Around this same time period, Nampa’s Parks and Recreation Department made an early attempt at designating preferred routes along roadways for bicyclists, resulting in a pocket map and brochure with bicycle rules. Nampa’s Planning and Zoning Department hired a long-range planner in 2007. Planning staff began to look at the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure needs and issues. Some of the needs and issues identified were: •

No funding allocated to acquire the rights-of-way needed to close pathway gaps.

No consistent standards for pathway or on-street facility development.

No availability of a single source document to assist developers to determine pathway design standards, the merits of deed vs. easement, responsibility for path construction.

Paths were primarily developed as a recreational amenity, largely not considered as transportation or part of the transportation system.

During re-election bids, city officials had often expressed concerns about the need for developing bicycle facilities. One of the City initiated programs was the Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) program. The SR2S program brought attention to the need for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements to improve the safety of children walking and biking to school and to encourage more children to walk and bike. The public expressed concerns about the lack or cohesiveness of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to the City through several planning efforts, including the Transportation Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Public feedback consistently showed that Nampa’s residents wanted continued pathway development, on-road bicycle facilities and, in general, infrastructure improvements to make Nampa a bicycle and pedestrian friendly town. The City of Nampa was awarded funding through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) in the fall of 2009. City staff and officials were united in their desire to use a large portion of this funding to systematically look at the City’s trail /pathway system, sidewalk and on-road bicycle infrastructure

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 1


City of Nampa, Idaho

needs. Funding was set aside to create a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, along with additional funding set aside to construct priority projects that resulted from the plan.

1.2 The Plan The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (the Plan) will accommodate a wide range of users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with mobility impairments. The Plan calls for the first extensive on-street bicycle network that will appeal to riders of various ages and skills. The on-street facilities will range from bicycle boulevards (27+ miles) on residential streets to bike lanes (32+ miles) on busy arterials. Gaps in the sidewalk network (178 miles) and pathway system (over 5 miles) have been identified and prioritized for infill. A substantial signage system has been proposed for the Wilson Pathway from the Lone Star and Middleton Road intersection to the Stoddard Pathway (near Locust Land and Southside Boulevard). The design standards and guidelines in the Plan will allow the various users to safely enjoy the pathways and on-street bicycle system, navigate the system and enjoy amenities along the way. The design standards and guidelines will also assist the City with the development of future pedestrian and bicycle facilities and ensure facilities are built and maintained to maximize the life-span of the facilities. In short, the Plan creates a cohesive, integrated, non-motorized transportation network that connects to the regional non-motorized transportation system. When implemented, the facilities will encourage Nampa residents and visitors to add “foot power” to their transportation mode choices.

1.3 Public Involvement The Plan is the result of a year-long collaborative effort between the project team, city staff, volunteers and advocates, and representatives of the local business community. Volunteers from the Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory group assisted the project staff in inventorying and analyzing the existing sidewalks, crosswalks, pathways and street network. The Steering Committee assisted in reviewing documents, providing feedback and making presentations. At the onset of the project, a Steering Committee was formed to assist the project team in the development of the Plan. The Steering Committee consisted of community representatives from the following groups and organizations:: •

Business owners

Citizens

City of Nampa Parks and Recreation

City of Nampa Planning and Zoning

City of Nampa Public Works

Idaho State University

Mercy Hospital/St. Alphonsus

Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory group

Nampa School District #131

Northwest Nazerene University

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 2


City of Nampa, Idaho

•

Southwest Health District

At the onset of the project, the Steering Committee drafted a number of goals. These goals assisted in the formulation of the public involvement plan, the prioritization of projects, and overall approach to the plan. Below is a list of the goals as developed by the project Steering Committee:

Goal: Become a Truly Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly Community Foster a pro-bicycle and pro-pedestrian awareness in individuals, private sector organizations, and all levels of government, to achieve a culture shift where foot-powered transportation is embraced. The City should apply for national recognition through the League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community program with an initial award level goal of BRONZE.

Goal: Engage Local Businesses and the Community Encourage local businesses and the community to be involved in the creation and adoption of the bicycle master plan. Foster a pro-bicycle and pro-pedestrian awareness in individuals, private sector organizations, and all levels of government that results in a long-term commitment to the construction and maintenance of poathway and pedestrian facilities.

Goal: Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Develop a set of facility design standards that accommodate a range of abilities, while increasing bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Goal: Promote Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Establish educational programs that teach safe bicycling and walking skills to all ages, and promote safer driving behaviors among motorists, in order to reduce injuries and deaths.

Goal: Promote Economic Development Connect to existing and planned routes in neighboring jurisdictions to form a regional pathway network. Link local businesses, places to stay, and places of interest in a well-connected and desirable system that attracts bicyclists and bicycle related businesses.

Goal: Regional Coordination Increase regional planning, implementation and maintenance coordination to create a seamless pathway network that is consistent in character and usability.

1.4 Outreach A number of activities were conducted to engage Nampa’s residents in the planning process. Table 1.1 illustrates a summary of the public involvement for the Plan. Table 1.2 shows relevant public comments that were collected in 2010 as part of other planning efforts in Nampa.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 3


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 1.1: Public Involvement Summary Event/Tool

Date(s)

Involvement Summary

Stakeholder Interviews

August 2010 to November 2010

The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Steering Committee identified stakeholders to be interviewed. Ten of the identified stakeholders were contacted. A set list of questions was provided to the interviewers to guide the discussion. General comments were welcomed.

10/12/10 to 11/23/10

Six mobile presentations were given by the project team, Nampa staff and volunteers to local organizations and the Nampa School Board. It is estimated that 218 people heard the presentation and had an opportunity to provide input via the website, paper surveys/comment cards and map notations.

Listening Stations

9/21/10 to 11/4/10

Nine Listening Station events were held in conjunction with planned events, including the Farmer’s Market, parent teacher conferences, and the Nampa Chamber of Commerce. An estimated 298 people stopped by the Listening Station to hear about the project and provide feedback on maps and paper surveys/comment cards.

On-line survey

9/2010

Eight online surveys were completed

Paper survey/comment cards

9/2010 to 11/2010

In total, 124 paper survey/comment cards were returned to the project team.

Health Fair questionnaire

9/21/10

A questionnaire was made available to attendees of the NNU Wellness Fair. A total of 67 questionnaires were returned.

www.nampamoves.com

10/28/10 to September 2011

Open House

3/24/11

Mobile Presentations

An Open House was held to present the draft bicycle and pedestrian network maps. Thirty eight people signed in, although approximately 44 people were counted in attendance.

Table 1.2: Relvant Public Comments from Other Planning Efforts Event/Tool

Date(s)

Involvement Summary

Nampa Parks and Recreation Survey

2/16/10 to 3/4/10

A Parks and Recreation survey was taken to determine recreation needs. Walking and bicycle paths were the top requested facility by respondents.

Transportation Master Plan Survey

3/2009 to 7/2009

As part of the Transportation Master Plan, a public survey was taken to assist the project team in identifying transportation issues.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 4


City of Nampa, Idaho

2 Existing Conditions This chapter describes Nampa’s existing walking and bicycling environment to determine the opportunities and constraints that should be addressed through the recommended bicycle and pedestrian system in Nampa. The first part of the chapter includes an inventory and assessment of existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including sidewalks, shared-use paths, intersections, and bikeways. The second part of the chapter analyzes the opportunities and constraints related to walking and biking in Nampa, highlighting key areas where improvements may be needed. The analysis is based on a field review by the technical team and a local volunteer group of the existing facilities within the study area, an assessment of data made available through the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and crash data provided by the Idaho Transportation Department.

2.1 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian travel is accommodated and enhanced primarily by sidewalks, shared use paths, and intersection treatments, such as crosswalks and curb ramps. To document the existing conditions along the major roadways and paths in Nampa, a local group of volunteers were trained by the project team to assess the following five elements on a provided map: •

Lack of sidewalks

Absence of curb ramps at intersections

Presence of crosswalks

Pathway and sidewalk surface condition

Pathway and sidewalk obstructions. Obstructions include mailboxes mounted in the sidewalk; utility poles, shrubs or other landscaping protruding into the sidewalk; overhanging tree branches; and other fixed objects within the sidewalk right-of-way.

For purposes of the assessment, Nampa was broken up into six numbered areas (see Figure 2.1) to organize the results of the assessment. Figures 2.2-2.25 show the results of the facility assessment. Area 1 is on the south and southwest side of the city. The quadrant is bounded by Middleton Road, Locust Lane, Amity Avenue/Lake Lowell Avenue, and Southside Boulevard.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 5


Lincoln

Lincoln

Marble Front

Lincoln

Can Ada

Prescott

5

l

Dean

11th

Karcher

Franklin

Orchard

Parkview PreSchool

4

12 t

Central Elementary West Middle School

Centennial Elementary

Mem ory

Iowa Owyhee Elementary

2n d

h

Lone Star

FD Roosevelt

Lake Lowell

3r d

Lincoln Elementary

Amity

Iowa Elementary

Greenhurst South Middle School

Mcdermott

Park Ridge Elementary Columbia High

1

Skyview High

12th Ave

Midland

Locust

Ronald Reagan Elementary

Scism

Lewis

Deer Flat

City Limits

Dye

Track

Streets

Parks

Hwy 45

Streets Inventoried

Lynwood

Dearborne

Rim

Private Trail

Lewis

Locust

Alma

Southside

Lake Shore Trail Existing

Project Impact Area

l

East Valley Middle School

Powerline

Proposed Trail

Emerald Existing Conditions Map Areas

Ha ze

Spring

Legend Lewis Schools

La ke

Greenhurst Elementary

Sunny Ridge Elementary

n

Amity

Ra ilr oa d

Sherman Elementary

Nampa High

2

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

Prosperity

Roosevelt

Airport

Robinson

Midway

3

y rit

Snake River Elementary

Willow Creek Elementary

Powerline

Smith

r Ga

Cherry

Franklin

Happy Valley

Lake

Ca ld w el

Keim

Karcher

Idaho Center

Midland

Midway

Homedale

Mcdermott

Laster

Star

Laster

Ustick

Mcdermott

nd

Mcmillan

6

Madison

la

Northside

Cl ev e

Elm

Linden

Midland

Middleton

ag o

Smeed

Ch ic

Chinden

Knott

Kcid

Hwy 20/26

Pollard

Joplin

Figure 2.1: Existing Conditions Key Map City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

0.5

1

2 Miles


City of Nampa, Idaho

Area 2 is on the southeast side of the city, bordered by Southside Boulevard, Locust Lane, South Robinson Road, Cherry Lane, 11th Avenue and Garrity Boulevard, Area 3 is west of the downtown core. The quadrant boundary is formed by Middleton Road, Orchard Avenue, 12th Avenue, and Lake Lowell Avenue. Area 4 is in the downtown core area. The boundary is formed by Amity Avenue, 12th Avenue/Northside Boulevard, 2nd Street to 11th Avenue, Garrity Boulevard and Kings Road. Area 5 covers the northwest side of the city. Middleton Road, Cherry Lane, 11th Avenue, 2nd Street, Caldwell/Nampa Boulevard and Orchard Avenue outline the edges of this quadrant. Area 6 is the northern portion of the city. The boundary streets are Middleton Road, Linden Road/West McMillan Road, Star Road and Cherry Lane.

2.1.1 Sidewalks A fairly complete sidewalk system (with sidewalks on both sides of streets) exists in the downtown business core of Nampa. The further one moves away from the business core, gaps in the sidewalk system increase. The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan notes that there are many sidewalk gaps within the plan’s study area and sidewalks are typically 4 feet wide, making the sidewalk system inadequate. At the periphery of the City, sidewalks are generally non-existent. Many obstructions on sidewalks were noted throughout the city.

Area 1 (Figure 2.2) Occurrence of sidewalks: The sidewalks in this area are generally missing on the roadways studied.

Sidewalk gaps, with tree and utility pole obstructions on the west side of Canyon Street.

Sidewalk surface conditions: Overall, where sidewalks are present in this area, they are in satisfactory condition. Poor sidewalk surface conditions were noted in specific locations on Lake Lowell Avenue between S. Stanford Street and 12th Avenue; and on 12th Avenue between W. Georgia Avenue and Lake Lowell Avenue Sidewalk obstructions: Numerous mailboxes obstruct the sidewalk right-of-way (see Figure 3.2 for locations).

Area 2 (Figure 2.3) Occurrence of sidewalks: The sidewalks in this area are generally missing on the roadways studied. Sidewalk surface conditions: Overall, where sidewalks are present in this area, they are in satisfactory condition. Sidewalk buckling in several locations was noted on Garrity Boulevard and 11th Avenue (see Figure 3.3 for locations). Sidewalk obstructions: A couple of mailboxes are obstructing the sidewalk on Park Ridge Drive near Park Ridge Elementary School and on S. Grays Lane near E. Wintergreen Dr. A number of mailboxes are mounted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 7


City of Nampa, Idaho

in the sidewalk on S. Bridgewater Avenue across from East Valley Middle School; on S. Royal Meadows Dr. and S. Marcum Way. On Royal Meadows Way, there are sidewalk curb extensions around the mailboxes in some locations. Sidewalk obstructions range from utility poles to mailboxes on 11th Avenue (between Powell Avenue and Garrity Boulevard) and Garrity Boulevard (between 1120 and 1552 Garrity Blvd.).

Area 3 (Figure 2.4) Occurrence of sidewalks: The sidewalks in this quadrant are generally missing on the roadways studied. Sidewalk surface conditions: Poor sidewalk surface conditions were noted along Canyon Street between Lake Lowell Avenue and Caldwell/Nampa Boulevard. Other sidewalk surface trouble spots were found on Smith Avenue, with one spot on Midland Boulevard as shown on Figure 2.4. Sidewalk obstructions: Sidewalk obstructions were not recorded during the inventory process for this area, however subsequent field investigations noted mailboxes in the sidewalk right-of-way in several locations.

Area 4 (Figure 2.5)

Mailboxes are set into the sidewalk along Midland Boulevard

Occurrence of sidewalks: Area 4 covers the core downtown area and northeast to Garrity Avenue and Kings Road. Gaps in the sidewalk system are prominent on Victory Road, Sugar Avenue, Kings Road and key connecting streets in the Venice Street and Oak Street area; 2nd Street northwest of 5th Avenues and southeast of 24th Avenue; Roosevelt Avenue; Sherman Avenue; Amity Avenue, Diamond Street, Powerline Road and Chicago Street. Other occurrences of sidewalk gaps in this project area on noted on Figure 3.5. Sidewalk surface conditions: Poor sidewalk conditions are sporadic throughout the area and are indicated in Figure 3.5. Sidewalk obstructions: Mailbox or utility pole obstructions were recorded on the south side of Garrity Avenue between N. Sugar Avenue and N. Grant Avenue; and on Sugar Cane Drive. Overgrown shrubs are protruding into the sidewalk are on 5th Street between 15th Avenue and 16th Avenue; and on 7th Avenue between N. Yale Street and Lone Star Road.

Area 5 (Figure 2.6)

Utility pole and regulatory sign in the sidewalk right-of-way on 3rd Street North near 16th Avenue North

Occurrence of sidewalks: Beginning on the north side of Orchard Avenue to Cherry Lane, sidewalk coverage is nominal. Karcher Road, Cherry Lane, Middleton Road, Midland Boulevard, Flamingo Avenue and Orchard Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 8


City of Nampa, Idaho

Avenue are the major streets in this area with significant sidewalk gaps. Willow Avenue, Bonneville, Boone Avenue and Boundary Streets have no sidewalks. Sidewalk surface conditions: There are number of sections where poor sidewalk surface conditions are present in this area, see Figure 3.6 for locations). Sidewalk obstructions: Mailboxes, power poles and street lights are the primarily obstructions recorded in this area. These obstructions are location throughout the area as shown in Figure 3.6 for locations.

Area 6 (Figure 2.7)

A pedestrian must navigate access along N. Idaho Center Boulevard.Can/Ada Road at Birch Lane through private property.

Occurrence of sidewalks: The sidewalks in this area are generally missing on the roadways studied in this area, as much of the area is undeveloped. Sidewalk surface conditions: Due to the absence of sidewalks, no surface condition problems reported. Sidewalk obstructions: Due to the absence of sidewalks, no surface condition problems reported.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 9


n

( !

n

W X

W X

( !

W X

Smith

( !

(! ! (

n

( !

2n 3r d d

( !

Lincoln Elementary

11 th

( !

Willow Creek Elementary

n

( !

( ( ! !! (

Parkview PreSchool

( !

W X ( (! ! ( ( ! !! (

n

( !

Endeavor Elementary

( !

( !

( !

12 t

n

h

Lone Star

West Middle School

( ! ( !

( ! !! ( (

n XWXW

Central Elementary

( !

( !

n

( !

Roosevelt

Park Ridge Elementary

( !

n n

n

Lake Lowell

( ( ! !! (

Sherman Elementary

Amity

Centennial Elementary

(! ! (

Amity

W X Powerline

n Nampa High

n

Priva te

Middleton

Dr

FD Roosevelt

Iowa

n

Owyhee Elementary

Iowa Elementary

n

n

W X

n

South Middle School

W X

WGreenhurst Elementary X

Powerline

W X X WX W

X W W X W X

Skyview High

W X W X

Midland

W X

n Ronald Reagan Elementary

Denali

12th Ave

Locust

n Sunny Ridge Elementary

Powerline

Alma

Legend W X

n

Schools

Upland

Streets Inventoried

( !

Streets Existing Trail

Missing Sidewalks

Parks

Lake Shore

Lynwood

Private Trail

Hwy 45

Sidewalk Condition Issues

Dearborne

Lewis

Southside

Sidewalk Obstructions

Sparks

Other Areas

Figure 2.2 Nampa Existing Conditions - Sidewalks, Area 1 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Can Ada

Mac

W X

Franklin

Karcher

Mcdermott

W X

Star

Idaho Center

Madison

Northside

Cherry

11th

W X

Franklin

Wanz

( ! W X ( !

Jasper

(X ! W

n

( !

Snake River Elementary

W X

W X

( !

n

!d ! ( (! (

( !

W X ( (! ! !! ( (! (

n

3r

( !

Airport

( !

( !

Parkview PreSchool

2n d

n

( ! 12 t

( !

( ( ! ! ( !

h

( !

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

! ( ( ! ( !

Mcdermott

( (! ! ( !

Garrity

W X

n XWXW

Central Elementary

( !

n

( !

Park Ridge Elementary

n

Dr

( !

Priva te

n Sherman Elementary

Amity

W X

W X X WX W

n

Ra ilr oa d

n

W X Greenhurst Elementary

W X

n

n

X W W X W X

Skyview High

W X X W

East Valley Middle School

La ke

Happy Valley

12th Ave

Powerline

nNampa High

Ha ze

l

Robinson

Amity

(! ! (

Powerline

n

W X Legend WSidewalk Obstructions X W X Sidewalk Condition Issues

( ! Missing Sidewalks

n

n

Gr e

Schools Streets Inventoried

Powerline

( ( ! !! (

Columbia High

Streets Existing Trail Private Trail Parks

n

Spring

t

ic e k radn Zah

Ronald Reagan Elementary

Denali Locust

en hu rs

Locust

Other Areas

Sunny Ridge Elementary

Figure 2.3 Nampa Existing Conditions - Sidewalks, Area 2 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

Man hattan

Mattie Erik Doc Hisom

Starr Caba Caba

4t h

( !

I

0

8t h

12 t

( !

15 t

h

14 t

h

h

Roosevelt ( ! Washington

Juniper

Lincoln

Sherman

Ivy

Pine

Sherman Sheridan

Amity

n Nampa High

p

Georgia

Maple

12th Ave

Edwards

Nectarine

Colorado

Dakota

Constitution

Louisiana

Main e

Valley

2,000

4,000 Feet

Juniper

Checola

Lois

Hawaii

ly ol

Amity

Bird

Barberry

( ! ! (

H

Ivy

Olive

Clark

Locust

(! ! (

Juniper

Dewey

Colorado

1,000

10 t

Locust

Olive

State

State

h

h

11 th

h

Nectarine

14 t

Bird

Edgewater

Stanford

12 t

Maple

Canyon

Russell

State

13 t

Washington

Westwood

Rowena

Young

( ! ( !

h

9t h

Figure 2.4 Nampa Existing Conditions - Sidewalks, Area 3 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Annie L Bird

2n d

4t h

3r d

1s t

2n d 3r d

Yale Greenleaf

Canyon

State

Sunset

Fairview

8t h

Locust

Rowena

( ! Elmore

Meffan

Mason Mason Stanford

Arrowhead

Torrey

Ada

Maine

Maryland

7t h

Owyhee

Owyhee

Iowa Elementary

Mira nda

! ( ( !

Blaine

n Mariah

( !

( !

Ra m

Oakmont

Odessa Kansas

1s t

3r d St in so n

Canyon

Barritz Gem

on e st Co bb le

Fairwood

Mason

Alturas

Ada

Georgia

Horton

Midland Benewah

Gateway

Broadmore PF E

Borah Bo ra h

Park

Skye

Mills

Gem Hunter

Rowena

Stanford

Cimarron

Mirage

Chaparal Hud so n

Poplar

Adams

Benewah

Gem Gem

Horton

Roberts

Crocus Reed Adams Ada m Ar Co ve

Sc ot ts

Andrew

Walnut Creek

!! ( (

Elmore

id a

Belknap

San dcrest

( ! ! (

Lone Star

Woodland

n

W X

( !

Edwa rds

Teton

Camas

Oakley

Teton

Aspen Grove

Hasket

Ann

C

Pa r

Benewah

Grove Bingham

Hawaii

r Flo

3r d

6t h

n

Muirfield

Hawaii

Aberdeen

us ta

1s t

2n d

( 5t ! h

High

Beechwood

Scottish

Bonner

Bonner

Hea rtland

Edwards Brookwood

Cattail

Whitewater

Fall River

Clan

Bonneville

Bird Spruce Creek

Camas

Millstream

Millstream

Rosten

Boise

Tamarack

Lehmi Camas

Newberry

Heritage Pointe

Willow Wind

Newberry

Stillwater de n

Bancroft

Ca m

Belhaven

Freemont

Lancaster

Osage

Shumway

Airland

Amanda

Luke

Amaya

Bryson River Stone

Herron

Glasgow

Mil ler

Inverness

Kildeer

Teal Sagehen

Jefferson Jefferson

Middleton

Spring Valley

Carriage Hill

ick

sw

Boise

Lotus Springs

Summer Breeze

Jefferson

Je ffe rs on

Presidio

Ju an Sa n

a Nan

Coquille

Greybull Greybull

er Tallapo osa Riv ap el

te

Au g

4t h

Lincoln Elementary

Borah

o in

d ea

Bru n

h

wh

White ch

Elija

ha ll

rP da Ce

Colorado

Edwards

Georgia

n

Centennial Elementary

Bird

Dakota

s to Ro

e

Dewey

Dakota

Gaines

in t

( !

(! ! (

Sheridan

ro Ar

Colorado

y

Other Areas

n or gh

Parks

n Ki

Private Trail

Po

W X

Delaware

( !

Florida

Iowa

p le Ma

Big Creek

r nd a Bo u

ing Do wn Ab b ot

Es se x

Missing Sidewalks

Mill

Norwood

Mollywood

Smith

Shoshone

Alderwood

Dallan Woods

Edwards

Streets Inventoried

nStreets

ek C re

e

lro s Me

k

Redwood

Arbor Pointe

Edwards

Be ar Cree k

Cairn

ae

k ee

ek C re

Sidewalk Condition IssuesOwyhee Elementary Cabot Park Shay Existing Trail

( !

ol Co

ek re

W X

Falcon Peregrine

4t h

2n d

Ogden

Hudson

n As pe

es tpa r

Br

Cr

C

k ee

on

Cr

t es

Meadowbrook

k re e

Moose Creek

Schools

W

id e

Cree k Sla te

y nle Sta

W

v in Da

n

Eagle

Sheridan

Cross Creek

Legend Sidewalk Obstructions

ck Ro

Gle

Middle Creek Wils on C re ek Spruce Cre ek

Blakes Creek Creek

rC

Togstad

e ni

n

e Silv

(n Eagle !

Hawk

5t h

( !

Mars

West Middle School

Thorn Creek

FD Roosevelt Shy Creek

Sa ge

n

Owyh ee

Ra p to r

le

( !

( !

Togs tad

Heather Woods

ee k

Pine Creek

Lake Lowell

Shoshon e

Hawk

Streamside Wilson Creek

ie w

Shoshone

e ks C re

Sheridan

Havenwood

ow v

n Bo

Sherman

Meffan

e Me ad

s

Lincoln

Gras sy Cr

Elmore Fairwood

Young

Pu rp

Mcclure

Davis

Briarwood

Brentwood

La va

ble

Roosevelt

Crystal Falls

b Pe

Aldbury

e ph

r as te

Glendive

Silver River

Fairwood

Jo s

Dew Mist

Holland

ar

t an as

Michelle

Winther

Sunny

e Pl

rk Pa

Honey Dew

Park Ord

s on Ly

Forsythia

De law

Sweetwood

High

W X

Astor

( !

Hudson

y Ke lb Bed Roc k

W X

a Ad

on Zi

e c La n

d oo

l

in t

Hil

Po

Neilscott

er

Chadford

rw

n

Crown Pointe

La s

Blaine

oo d

io

iss

Ly le

Willow Pointe

High

Togstad

Smith

Ridge Pointe

W X

Winther

Holland Summerwind

Ap p le

Lake Pointe

Delaware

Winther

Curlew

Grouse

Willow Pointe

t an as Ple

M

High

n

dgw We

Vintage

Curlew

Grouse

d

Kipling

Camelot

Willow Creek Elementary

ve

i nd

o le D

Windmill

a Br

rwin me

t Tu r

Radcliff

l

W X

W X

Roberts

Carol

6t h

Bridger

Orchard

e Sh

Su m

Cathedral

Garden

Camelot

d

Boone

Blossom

Roberts

Garden

( !

Boone

Boundary

E

C

Ashley

( !

Sanetta

Whisper

to l

Ca ld w Comstock el

Comstock

Tacola

Barbara

( !

W X

te

Willow

ne r Bo n

Coppertree

Fitzwilliam

G

A

Br is

D

Stratford David Fro st Westminster

Oxf o rd Dover Cam bridge Sterling

F

Orch ard He ights

G

B

F

Sha nnon

oa

( ! ora

Heather

Bonneville

Boise

y

Willow Creek

d An

Co rp

Amarillo

Willow

Burnett

Jodi

( !

ai lr

Hawthorne

( !

Private Dr

Favre

Kristy

R

k

Xp W

m Ra

Stanton

( ( ! ! ( !

en tre

(Ram p !

s

Northside

Bin gh a m

Cassia

o

Cliffrock

Sc orp i

Ta uru s

( !

Eldoran

Seras

W X

Habitat

es

Stepha nie

Brassy Cove Flamingo

itta ri u

Le o

Pis c

Cliffrock

Sa g

Lio n

Gem ini

W X Arie s

n


4t h

9t h

8t h

Plaza

h

Po p

h

Grant

Su g a r

lor

22 nd

t

d 24 t

h

23 r

W X

29th

Private Dr

Lupine

Poppy

oo d Do gw

ild

flo we

Daisy

r

Georgia

Southside

a

Sunflower

Greenhurst Elementary

Maryland

Maryland

Cas tl

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000

2,000 W X

Kelle n

e be rg

Maryland

Figure 2.5 Nampa Existing Conditions - Sidewalks, Area 4 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Wilson

Brenan

Golden rod

W X Private Dr

Ra ilr oa d

n

W X

Rock

25th

Chicago

19th

Ventura

Florence

Louisiana

Queens

Private Dr

Murray

Dufur

Carmen Amethyst

Powerline

Syringa

Elder

Fern

Sunnyridge

W X

Stewart

Kentucky

2n d

a

Maryland

Maine

Badger

w Io

Cre ek

Sapphire

Kentucky

s

Other Areas

r ve Sil

Powerline

Ruby

Private Trail

Emerald

Existing Trail

c Yu c

il Tra To ils Ra

Juniper

Streets

Parks

25th

Meyer

Powerline

Banner

Diamond

Iowa

26th

Garland

Holly

Fern

Fern

Iowa

Sandal Cree k

Ivy

Banner

Locust Locust

Maple

Florence

Elder

Juniper

Nectarine

Nectarine

12th Ave

Barberry

Streets Inventoried

ito

Missing Sidewalks

Schools

s Lo

Louisiana

W

Georgia

nd

( !

Hawaii

Florida

Sharon's

ld Go

Constitution Sidewalk Condition Issues

n

Colorado Daisy

mo

Sidewalk Obstructions Iowa W X

Irving

Dia

Legend

Lily

Dakota

Dakota

Sharon's

Florida

Dewey

h

Dakota

ek

Palace

t 20

Colorado

Georgia

Maine

Bird

Bird

h oo d

ts

Bird

Nampa High

Amity

C re

Lincoln

n

W X

ia n

h Kn ig

Amity

In d

Nixon

Sherman Elementary

Clark

d

Sherman

Dewey

Rob in

Fox

on

Amity

Almond

Sheridan

Banner

an

Chestnut

Sh e ri d

Diamond

Fern

Garland

Sherman

Lincoln

oa

ge

Park Ridge Elementary

Fox

ai lr

Rid

n

Bobcat

Sweet

d Sn e d

n

Am ity

Washington

Pa rk

Swan

Raccoon

R

Willowdale

Lincoln

Dewey Clark

Florence

Ivy

Juniper

Locust

Maple

Nectarine

Olive

Washington

Sheridan

( !

( !

Roosevelt

Washington

Olive

21 s

h 20 t

17th

( !

Parkview

Muskrat

Taylor

h 19 t

h 16 t h

h

Lake Lowell

li

ffy Ta

14 t

h

15 t

Young

Ta ffy

Kingsgate

Mink

Ta y

18 t

Kelly

Ke l

Ca ne

Lollipop

h

17 t

h

Crystal

( !

Kenosha

p oo

int Pep pe rm re ek In dian C

12 t

Honey Wherry

L ar

Discovery

h

3r d

14 t

g Su

Honey

W X

Taylor

Gran t

n Endeavor Elementary

Kings

Saffron

Sugar

h s

20 t

n h Bo st o

19 t

Clover

Victory

19 t

Abbywood

Spicewood

Spicela nd

18 t

on h h

d

18 t

oa

Shortline

n

W X Central Elementary

8t h

Barger

Carnation

Carnation 25th

18 t

h 19 t

d oo w

h El m

Nutmeg

Cinnamon

h 15 t 13 t

h

h

9t h

( !

Bright

h

h 18 t

17 t

6t h

( !

Meffan

Wils on

Bright

Denver

hn s Jo

17 t h

14 t

ai lr

!! ( (

( !

Blaine

Checola

h

3r d

16 t R

nt

h

h 10 t

11 th

( !

12 t

( !

Shoshone

Owyhee

( !

6t h

15 t

h 14 t

ep ot

h

D

15 t

d

Berlin

h

h 12 t h

oa

h W al l

ai lr

Ironwood

Port

7t h

t 17

Airport

( !

Oak

Oak

Pa rk

Parkview PreSchool

8t h

( !

Cavalry

11 th 12 t

h 13 t

h

n

Eth e l

Venice

Franklin

6t h

9t h R

nt

12 t

Greenleaf

Fairview

( !

La ke

Garrity

W X

h

7t h

5t h

4t h 5t h

7t h

Elmore

n

(! ! (

Fr o

Fr o

Lone Star

!! ( (

2n d

( !

3r d

Pine

( !

W X

h 8t

( ! ! (

a

7t h

4t h

3r d

13 t

Yale

3r d

( !

6t h

W X

3R D

( ! ( !

Silgan

25 th

2n d

( !

High

5t h

3r d

1s t

Delaware

( !

8t h

4t h

2n d 4t h

Hudson

ca n Am eri

10 t

Stinson

2n d

Ogden Smith ! (

n

Eth el

n

7t h

4t h

3r d

oo d

Snake River Elementary Rosenlof

8t h

l

Davis Ogden

(! ! (

2n d

W X

3r d

( !

1s t

1s t

Ca ld w el

5t h

4t h

2n d 2n d

6t h th 5t 8 h

nw

Powell

9t h

3r d

Northside

( !

7t h

3r d

Brandt Fa w

Stampede

Goering

5t h

4t h

3r d

Gateway

Railroad

4,000 Feet

Lexi's


Prescott Ustick

Madison

Laster

11th

Midland

Northside

Ustick

Cherry

Karcher

Midland

Franklin

W X

W X

W X X W WX X W

W X

Keim

!! ( (! (

Mac

W X

Karcher

W X Ca ld w ( el !

l

Middleton

( !

W ( X !( ( ! !

( ! X W

W X

( ! ! (

( ! (X ! W ! ( ( !

W X

W X

Orchard

X W W W X X

n

( !

n

Snake River Elementary

W X

W X

Garrity

( !

W X

Airport

( !

Willow Creek Elementary

Smith

( !

(! ! (

n

( !

n

2n 3r d d

( !

Lincoln Elementary

( !

( ( ! !! (

Parkview PreSchool

( !

W X ( (! ! ! ! ( (! (

( !

( !

( !

12 t

n

n

( ! h

Lone Star

West Middle School

( ! Lake Lowell Missing Sidewalks

Park Ridge Elementary

Streets Inventoried Streets Existing Trail

n

Private Trail Parks

Centennial Elementary

( ( ! !! (

Other Areas

(! ! (

Amity

n Nampa High

Dr Priva te

Sidewalk Condition Issues

n

Schools

n Sherman Elementary

W X

Amity

Powerline

FD Roosevelt

n

( ! ( !

12th Ave

n

W X

( !

n XWXW !(

( !

Roosevelt

Sidewalk Obstructions

( !

Victory

Central Elementary

( !

Legend

( !

Endeavor Elementary

( !

Figure 2.6 Nampa Existing Conditions - Sidewalks, Area 5 n

n

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000 W X

4,000 Feet

Ra ilr oa d


Landruff

Lincoln

Main

Lansing

State

Lincoln Lincoln

Joplin

Hwy 20/26

Chinden

Knott

Can Ada

Drinkard

Elm

Linden

Madison

Midland

11th

Dean

Prescott

Northside

Mcmillan

Ustick

Ustick

Laster

Mac

Keim

W X

W X

Karcher

Star

W X W X WX W X X W

W X

Franklin

Midland

!! ( (! ( Karcher

W X

Idaho Center

Cherry

Franklin

Ca ld w el

Wanz

( l ! ( !

W! X (! ( ( !

( ! W X

W X

(! ! (

( !

W X

n

( !

Schools Streets

( !

n

Private Trail Lincoln Elementary

( !

Missing Sidewalks Lone Star

Parks Other Areas

n

Snake River Elementary

W X

W X X W

( ( ! ( ! !

( Existing Trail !

! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! (

West Middle School

( !

y rit

n

( !

Streets Inventoried

Willow Creek Elementary

Smith Sidewalk Condition Issues

r Ga

Jasper

n

W X

W X ( !

( !

3r

(d! ! (! ( 2n

( ! d

! ! ( ( ( ! ( !

Airport

( !

n Parkview PreSchool

n Central ( Elementary !

! ( ( !

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

nXWXW

( ! Figure 2.7 Nampa Existing Conditions - Sidewalks, Area ( ! n 6 ( ! ( !

n City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet

Robinson

Sidewalk Obstructions

W X XX W W

W X

Happy Valley

Orchard

h

Legend

12 t

Middleton

( ! W X ! ( ( !


City of Nampa, Idaho

2.1.2 Pathways (Figure 2.8 – Figure 2.13) Nampa has 13 pathways planned, with an additional nine pathways partially constructed. The partially constructed pathways are the Wilson Pathway, Grimes Drain Pathway, Phyllis Canal Pathway, Indian Creek Pathway, Partridge Pathway, and the Stoddard (Rails-toTrail) Pathway. Most of the existing and future pathway system runs in a southeast/northwest direction, with the exception of the Stoddard Pathway. The Stoddard Pathway, when fully built out, will provide a north and south pathway connection, traversing the main railroad corridor and Interstate Highway 84 barriers. Pathway surface conditions were inspected, and the following problems areas have been documented on:

Pavement deterioration and soil erosion on the Mason Creek Pathway

The Stoddard Pathway between W. Iowa Avenue and Lake Lowell Avenue

The Partridge Pathway spur off the Stoddard Pathway just north of East Locust Lane

The Wilson Pathway between Iowa Avenue and Lake Lowell Avenue

The Indian Creek Pathway between E. Amity Avenue and South Kings Road

Phyllis Canal Pathway, between Caldwell/Nampa Boulevard and Northside Boulevard

The pathway surface on the segment of the Wilson Pathway between Sunnyridge Road and East Greenhurst Road is noted as generally rough, with trees overhanging into the pathway’s vertical clearance area.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 16


n n Smith

n

11 th

Willow Creek Elementary

2n 3r d d

Lincoln Elementary

n Parkview PreSchool

n

Lone Star

Endeavor Elementary

n

12 t

h

n West Middle School

Central Elementary

n

Roosevelt

Park Ridge Elementary

n n

n

Lake Lowell

Sherman Elementary

Amity

Centennial Elementary

( !

n

Iowa

n

Owyhee Elementary

Amity

Powerline

n Nampa High ( !

Priva te

Middleton

Dr

FD Roosevelt

( ! ( !

Iowa Elementary

Powerline

! ( ( !

n

n Greenhurst Elementary

n

South Middle School

Skyview High

( !

Midland

( !

n Ronald Reagan Elementary

Denali

12th Ave

Locust

n Sunny Ridge Elementary

Powerline

Legend

n

W X

Schools Lewis

Existing Trail Private Trail

Dearborne

Streets Parks

Lake Shore

Hwy 45

( !

Upland

Streets Inventoried

Lynwood

Trail Condition Issues

Sparks

Southside

Trail Obstructions

Alma

Other Areas

Figure 2.8 Nampa Existing Conditions - Pathways, Area 1 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Can Ada Franklin

Karcher

Mcdermott

Star

Idaho Center

Madison

Northside

Cherry

11th

Mac

Franklin

Jasper

Wanz

n Snake River Elementary

Airport

n

3r d

Parkview PreSchool

2n d

n

Mcdermott

n

Garrity

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

12 t

h

n Central Elementary

n Park Ridge Elementary

Dr

n

Priva te

n

n

Amity

Sherman Elementary

Amity

Powerline

nNampa High

Columbia High

( ! ! (

Ra ilr oa d

( !

Powerline

Legend

n

n

Skyview High

Trail Obstructions

n

W X

East Valley Middle School

Schools

( !

Existing Trail

Trail Condition Issues ( !

Powerline

Private Trail

Gr e

( !

Streets Inventoried Streets Parks

La ke

Ha ze

l

Robinson

n

n Greenhurst Elementary

Happy Valley

12th Ave

! ( ( !

n

en hu rs

Spring

t

ic e k radn Zah

Ronald Reagan Elementary

Denali Locust

Locust

Other Areas

n

Sunny Ridge Elementary

Figure 2.9 Nampa Existing Conditions - Pathways, Area 2 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

Mattie Erik

Man hattan 2n d 3r d

4t h

3r d

4t h

2n d

1s t

I

3r d

12 t h

15 t

h

14 t

Juniper

Washington

Locust

Maple

Nectarine

Olive

Ivy

Pine

Sherman Sheridan

Clark

Amity

Georgia

Lois

Checola

Woodland

Locust Hawaii

( !

Constitution

Louisiana

Main e

2,000

Barberry

p

4,000 Feet

Juniper

Ra m

Maple

12th Ave

Edwards

Nectarine

Colorado

ly ol

Amity

Bird

Locust

n Nampa High

H

Ivy

Olive

Juniper

State

h

Dewey

Valley

1,000

10 t

n

8t h

Roosevelt

Lincoln

State

Edgewater

h

h

11 th

h

Sherman

Dakota

Stanford

0

h

Fairview

Canyon

Russell

State Westwood

Washington

Mason

Mason Mason Stanford

Torrey

Maine

Maryland

Yale Greenleaf

Canyon

State

on e st Co bb le

Rowena Rowena

14 t

Colorado

Iowa Elementary

Mira nda

13 t

12 t

Figure 2.10 Nampa Existing Conditions - Pathways, Area 3 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Doc Hisom

Starr Caba Caba

Ann St in so n

Canyon

Barritz Gem

Sunset

Borah Bo ra h

Hawthorne

Alturas

Arrowhead

Horton

Midland Benewah

1s t

PF E

Mills

Gem Gem Gem Hunter

Rowena

Stanford

Cimarron

Chaparal Hud so n

Beechwood

Sc ot ts

Young

Bird

n Teton

Hea rtland

Meffan

( !

Mariah

9t h

Blaine

( !

Oakmont

Odessa Kansas

8t h

Elmore

Owyhee

Owyhee

n

id a

Belknap

San dcrest

Fairwood

Edwa rds

Ada

7t h

Lone Star

( !

Georgia

Gateway

Broadmore

Horton

Roberts

Poplar

Park

Benewah

Adams us ta

Ada

Bird Spruce Creek

Mirage

Reed Adams Ada m Ar

Co ve

Walnut Creek

Aspen Grove

Camas

Oakley

r Flo

Annie L Bird

en tre C k

Crocus Benewah

Grove Boise

Bingham

Andrew

Skye

Bonner

Bonneville

Boise

Tamarack

Lehmi Camas

Newberry Whitewater

Fall River

Clan

Bonner

Sagehen Heritage Pointe

Newberry

Stillwater de n

Osage

Camas

River Stone

Spring Valley

Millstream

Millstream Rosten

Cattail

Lancaster

Willow Wind

Airland

Shumway

Bancroft

Ca m

Belhaven

Freemont

Bryson

Middleton

Herron

Carriage Hill

ick

sw

Scottish

Teal

Kildeer

Amanda

Luke

Amaya

Jefferson

a Nan

Coquille

Greybull Greybull

er Tallapo osa Riv ap el

Glasgow

y

Mil ler

n

6t h

Elmore

Borah

te

Teton

Aberdeen

o in

Hawaii

Hasket

Other Areas

Au g

3r d

5t h

High

Centennial Elementary

Muirfield

Hawaii

s to Ro

e

d ea

Bru n

h

wh

Colorado

Edwards Brookwood

r nd a Bo u

ing Do wn Ab b ot

Es se x

White ch

Elija

ro Ar

Georgia

in t

Dewey

Edwards

Florida

Lincoln Elementary

Sheridan

Edwards

Gaines

Po

4t h

n

1s t

Delaware

ha ll

rP da Ce

Mollywood

Edwards

Streets

p le Ma

Bird

Dakota

Streets Inventoried Iowa Parks

Norwood

Dallan Woods

4t h

2n d

Shoshone

Redwood

Arbor Pointe

Dakota

Schools

k

Alderwood

Big Creek

Colorado

Owyhee Elementary Cabot Mill

n or gh

n

ek C re

e

lro s Me

Private Trail

Trail Condition Issues

Peregrine

Cairn

ae

k ee

ek re ek C re

Be ar Cree k Trail Existing

Meadowbrook

Falcon

a g le

id e

ol Co

Cross Creek

W X

Shay Park ( !

Cree k Sla te

Cr

C

k ee

on

Cr

t es

k re e

Moose Creek

n

nE

e ks C re

Sheridan

y nle Sta

W

Trail Obstructions

Eagle

Middle Creek Wils on C re ek Spruce Cre ek

Blakes Creek Creek

ck Ro

Gle

Smith

Hudson

n As pe

es tpa r

Br

n

v in Da

Legend

Hawk

Thorn Creek

FD Roosevelt Shy Creek

rC

W

Heather Woods

ee k

Mars

West Middle School

Hawk

5t h

2n d

Ogden

Togs tad

n

Owyh ee

Ra p to r

ie w

Shoshone

Shoshon e

Sa ge

Togstad

e ni

Havenwood

ow v

n Bo

Meffan

Young

Streamside Wilson Creek

e Silv

s

Fairwood

Pine Creek

Lake Lowell

e ph

Sheridan

Jo s

Sherman

t an as

Lincoln

Gras sy Cr

Elmore

ble

Roosevelt

Silver River

Fairwood

e Me ad

Mcclure

Davis

le

Briarwood

Brentwood

La va

b Pe

Aldbury

Crystal Falls

Holland

Pu rp

ar

e Pl

rk Pa

Dew Mist

Winther

Sunny

De law

Sweetwood

y Ke lb Bed Roc k

Park Ord

s on Ly

Forsythia

n Ki

on Zi

e

Michelle

r as te

Glendive

Boise

Lotus Springs

Summer Breeze

Jefferson

Jefferson

Sa n

Presidio

Ju an

Je ffe rs on

l

in t

Hil

Po

c La n

Hudson

High

l

Astor

a Ad

n

Honey Dew

er

Chadford

oo d

io

iss

Crown Pointe

La s

Blaine

d oo

Willow Pointe

Neilscott

Togstad

Smith

Carol

6t h

Winther

Holland Summerwind

Ap p le

Ridge Pointe

High

Ly le

Grouse

Lake Pointe

Delaware

Winther

Curlew

Willow Pointe

t an as Ple

M

High

rw

Grouse

n

dgw We

Vintage

Curlew

d

Kipling

Camelot

Barbara

d

Bridger

Orchard

Roberts

Sha nnon

oa

Boone

Blossom

Willow Creek Elementary

ve

di an

o le D

Windmill

Br

rwin me

t Tu r

Radcliff

Sanetta

Boone

e Sh

Su m

Cathedral

Camelot

Ca ld w Comstock el

Whisper

Boundary

E

C

Ashley

ai lr

te

Comstock

Tacola

to l

Roberts Garden

Garden

ora

Willow

ne r Bo n

Coppertree

Fitzwilliam

G

A

Br is

D

Stratford David Fro st Westminster

Oxf o rd Dover Cam bridge Sterling

F

Orch ard He ights

G

B

F

R

Heather

Bonneville

Willow Creek

y

Amarillo

d An

Co rp

Stanton

Willow

Burnett

Jodi

p

Inverness

Eldoran

Private Dr

Favre

Cliffrock

Kristy

p

m Ra

Pa r

Ram

Northside

Bin gh a m

Cassia

o

Cliffrock

Sc orp i

Ta uru s

Habitat

es

s

Seras

itta ri u

Le o

Pis c

Stepha nie

Brassy Cove Flamingo

Lio n

Gem ini Sa g

Arie s


4t h

9t h

8t h

Plaza

h

18 t

6t h

15 t

h

Carnation p oo

h

t

22 nd

21 s

h 20 t

Ta y

19 t

29th

Parkview

Muskrat

Pa rk

Swan

d 24 t

25th

Meyer

Queens

Private Dr Private Dr

Lupine ild

flo we

Taylor

Poppy

oo d Do gw

r

Georgia

a

Southside

Syringa

Sandal Cree k

Sunflower

26th

n Greenhurst Elementary

Maryland

Cas tl

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000

2,000

Kelle n

e be rg

Maryland

Figure 2.11 Nampa Existing Conditions - Pathways, Area 4 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Wilson

Brenan

Golden rod

Stewart

Maryland

Private Dr

Ra ilr oa d

25th

Chicago

19th

Ventura

Louisiana

Rock

Daisy

Discovery

Murray

Dufur

Carmen

Kentucky

Florence

Emerald

Elder

Fern

Powerline

Sunnyridge

Juniper

( !

2n d

a

Maryland

Maine

Badger

w Io

Other Areas

Kentucky

( !

s

Cre ek

Sapphire

ito

Maine

r ve Sil

s Lo

Parks

Ruby

c Yu c

il Tra To ils Ra

Streets

Amethyst Iowa

Streets Inventoried

Louisiana

h

23 r

Powerline

Almond

Powerline

Banner

Fern

Iowa

ld Go

Constitution

( !

Banner

Diamond

Fern

nd

Trail Condition Issues

W

Georgia

Private Trail

Colorado Daisy

mo

Hawaii

Irving

Florida

Sharon's

Existing Trail

Iowa

Lily

Dia

W X

Schools Garland

n

Dewey

Dakota

Dakota

Sharon's

Florida

Holly

Trail Georgia Obstructions

Ivy

Barberry

Locust

Maple

Dakota

Florence

Elder

Juniper

Nectarine

Locust

Colorado

ek

Palace

h

Nectarine

Bird

C re

Lincoln

n Amity

ia n

h oo d

ts

Amity

Bird

Nixon

Sherman Elementary

Clark

d

Sherman

Dewey

Rob in

Fox In d

t 20

Legend

Banner

Chestnut

Sheridan

Diamond

Fern an

Amity

Bird

Nampa High

Florence

Ivy

Garland

Locust

Juniper

Sh e ri d

Lincoln

oa

on

Am ity

Washington

Fox

ai lr

ge

Park Ridge Elementary

h Kn ig

Clark

R

Willowdale

Lincoln

Sherman

Pine

Maple

Nectarine

Olive

Washington

Rid

n

Bobcat

Sweet

d Sn e d

Olive

Ta ffy

Kingsgate

Mink

lor

18 t

17th

Roosevelt

Dewey

12th Ave

li

Lollipop

h

h

17 t h 16 t

h

h

Sheridan

n

Ke l

Ca ne

Raccoon

Washington

Lake Lowell

Barger

Grant

Su g a r

Crystal

Honey

Shortline

L ar

Kenosha

Honey Wherry

15 t h h 14 t

g Su

ffy Ta

14 t

h

Taylor

Endeavor Elementary

Kings

Po p

h 19 t

n

Spicela nd

Saffron

Sugar

h s

20 t

n h Bo st o

19 t

Clover

Victory

Kelly

15 t

12 t

Young

Checola

Abbywood

Spicewood

int Pep pe rm re ek In dian C

Meffan

Wils on

Gran t

h 19 t

d oo w

h El m

Nutmeg

18 t

on h h 18 t

d

3r d

Central Elementary

8t h

Bright

Cinnamon

hn s Jo

17 t h oa

n

Blaine

( !

Bright

Denver

h

h 18 t

17 t

6t h

13 t

h 12 t

9t h

Shoshone

Owyhee

( !

Ironwood

h

Elmore

h

3r d

16 t ai lr

8t h

14 t

11 th

10 t

R

nt

h

h

Fr o

Oak

Oak

Berlin

7t h

t 17

14 t

ep ot

h

D

15 t

d

Airport

Port

h

h 12 t h

oa

h W al l

ai lr

12 t

Greenleaf

Fairview

R

nt

Eth e l

Pa rk

Parkview PreSchool

13 t

Fr o

7t h

Lone Star

Carnation

n

5t h

3r d

6t h

High

25th

12 t

h

h 10 t

2n d

h

4t h

3r d

13 t

9t h

3R D

La ke

7t h

Garrity

h 8t

Delaware

Cavalry

11 th

8t h

7t h

5t h

3r d

a

Venice

Franklin

6t h 8t h

4t h 1s t

2n d

Silgan

25 th

Yale

5t h

3r d

3r d

2n d

2n d

4t h

n

Snake River Elementary Rosenlof

ca n Am eri

4t h

Stinson

Ogden Smith

Hudson

7t h

4t h

3r d

oo d

Eth el

Ogden

n

5t h

4t h

2n d

l

Davis

2n d

1s t

Ca ld w el

1s t

6t h th 5t 8 h

nw

Powell

9t h

3r d

Northside

2n d

7t h

3r d

Brandt Fa w

Stampede

Goering

5t h

4t h

3r d

Gateway

Railroad

4,000 Feet

Lexi's


Prescott Ustick

Madison

Laster

11th

Midland

Northside

Ustick

Mac

Keim

Midland

Franklin

Cherry

Karcher

l

Middleton

Ca ld w el

Karcher

Orchard

n Snake River Elementary

n

Airport

Garrity

Willow Creek Elementary

Smith

n

n

2n 3r d d

Lincoln Elementary

Parkview PreSchool

n

Lone Star

Endeavor Elementary

12 t

West Middle School

( !

Park Ridge Elementary

Private Trail Streets Inventoried Streets

Lake Lowell

n

Parks

Centennial Elementary

Amity

n Nampa High

Other Areas

Dr

Trail Condition Issues

n

Existing Trail

Priva te

n FD Roosevelt

Schools

n Sherman Elementary

Amity

Powerline

n

Roosevelt

n Central Elementary

12th Ave

Trail Obstructions W X

h

n

Legend

( !

( ! ( ! Figure 2.12 Nampa Existing Conditions - Pathways, Area 5

n

n

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

Victory

( !

I

0

( ! 1,000 2,000 ( !

4,000 Feet

Ra ilr oa d


Landruff

Lincoln

Main

Lansing

State

Lincoln Lincoln

Joplin

Hwy 20/26

Chinden

Knott

Can Ada

Drinkard

Elm

Linden

Madison

Midland

11th

Dean

Prescott

Northside

Mcmillan

Ustick

Ustick

Laster

Ca ld w el

Karcher

Star

Franklin

Midland

Keim

Karcher

Idaho Center

Mac

Cherry

Franklin

Wanz

l

n

Orchard

Schools

r Ga

Existing Trail

n

Private Trail

n

Trail Condition Issues Willow Creek Elementary

y rit

Jasper

W X

Airport

Snake River Elementary

Streets Inventoried

Smith

( !

Streets

n

Lincoln Elementary

3r d

Parks

n

West Middle School

Parkview PreSchool

n

h

Other Areas

12 t

Lone Star

n 2n d

n

Central Elementary

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

Figure 2.13 Nampa Existing Conditions - Pathways, Area n 6 City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet

Robinson

Trail Obstructions

Happy Valley

Middleton

Legend


City of Nampa, Idaho

2.1.3 Crosswalks (Figure 2.14 – Figure 2.19) The City of Nampa uses transverse crosswalk markings in most locations and enhanced crosswalks materials (paving bricks) in the downtown business district. Transverse markings are usually two painted lines perpendicular to the street.

Area 1 (Figure 2.14) There is at least one crosswalk at each school location in the area. There are no crosswalks to Northwest Nazarene University on Colorado Avenue or to the Recreation facility from 12th Avenue and Constitution Avenue. Crosswalks are only present at three of the major intersections in quadrant 1.

Crosswalks in the downtown business district are enhanced with paving bricks.

Area 2 (Figure 2.15) Most of the crosswalks in this area occur on Garrity Avenue. At least one crosswalk present at each school location.

Area 3 (Figure 2.16) There are very few crosswalks in Area 3. Crosswalks are primarily located on Amity Avenue. Crosswalks are absent around West Middle School, Roosevelt Elementary School, and the park facility at Davis Avenue and Lyons Drive.

Area 4 (Figure 2.17)

Transverse crosswalk marking at Garrity Boulevard and Frankin Boulevard

This quadrant includes the tightly-gridded downtown core. Crosswalks are present at 2 intersections, with five of those crosswalks surrounding Central Elementary School and two crosswalks serving Sherman Elementary School. There are no crosswalks to Northwest Nazarene University. Given the high number of intersections in Area 4, crosswalk coverage is very light.

Area 5 (Figure 2.18) Crosswalks are generally absent in this area, with the exception of Birch Lane and 11th Avenue. There are two enhanced crosswalk treatments on Stampede Drive in front of Snake River Elementary. The enhancement is a

Raised median and striped crosswalk treatment on Stampede Drive.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 23


City of Nampa, Idaho

raised median with striping radiating outward from the median edges. This crossing treatment is atypical in Nampa.

Area 6 (Figure 2.19) Crosswalks in this area are clustered around the intersection of Ustick Road and Santa Ana Avenue.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 24


2

2n 3r d d

2

n

Parkview PreSchool

1

2

n

FGFG h FGFGFGFGFG FGFG FG

4

1

2

n West Middle School

2

2

Endeavor Elementary

3

n3 4 4

Central Elementary

4

1

4

FG FG

4

FG

12 t

Lone Star

Roosevelt

1

n

n

FG

2

FGFG FG

FG

n

Lincoln Elementary

11 th

4

FG FG

Smith

5

1

FG

n Willow Creek Elementary

FG

FG FG FG FG

n

Park Ridge Elementary

11

Iowa

Iowa Elementary

Powerline

4 12

4

n

n

1

1

Greenhurst Elementary

4

1

FG FG FG

FG

FG FG

2

2

FFGG

n

1

n Skyview High

1

Midland

South Middle School

1

FG

FG

FG

1

n Nampa High

Amity

4

FG

4

Powerline

n1

Owyhee Elementary

Priva te

FG FG FG

Sherman Elementary

1

FG FG FG FFGG FG FG

1

2

n

FG

n

Lake Lowell

Centennial Elementary

FG

Middleton

1 2

Dr

FD Roosevelt

n

FG

1

Denali

Locust

1

FG

12th Ave

Ronald Reagan Elementary

n Sunny Ridge Elementary

Powerline

Alma

Sparks

Legend

Streets

Existing Trail

Parks

Private Trail

Other Areas

Figure 2.14

Lake Shore

Hwy 45

Streets Inventoried

Schools

2

FG

Dearborne

n

Upland

Missing Sidewalks

Crosswalks Present

Lynwood

FG

2

Southside

Lewis

Example intersection: Two crosswalks present.

Nampa Existing Conditions - Crosswalks, Area 1

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Prescott

FG FG FG FG FG

4 1

4 1

Ustick

11th

Madison

Laster

Ustick

Northside

Midland

1

Mac

Karcher

l

FGFG

Middleton

Ca ld w el

FG

Midland Keim

Karcher

3

Franklin

Cherry

FGFG

Orchard

1

Willow Creek Elementary

2 2

n

2n 3r d d

Parkview PreSchool

1

2

2

FG FG

Private Trail

Other Areas

n 1

1

4

11

n Nampa High

Dr

2

n

Sherman Elementary

4 1

Amity

2

Example intersection: Two crosswalks present.

n

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

FG

I

0

1,000 2,000

FFGG

FG

Nampa Existing Conditions - Crosswalks, Area 2

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

1

Priva te

Parks

1 2

FG

ExistingLake TrailLowell

Centennial Elementary

n

Park Ridge Elementary

FG FG FG

Streets

n

1

4

Powerline

Streets Inventoried

Schools

Figure 2.15

12th Ave

Missing Sidewalks

Crosswalks Present

FG

n

n

FG FG FG F FGG FG FG

FG

2

4

1

FD Roosevelt

Victory

3

4

Legend

Endeavor Elementary

n4 4

Central Elementary 3

Roosevelt

2

FG

12 t

n West Middle School

2

n

FGFG h FGFGFGFGFG FGFG FG

4

Lone Star

1

FG

FG

n

Lincoln Elementary

1 Airport

FGFG FG

4

FG FG

Smith

5

1

FG

n

2

FG

FG FG FG FG FG

n

1 Snake River Elementary

1

4,000 Feet

Ra ilr oa d


4t h

9t h

Plaza

FG Grant

Venice

29th

Taylor

Gran t

h 19 t

Saffron

Sugar

h s

20 t

n h Bo st o

19 t

Po p

Kenosha lor Ta y

Lupine r

Queens Southside

Georgia

Gold en ro d

flo we

Taylor

Poppy

oo d Do gw a

ild

Daisy

Sunflower

Brenan

G FFG 26th

Greenhurst Elementary

Maryland

FGG

12

e be rg Example Cas tl intersection: Two crosswalks present. Lexi's

Maryland

0

1,000

2,000

FG

I

FG

FG FG

FG

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

FG

Nampa Existing Conditions - Crosswalks, Area 3

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Wilson

n

Maryland

Private Dr

Private Dr

25th

Chicago

Syringa

Sandal Cree k

Ventura

Florence

Louisiana

Rock

Ra ilr oa d

1 2

Stewart

Kentucky

2n d

4,000 Feet

Kelle n

FG

Lollipop

Private Dr

Murray

Dufur

Carmen Amethyst

Florence

Powerline

FG

Honey Wherry

25th

Meyer

FG FG FG

19th

Banner

Elder

Fern

Badger

Kings

Florence

24 t

h

23 r

d

FG FG

Powerline

Almond

Banner

Banner

Fern

Honey

Shortline 22 nd

21 s

t

h

20 t

h

19 t

Diamond

Fern

Holly

Garland Sunnyridge

Powerline

Ivy

Maryland

Kentucky

c Yu c

s

Cre ek

Maine

ek

a

ito

Other Areas

Ma

C re

w Io

Sapphire

s Lo

r ve Sil

Emerald

Locust Locust

Maple

FG FG

Juniper

Ruby

Iowa

il Tra To ils Ra

Streets Parks

Privateine Trail

FG

nd

Existing Trail

Louisiana

Figure 2.16

Iowa

ld Go

Constitution

Streets Inventoried

Colorado

W

Georgia

Missing Sidewalks

Crosswalks Present

Irving

Daisy

mo

4

Lily

Dia

Hawaii

Legend

Schools

Spicela nd

on h

h 19 t

h

Elder

Juniper

Nectarine

Nectarine

FG 12th Ave

Barberry

Olive

FG FG FG Georgia

Dewey

Florida

Sharon's

ia n

h oo d

Palace

Dakota

Dakota

Sharon's

Florida

d

Sherman

2

Amity

Rob in

Fox

ge

ts

Dakota

oa

Rid

n

Lincoln

2

h

Colorado

Fox

ai lr

Pa rk

Park Ridge Elementary

Bobcat

Sweet

Nixon

n

Clark

1

Swan

In d

t 20

1

Washington

Sherman Elementary

Bird

Bird

Lincoln

Dewey

Amity

Bird

Nampa High

R

Willowdale

1

Parkview

Muskrat

Raccoon

on

Amity

li

Kingsgate

Mink

Ta ffy

d Sn e d

Am ity

Ke l

Ca ne

h Kn ig

Chestnut

Sheridan

Diamond

Fern

Garland an

Su g a r

Crystal

18 t

Ivy

Juniper

Locust

Maple

Nectarine

Olive Pine

Sh e ri d

p oo

h

FG

FG h 16 t

15 t

17th

1

Roosevelt

Dewey

Iowa

n Endeavor Elementary

4

Lincoln

Sherman

L ar

Kelly

Washington

Sheridan

Clark

g Su

17 t

FG

14 t

4

h

h

Sheridan

n

Clover

15 t

FG

FG

4

h

h 13 t

3r d

4

3

h

4

Abbywood

Spicewood

Victory

FG

FG

FG

h

9t h

12 t

n

4

Washington

1

FG 25th

h 18 t

h

d oo w

h El m

Nutmeg

Cinnamon

hn s

17 t

Jo

h

d

Bright

h

oa

18 t

14 t

ai lr

Bright

Denver

18 t

15 t 16 t R

nt

Barger

Carnation

Carnation

alry

FG

FG

6t h

FG

h 14 t

17 t

6t h

3r d

h

h

Port

h

h 18 t

h 15 t

1

Ironwood

Berlin

t 17

Airport

Oak

Oak

Pa rk

h

ep ot

FG

FG

h 11 th

8t h

10 t

FG

FG 11 th 12 t

h

h 12 t h D

h W al l

d

12 t

Greenleaf

Cav

FG FG

Franklin

n

Eth e l

ffy Ta

14 t

Checola

oa

5

int Pep pe rm re ek In dian C

12 t

Young

FG

La ke

3

Central Elementary

Meffan

FG

ai lr

1

Parkview PreSchool 2 7t h

13 t

R

nt

Fr o

2

2

8t h

Blaine

Wils on

1

h

h 2n d

5t h

Yale

Fr o

2

Owyhee

n

4t h

3r d

4

Shoshone

2

Silgan

h 8t

3r d

Lone Star

1

a2

1

6t h

Elmore

ica n

7t h

13 t

9t h

3R D

10 t

3r d

2

7t h

n

6t h

8t h

7t h

5t h 1s t

2n d

r Am e

n

Snake River Elementary

25 th

FG FG

4t h

High

Fairview

5t h

3r d

3r d

2

Delaware

8t h

4t h

2n d

4t h

Stinson

FG

Ogden

Hudson

Garrity

4t h

3r d

Rosenlof

1

7t h

1

Eth el

Ogden

n

2n d

2n d

Davis

Smith

5t h

4t h

2n d

l

1s t

1s t

Ca ld w el

3r d

Northside

2n d

1

Powell

9t h

6t h th 5t 8 h

Brandt

St am Fa pe w nw de oo d

7t h

3r d

8t h

FG

Goering

5t h

4t h

3r d

Gateway

Railroad


Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

Ann

Mattie Erik

Man hattan

4t h

3r d

FG h

h Roosevelt

Constitution

2,000

FG 4,000 Feet

Ivy Ivy

Barberry

Juniper

Checola

FG

4

ly ol

Amity

Locust Locust

Maple

Nectarine

FG 12th Ave

Hawaii

Lois

Stanford

1,000

FG

0

Colorado

Louisiana Example intersection: 2 Two crosswalks present. Main e

Valley

H

Bird

Georgia

FG

Maine

Maryland

Amity

FG

Mira nda

4

FG FG FG FG

Edwards

Juniper

Dewey Clark

1

Dakota

Iowa Elementary

Juniper

Sheridan

n Nampa High

Woodland

Teton

Locust

Sherman

1 1

p

Washington

Maple

Olive

Lincoln

Olive

State

FG

FG

4

Colorado

n

h

15 t h

Nectarine

14 t

n

Bird

FG FG FG FG FG

12 t h

10 t

11 th

h

12 t

n

8t h

14 t

13 t

Pine

State

Sherman

h

Fairview

Canyon

Meffan

Russell

State Westwood

Rowena

4t h

2n d 3r d

FG FG Yale Greenleaf

Sunset

Canyon

State

Gem

9t h

Washington

1

Mason Mason Stanford

Arrowhead

Torrey

FG

1

Aberdeen

Mariah

I

8t h

Elmore

Young

Mason

Hawthorne

Alturas Ada

Horton

Doc Hisom

Starr Caba Caba 2n d

3r d St in so n

Canyon

FG

Barritz Gem

on e st Co bb le

Rowena

Blaine

Nampa Existing Conditions - Crosswalks, Area 4

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

7t h

Owyhee

Ra m

Oakmont

Belknap

6t h

Shoshone

Owyhee

id a

Odessa Kansas

1s t

PF E

Mills

Gem Gem Gem

Rowena

Stanford

Cimarron Borah Bo ra h

Park

Adams

Benewah

Sc ot ts

Fairwood

Edwa rds

Ada

3r d

Lone Star Elmore

Beechwood

1

1s t

2n d

5t h

Centennial Elementary

us ta

Georgia

Gateway

Broadmore

Horton

Poplar

Chaparal Hud so n

Mirage

Reed Adams Ada m Ar

Co ve

Walnut Creek

Hea rtland

Aspen Grove

Midland Benewah

r Flo

Annie L Bird

en tre C k

Crocus

Grove Boise

Bingham

Andrew

Skye

Bonner

Bonneville

Bird Spruce Creek n

Aspen Grove

Camas

Oakley

Clan

Glasgow

Rosten

Boise

Tamarack

Lehmi Camas

Camas

Whitewater

Fall River

Millstream

FG Herron

Bonner

Sagehen Heritage Pointe

Newberry

Newberry

Osage

Stillwater de n

Millstream

River Stone

Mil ler

Cattail

Lancaster

Willow Wind

Airland

Shumway

Bancroft

Ca m

Belhaven

Freemont

Bryson

Middleton

Spring Valley

Carriage Hill

ick

sw

Scottish

Teal

Kildeer

Amanda

Luke

Amaya

Jefferson

a Nan

Coquille

Greybull Greybull

er Tallapo osa Riv

FG ap el

Brookwood

2

High

Ed gewater

Teton

Lincoln Elementary

Borah

te

Hawaii

Hasket

Aberdeen

o in

Dewey

Au g

4t h

2

n

Sheridan

Muirfield

Hawaii

s to Ro

e

d ea

Georgia

4

Sheridan

Edwards

Florida

in t

Bird

Dakota

Gaines

Po

wh

Bru n

h

Mollywood

Edwards

Iowa

p le Ma

rP da Ce

Dallan Woods

ro Ar

White ch

Elija

n or gh

ek C re

San dcrest

Figure 2.17

Norwood

Arbor Pointe

Edwards

Other Areas

ae

Private Trail

Parks

Redwood

Br

Colorado

y

Es se x

Existing Trail

Peregrine

e

lro s Me

k

Alderwood

Big Creek

r nd a Bo u

Streets

Mill

Falcon

a g le

4t h

Ram p

Delaware

n As pe

es tpa r

Cairn

e ni

ek C re

Missing Sidewalks 1

W

n Bo

k ee

ek re

n

Togstad

id e

Cr

C

k ee

on

Cr

t es

Schools

Cree k Sla te

y nle Sta

W

n

k re e

Streets Inventoried Owyhee Elementary Cabot

ing Do wn Ab b ot

Shay Park

ol Co

Cross Creek

Be ar Cree k

Crosswalks Present

nE

e ks C re

Sheridan

v in Da

2

Eagle

Middle Creek Wils on C re ek Spruce Cre ek

Moose Creek

Meado

s

n

Blakes Creek Creek

Legend wbrook

Gle

Smith

Hudson

ha ll

West Middle School

Hawk

Ra p to r

Mars

n

Owyh ee

Thorn Creek

FD Roosevelt Shy Creek

ck Ro

Shoshon e

5t h

2n d

Ogden

Togs tad

Heather Woods

ee k

rC

e ph

Havenwood

ie w

Shoshone

Hawk

Streamside Wilson Creek

e Silv

Jo s

Meffan

Pine Creek

Lake Lowell

t an as

Sheridan

Fairwood

ble

Sherman

Elmore

Young

ow v

Briarwood

Brentwood

La va

b Pe

Lincoln

Gras sy Cr

e Pl

rk Pa

Roosevelt

Silver River

Fairwood

Crystal Falls

Sa ge

ar

e Me ad

Mcclure

Davis

le

Sunny

De law

Sweetwood

y Ke lb Bed Roc k

Holland

Pu rp

n Ki

on Zi

e Aldbury

Chadford

Dew Mist

r as te

Glendive

Boise

Lotus Springs

Summer Breeze

Jefferson

Jefferson

Sa n

Presidio

Ju an

Je ffe rs on

l

in t

Hil

Po

Michelle

er

c La n

Winther

Hudson

High

Park Ord

Winther

a Ad

n

Honey Dew

La s

Blaine

oo d

io

iss

Crown Pointe

Neilscott

Togstad

d oo

Willow Pointe

l

s on Ly

Forsythia

Smith

Ridge Pointe

High

Winther

Holland

Carol

6t h

Astor

Summerwind

Ap p le

Lake Pointe

Delaware

Ly le

Grouse

Willow Pointe

t an as Ple

M

High

rw

Grouse

Roberts

Camelot

Curlew

dgw We

Vintage

Curlew

d

Kipling

n

Barbara

d

Bridger

Orchard

Roberts

Sha nnon

oa

Boone

Blossom

Willow Creek Elementary

ve

di an

o le D

Windmill

Br

rwin me

t Tu r

Radcliff

Sanetta

Boone

e Sh

Su m

Cathedral

Camelot

Ca ld w Comstock el

Whisper

Boundary

E

C

Ashley

ai lr

te

Comstock

Tacola

to l

Roberts Garden

Garden

ora

Willow

ne r Bo n

Coppertree

Fitzwilliam

G

A

Br is

D

Stratford David Fro st Westminster

Oxf o rd Dover Cam bridge Sterling

F

Orch ard He ights

G

B

F

R

Heather

Bonneville

Willow Creek

y

Amarillo

d An

Co rp

Stanton

Willow

Burnett

Jodi

p

Inverness

Eldoran

Private Dr

Favre

Cliffrock

Kristy

p

m Ra

Pa r

Ram

Northside

Bin gh a m

Cassia

o

Cliffrock

Sc orp i

Ta uru s

Habitat

es

s

Seras

itta ri u

Le o

Pis c

Stepha nie

Brassy Cove Flamingo

Lio n

Gem ini Sa g

Arie s


Can Ada

Cherry

6

FG

Karcher

Mcdermott Franklin

1

FG

Franklin

FG

3

Star

Idaho Center

Northside

Madison

11th

Mac

Wanz

Jasper

FG

Mcdermott

2

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

3

n3 4 4 4

1

4

FG FG

n

n

Sherman Elementary

FG FG FFGG FG FG

4

1

n

Dr

2

FFGG FG

1 2

n

Park Ridge Elementary

Columbia High

Priva te

1

Powerline

FG

4

Ra ilr oa d

FG FG

2 4

1

FFGG

n

4

1

n

1

1

FG FG

FG FG FG

1

12

Greenhurst Elementary 1

FG

Powerline

12th Ave

FG

4

1

FG FG

1

Amity

n

Skyview High

East Valley Middle School

La ke

Happy Valley

n Nampa High

Gr e

Legend

Existing Trail Private Trail

n

Parks

FG

Denali

Other Areas

1

Locust

Spring

t

Locust

2

Sunny Ridge Elementary

Figure 2.18

l

ic e k radn Zah

Ronald Reagan Elementary

Streets

en hu rs

FG

Schools

n

1

Streets Inventoried

FG

n

Crosswalks Present

Powerline

FG

2

Missing Sidewalks

Ha ze

Robinson

4

FG

12 t

1

n

FGFG h FGFGFGFGFG FGFG FG 2

2

1

FG

FG FGFG

Parkview PreSchool

2n d

Central Elementary

FG

Airport

n2

3r d

4

n

1

5

FGFG FG

2 2

n

1

FG

FG FG FG FG FG

n

2

y rit

FGFG FGFG 1 1

1 1 Snake River Elementary

1

1 1

r Ga

Example intersection: Two crosswalks present.

Nampa Existing Conditions - Crosswalks, Area 5

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Landruff

Lincoln

Main

Lansing

State

Lincoln Lincoln

Joplin

Hwy 20/26

Chinden

Knott

Can Ada

Drinkard

Elm

Linden

Dean

11th

Madison

Midland

4 1 4 1

FG FGFGFGFG 1

Prescott

Northside

Mcmillan

Ustick

Ustick

Laster

FG

FG

FG

Existing Trail

4

12

West Middle School

Wanz

2

2 3

n

2

Central Elementary

Jasper Victory

Endeavor Elementary

Airport

2

Example intersection: Two crosswalks present.

n4

FFGG FG

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

FG FG

FG FG

Nampa Existing Conditions - Crosswalks, n Area 6

n City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

I

Robinson

1

2n Parkview PreSchool 1 1 d

FGFG th FGFGFGFGFG FGFG FG

n

Other Areas

5

n2

3r d

Parks Lone Star

Garrity

Happy Valley

2

1

FG

n

StreetsLincoln Elementary 2

Figure 2.19

Franklin

1 1

FGFGG F

Streets Inventoried 4

Schools

n

11

Snake River Elementary

FG FG

Missing Sidewalks

Willow Creek Elementary Crosswalks Present

1 1 2

FG FG FGFG FG 1

n

Private Trail

1

l

FG FGFG

FG

n

6

Orchard

Legend 2 Smith

Karcher

FGFG FGFG

Middleton

Ca ld w el

3

Star

Franklin

Midland

Keim

Karcher

Idaho Center

Mac

Cherry

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet


City of Nampa, Idaho

2.1.4 Curb Ramps (Figure 2.20 – Figure 2.25) Curb ramps represent a fundamental element of an accessible public realm. A sidewalk without a curb ramp can be useless to someone in a wheelchair, forcing them back to a driveway and out into the street for access. Nampa has two types of curb ramps, perpendicular and diagonal. A perpendicular curb ramps meets the street at two points per intersection corner. Diagonal curb ramps meet the street at one point per intersection corner. The use of detectable warning strips on curb ramps varies according to construction date. Newly constructed curb ramps have detectable warning strips, where older ramps do not.

This corner on 3rd Street North and 17th Avenue has a perpendicular sidewalk configuration and no curb ramps.

Curb ramps have a limited presence in Nampa given the number of intersections with sidewalks. A large number of curb ramps have steep slopes and a “lip” where the curb ramp meets the street. These conditions discourage pedestrian activity, especially those with disabilities.

Area 1 (Figure 2.20) There are few curb ramps in Area 1. Of the six schools in the area, only Nampa High School is noted as having two curb ramps, with one of the curb ramps directly users into the street where no connecting sidewalk is present.

Area 2 (Figure 2.21)

This corner at 12th Avenue and 10th Street has a diagonal curb ramp without detectable warning strips.

No curb ramps are present on the streets inventoried in Area 2.

Area 3 (Figure 2.22) Most of the curb ramps are found on the western edge of the downtown grid and at four major intersections. Overall curb ramp coverage is light in Area 3.

Area 4 (Figure 2.23) There is a large number missing curb ramps in the downtown area. Many of the sidewalks in this area meet

Detectable warning strip on a newly constructed pedestrian refuge on the Greenhurst Road and Happy Valley Road roundabout.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 31


City of Nampa, Idaho

the intersection at two distinct points at each corner. This geometric layout requires two curb ramps per corner, or eight curb ramps at each intersection.

Area 5 (Figure 2.24) As sidewalks are generally missing from the roadways inventoried in this quadrant, there are few curb ramps installed.

Area 6 (Figure 2.25) Like Area 5, curb ramps are missing at most intersections inventoried due to the lack of sidewalks.

2.2 Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities are generally distinguished as preferential roadways accommodating bicycle travel. Accommodation includes bicycle route designation, bike lane striping, or multi-use paths to physically separate cyclists from motorists.

Bike lanes at the Karcher Interchange.

Bicycle facilities, as defined by Federal and State bicycle planning and design guides and manuals, in Nampa consist of: 

Bike routes defined on the Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan map

Bike lanes at the Karcher Interchange

Dedicated bicycle facilities are generally absent within the city. Bike routes are not signed. The Transportation Master Plan is underway at time of this writing.

2.2.1 Bike Parking Bike parking is a critical component of a community’s bikeway network, and can strongly influence one’s decision whether to

Bike racks in front of Snake River Elementary School

complete a trip via bicycle. Some bike racks are provided in the downtown area and at local schools. Existing bike racks in the downtown area are functionally sound, supporting a bicycle at two points. However, the rack design is ambiguous to users, and is often mistaken for as a decorative element. School bike racks are typically wave racks. Bicycle parking is otherwise lacking in most other parts of the community.

Custom bike rack at 2nd Street South and 14th Avenue South

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 32


n

# * *# *# * # ## * * *# # *# # *# * *# # *n # * # * n # *# # * # ** # # * * # * # *# # # * * * * # * # *# *# *# # *# * * # *# *# * # # # * * # *# * *# **# # *# **# # * *# # * # # * * # # * * * # *# # * # # * * *# # *# *# *# *# # *# * # * * # # * # * * # *# * # n# * ** *# # * # *# # *# # * # * # *# # * * * # ** # # * # *# # *# # * *# * # **# # *# *# *# # *# * # *# *# *# *# *# * # # *# * *# # * * * # # * * # * * # * # * # * # * # *# *# * # *# * # * # * # *# * # * # * n # * n * # * # * # *# # * n 1

2

5

# * 2

2

n

# *

2 West Middle School

a Lanc

3

n

4

1

4

4

4

3

7

5

# * 2

4

2

3

4

4 4

4

7

7

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

4

2

2

2

6

4

Centennial Elementary

3

2

1

2

2

2

2

Parkview PreSchool

1

2 2n 3 3r d d

2

4

4

2

7

5

1

6

1

2

4

4

4

4

4

3 1 21 2 3 1

3 1

2 2

1

2

4

2

2 1 31 2 1 2 2

4 4 4 4 1

Endeavor Elementary

2

1

1

2

n

1

Park Ridge Elementary

2

Sherman Elementary

Amity

Powerline

Middleton

2

5

Nampa High

n

n

4

2

2

3

1 1 115 1

2 2 1 4 4

Lake Lowell

3

2

4

3

2

2

2

FD Roosevelt

# *

3

1

Roosevelt

ster

# *

Lone Star

2

8

2 3

3

1

1

Dr

Lincoln Elementary

1

3

# *

2

1

Priva te

2 2

22

2

1

11 th

Smith

1

2

1

2

h

# *

12 t

n Willow Creek Elementary

Iowa

n

Owyhee Elementary

# *

Iowa Elementary

1

Powerline

n

# * # * 3

n

4

Greenhurst Elementary

n

South Middle School

Midland

Skyview High

n Ronald Reagan Elementary

Denali

12th Ave

Locust

n Sunny Ridge Elementary

Powerline

Alma

Sparks

Legend Streets Inventoried

n

Schools

Streets

Existing Trail

Parks

Private Trail

Other Areas

Dearborne

Missing Sidewalks

Figure 2.20

Upland

Lake Shore

Hwy 45

Curb Ramps Missing

3

Lynwood

# *

Southside

Lewis

# * 3

Example intersection: Three curb ramps missing.

Nampa Existing Conditions - Curb Ramps, Area 1

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Prescott

# *

# *

# *

Laster

1

# *

Ustick

# *

Cherry

4

# *

# *

4

# *

4

# *

3

4

Ustick

# * 4

Northside

4

# * 1

# *

# *

2

2

# *

Mac

# *

4

4

# *

# *

4

4

Karcher

Ca ld w el

# *

Middleton

1

# *

Karcher

Franklin

Keim

Midland

Madison

11th

Midland

4

l

# *

2

2

# * 2

# * 1

Orchard

# * 2

n Snake River Elementary

2

Lincoln Elementary

1

1

2

5

# * 2

2

n

# *

2 West Middle School

a Lanc

3

Legend

ster

# *

Roosevelt

n

# * n

Schools

Streets

Existing Trail

Parks

Lake Lowell Private Trail

Other Areas 2

3

FD Roosevelt

Missing Sidewalks

Figure 2.21 n

# *

2

2

4

4

1

4

4

4

3

2

2

2

Streets Inventoried

# *

3

1

Curb Ramps Missing

3

Lone Star

1

8

2 3

3

1

3

5

7

4

3

4

4 4

4

7

7

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

4

2

2

2

6

4

Centennial Elementary

2

2 2

Nampa High

1

2

2

2

2

2 2n 3 3r d d

2

2 61 4 5 2 1

3 1

4

4

4

4 3 1 21 2 3 1 4 4 4 4 1

n

4

2

7

1

2

4

2

2

5

2 1 31 2 1 2 2

Endeavor Elementary

n

1

2

1

n

1

Park Ridge Elementary

2

Sherman Elementary

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

Victory

2

Amity

# * 3

Example intersection: Three curb ramps missing.

Nampa Existing Conditions - Curb Ramps, Area 2

City of Nampa # * Plan Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master

Airport

2

4

4

1

Parkview PreSchool

1

3

1 1 115 1

2 2 1 4 4

3

2

# *

Dr

2 2

3

Garrity

Priva te

1

22

2

1

Powerline

2

1

2

h

# *

Willow Creek Elementary

Smith

# * *# *# * # # *# * *# # *# # *# *# * # *n # * # * n # *# # * # ** # # * *# *# *# # * # * * * # * # *# *# *# # *# * * # *# *# *# # * # * # * # * *# *# # ** **# # * *# # *# # # * * # # * * # * # *# # * # # * * # *# *# # * * # # *# ** # * *# # * # * * # * *# * # n# # * *# *# # * * # *# # * * # # * # * # * # * # ** # # * # *# # * # * *# * # **# # *# * *# # *# * # *# *# *# *# *# * # *# # * * # # * * * # # # * * * # * # * # * # * # * # *# * # *# *# * # * # * # *# * # * # * n # * n * # * # * # *# # * n 12 t

n

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet

Ra ilr oa d


4t h

3r d

9t h

Plaza

Barger

Carnation 18 t

6t h

h

h

Carnation

Grant

29th

h

d oo w

19 t

h

h 18 t

Spicela nd Honey Wherry

Lollipop

t

Ta y

lor

21 s

Meyer

25th

h

24 t

d

ek

Badger

Do gw

flo we

Taylor

ild

Daisy

r

Georgia

a

Sunflower

26th

n Greenhurst Elementary

# *

Maryland

Maryland

3

e be rg Example Cas tl intersection: Three curb ramps missing. Lexi's

Maryland

Nampa Existing Conditions - Curb Ramps, Area 3

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000

Wilson

Brenan

Golden rod

c Yu c

Stewart

Louisiana

Rock

Ra ilr oa d

Southside

Sandal Cree k

Ventura

oo d

W

Kentucky

Queens

Private Dr

Daisy

Florida

Private Dr

Private Dr

Lupine

Dakota

Kentucky

2n d

25th Colorado

Poppy

19th

Irving

Chicago

Lily

Discovery

Dufur

Amethyst

Carmen

Murray

Powerline

C re

Kings

Po p

h 19 t

Shortline

Kenosha

s

Saffron

Sugar

h 20 t

n to

Bo s

h 19 t h

22 nd

Honey

17 t

h El m 18 t

on hn s

h 17 t 18 t

h

h

19 t

h

20 t

Amity

Dewey

Syringa

Elder

ia n

a

Fern

Taylor

h 13 t

15 t

h

14 t

h

15 t h

16 t

17 t

18 t

# * # *

s

Maine

d

h oo d

Palace

Iowa

ito

Sunnyridge

Cavalry

h 12 t

h

12 t

Fern

Garland

Holly

Fern

Juniper

Sapphire

Other Areas

Rob in

Fox

ge

Park Ridge Elementary

w Io

r ve Sil

oa

Rid

n

Fox

ai lr

In d

il Tra To ils Ra

Ruby

Pa rk

Swan

Bobcat

Sweet

2

n

Dakota

Parkview

Muskrat

Lincoln

2

Florence

Ivy

Barberry

Locust

Maple

Sherman

Kingsgate

Mink

Nixon

Sherman Elementary

Powerline

Locust

Nectarine

Diamond

Nectarine

Elder

Juniper

Olive

Lincoln

Iowa

s Lo

Figure 2.22

Washington

R

h

Parks

Maryland

2

1

nd

Streets

Cre ek

li

Ta ffy

Ca ne

Raccoon

mo

n

Schools

Missing Sidewalks Maine

# *

1

Willowdale

Sharon's

ld Go

Streets Inventoried

Trail

Kelly

Ke l

Dia

Curb Ramps Missing Constitution

Su g a r

Georgia

# *

Existing Trail

2

Sharon's

Florida

p oo

Crystal

t 20

12th Ave

1

Dakota

Hawaii

4

Bird

Bird

Iowa

LouisianaPrivate

Clark

Colorado

Legend

1

4

Amity

Bird

Georgia

Wils on

4

L ar

n Endeavor Elementary

ts

n

Nampa High

3

h

Sheridan

Amity

Clover

Victory

g Su

Abbywood

Spicewood

on

Am ity

Nutmeg

h Kn ig

Clark

2

Powerline

an

Dewey

2

13 t

4

Banner

1

Banner

Sh e ri d

# * 1

Diamond

Fern

Garland

Sherman

1

3 1

Banner

3

1

3

Bright

Cinnamon

2

* * # # * # # * # * # *

Washington

2 2

2

Chestnut

4

Ivy

Juniper

Locust

Maple

4

Lincoln

Sheridan

Checola

21

6t h

# *

Florence

1

Emerald

1

Bright

Denver

h

h

16 t

5

d

Florence 2 3r

14 t

h

13 t

h

1

1 1

h

1

2

3

Washington

Nectarine

Olive

2

1

oa

2

5

4

Ironwood

ffy Ta

2

2

4

h

Roosevelt

ai lr

2

3

h

1

Dewey

4

4

15 t

12 t

R

Oak

Oak

Berlin

7t h

t 17

Airport

1

Port

int Pep pe rm re ek In dian C

1

# * 2

nt

4

4

14 t

3r d

4

Central Elementary

1

8t h

5

Young

1

3r d

4

2

h

4

Meffan

10 t

h

h

7

3

2

Blaine

5

2

12 t

9t h

7

Owyhee

6

4

7

Shoshone

Fr o

2

2

7

6

4

ep ot

15 t

2

8t h

Elmore

D

h

4

4

3

2n d

d

14 t

2

4

3

3r d

2

4

oa

h W al l

3

2

2

4

5

ai lr

2

2

4

4

4

R

nt

12 t

7t h

10 t

2

2

Fr o

h

2

2

4

8

Parkview PreSchool

1

Eth e l

# *

Garrity

Pa rk

Jo

1

La ke

n

h

9t h

1

11 th

5t h

4

a

7t h

3r d

2n d

1

ca n Am eri

25th

# *

5t h

Almond

4t h

Yale

2n d

3r d

2

3

2

3R D

1s t

2

2

6t h

3

2

1

2 4th

Greenleaf

Fairview

3

# *

1

4t h

3r d

11 th

8t h

7t h

Silgan

Stampede

d ub ba r H

8t h

2n d

1

2

Lone Star

Pine

1

n

Snake River Elementary Rosenlof

25 th

1

High

3

# *

3r d

7t h

1s t

1

3r d

Hudson

# *

# *

4t h

oo d

Eth el

Stinson

# *

22

Delaware

# *

th 5t 8 h

2n d

nw

Powell

9t h

# * * # # # * #* * * * # # * # # * # * # * * # * # # * # * * # # * * * # * # * # # * # * # * # # * # * # * * # * # * # * # * * # * # * # # * # # * # * # # * * * # * # # * # * # * * * # # * # * # # * * # *# # * # # * * * *# # * # # * # * * n# * # * # # * # * * # * # # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *# *# *# *# *# * # * # *# *# * # *# *# *# *# * # * # * # *# *# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * Smith

# *

2

1

Ogden

n

# *

# *

Davis

# *

l

1s t

5t h

Ca ld w el

4t h

2n d

6t h

3r d

Northside

2

Gran t

Franklin

# *

Fa w

Venice

7t h

Brandt

6t h

2n d

4t h

3r d

8t h

5t h

Gateway

Goering

5t h

4t h

d Sn e d

n

Railroad

h 8t

# *

# *

2,000

4,000 Feet

Kelle n


Ann

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

# *

I

0

Man hattan

Mattie Erik Doc Hisom

3r d 4t h

Yale

3r d

3r d

4t h

7

8t h

10 t

Greenleaf

h

15 t

h

11 5

4

4

Sheridan

Juniper

2 Amity

Georgia

Constitution

# *

Juniper

Lois

Hawaii

Louisiana Example intersection: 3 Three curb ramps missing. Main e

4,000 Feet

ly ol

Amity

Ivy

Maple

Locust

p

H

Bird

Nectarine

12th Ave

Edwards

1

Dewey

Colorado

Dakota

3

Barberry

2

1

Locust

Olive

State

# * # * 2

# *

Juniper

Lincoln

Locust

Pine

1

Maple

2

1

Washington

Ivy

1

n Nampa High

2,000

h

14 t

12 t

5

h

9t h

h

4

2

4

2

Olive

State

h

h

14 t

Colorado

Edgewater

7

Nectarine

Canyon

Russell

State

13 t

Sherman

Valley

6

4

1

Bird

1,000

4

3

Nampa Existing Conditions - Curb Ramps, Area 4

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Starr Caba Caba 2n d

Maine

Maryland

2

2

8t h

12 t

Checola

1

4

11 th

Fairview

Gem

Westwood

Westwood

Rowena

Stanford

# *

3

2

2

7

Washington

Mason

Mason Mason Stanford

Arrowhead

Torrey

Iowa Elementary

Mira nda

Belknap

1s t

St in so n

Canyon

Canyon

State

Gem

Sunset

Stanford

on e

st

Co bb le

Rowena

Beechwood

Hawthorne

Alturas

n Ada

Odessa Kansas

Gateway

Broadmore PF E

Gem

Rowena

Cimarron Borah Bo ra h

Park

Skye

Mills

Gem Gem

Roberts

Poplar

Adams

Benewah

Inverness

2

Ra m

Oakmont

Horton

Midland Benewah

Young

id a Ada

4

2

4

4

4

5

3

Blaine

2

2

2

4

Owyhee

Woodland

n

Aberdeen

3

Edwa rds

Teton

Camas

Oakley

s to Ro

Mirage

Reed Adams Ada m Ar

Co ve

Sc ot ts

Andrew

Walnut Creek

Hawaii

Hasket

Gaines

us ta

Georgia

Annie L Bird

en tre C k

Crocus Benewah

Grove Bingham

Boise

Horton

Scottish

Bonner

Hawaii

Aspen Grove

Georgia

r Flo

Shoshone

Owyhee

2

2

4

8

6t h

Shoshone

Meffan

# *

1

4

Elmore

Fairwood

2

3

2

3 7 th

Lone Star

2

n

Muirfield Edwards

Willow Creek

Whitewater

Fall River

Clan

Bonneville

Bird Spruce Creek

Camas

Millstream

Millstream

Rosten

Glasgow

Mil ler

Bonner

Tamarack

Lehmi Camas

Newberry

Heritage Pointe

Newberry

Stillwater de n

Osage

Shumway

Bancroft

Ca m

Belhaven

Freemont

Lancaster

Willow Wind

Airland

Amanda

Luke

Amaya

Bryson River Stone

Spring Valley

Middleton

Hea rtland

Kildeer

Teal Sagehen

Jefferson Jefferson

Herron

Carriage Hill

ick

sw

ap el

Edwards Brookwood

Dakota

Cattail

Summer Breeze

Jefferson

Je ffe rs on

Presidio

Ju an Sa n

a Nan

Coquille

Greybull Greybull

er Tallapo osa Riv

Bru n

Au g

Dakota

y

White ch

Colorado

Elmore

Centennial Elementary

2

San dcrest

Figure 2.23

d ea

Colorado

ha ll

3

2

1

2

2

1

1s t

2

1

5t h

1

Delaware

Borah

wh

# *

r nd a Bo u

Es se x

Missing Sidewalks

Dewey

Bird

Teton

Other Areas

P

te o in

1 2n d

3

22

2

2

Sheridan

Big Creek

Florida

Iowa

p le Ma

Mollywood

Edwards

Streets Owyhee Elementary Cabot

Private Trail

Dallan Woods

Edwards

Streets Inventoried Parks

k re e

e

lro s Me

Cross Creek

Mill

Arbor Pointe

ro Ar

ek C re

Moose Creek

n

Norwood

id e

Cree k Sla te

k ee

Existing Trail

ol C Co

ek re

Shay Park

Cr

C

k ee

n

Schools

ing Do wn Ab b ot

# *

Alderwood

te

Sheridan

k re e

Be ar Cree k

Curb Ramps Missing

3

ck Ro

Redwood

o in

Middle Creek Wils on C re ek Spruce Cre ek

y nle Sta

on

Cr

t es

Meado

rC

h

Thorn Creek

Blakes Creek Creek

e Silv

Elija

n

FD Roosevelt Shy Creek

W

Legend wbrook

3

Peregrine

Cairn

rP da Ce

ee k

v in Da

# *

Falcon

a g le

Heather Woods

Pine Creek

Lake Lowell

nE

e ks C re

Sheridan

Eagle

Ra p to r

n or gh

Sherman

Streamside Wilson Creek

Gle

ae

Lincoln

Gras sy Cr

2

Br

3

# *

Hawk

ble

# *

Roosevelt

Havenwood

West Middle School

Hawk

b Pe

Aldbury

Meffan Young

k

2

1

Lincoln Elementary

High

n As pe

n

Owyh ee

Smith

Togs tad

es tpa r

2n d

Ogden

Hudson

2

Mars

W

e ni

Glendive

ie w

Mcclure

2

Shoshone

Shoshon e

Sa ge

n Ki

r as te

Elmore Fairwood

le

Togstad

n Bo

c La n

Blaine

Fairwood

Brentwood

La va

ow v

1

4t h

# *

Davis

Briarwood

s

er

e ph

La s

Jo s

Dew Mist

Crystal Falls

e Me ad

t an as

Michelle

y Ke lb Bed Roc k

# *

# *

# * # * # * # * * # * # * # *# # *n * * # # * # # * * * # # * * # # * # * # # * # * * * # * # * # # * # # * # * # # # * * * # * # * * # * # * # * * # * # * # # * # # * # * # * * # # * * # # * # * # * # * # * # * * # * # * # # * * # * # # * * n# * # * # # * * # * # # * # * # * # * # * # # * * # *# *# *# *# *# *# * # *# * # * # * # *# *# * # *# * # *

Holland

Pu rp

ar

e Pl

Honey Dew

High

Winther

Sunny

De law

Sweetwood

rk Pa

2

Silver River

on Zi

e

Neilscott

Park Ord

s on Ly

Forsythia

2

6t h

5t h

2

Astor

a Ad

l

in t

Hil

Po

Lake Pointe

# *

Chadford

oo d

n

Ly le

dgw We

io

iss

Crown Pointe

Smith

Carol

# *

l

Winther

Holland Summerwind

Ap p le Willow Pointe

High

Togstad

Grouse

Ridge Pointe

t an as Ple

M

High

n

Curlew

Willow Pointe

Delaware

d oo

Grouse

d

Vintage

Curlew

rw

rwin me

Kipling

Camelot

Willow Creek Elementary

ve

Br

di an

o le D

Windmill

e Sh

Su m t Tu r

Radcliff

Orchard

Winther

Barbara

d

Boone

Boone

Roberts

Sha nnon

oa

Bridger

Boise

Lotus Springs

Camelot

Sanetta

Blossom

Roberts Garden

Garden

Ca ld w Comstock el

Whisper

to l

ai lr

te

Comstock

Tacola

Boundary

E

C

Ashley Cathedral

D

ora

Willow

ne r Bo n

Coppertree

Fitzwilliam

G

A

Br is

Stratford David Fro st Westminster

Oxf o rd Dover Cam bridge Sterling

F

Orch ard He ights

G

B

F

R

Chaparal Hud so n

Bonneville

Amarillo

y

Stanton

d An

Co rp

Boise

Willow

Burnett

Jodi

2

p

Heather

# *

Private Dr

Eldoran

2

p

m Ra

Favre

Cliffrock

# *

Ram

Pa r

# * 1

s

Northside

Bin gh a m

Cassia

o

Cliffrock

Sc orp i

Ta uru s

Habitat

es

Seras

itta ri u

Le o

Pis c

Stepha nie

Brassy Cove Flamingo

Lio n

Gem ini Sa g

Arie s


4

Madison

Northside

Franklin

Franklin

Karcher

Cherry

Mcdermott

# *

4

Star

# *

11th

4

Can Ada

Mac

# *

4

Idaho Center

# *

Wanz

# * # * 2

# * 2

Jasper

1

n Snake River Elementary

# * *# *# * # # *# * # # *# # ** *# * # *n # *# n # *# # * # ** # ** # *# * # # * * # * * *# *# *# # *# *# *# # *# * *# * # *# # * # * * *# # *# *# # *# *# # * # * * # # * * # # * * *# *# * # # * # * *# # *# *# *# # * # ** # * # * # # * * # * # * *# * # n# *# * *# # * *# *# # * # # *# * # * # * # * # **# # * # *# # * # * * * # # **# *# *# # *# # *# * # * # # # # * * * * # # * * # # # * * * # * # * # * # * * * # * # * # *# # * # * *# *# *# * # *# * # *# * # * # * n # * n * # * # *# # * 1

2

4

8

4

5

3

4

5

7

4

2

4

2

4

4 7

1

2

1

4

4

3

2

3

4

3

2

1

2

2

4

2

2 2

4

6

7

1 1 115 1

2 2 1 4 4

2

2

3

Parkview PreSchool

1

2

2

4

n

2 2 4 61 2 5 4 4 2 2 1 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 1 5 4 2 1 1 1 3 1 21 2 1 312 1 3 2 2 1 4 2 2 4 4 Sherman Elementary 4 1 4

7

n Park Ridge Elementary

n

Columbia High

Amity

Ra ilr oa d

n

Powerline

12th Ave

n

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

Powerline

nNampa High

2

1

Greenhurst Elementary

n

n

Skyview High

East Valley Middle School

La ke

Gr e

Legend

# *

Curb Ramps Missing

n

Schools

3

Existing Trail Private Trail

Streets Inventoried Powerline

2

3 1

2 2

2

Mcdermott

2 3

1

2

Streets Parks Other Areas

n

Spring

t

# * 3

Sunny Ridge Elementary

Figure 2.24

en hu rs

Locust

Missing Sidewalks

n

l

ic e k radn Zah

Ronald Reagan Elementary

Denali Locust

Ha ze

Robinson

1

1

Airport

1

Happy Valley

3

# *

Garrity

2

1

Dr

1

22

1

Priva te

2

Example intersection: Three curb ramps missing.

Nampa Existing Conditions - Curb Ramps, Area 5

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

I

0

1,000 2,000

4,000 Feet


Landruff

Lincoln

Main

Lansing

State

Lincoln Lincoln

Joplin

Chinden

Drinkard

Can Ada

Knott

Northside

Hwy 20/26

Elm

# *

# * 4

# *

Linden

# * 4

# * 4

# *

# *

# *

Ustick

# * 4

# *

# *

# * # *

Cherry

# *

# *

4

Mcmillan

4

# * 3

# * 4

1

4

4

# *

3

4

Dean

Prescott

4

# *

Ustick

4

# *

Laster

1

2

4

Mac

4

# *

# *

4

4

Karcher

# * # * 1

# * 2

Ca ld w el

Franklin

Keim

Midland

Madison

11th

Midland

4

Star

2

Idaho Center

# *

Karcher

Franklin

Wanz

l

Middleton

2

# * # *

Legend

1

# * 2

n

Jasper

Orchard

Snake River Elementary

* # # * *# *# * # *# # * *Streets Inventoried # # * # Streets *# # **# *# * n Schools # * # *# n *# * # # # *# # * *# ** *# Existing Trail Parks # # * * * n# * # * # # * * # * # * # * # * *# *# *# Private Trail Other Areas # * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# # *# * # * # * Missing Sidewalks # # * * *# *# n # # * * *# *# # * # * # # # * # * # * *# *# *# * * # * # * # # # * * * # * # * *# # * # n# *# *# * *# # *n # * # # *# *# # **Conditions *# # * Figure 2.25 Nampa Existing Curb Ramps, # **-# * # *# # * *# n Area 6 # * * # * # * # * * # * # # * * # * # * # # # # ** **# # *# *# *# * *# *# *# # * *# *# * # * n # * City of Nampa 0 1,000 2,000 # * # * # * # # * * # # * * # * # * Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 3 Smith

n

Curb Ramps Missing

Willow Creek Elementary

2 2

2

1

2

Lone Star

West Middle School

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: EAS Date: October 2010

Garrity 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 22 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 Parkview PreSchool 1 2 8441 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 5 4 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 3 7 2 2 4 4 6 Endeavor Elementary 4 6 7 2 5 14 4 37 2 7

Airport

1

2

2

Happy Valley

# *

Robinson

2

Victory

I

3

Example intersection: Three curb ramps missing.

4,000 Feet


City of Nampa, Idaho

2.3 Safety Analysis Bicyclist and pedestrian crash data was provided by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Crash data from 2005 to 2009 was reviewed and included a listing of all locations with multiple crashes of either type (i.e. two or more motor vehicle-bicycle crashes and/or two or more motor vehicle-pedestrian crashes). The majority of the multiple bicycle and pedestrian crashes sites are located near high activity areas or high volume roadways (see Figure 2.26) including the downtown Nampa core area, along 12th Avenue (aka SH 45) through downtown to Greenhurst Road, and along Caldwell Boulevard from downtown Nampa to Middleton Road. The five year crash locations were comparable to the crash locations found in the ten year timeframe (2000-2009). A summary of intersections where three or more HCL incidents have occurred in the past five years is illustrated in Table 2.1.1

Table 2.1: Reported High Crash Locations (2000-2009) Intersection

Bicycle Crashes

Pedestrian Crashes

Total Bike/Ped Crashes

11th Ave. South / 1st St. South

6

0

6

12th Ave. South / Colorado Avenue

3

2

5

Canyon Street / Caldwell Blvd.

3

1

4

Midland Blvd . / Lake Lowell Avenue

3

1

4

12th Ave. South / Valley Drive

1

3*

4

12th Ave South / 9th St South

2

1

3

Midland Blvd . / Flamingo Avenue

2

1

3

*Indicates one fatality occurred

There are five locations where four or more pedestrians and/or bicyclists have been struck by a motor vehicle and one where six or more crashes have been reported. The locations shown in the table represent a mixture of signalized and unsignalized crossings. All of the locations involve at least one relatively high traffic volume 1 roadway. Most of the crash locations in the downtown core area are along 11th and 12th Avenues. Twelfth Avenue (SH 45) has the most multiple bicycle and pedestrian crashes sites of any single roadway. This is likely due in part to it serving as a primary north-south connection from the southern end of the City into downtown Nampa (and beyond via 11th Avenue). According to the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan, daily traffic volumes on 12th

1

The ITD data originally indicated there were thirteen locations that fit our HCL criteria; however, under scrutiny, the data revealed that a number of crashes were nearby the intersection but not related to the intersection at certain locations, so they were removed from this list.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 39


City of Nampa, Idaho

Avenue range from over 30,000 vehicles per day between 7th Street South and Iowa Avenue to approximately 20,000 vehicles per day at the north and south ends of the corridor. There is also a concentration of multiple crashes sites in the area near Northwest Nazarene University (NNU), Nampa High School, and Mercy Medical Center. Caldwell Boulevard also has a relatively high number of multiple bicycle and pedestrian crashes sites. This roadway serves as a parallel route to I-84 between Nampa and Caldwell. The section from downtown Nampa to Karcher Road carries approximately 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day. This area serves a high concentration of commercial development, including Karcher Mall, a regional shopping destination.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 40


City of Nampa, Idaho

Figure 2.26: Crash Map

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 41


City of Nampa, Idaho

2.3.1 High Crash Location (HCL) Review For the purposes of this analysis, an HCL is defined as a location where three or more crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist have occurred in the past five years on record (i.e., more than one crash every two years). Each of the HCL’s listed in Table 2.1 is discussed in further detail on the following pages.

11th Avenue South / 1st Street South Table 2.2 below summarizes key characteristics of the 11th Avenue South/1st Street South intersection.

Table 2.2: Characteristics of the 11th Avenue South/1st Street South Intersection Size 4-Legs

Control

Left-turn Phasing

Marked Crosswalks

Major Street Volumes (Vehicles/Day)1

Signal

Permissive (all approaches)

All approaches

18,500-23,800

Bicycle Crashes

Pedestrian Crashes

6

0

Taken from the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan website

1

A detailed review of the crash data provided by ITD yields the following findings: •

Five of the six crashes were due to driver error (i.e. failure to yield, inattention, or alcohol) and the other was due to a cyclist disregarding the signal

The motor vehicle was turning from 1st Street onto 11th Avenue South when it struck the bicyclist in all five crashes involving driver error, with four of these involving a right-turn

In all crashes, the bicyclist was traveling through the intersection on 11th Avenue

Weather and time of day do not appear to be a factor in these five crashes

Based on these findings and the intersection characteristics noted above, the following countermeasures could be considered at the 11th Avenue South/1st Street intersection: •

Prohibiting right-turn on red (RTOR) movements from 1st Street - This would appear to be the most effective countermeasure, given that four of the six crashes likely involved a RTOR from 1st Street. The recently published Highway Safety Manual notes that prohibiting RTOR can reduce pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by approximately 40%. An operational analysis of this modification should be conducted if this is considered; though RTOR does not typically provide much capacity benefit in congested situations

Changing left-turn phasing from permissive only to protected only – This would be effective at reducing crashes at this intersection; however there is not necessarily a trend in pedestrian and bicycle crash history to support this measure (only one crash in the past five years on record). There is evidence from the HSM that protected left-turn phasing does reduce overall crashes at an intersection

A citywide educational outreach campaign encouraging drivers to look both ways when making a RTOR and cyclists to ride with the flow of traffic, even on a sidewalk. When making a RTOR, drivers must look to their left to gauge gaps in oncoming traffic. Oftentimes, the driver begins the turning process without checking to the right. In three of the four right-turn crashes, the cyclist was approaching from the driver’s right (e.g. southbound across the westbound approach). Since there are not bicycle lanes in Nampa, cyclists are more likely to be found on the sidewalks, which are used for two-way travel, whereas bicycle Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 42


City of Nampa, Idaho

lanes are generally used for travel with the flow of traffic. This education could be supplemented with the installation of an overhead sign on the signal’s mast cautioning drivers to yield to pedestrians/cyclists to their right when making a right-turn (i.e. sign R10-15 in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices)

12th Avenue / Colorado Avenue Table 2.3 below summarizes key characteristics of the 12th Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection.

Table 2.3: Characteristics of the 12th Avenue/Colorado Avenue Intersection Size

3-Legs

Control Two-way Stop

Left-turn Phasing N/A

Marked Crosswalks Uncontrolled crosswalk across 12th Avenue (south side)

Major Street Volumes (Vehicles/Day)1

Bicycle Crashes

Pedestrian Crashes

32,000

3

2

Taken from the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan website

1

A detailed review of the crash data provided by ITD yields the following findings: •

All five crashes were due to driver error (i.e. fail to yield or inattention)

Three of the five crashes involved a vehicle traveling along 12th Avenue, while the other two involved a vehicle turning onto 12th Avenue from Colorado Avenue

Both pedestrian crashes and one bicyclist crash involved the pedestrian or cyclist crossing 12th Avenue in the marked crosswalk

Weather and time of day generally do not appear to be a factor in the crashes

Based on these findings and the intersection characteristics noted above, the following countermeasures could be considered at the 12th Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection: •

Improve the visibility of the marked crosswalk along 12th Avenue with an enhanced crossing treatment, such as the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) or HAWK Beacon – Given the traffic volumes and speeds on 12th Avenue and its width (five-lane section), having a marked crosswalk without any additional treatments likely makes this crossing less safe for pedestrians and cyclists than if it were not marked at all (Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Reference 4). Installing an enhanced treatment, such as the RRFB, will improve driver yield rates. A HAWK Beacon would allow crossing pedestrians and cyclists to stop traffic. Installing a raised median refuge island would improve the effectiveness of either treatment by shortening the crossing distance and improve visibility A more detailed analysis would need be conducted to determine the most appropriate treatment. This location is a good candidate for an enhanced crossing similar to the one recently constructed on 11th Avenue North, near Paul’s Market, which features beacons and a refuge island to facilitate pedestrian crossing across 11th Avenue North.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 43


City of Nampa, Idaho

Canyon Street / Caldwell Boulevard Table 2.4 below summarizes key characteristics of the Canyon Street/Caldwell Boulevard intersection.

Table 2.4: Characteristics of the Canyon Street/Caldwell Boulevard Intersection Size 4-Legs

Control Signal

Left-turn Phasing Protected (all approaches)

Marked Crosswalks All approaches

Major Street Volumes (Vehicles/Day)1

Bicycle Crashes

Pedestrian Crashes

26,000

3

1

Taken from the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan website

1

A detailed review of the crash data provided by ITD yields the following findings: •

Two of the three bicycle crashes were due to driver error (i.e. failure to yield or inattention) and the other was due to a cyclist disregarding the signal

Both of the driver error crashes involved a northbound right-turning vehicle hitting a westbound cyclist

The pedestrian was struck when crossing southbound by an eastbound traveling vehicle

Time of day may have been a factor in the pedestrian crash, as it occurred at night, while the others all occurred on clear days (although, there is roadway lighting along this corridor)

Based on these findings and the intersection characteristics noted above, the following countermeasures could be considered at the Canyon Street/Caldwell Boulevard intersection: •

Prohibiting right-turn on red (RTOR) movements from northbound Canyon Street – Similar to the 11th Avenue South/1st Avenue South intersection, the only noticeable crash pattern at this intersection involves cyclists being hit by right-turning drivers when approaching from their right

The previously discussed citywide educational outreach campaign encouraging drivers to look both ways when making a RTOR and cyclists to ride with the flow of traffic, even on a sidewalk, as well as overhead signage

Lake Lowell Avenue / Midland Boulevard Table 2.5 below summarizes key characteristics of the Lake Lowell Avenue/Midland Boulevard intersection.

Table 2.5: Characteristics of the Lake Lowell Avenue/Midland Boulevard Intersection Size 4-Legs

Control All-way Stop

Left-turn Phasing N/A

Marked Crosswalks None

Major Street Volumes (Vehicles/Day)1

Bicycle Crashes

Pedestrian Crashes

13,200

1

3

Taken from the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan website

1

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 44


City of Nampa, Idaho

A detailed review of the crash data provided by ITD yields the following findings: •

Two of the three bicycle crashes were due to driver error (i.e. failure to yield or inattention) and the other was due to a cyclist disregarding the signal

Both of the driver error crashes involved a northbound right-turning vehicle hitting a westbound cyclist

The pedestrian was struck when crossing southbound by an eastbound traveling vehicle

Time of day may have been a factor in the pedestrian crash, as it occurred at night, while the others all occurred on clear days

Based on these findings and the intersection characteristics noted above, the following countermeasures could be considered at the Lake Lowell Avenue/Midland Boulevard intersection: •

A roundabout is currently planned for this intersection – this will change the nature of the intersection and could reduce bicycle and pedestrian crashes, as the HSM notes that roundabouts generally reduce all crashes

12th Avenue / Valley Drive Table 2.6 below summarizes key characteristics of the 12th Avenue/Valley Drive intersection.

Table 2.6: Characteristics of the 12th Avenue/Valley Drive Intersection Size

Control

Left-turn Phasing

Marked Crosswalks

4-Legs

Signal

Protected (12th Avenue), Permissive (Valley Drive)

All approaches

Major Street Volumes 1

(Vehicles/Day)

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Crashes

Crashes

19,000

1

3

Taken from the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan website

1

A detailed review of the crash data provided by ITD yields the following findings: •

A pedestrian was fatally struck when crossing 12th Avenue approximately 150’ north of the intersection

The other pedestrian crashes occurred with a vehicle turning right on red or making a permitted left-turn from the westbound (shopping center) approach

Time of day may have been a factor in the fatal crash, as it occurred at night

Based on these findings and the intersection characteristics noted above, the following countermeasures could be considered at the 12th Avenue/Valley Drive intersection: •

Prohibiting right-turn on red (RTOR) movements from the shopping center approach

Changing the left-turn phasing on the shopping center approach to protected-only (according to the HSM reduces overall crashes)

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 45


City of Nampa, Idaho

12th Avenue South / 9th Street South Table 2.7 below summarizes key characteristics of the 12th Avenue South/9th Street South intersection.

Table 2.7: Characteristics of the 12th Avenue South/9th Street South Intersection Size

Control

Left-turn Phasing

4-Legs

Two-way Stop

Marked Crosswalks

N/A

Major Street Volumes 1

(Vehicles/Day)

None

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Crashes

Crashes

28,000

2

1

Taken from the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan website

1

A detailed review of the crash data provided by ITD yields the following findings: •

Both bicycle crashes involved a westbound right-turning vehicle striking a southbound traveling bicyclist

The pedestrian crash involved a northbound vehicle striking a crossing pedestrian

Time of day and weather do not appear to be factors

Based on these findings and the intersection characteristics noted above, the following countermeasures could be considered at the 12th Avenue South/9th Street South intersection: •

The previously discussed citywide educational outreach campaign encouraging drivers to look both ways when making a right-turn and cyclists to ride with the flow of traffic, even on a sidewalk

An enhanced crossing of 12th Avenue, similar to what was described for the Colorado Avenue intersection

Midland Boulevard / Flaming Avenue Table 2.8 below summarizes key characteristics of the Midland Boulevard/Flamingo Avenue intersection.

Table 2.8: Characteristics of the Midland Boulevard/Flamingo Avenue Intersection Size 4-Legs

Control Two-way Stop

Left-turn Phasing N/A

Marked Crosswalks

Major Street Volumes (Vehicles/Day)1

Bicycle Crashes

17,000

2

All approaches

Pedestrian Crashes 1

Taken from the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan website

1

A detailed review of the crash data provided by ITD yields the following findings: •

Both bicycle crashes involved a vehicle failing to yield on the eastbound approach, though the direction being travelled by the cyclist was not consistent between the two crashes

Time of day and weather do not appear to be factors

Based on these findings and the intersection characteristics noted above, the following countermeasures could be considered at the Midland Boulevard/Flamingo Avenue intersection: •

The previously discussed citywide educational outreach campaign encouraging drivers to look both ways when making a right-turn and cyclists to ride with the flow of traffic, even if riding on a sidewalk

An enhanced crossing of Midland Boulevard, similar to what was described for the 12th Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection – While the crash data does not show that this is currently an issue, the marked Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 46


City of Nampa, Idaho

crosswalks of Midland Boulevard do not have any additional treatments. Given the wide roadway section and the volumes on Midland Boulevard, these crossings are prime candidates for additional treatments

2.3.2 Prioritization and Implementation of Countermeasures The subsections above presented a number of countermeasures for each HCL. The following intersections would be considered the priority locations for implementation of countermeasures, based both on the number of crashes, as well as there being a consistent pattern leading to crashes at the intersection: •

11th Avenue South/1st Street South (RTOR crashes)

12th Avenue/Colorado Avenue (Uncontrolled crossing of 12th Avenue)

Canyon Street/Caldwell Boulevard (RTOR crashes)

Crash data is less supportive of specific countermeasures at the other intersections. Before a specific countermeasure is implemented, the operational impacts of that measure (e.g. restricting RTOR movements) should be evaluated. As well, the impacts of the countermeasures on vehicular crashes should also be considered. Generally, the countermeasures outlined above for signalized intersections will also reduce vehicular crashes as well.

2.3.3 General Trends Review In reviewing the crash data, two trends stand out: 1) right-turning vehicles hitting a cyclist approaching from the driver’s right (either on a RTOR movement or from a stop-controlled side-street approach); and 2) crashes involving uncontrolled crossings of a busy and wide roadway.

Right-Turn Crashes A number of crashes involved a right-turning vehicle (turning on red or from a stop-controlled approach) hitting a cyclist crossing the street from the driver’s right. When making a RTOR or turning right from a stopcontrolled approach, drivers must look to their left to gauge the gaps of oncoming traffic. Oftentimes, the driver begins the turning process without checking to the right. A bicyclist approaching from the driver’s left is therefore not seen by the driver as he/she begins the turning movement. This issue may exist in part due to the use sidewalks as bicycle facilities in Nampa. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (Reference 5) notes that “at intersections, motorists are often not looking for bicyclists…entering the crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making a turn.” Sidewalks also encourage two-way travel, which drivers may not be expecting (at least at the speed at which cyclists travel). Countermeasures for these crashes include: •

Restricting RTOR movements at signalized intersections

Providing bicycle lanes or shoulders

Educating drivers and cyclists about how to prevent such crashes

Restricting RTOR movements from problem approaches is a proven engineering countermeasure that is known to reduce crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists (approximately 40% according to the HSM), as well as other vehicles. Such a restriction does impart additional delay upon motorists and impacts the capacity of an intersection. Therefore, it is important to consider the operational impacts of such a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 47


City of Nampa, Idaho

restriction. Bicycle lanes encourage bicyclists to travel with the flow of traffic, as well as improve the visibility of the cyclist to drivers approaching from side streets. However, since bicycle lanes and shoulders are generally not provided in Nampa, educating both drivers and cyclists about these situations may reduce the likelihood of these types of crashes. For instance, a campaign aimed at drivers could focus on encouraging them to look both ways before making a right-turn. Similarly, an educational campaign for cyclists could encourage them to use sidewalks for one-way travel only, or to be certain that a rightturning driver has seen them when approaching from the driver’s right (as pedestrians are often taught to do). This education could be supplemented with the installation of an overhead sign on the signal’s mast cautioning drivers to yield to pedestrians/cyclists to their right when making a right-turn (i.e. sign R10-15 in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).

Uncontrolled Crossings Uncontrolled crossings, marked or unmarked, are frequent sites for pedestrian and bicycle crashes. The recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations contains guidance regarding when providing a marked crosswalk with no additional treatments may lead to more crashes than if the crosswalk were unmarked. The report finds that providing a marked crosswalk without other treatments (e.g. beacons, curb extensions, etc…) will likely increase the risk of pedestrian crashes under the following circumstances: •

The speed limit is greater than 40 MPH

A multi-lane roadway without a refuge island and an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of greater than 12,000 vehicles per day

A multi-lane roadway with a refuge island and an ADT of greater than 15,000 vehicles per day

In situations such as these, a marked crosswalk should be accompanied by additional treatments. These additional treatments could include the any of, or some combination of, the following, depending on the characteristics of the area: •

Flashing beacons

Pedestrian signals/HAWK beacons

Advance stop lines

Curb extensions

Raised medians

Signage

Traffic calming

A good example of an enhanced crossing across a five-lane arterial in Nampa is the recently constructed crossing of 11th Avenue North at Paul’s Market. This crossing includes signage, a raised refuge island, and flashers, in addition to a marked crosswalk.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 48


City of Nampa, Idaho

2.4 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Destinations It is particularly important for the walkway and bikeway networks to provide access to destinations popular among pedestrians and bicyclists. Within Nampa, popular destinations include: •

Educational facilities, including: Northwest Nazarene University, College of Western Idaho, elementary, middle and high schools

Employment centers, including: Nampa School District 131, St. Alphonsus Medical Center, and Amalgamated Sugar Company

Commercial areas, including downtown businesses, Wal-Mart, Karcher Mall and surrounding businesses

Public Facilities: City Hall and the Civic Center, Idaho Center, Public Library, Post Office and Central Services

Recreation: Recreation Center, Parks, Wilson Ponds, Boys and Girls Club

Park N Ride lots

Nampa Farmer’s Market

Nearby communities of Caldwell, Kuna and Meridian

Rural roadways on the community’s outskirts for recreational cyclists

Natural areas outside of Nampa, including: Lake Lowell, the Boise and Snake Rivers

2.5 Opportunities and Constraints This section of the memo discusses the opportunities and constraints in Nampa. Both non-site specific characteristics, such as demographics, topography, and policies, as well as specific items such as roadways and corridors, are covered.

2.5.1 Opportunities Summarized below, various characteristics create a positive bicycling and walking environment in Nampa.

Climate Nampa is in a high desert “Banana Belt” that sits between the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains to the north, and the Owyhee Mountains to the south. The low humidity factor contributes to the mild, year-round climate. Nampa is a prime setting for walking and biking throughout the year.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 49


City of Nampa, Idaho

Demographics In addition to the recreational benefits of a pathway system, there are three groups of people who benefit enormously from the transportation opportunities a pathway would provide: children, the elderly, and those without vehicles who depend on public forms of transportation. Because children and many elderly people cannot drive, they are largely dependent on themselves and others to transport them. According to the U. S. Census Bureau’s 2006-2008 estimates, the median age of Nampa residents is 28.6 years 27% of the population is 14 years of age or younger. These numbers indicate a young population with significant potential for growth in the non-motorized transportation area, including non-driving school aged children.

Topography The topography of Nampa is relatively flat, with few challenging hills to deter bicycling or walking. In addition, the flat terrain allows for long sight distances and allows motorists to react to obstructions on the road.

Street Design In general, Nampa has very wide streets with the potential to accommodate a strong and diverse multimodal transportation system. The street classifications in Nampa are principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors and local streets. The average daily traffic (ADT) on principal arterials exceeds 15,000 vehicles per day. The draft Nampa Transportation Master Plan recommends vehicular travel lane widths between 12 feet to 14 feet. Minimum sidewalk widths in the shown in the transportation plan are 5 feet, with 10 feet recommended for shared-use paths.

The flat terrain in Nampa is condusive to bicycling and walking activities. This is a photo of Iowa Street.

Downtown Nampa Land use characteristics in the downtown business area foster a pedestrian-friendly environment. For instance, buildings fronting the sidewalk edge create a sense of tight urban form and an inviting pedestrian atmosphere. Angled on-street parking in the downtown business district buffers foot traffic from adjacent motor vehicle traffic.

Angled parking on 14th Avenue South

The gridded street configuration in the downtown area can support a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. Gridded streets allow pedestrians and bicyclists to make direct trips and to choose a variety of streets to take them to their destinations. To leverage the grid layout, sidewalk gap infill projects and the installation of missing curb ramps would complete the sidewalk network. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 50


City of Nampa, Idaho

Multi-Use Pathways Nampa has made major strides in constructing an offstreet multi-use path network. The City has capitalized on development opportunities to have developers either dedicate land for pathways or construct pathways. This approach has enabled the City expand the multi-use path network on an incremental basis. The downside of waiting for development to occur is that key path segments are undeveloped, resulting in lapses of connectivity. The multi-use path system provides critical north/south connections not afforded by the road grid. In a number of cases, the paths supply vital connections to between schools and residential areas.

Trail users on the Wilson Draintrail, mid-block crossing at MidlandBoulevard

Like most pathways in built urban areas, the multi-use pathways in Nampa must cross roadways at certain points. While at-grade crossings create a potentially high level of conflict between pathway users and motorists, well-designed crossings have not historically posed a safety problem, as evidenced by the thousands of successful trails around the United States with at-grade crossings. Most at-grade pathway crossings in Nampa include transverse crosswalk striping and with crossing flags available to pathway users. This crossing treatment benefits pathway users and encourages pathway use. Grade separated crossings are recommended in certain situations, such as crossings of the railroad corridor, I84, and certain other roads where vehicle volumes and speed limits are high. The conversion of existing at-grade pathway crossings to grade-separated crossings is a difficult and expensive undertaking and should be considered where other traffic control measures have failed, where the natural topography lends itself to a grade-separated crossing, or where persistent safety issues exist. •

Crossing flag receptacles are located on both side of a crossing. Crossing flags can raise the visability of pedestrians to motorists

One low-cost opportunity to improve connectivity on the Wilson Pathway is between the intersection of the path on 12th Avenue and on East Greenhurst Road. When path users emerge onto 12th Avenue or East Greenhurst Road, is not apparent that the connection between the two points is an on-street segment using the existing sidewalk system. A comprehensive signage system would inform path users how to make the connection and include distance information.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 51


City of Nampa, Idaho

Irrigation Canals and Drainages There are numerous irrigation canals and ditches that cross through the City of Nampa that provide excellent pathway opportunities and in some cases, regional pathway connections. Many of these pathways provide a north/south connection opportunity not available in the roadway system. A number of these canals are already utilized as pathway corridors. Working with the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and the Pioneer Irrigation District to provide pathways along the many of the remaining canals and ditches will be critical to achieve a well-connected off-street pathway system. Issues that need to be addressed include:

Canal north of West Locust Lane, between 12th Avenue and S. MidlandBoulevard is set to be piped. This creates an opportunity to construct a trail in the corridor.

Designing pathways along the irrigation canals so that irrigation district maintenance staff can access the corridor as needed

Locating pathways along the irrigation canals to ensure the safety of pathway users

Establishing maintenance and vegetation guidelines, such as appropriate landscaping

Roadway Connections Several major roadways offer opportunities to connect Nampa neighborhoods, bordering communities and regional destinations. The following roads connect to neighboring communities and regional destinations: •

Amity Avenue and Locust Lane, which connect to Meridian and Kuna respectively

12th Avenue connects to Melba and the Snake River (approximately 10 miles to the south)

Ustick Road is a thirty-seven mile long road that connects to Boise in the east and Caldwell in the west

Cherry Lane and Franklin Road also connect to Boise and Caldwell

Midland Boulevard connects Lake Lowell with the Boise River

Northside Boulevard connects downtown with the Boise River

11th Avenue North looking north at the I-84 overpass

The following roads connect Nampa neighborhoods with over/underpasses of the railroad corridor and I-84, and where indicated have pedestrian of bicycle facilities incorporated into the crossing •

16th Avenue North (sidewalk on west side of the railroad overpass)

11th Avenue North (sidewalk on west side of I-84overpass) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 52


City of Nampa, Idaho

Nampa Boulevard (sidewalks on both sides of the railroad overpass)

Northside Road (sidewalks on both sides of I-84 underpass)

Karcher Interchange (sidewalk in east side of I-84 overpass, bike lanes)

Karcher Road

Middleton Road

Garrity Boulevard/N. Idaho Center Boulevard

South Kings Road/Southside Boulevard (sidewalk on west side of the railroad overpass)

East Amity Road (sidewalks on both sides of the railroad overpass)

Identifying appropriate roadways that connect local and regional bicycle facilities not only creates a solid transportation network, but also supports recreation and economic development opportunities (e.g., tourism).

2.5.2 Constraints Pedestrians and bicyclists in and around Nampa face a variety of challenges, as described in the section below.

Barriers Interstate 84 (I-84)

I-84 is located just north of the railroad corridor and forms an additional physical barrier for pedestrian and bicyclists. The historic North Nampa neighborhood is wedged between I-84 and the railroad corridor, and is effectively isolated from both the downtown business district to the south and new development to the north. Any new crossings or improvements to existing roadway crossings should include adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve north/south connectivity. Railroad

The railroad has been in Nampa since construction began in 1886. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) now owns the corridor, and leases to Idaho Northern. Trains run daily, and travel between 20-25 mph. The main railroad tracks run in a northwest/southeast direction through the center of Nampa. There are 66 railroad and roadway intersections in Nampa, the railroad corridor acts as a considerable north/south barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. The railway holds a 200-foot easement on the main line. COMPASS, the regional transportation planning authority, is currently undertaking a corridor alternatives Railroad corridor that parallels 2nd Street South near analysis for high capacity transit. The rail corridor Southside Boulevard through Nampa is being considered as one of the alternatives. The rail corridor provides an excellent opportunity to establish a regionally significant pathway from Nampa to Boise. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 53


City of Nampa, Idaho

An iconic retail-based pedestrian bridge is recommended in the North Nampa Revitalization Strategy to connect 14th Avenue S. to 14th Avenue N over the railroad corridor. This bridge should include bicycle facilities to increase the functionality of the bridge for non-motorized transportation. Roadways

Most roadways in Nampa are prioritized to accommodate motor vehicle travel and pose substantial barriers to bicyclists and pedestrians. The distance between crosswalk markings and stop controlled intersections can be very intimidating to pedestrians and bicyclists and may be challenging enough to suppress interest in traveling by foot or bike. In most cases, crossings could be properly designed to a reasonable degree of safety and meet existing traffic and safety standards. A number of roads have been identified as barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel in existing plans, through stakeholder and steering committee feedback and from public input. The roadways analyzed in this section have been chosen as a result of research findings, input, observation, and significance to the impairment of non-motorized mobility. For this report, the roadways have been grouped into two sections: roads that run through central Nampa and roads that serve the rest of the community.

Section 1 – Roadways in Central Nampa The following major roadways are main corridors into, or through, central Nampa which includes the downtown business district, industrial land uses, NNU and a strong residential presence. This area of Nampa is typified by the gridded street network and relatively dense housing development patterns.

2nd and 3rd Street South 2nd and 3rd Streets are one-way couplets from N. Canyon Street to 16th Avenue South, where the adjacent land use is chiefly commercial and public facilities. 2nd and 3rd Streets are principal arterials from 12th Avenue west and minor arterials from 12th Avenue east. From 16th Avenue South to 23rd Avenue South both streets revert back to standard two-way streets, where the adjacent land uses are residential. Both streets are 80 feet wide, have three travel lanes with a posted speed limits between 20 and 35 mph. The Average Daily Traffic count (ADT) for 2nd Street South is 8,700. The ADT for 3rd Street South is 12,650. On-street parking along both streets is intermittent. Both streets are designed to flow traffic with minimal intersection stops (outside of the downtown business core). In the downtown business district, traffic calming and crossing treatments encourage pedestrian activity.

7th Avenue South 7th Avenue South runs in a northeast/southwest direction and merges into Lone Star Road, which has an east/west alignment. 7th Avenue South connects to Interstate 84 via Nampa Boulevard. 7th Avenue South is 80 feet wide with a posted speed limit of 25 mph, with on-street parking. ADT for 7th Avenue South is 4,000 vehicles per day The land uses adjacent to 7th Avenue South are residential between 9th Street South and 4th Street South and largely commercial between 4th Street South and 1st Street South. It is approximately .57 miles between 9th Street South and 1st Street South with nine intersections and no marked crossings. With the exception of 7th Street South, the stop signs are orientated to stop cross traffic between 4th Street South and 9th Street South, which prioritizes travel on 7th Avenue South over travel on the cross streets. The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan recommends curb bulb outs and crosswalks at 7th Street South, 6th Street South, 5th Street South and 4th Street South to facilitate pedestrian access to the commercial areas.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 54


City of Nampa, Idaho

11th Avenue North 11th Avenue North is 100 feet wide, with 5 travel lanes and a widened outside lane. The speed limit is 35 mph and an ADT of 1,000. The North Nampa Revitalization Strategy states that 11th Avenue North “limits interaction between the two neighborhoods flanking it” and recommends signalized intersections at: 

11th Avenue North at 1st Street North: this intersection is a priority for signalization, a necessary safety improvement for a walkable community

11th Avenue North at 4th Street North: high incidents of “jay-crossing” occurs at this intersection

Garrity Boulevard at Stampede Drive; Hispanic Cultural Center, Boys and Girls Club, elementary school and future rail station This crossing is particularly hazardous for children.

11th Avenue South 11th Avenue South is 100 feet wide (with widened outside lanes) between the railroad tracks and 3rd Street with five lanes. Between 3rd Street and Roosevelt, 11th Street is 80 feet wide with three travel lanes. Other characteristics are: a posted speed limit is 30 mph and on-street parking and an ADT of 9,900. 11th Avenue South is a major route to get residents from Interstate 84 and North Nampa into southwest Nampa. 11th Avenue South is also a transitional street that has commercial uses on the southeast side and a commercial/residential mix on the northwest side. Commercial uses are typical on the northwest side from 1st Street to 5th Street. From 5th Street to where 11th Avenue/W. Roosevelt Avenue merge, residential properties line the street on the northwest side. Between 1st Street and the Roosevelt curve (approximately 1 mile), there are fourteen intersections. Of those fourteen intersections, there are four signalized intersections with crosswalks: 

1st Street South

2nd Street South

3rd Street South

7th Street South

The quarter mile between 3rd and 7th Street, and the one-half mile between 7th Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue presents a challenge for the residents to cross busy 11th Avenue to access businesses. The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan points out that the neighborhood is significantly impacted by traffic on its arterial streets and that “This traffic divides the neighborhood, reduces safety and attractiveness for pedestrians, and makes it difficult for customers to reach local businesses.” The plan calls for curb bulb outs and crosswalks on 11th Avenue South at every intersection between 4th Street South and 14th Street South to improve the pedestrian realm. Further, the plan also calls for bike lanes on 11th Avenue South.

12th Avenue Presently, crossing 12th Avenue is a significant barrier to both pedestrians and bicyclists. 12th Avenue is a commercial/business corridor and a major north/south and northeast/southwest route. 12th Avenue effectively bisects Nampa in half. 12th Avenue is 100 feet wide, with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, with average daily traffic volumes of 22,100. It has been noted by observation and from steering committee and stakeholder feedback that motorists often travel over the posted speed limit on 12th Avenue.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 55


City of Nampa, Idaho

Analyzing 12th Avenue through the gridded street system from Front Street down to Lake Lowell Avenue/East Amity Avenue (approximately 1.5 miles) there are a total of twenty three intersections. Of those twenty three (23) intersections, there are two (2) stop sign controlled intersections and four (4) signalized intersections: 

Front Street, stop sign controlled

1st Street, stop sign controlled

2nd Street, signalized

3rd Street, signalized

7th Street, signalized

Lake Lowell Avenue/East Amity, signalized

In the span of 1.25 miles (between 3rd Street and Lake Lowell Avenue/East Amity Avenue) there is only one crossing opportunity for pedestrians and bicyclists at a signalized intersection. There are transverse crosswalks on one leg of each intersection at East Dewey Avenue and East Sherman Avenue, but these intersections are not stop-controlled. The roadway design width and the lack of stopping movements prioritize motorists travel over pedestrian and bicycle travel. Pedestrians and bicyclists must travel “out-of-direction” for relatively long distances to safely cross 12th Avenue.

16th Avenue North 16th Avenue North runs through the North Nampa in a predominately residential neighborhood and Lakeview Park. 16th Avenue North is an 80 foot wide street with five travel lanes and a widened outside lanes. The North Nampa Revitalization Strategy cites 16th Avenue North as limiting the “interaction between the two neighborhoods flanking it.” A signalized pedestrian crossing is recommended between the Mason Creek parking area to the proposed Mason Creek Pathway. At 16th Avenue North and 5th Street North or 6th Street North a signalized intersection is recommended to reflect the predominate crossing patterns pedestrian use to access businesses.

Holly Street/East Sheridan Avenue/Fern Street/Bird Avenue/Holly Street The combination of Holly Street, East Sheridan Avenue, Fern Street and Bird Avenue merge together to form the eastern boundary of NNU, which connects to 16th Avenue North and downtown. This alignment is 80 feet wide, has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and an ADT of 10,800. There are five travel lanes and no on-street parking. The marked cross walks on this mile of road occur at East Roosevelt Avenue (a quarter-mile north of the University), East Colorado Avenue and East Hawaii Avenue (over a quarter-mile south of the University). Pedestrian and bicycle access to NNU is difficult as best from the surrounding neighborhoods.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 56


City of Nampa, Idaho

Garrity Boulevard The North Nampa Revitalization Strategy indicates that Garrity Boulevard “limits access to Lakeview Park from the northern neighborhoods.” Garrity Boulevard is a principal arterial and is 100 feet wide, with 5 travel lanes. The posted speed limit is 35 mph from Sugar Street to Kings Road and 45 mph from Kings Road to I-84. The ADT is 25,700. Between E. Flamingo Boulevard and 11th Avenue North, Garrity Boulevard is just over 2 miles long. A high visibility crosswalk is located at the unsignalized intersection at Stampede Drive. The signalized intersections are at: 

E. Flamingo Boulevard

Stamm Lane

North Kings Road (signalized)

16th Avenue North

11th Avenue North

North Yale Street/7th Street South Yale Street/7th Street South is 80 feet wide with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. From Nampa-Caldwell Boulevard to East Roosevelt Avenue, Yale Street/7th Street South covers 1.5 miles through a largely residential neighborhood where the front yards face the street. Businesses are intertwined with residential beginning at 11th Avenue South (where Yale Street turns into 7th Street South) to about 16th Avenue South. Marked crosswalks are present at six intersections on Yale Street/7th Street South at: 

Nampa-Caldwell, signalized

Davis Avenue, signalized

Smith Avenue

Hudson Avenue

11th Avenue South, signalized

12th Avenue South, signalized

14th Avenue South

16th Avenue South, signalized

The distance between marked crosswalks between Hudson Avenue and 11th Avenue South exceeds one-half mile. Yale Street/7th Street South is a concern to those living in the Old Nampa Neighborhood. The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan noted that “Yale Street and 7th Street South are of particular concern as this route is the major arterial bisecting the neighborhood.” The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan states that vehicular speeds on Yale Street/7th Street South are excessive and unsafe for the area. The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan recommends bike lanes on Yale Street/7th Street South to encourage safe road sharing practices, with crosswalks and curb bulbs to calm traffic at the following locations: 

Yale Street at Delaware Avenue

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 57


City of Nampa, Idaho

Every intersection on 7th Street South between 6th Avenue South and 7th Street South and 11th Avenue South

Of particular concern is the intersection where Yale Street, 7th Street South and High Street converge, with the intersection of High Street and Greenleaf just 20 feet to the west. A 3-way stop is encouraged at this intersection to calm traffic on all streets, including Greenleaf, which is used as a by-pass route to Lone Star Road.

Section 2 - Roadways outside of Central Nampa The following roadways are generally outside of the central area of Nampa. These roadways are typically on a one-mile grid and run in a north/south and east/west direction. In the southwest area of Nampa, additional east/west “through” streets on the half mile grid, such as Iowa Avenue and West Roosevelt Avenue, are included.

Southwest Nampa Looking at the area southwest of the main railroad corridor, west of 12th Avenue South and south of Amity Avenue, the lack of north/south roads within the oneSouth Midland Boulevard is typical of the major streets in southest Nampa. Underused capacity and ample street mile grid network is striking. The “loop and lollipop” widths can accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities development patterns funnel traffic from the local streets in each subdivision onto the main arterials. This development pattern has resulted in reduced connectivity options on non-arterial roads and few “through” north/south roadways. The main roads that form the backbone of the transportation system are: 

Orchard Avenue

Lone Star Road

West Roosevelt Avenue

Lake Lowell Avenue

Amity Avenue

Colorado Avenue

West Iowa Avenue

Greenhurst Road

Locust Lane

South Middleton Road

South Midland Avenue

12th Avenue

South Powerline Road

Southside Boulevard

South Happy Valley Road

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 58


City of Nampa, Idaho

The general characteristics of these roads: 

Are, or planned to be, between 80 and 100 feet wide at full build-out

Limited number of marked crossings

Vehicle volumes and speeds can discourage pedestrian and bicycle activities

Serve one or more schools

A number of multi-use paths cross these roads at a mid-block points

Demonstrating some of the characteristics of Lone Star Road can be broadly applied to the other roads in this section. Lone Star Road is a minor arterial that connects to downtown and Interstate 84. Lone Star Road (between N. Greenleaf Street and Midland Boulevard) is just under a mile long, with a posted speed limit of 35 mph and an ADT of 5,500. Lone Star Road is two-lane roadway with on-street parking. There are fifteen intersections along the mile stretch, with the only marked crossing at the Midland Boulevard signalized intersection. Motorized travel is prioritized over travel on the cross streets, as there are no stop signs on Lone Star Road until Midland Boulevard. Dense residential land use flanks Lone Star on 75% of the alignment, with West Park and West Middle School covering the remaining 25%. The planned Phyllis Canal Pathway and Deer Flat Canal Pathway will converge on the east side of West Park. Lone Star Road presents a considerable challenge to residents on the north side of the road to access the park, trailhead and school by foot. Large gaps in the sidewalk network further complicate pedestrian travel. Given that direct community connections often have to be made on these roads, pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be incorporated into existing and future road development. Marked crossings and pedestrian refuges are needed in locations convenient to pedestrians and bicyclists to allow safe crossings.

Northeast Nampa The area northeast of the main railroad corridor, with the exception of the North Nampa district, is much less developed than Southwest Nampa, with substantial future development potential. There are fewer schools, more industrial areas and more agricultural lands. It appears that the roadway network in Northeast Nampa has more north/south streets. Future development offers several opportunities for a pedestrian and bicycle network. When large tracts of land are developed, ensuring that streets on the quarter-section lines are constructed could increase overall connectivity to local and regional destinations. When development occurs, requiring developers to connect to, and construct, the off-street and on-street pathway network will help close facility gaps and increase access to those facilities.

Intersections and Mid-Block Crossings Pedestrians and bicyclists face a variety of difficult street crossing conditions, including high-volume streets and interchange areas. The lack of marked crosswalks and/or pedestrian refuges on Nampa roadways that exceed 50 feet in width or have four or more travel lanes discourage pedestrian and bicycle activities. To further exacerbate the problem, the distance between marked crossings on high volume and/or high speed roadways emphasize that motorized travel is prioritized over non-motorized transportation. Pedestrians with disabilities are particularly affected by the existing conditions. A number of intersections listed in Table 2.1 as high crash locations. The top three are at:

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 59


City of Nampa, Idaho

11th Avenue South and 1st Street

Caldwell Boulevard and Orchard Avenue

12th Avenue and Colorado Avenue

11th Avenue South at 1st Street is a signalized intersection with 4 transverse crosswalks. The intersection at Caldwell Boulevard and Orchard Avenue is “T” intersection (where Orchard Boulevard intersects at the forty five degree angle) with no crosswalks. The third intersection at 12th Avenue and Colorado Avenue is also a “T” intersection, has one transverse crosswalk, and is the only marked crossing is between Lake Lowell Avenue and West Iowa Avenue. This third intersection is heavily used by students from Nampa High School to access the businesses on the east side of 12th Avenue South. All three of the above roadways have posted speed limits of 35 mph, are five lanes wide at the intersection noted above, and have between 9,660 to 25,000 ADT per day. Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements could include high visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuges, advance stop bars, bicycle and pedestrian traffic signals and other engineering solutions. The intersection at 3rd Street North at 19th Avenue North was noted in the North Nampa Revitalization Strategy as a busy street with a need for a pedestrian-triggered signalized crossing to increase safety, especially for children.

Roundabouts There are two single lane roundabouts in Nampa, one at Greenhurst Road and Happy Valley Road, and one at E. Amity Road and Happy Valley Road. Both roundabouts have four pedestrian refuges in the median, and no crosswalk striping. There are no sidewalks at either intersection. Several more roundabouts are planned in Nampa. The modern roundabout is a circular intersection with three primary characteristics: 1) motorists and bicyclists must yield on entry and 2) the intersection has a central island that deflects traffic and forces it to slow down, and 3) approaches have splitter islands that separate entering and exiting traffic.

A fairly new single lane roundabout at Greenhurst Road and Happy Valley Road.

Numerous studies have shown that single-lane roundabouts have the potential to increase both motor vehicle 2 capacity and motor vehicle and pedestrian safety. Benefits are such that conversion of an unsignalized intersection to a single-lane roundabout is frequently indicated as a pedestrian safety countermeasure.

2

For example, the Federal Highway Administration’s Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes (2008) indicates that converting an unsignalized intersection to a roundabout can reduce fatal crashes by as much as 27 percent and injury crashes by 12 percent.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 60


City of Nampa, Idaho

Research suggests multilane roundabouts may not have the same safety benefits, and may actually increase 3 bicyclist collisions. Chapter 5 of the U.S. DOT FHWA publication, “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide,” states that adding an additional lane to a one-lane roundabout is likely to increase overall injury crashes by 25 4 percent. Common roundabout issues for pedestrians and bicyclists are: •

All pedestrian crosswalks are uncontrolled

At multi-lane roundabouts, pedestrians and bicyclists using the crosswalks are at risk for multiple-threat scenarios

Bicyclists must control the lane to avoid conflicts with circulating motorists

Bicyclists may not be comfortable traveling through the roundabout on the road with motor vehicles

At larger roundabouts, circulating speeds may be too high for bicyclists to comfortably control the lane

Pedestrians with visual impairments may have difficulty navigating roundabouts, particularly multilane roundabouts

Properly designed roundabouts can safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Design guidelines for roundabouts can be found the Design Guidelines section of the final report.

Lack of Wayfinding Tools Nampa’s walkway and bikeway system could benefit from signage and other wayfinding tools to orient users and direct them to and through major destinations like downtown, NNU, surrounding schools, parks, and commercial areas. A good example where signage could benefit pathway users is the on-street segment of the Wilson Pathway. The Wilson Pathway runs adjacent to 12th Avenue just above South Valley Drive to Greenhurst Road, then along Greenhurst Road to Sunnybrook Drive. Nampa residents have indicated that they thought the Wilson Pathway ended where it emerged on the street and that they didn’t realize that the sidewalk system was part of the path. Signage located where the Wilson Pathway emerges onto the street could assist pathway users in continuing along the pathway.

Sidewalk rights-of-way Many of the gaps in the sidewalk network, especially in the older neighborhoods, can be attributed to a mix of private and public ownership of public rights-of-ways. The sidewalk coverage along Canyon Street between West Roosevelt and West Dewey Avenue demonstrates how private ownership into the public right-of –way can create a sub-standard sidewalk network that is difficult navigate.

3

Multilane roundabouts have been observed to have more bicyclist collisions when compared to comparable single-lane roundabouts, as a result of a greater difference in speeds between modes (Furtado, 2004). Several studies (including Furtado, Brüde & Larsson (2000), Harkey & Carter (2006), Shen (2000), and U.S. DOT FHWA (2000)) have found that multilane roundabouts are perceived as more dangerous, and often result in more collisions for all users when compared to single-lane roundabouts. This leads to a consensus that multilane roundabouts can significantly increase bicyclist safety risk. Brude and Larsson (2000) found that in Sweden, bicycle collisions were six times more frequent on multilane roundabouts compared to single-lane roundabouts. 4

Federal Highway Administration, 2000. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.htm.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 61


City of Nampa, Idaho

Where private landowners have made sidewalk improvements through the City’s Local Improvement District (LID) program, r-o-w maintenance and repair are not addressed. Piecemeal implementation of sidewalks has resulted in gaps, inconsistent universal design standards and no maintenance provisions. The North Nampa Revitalization Strategy (April 2008) recommends a sidewalk right-of-way program for the North Nampa Area to facilitate public ownership and stewardship of sidewalks in the public realm. A citywide sidewalk right-of-way program would improve connectivity and pedestrian friendly streets.

Difficulties for Disabled Pedestrians Pedestrians with disabilities experience crossing difficulties in some parts of Nampa. Curb ramps at some intersections are in poor condition or disrepair, while some intersections lack curb ramps altogether. This can make traveling by wheelchair or motorized mobility device challenging, if not impossible. Visually- and mobility-impaired pedestrians also experience difficulty navigating through intersections with curb ramps oriented diagonally toward the intersection’s center rather than toward a crosswalk. Sidewalk gaps are created when private property owners choose not to develop sidewalks in older neighborhoods. Canyon Street, looking south.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 62


City of Nampa, Idaho

3 User Needs Assessment This chapter is organized into the following sections: •

Needs and Types of Bicyclists

Needs of Pedestrians

Nampa Walking and Biking Survey Results

Demand & Benefits Analysis

3.1 Needs and Types of Bicyclists Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists/bicycles come in a variety of sizes and configurations. This variation ranges from the bicycles types (i.e. a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle, or a tricycle) to the behavioral characteristics and comfort level of the bicyclist. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more sensitive to poor facility design, construction and maintenance than motor vehicle drivers. Bicyclists are physically exposed to the elements due to the lack of protection provided by the bicycles structure and lack of other safety features that are present in an automobile. The skill level of the bicyclist also provides a dramatic variance on expected speeds and expected behavior. There are several systems of classification currently in use within the bicycle planning and engineering professions. These classifications can be helpful in understanding the characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists. However, it should be noted that these classifications may change in type or proportion over time as infrastructure and culture evolve. Often times an instructional course can instantly change a less confident bicyclist to one that can comfortably and safely share the roadway with vehicular traffic. Bicycle infrastructure should be planned and designed to accommodate as many user types as possible with separate or parallel facilities considered to provide a comfortable experience for the greatest number of bicyclists. The 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities identifies bicyclists as being ‘Advanced or Experienced’, ‘Basic or Less Confident’ and ‘Children’. AASHTO classifications above have been the standard for at least 15 years and have been found to be helpful when assessing existing bicyclists. However, these classifications have been found to not accurately describe all existing types of bicyclists, nor do they account for the population as a whole, including potential bicyclists who are interested in riding but may not feel existing facilities are safe enough. Beginning in the Pacific Northwest in 2004, and then supported by data collected nationally after 2006, alternative categories (see Figure 3.1) have been developed to address the ‘attitudes’ of Americans towards bicycling.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 63


City of Nampa, Idaho

Figure 3.1: Bicyclist Types by Overall Population

Less than two percent of Americans comprise a group of bicyclists who are ‘Strong & Fearless’. These bicyclists typically ride anywhere on any roadway regardless of roadway conditions or weather. These bicyclists can ride faster than other user types, prefer direct routes and will typically choose roadway connections, even if shared with vehicles, over separate bicycle facilities such as bicycle paths. The ‘Enthused & Confident’ bicyclist category encompasses ten to thirteen percent of those who are mostly comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities. These bicyclists will usually prefer low traffic streets or multi-use pathways when available. These bicyclists may also deviate from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes all kinds of bicyclists including commuters, recreationalists, racers, and utilitarian bicyclists. The third group can be categorized as ‘Interested, but Concerned’ and do not ride a bicycle regularly. Fifty to sixty percent of the population are ‘Interested, but Concerned’ and represent bicyclists who typically only ride a bicycle on low traffic streets or bicycle paths under favorable conditions and weather. These potential bicyclists perceive traffic and safety as significant barriers that prevent them from bicycling more often. These bicyclists may become more regular riders with encouragement, education and experience. The remaining American population, 20 to 30 percent, are not bicyclists, and perceive severe safety issues with riding in traffic. This group is classified as ‘Not Interested’. Some people in this group may eventually give bicycling a second look and may progress to the user types above. Although, a significant portion of these people will never ride a bicycle under any circumstances.

Trip Type For the purpose of this plan, bicycle trips are separated into two trip types: recreational and utilitarian. Recreational trips can range from a long group rides to a family outing, and all levels in between. Utilitarian trips include commuter bicyclists, which are a primary focus of state and federal bicycle funding, as well as bicyclists going to school, shopping or running other errands. Please see Table 3.1.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 64


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.1: Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian Trips Recreational Trips

Utilitarian Trips

Directness of route not as important as visual interest, shade, protection from wind

Directness of route and connected, continuous facilities more important than visual interest, etc.

Loop trips may be preferred to backtracking

Trips generally travel from residential to shopping or work areas and back

Trips may range from under a mile to over 50 miles

Trips generally are 1-5 miles in length

Short-term bicycle parking should be provided at recreational sites, parks, trailheads and other recreational activity centers

Short-term and long-term bicycle parking should be provided at stores, transit stations, schools, workplaces

Varied topography may be desired, depending on the skill level of the cyclist

Flat topography is desired

May be riding in a group

Often ride alone

May drive with their bicycles to the starting point of a ride

Use bicycle as primary transportation mode for the trip; may transfer to public transportation; may or may not have access to a car for the trip

Trips typically occur on the weekend or on weekdays before morning commute hours or after evening commute hours

Trips typically occur during morning and evening commute hours (commute to school and work). Shopping trips also occur on weekends.

Type of facility varies, depending on the skill level of cyclist

Generally use on-street facilities, may use pathways if they provide easier access to destinations than on-street facilities

3.2 Needs of Pedestrians People walk for various reasons. They may commute to work, school, transit or other multi-modal facilities. They may run personal errands, go shopping, make social visits or attend social events. People also walk for as a means of recreation and entertainment or to improve their health and fitness. As a result, pedestrian needs vary for different trip types. A commuter may desire a well-connected direct route with efficient signal timing, while a recreational pedestrian may be more concerned about the aesthetics of the surroundings. Regardless, all pedestrians share some common needs, such as safety, connectivity, and accessibility. Pedestrian mobility networks should also consider persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates that reasonable accommodation for access should be provided for those who may need such assistance. A list of the most critical needs of pedestrians follows. •

Crossing visibility. Crossing facilities, including crosswalks and signage, should alert both motorists and pedestrians to the presence of the facility. Crosswalk design can aid in increasing visibility through the use of specific striping patterns and lights.

•

Continuous facilities. Sidewalk gaps, missing sidewalks and worn crosswalks are all barriers to safe pedestrian travel. Continuous facilities allow pedestrians to choose the safest and most efficient path to and from their destination, encouraging them to choose walking as their mode of transportation.

•

Common design guidelines. Narrow sidewalks, sidewalks that are directly adjacent to heavy-volume roadways without vegetation or a parking buffer, and sidewalks with utility boxes or lighting poles in the

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 65


City of Nampa, Idaho

walkway detract from the walking environment and can make it difficult or impossible for the mobility impaired to use the sidewalk. •

Slow traffic speeds. The larger the roadway or turning radii at intersections, the faster vehicles will proceed through the area. Where appropriate, constraining roadway width with bulb-outs and tightening right turns at intersections can slow vehicles as they approach areas with high pedestrian volumes.

Mixed land uses. Segregated land uses generally increase the distance between different destinations, and make it difficult for residents to walk to employment, shopping, schools and recreational facilities from their homes. Mixed land uses make it easier to build housing, employment, shopping, schools, and recreational amenities within walking distance of each other.

Direct connections. Pedestrians must sometimes walk long distances to access adjacent destinations when the street network is developed in a non-grid street pattern with cul-de-sacs and limited collector streets that connect to the arterial network. Pedestrian cut-throughs between cul-de-sacs and unpaved path networks that create direct connections reduce walking distances.

3.3 Nampa Walking and Biking Survey Results This section illustrates the needs and attitudes of Nampa area residents regarding walking and bicycling in their community. What follows is a summary analysis of the key results from four publicly administered surveys and mapping exercises. The first survey analyzed was developed for the Bike and Pedestrian Plan and administered through the mobile workshops, listening stations and online. The survey consisted of yes or no questions, along with open comment questions. The survey gathered information on: interest in walking or biking; areas where survey participants would like to access; and areas of concern. •

Overall, survey respondents indicated that they do not feel safe walking and biking along Nampa’s roadways

Surveyed Nampa residents displayed a strong desire for sidewalks, crosswalks and bike lanes

Respondents also indicated that improved connectivity to existing trails through on-street dedicated facilities (i.e., bike lanes and sidewalks) and by closing trail gaps would encourage residents to walk or bike more)

Bicyclists asked for debris (on roadways) removal to increase safety

The lack of sidewalks and crosswalks along school routes was the primary deterrent in parents allowing their children to walk and bike to school.

Of the 132 surveys completed, 86 percent of respondents indicated they would use a greenbelt if it was available, with 79 percent of respondents said they were interested in commuting or recreational bicycling (see Error! Reference source not found.). The lack of, and need for, sidewalks was noted on 45 of the returned surveys. Thirteen of those surveyed indicated that there is a need for crosswalks in Nampa.

On September 21, 2010, a walking and biking survey was made available to attendees of the Northwest Nazarene Wellness Fair. This survey was created by the Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizen’s Advisory Group. The survey queried respondents about their interest, barriers, trip frequency, problem areas (intersections, routes, neighborhoods) and on-street bike lanes. There were 69 returned surveys, with 99

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 66


City of Nampa, Idaho

percent of respondents indicated that they would use a trail in their area if it were available. The majority of responders rode or walked one to two times per month (Figure 3.3). Time (Figure 3.4) was listed as the biggest barriers to walking and biking (43 percent) and fear listed as the next biggest barrier (17 percent). Seventy eight percent (78%) of survey takers stated that the presence of bike lines would increase the frequency a bike is used for recreation or commuting.

Figure 3.2: Walking and Biking Survey Results

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 67


City of Nampa, Idaho

Figure 3.3: Frequency of Walking or Biking Trips Less Than Two Miles

Figure 3.4: Biggest Barriers to Biking and Walking

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 68


City of Nampa, Idaho

Two other surveys were taken in 2010 as part of other City of Nampa planning projects, the Nampa Parks and Recreation Survey element of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Financial Analysis, and the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan. A summary of the pedestrian and biking related results have been included as the results show strong support for walking and biking in Nampa, even when the survey is not specifically addressing walking and biking. The Parks and Recreation survey respondents overwhelmingly selected walking and biking paths as the most needed public recreation facilities (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5: Top Five Most Needed Public Recreation Facilities

The planning effort for the Nampa City-Wide Transportation Plan included a public survey to identify transportation issues. Of 121 written comments, 50 were bicycle or pedestrian related. This constitutes approximately 41 percent of the written survey comments. The bulk of the bike and pedestrian related comments noted the lack of bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, bike parking, etc.), sidewalk gaps, and safety.

3.4 Predicting Walking and Bicycling Demand After the Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is implemented, more Nampa residents will be able to walk and bicycle, rather than driving for commuting, shopping and recreation. This shift can be directly translated into reduced vehicle miles traveled and results in air quality benefits by reducing emissions. A variety of demand models are often used to quantify usage of existing bicycle facilities and to estimate the potential usage of new facilities. The purpose of these models is to provide an overview of the demand and benefits for bicycling and walking in Nampa. As with all models, the demand model results show a range of accuracy that varies based on a number of assumptions and available data. The models used for this study incorporated information from existing publications as well as data from the U.S. Census 2005-2007

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 69


City of Nampa, Idaho

American Community Survey (ACS) three-year estimate. All data assumptions and sources are noted in the tables following each section of the analysis.

3.4.1 Demand and Benefit Analysis The Nampa pedestrian and bicycle demand models consist of several variables, which include commuting patterns of working adults, and predicted travel behaviors of area college students and school children. The years 2006-2008 were used as the baseline for the demand analysis, as it is the most recent data contains bicycle related information. For this analysis, population data for the existing labor force (including the number of workers and percentage of pedestrian and bicycle commuters) were obtained from the 2006-2008 ACS estimates for the Nampa Area. In addition to people commuting to the workplace via walking or by bicycle, the model also incorporates a portion of the labor force working from home. Specifically, it was assumed that about 25% of those working from home would make at least one walking trip, and another ten percent would make at least one bicycling trip during the workday. The 2006-2008 ACS was also used to estimate the number of children in the Nampa Area. This figure was combined with data from National Safe Routes to School surveys, which found that approximately 11 percent of school children walk to and from school every day. College students constitute a third variable in the model due to the presence of the Northwest Nazarene University. Nampa is also home to the College of Western Idaho (CWI). However, CWI is not residential college and likely to have similar mode split to other local employment numbers, rather than that of traditional college students. Data from the Federal Highway Administration regarding walking and bicycling mode share in university communities was used to estimate that 60 percent of students commuting to college walk to school. The 2001 National Household Transportation Survey found that commute trips (including work and school trips) comprise only approximately a third of total trips; trips for shopping, recreation and socializing are a significantly greater proportion of total trips. Table 3.2 shows the results of the pedestrian demand model and identifies the variables and assumptions used in the model. Many of the same assumptions from the pedestrian model were used to develop the bicycling model. The National Safe Routes to School surveys found that approximately two percent of school children bike to school. For college students, the Federal Highway Administration found that bicycling mode share in university communities is ten percent of students. Again, the large proportion of trips that are non-commute requires a multiplier to estimate the number of total bicycle trips in the Nampa area. Table 3.3 summarizes results and assumptions of the bicycle demand model and the estimated existing daily bicycle trips in the area. The tables indicate that approximately 39,558 walking trips occur in Nampa each day, along with more than 5,100 bicycle trips. The largest group of pedestrians are school students (around 1,650), and the largest trip purpose is for non-commute trips (just under 30,000). Most bicycle commuting trips are made by school students (approximately 300). The model also shows that non-commuting trips comprise the vast majority of existing bicycle demand. These numbers are applicable to weekdays only, and are averaged over the course of the year.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 70


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.2: Existing Pedestrian Demand Model Results Variable

Value

Source

Study area population

81,349

ACS 2006-2008 estimate for the Nampa Area

Employed population

35,035

ACS 2006-2008 Population of workers over 16

Walk-to-work mode share

1.8%

ACS 2006-2008 Means of transportation to work for workers over 16

Number of walk-to-work commuters

621

(employed persons) * (walking mode share)

Work-at-home mode share

3.3%

ACS 2006-2008 Means of transportation to work for workers over 16

Number of work-at-home walk commuters

289

Assumes 25% of population working at home makes at least one daily walking trip

Transit-to-work mode share

0.2%

ACS 2006-2008 Means of transportation to work for workers over 16

Transit pedestrian commuters

65

Assumes 75% of transit riders access transit by foot.

School children, ages 6-14

15,033

ACS 2006-2008 School enrollment by level of school

School children walking mode share

11.0%

National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003

School children walk commuters

1,654

(school children pop.) * (walking mode share)

Number of college students

4,458

ACS 2007 School enrollment by level of school

Estimated college walking mode share

60.0%

National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995

College walking commuters

2,675

(college student pop.) * (walking mode share)

Total number of walk commuters

5,303

(bike-to-work trips) + (school trips) + (college trips) + (utilitarian trips)

School and commute walking trips subtotal

10,605

Total walk commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Ratio of "other" trips to commute trips

2.73

National Household Transportation Survey, 2001

Estimated non-commute trips

28,953

Current Estimated Daily Pedestrian Trips:

39,558

Other utilitarian and discretionary trips

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 71


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.3: Existing Bicycle Demand Model Results Variable

Value

Source

Study area population

81,349

ACS 2006-2008 for the City of Nampa

Employed population

35,035

ACS 2006-2008 Population of workers over 16

Bike-to-work mode share

0.1%

ACS 2006-2008 Means of transportation to work for workers over 16

Number of bike-to-work commuters

50

(employed persons) * (bicycling mode share)

Work-at-home mode share

3.3%

ACS 2006-2008 Means of transportation to work for workers over 16

Number of work-at-home bike commuters

116

Assumes 10% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip

Transit-to-work mode share

0.2%

ACS 2006-2008 Means of transportation to work for workers over 16

Transit bicycle commuters

22

Assumes25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle.

School children, ages 6-14

15,033

ACS 2006-2008 School enrollment by level of school

School children bicycling mode share

2.0%

National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003

School children bike commuters

301

(school children pop.) * (bicycling mode share)

Number of college students

4,458

ACS 2006-2008 School enrollment by level of school

Estimated college bicycling mode share

5.0%

National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995

College bicycling commuters

223

(college student pop.) * (bicycling mode share)

Total number of bike commuters

689

(bike-to-work trips) + (school trips) + (college trips) + (utilitarian trips)

School and commute bicycling trips subtotal

1,378

Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Ratio of "other" trips to commute trips

2.73

National Household Transportation Survey, 2001

Estimated non-commute trips

3,762

Current Estimated Daily Bicycle Trips

5,140

Other utilitarian and discretionary trips

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 72


City of Nampa, Idaho

Current Air Quality Benefits The expected number of walking and biking trips in Nampa can be directly translated into reduced vehicle trips, as the current rates of walking and bicycling represent both residents and visitors using alternatives to driving. This number can be used to determine approximate reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which has the direct effect of reducing vehicular emissions. The number of reduced vehicle trips, VMT and the ensuing vehicle emissions reduction was estimated from the results of the demand models described above. It was assumed that about 73 percent of pedestrian and bicycle trips would directly replace vehicle trips for adults and college students. For school children, the reduction was assumed to be 53 percent. The analysis estimated that the average pedestrian trip is roughly 1.2 miles in length for adults, whereas for children the distance is one-half mile. A bicycle roundtrip distance of eight miles was used for adults and college students, and one mile for school children. These distance assumptions have been used in various non-motorized benefits models throughout the United States. The vehicle emissions reduction estimates also incorporated calculations commonly used in other models. From this estimate of the current levels of bicycling and walking in Nampa it is possible to estimate that bicycling and walking currently remove approximately 4,000 vehicle trips per weekday, translating to a yearly reduction of almost 1.4M vehicle trips. Tables Table 3.4 through Table 3.7 illustrate the results of the vehicle trips, miles reduction and air quality benefits for pedestrian and bicycle trips, respectively.

Table 3.4: Air Quality Benefits from Pedestrian Trips1 Variable

Value

Source

Reduced PM10 (tons/weekday)

67

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/weekday)

1,813

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/weekday)

264

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lbs/weekday)

3,329

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (tons/year)

17,456

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/year)

473,200

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/year)

68,874

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lbs/year)

868,989

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

1

Source: NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table VIII-5

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 73


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.5: Air Quality Benefits from Bicycle Trips 1 Variable

Value

Source

Reduced PM10 (tons/weekday)

47

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/weekday)

1,274

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/weekday)

185

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lb/weekday)

2,339

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (tons/year)

12,261

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/year)

332,388

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/year)

48,379

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lb/year)

610,414

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

1

Source: NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table VIII-5

Table 3.6: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reduction for Pedestrian Trips Variable

Value

Source

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday

3,540

Assumes 73% of walking trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year

924,000

Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday

3,635

Assumes average round trip travel length of 1.2 miles for adults/college students and 0.5 mile for schoolchildren

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year

948,678

Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 74


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.7: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reductions for Bicycle Trips Variable Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year

Value

Source

459

Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children

119,689

Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

2,553

Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile for schoolchildren

666,376

Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

3.4.2 Potential Future Walking and Bicycling Trips Estimating future benefits requires additional assumptions regarding Nampa’s future population and anticipated commuting patterns in 2030. The variables used as model inputs generally resemble the variables used in the demand model discussed earlier and represent a realistic, achievable goal of what the daily number of pedestrian and bicycle trips could be with a more complete pedestrian and bikeway system. Future population predictions determined in the Nampa Demographic Forecast and Land Use Analysis for the Nampa Study Area and South Study Area 2007-2030 were used in this model. Regarding commuting patterns, walking and bicycling mode share was increased to address the higher use potentially generated by the addition of new facilities and enhancements to the existing system. Table 3.8 summarizes data on potential future pedestrian demand in the year 2030, while Table 3.9 illustrates the results of the demand model predicting 2030 demand for bicycle trips. Both of these analyses assume a more complete pedestrian and bicycle transportation network and concurrent program development to encourage use.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 75


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.8: Future Pedestrian Demand Model Results Variable

Value

Source

Future study area population

184,000

Source: Nampa Demographic Forecast and Land Use Analysis for the Nampa Study Area and South Study Area 2007-2030

Future employed population

79,120

Source: Nampa Demographic Forecast and Land Use Analysis for the Nampa Study Area and South Study Area 2007-2030

Future walk-to-work mode share

3.3%

Based on increase from previous mode split due to improvements in the pedestrian network

Future number of walk-to-work commuters

2,608

(employed persons) * (walking mode share)

Future work-at-home mode share

3.3%

Same as 2006-2008 ACS mode split

Future number of work-at-home walk commuters

1,304

Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily walking trip.

Future transit-to-work mode share

0.1%

Based on increase from previous mode split due to improvements in the pedestrian network

Future transit pedestrian commuters

85

Assumes 75% of transit riders access transit by foot.

Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8)

34,003

Same as 2006-2008 ACS mode split

Future school children walking mode share

29.0%

Portland Safer Routes to School Survey, 2007

Future school children walk commuters

9,861

(school children pop.)* (walking mode share)

Future number of college students in study area

10,083

Same as 2006-2008 ACS population proportion

Future estimated college walking mode share

60.0%

National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995.

Future college walking commuters

6,050

(college student pop.) * (walking mode share)

Future total number of walk commuters

19,908

(walk-to-work trips) + (school trips) + (college trips) + (utilitarian trips)

Future total daily walking trips

39,816

Total walk commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Other utilitarian and discretionary trips Ratio of "other" trips to commute trips

2.73

Estimated non-commute trips

108,698

2030 Estimated Daily Pedestrian Trips:

148,513

National Household Transportation Survey, 2001

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 76


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.9: Future Bicycle Demand Model Results Variable

Value

Source

Future study area population

184,000

Nampa Demographics Forecast and Land Use Analysis for the Nampa Study Area and South Study Area 2007-2030

Future employed population

79,120

Nampa Demographic Forecast and Land Use Analysis for the Nampa Study Area and South Study Area 2007-2030

Future bike-to-work mode share

1.8%

Based on increase from previous mode split due to improvements to the bicycle network

Future number of bike-to-work commuters

1,402

(employed persons) * (bicycling mode share)

Future work-at-home mode share

3.3%

Same as 2006-2008 ACS mode split

Future number of work-at-home bike commuters

1,304

Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycling trip.

Future transit-to-work mode share

0.1%

Based on increase from previous mode split due to improvements in the pedestrian network

Future average daily bicycle onbus boarding

28

Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle

Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8)

34,003

Same as 2006-2008 ACS population proportion

Future school children bicycling mode share

3.0%

Portland Safer Routes to School Survey, Spring 2007

Future school children bike commuters

1,020

(school children pop.)* (bicycling mode share)

Future number of college students in study area

10,083

Same as 2006-2008 ACS population proportion

Future estimated college bicycling mode share

8.0%

National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995.

Future college bike commuters

807

(college student pop.) * (bicycling mode share)

Future total number of bicycle commuters

4,533

(bike-to-work trips) + (school trips) + (college trips) + (utilitarian trips)

Future total daily bicycling trips

9,067

Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Other utilitarian and discretionary trips Ratio of "other" trips to commute trips

2.73

Estimated non-commute trips

24,752

2030 Estimated Daily Bicycle Trips:

33,819

National Household Transportation Survey, 2001

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 77


City of Nampa, Idaho

Potential Air Quality Improvement Benefits Based on population growth and the expected increase in walking and bicycling, developing the Nampa bicycle and pedestrian network will replace about 15,687 weekday vehicle trips, eliminating more than 9M vehicle miles traveled per year, shown in Table 3.10 and Table 3.12. Walking and bicycling prevents significant quantities of vehicle emissions from entering the ambient air. Pedestrian and bikeway network enhancements are expected to generate more walking and bicycling trips in the future. This growth is expected to improve air quality by further reducing the number of vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and associated vehicle emissions (Table 3.11 and Table 3.13).

Table 3.10: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reduction for Pedestrian Trips Variable

Value

Source

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday

12,561

Assumes 73% of walking trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year

3,278,335

Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday

13,615

Assumes average round trip travel length of 1.2 miles for adults/college students and 0.5 mile for schoolchildren

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year

3,553,467

Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Table 3.11: Air Quality Benefits from Pedestrian Trips1 Variable

Value

Source

Reduced PM10 (tons/weekday)

251

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/weekday)

6,791

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/weekday)

988

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lb/weekday)

3,003,023

Reduced PM10 (tons/year)

65,384

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/year)

1,772,470

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/year)

257,982

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lb/year) 1

3,255,050

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

Source: NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table VIII-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 78


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 3.12: Vehicle Trips/VMT Reduction for Bicycle Trips Variable

Value

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday

Source Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children

3,126

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year

815,867

Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday

21,223

Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile for schoolchildren

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year

5,539,183

Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Table 3.13: Air Quality Benefits from Bicycle Trips1 Variable

Value

Source

Reduced PM10 (tons/weekday)

391

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/weekday)

10,586

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/weekday)

1,541

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lb/weekday)

19,441

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (tons/year)

101,921

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0184 tons per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (tons/year)

2,762,944

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.4988 tons per reduced mile

Reduced ROG (tons/year)

402,145

Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0726 tons per reduced mile

Reduced CO2 (lb/year) 1

5,074,006

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.916 lb per reduced mile

Source: NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table VIII-5

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 79


City of Nampa, Idaho

4 Recommended Walkway and Bikeway Network 4.1 Development of the Pedestrian and Bicycle System Nampa has the potential to become a first-class walking and biking city. Based on the results of the demand model, Nampa residents make about 40,000 walking trips and 5,100 bicycle trips each day. Investments in walking and bicycling infrastructure will lead to higher walking and bicycling mode shares. In order to continue to increase walking and bicycling rates, a new generation of infrastructure will be needed to appeal to a wider variety of residents. This memorandum lays out a 20-year plan for a complete system of walkways, bikeways and pathways. The recommended network builds upon previous and on-going local and regional planning efforts and reflects extensive input offered by city staff, the project Steering Committee, and Nampa residents. This memo also includes a list of priority projects. Pedestrian and Bicycle system recommendations were developed by: •

Reviewing City of Nampa projects and plans

Reviewing other plans per the City’s direction

Reviewing public input (solicited for this project and received for previous projects)

Considering recommendations from the Steering Committee members

Reviewing field work notes and photographs, GIS data, and the existing conditions report

In creating the system, the following strategic goals guided our team’s recommendations: •

Complete gaps in the sidewalk network on streets of citywide importance (particularly arterials and major collectors).

Create more links between residential neighborhoods and shared-use paths. Nampa’s pathway system is a major asset for both transportation and recreation, and enabling more residents to access on- and offstreet pathways directly extends the benefits of paths to more residents.

Create a realistic on-street bikeway network for transportation and recreational users.

Create more family-friendly bicycle facilities, particularly in underserved parts of the city and near schools. A robust bicycle boulevard network has many benefits: it creates lower-stress facilities that are more attractive and comfortable for families, seniors, and novice bicyclists; it creates a higher-density bikeway network that offers convenient bikeway access to more residents; and it can support Nampa’s Safe Routes to School efforts.

Identify intersection improvements within the bicycle and pedestrian system.

Identify crossing improvements to the existing pathway network and where priority pathway infill projects occur.

4.2 Recommended Network Maps See following pages for maps of recommended pedestrian and bicycle facilities: •

Figure 4.1: Sidewalk Gap Priority Infill Map

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 80


City of Nampa, Idaho

•

Figure 4.2: Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Map

4.3 Project Evaluation The goal of evaluating pathway segments or route alignments is to prioritize projects for developing a cohesive pedestrian or bicycle network. Projects were evaluated using criterion developed in collaboration with the project Steering Committee, city staff and the project team. The evaluation outcome provides the City guidance on implementation priorities but does not preclude the City from pursuing funding for any of the listed projects on the list when a funding opportunity arises (e.g. a Safe Routes to School grant or a development project could fund a project ranked as a medium priority).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 81


Knott

Kcid

Flora

Linden

Mcmillan

Sugar Factory Road

Dean

Prescott

Future High School

Can Ada

Northside

East Canyon Elementary

Middleton

Ustick

Jac

ob

Drouillard

Laster

la

k

an

ffm

Midway

Chacartegui

Cherry

Bla

ck

Sugar Patch

Ho

Homedale

11th

on

ree hl C

lom

Stie

So

nd

Madison

ve

Midland

Cle

Butt

Mac

Brandts Cree

k

e

I8 4

gw

ay

I8

Moss

4

Le

im

Keim

k

M

Centennial/ Ridgecrest GC

idla

nd

Karcher

Idaho Center

Franklin

Devlin

Ca

Cr

Norco

r rc he Ka

p am

Karcher

es

College of Western Idaho

ee

R Off

Diamond Peak

Gr

aW 33

e

Canyon County Center

Birch Elementary Elementary Birch

it Ex

rry

EB

Je

Park & Ride

Optimist Park

Star

in

Idaho Center

B

m

Mason Creek

W

He

ld

we

ll

p Exit 35 W On Ram

Wanz

Karcher Mall

36 E

s

d

d

D

t

Parkview PreSchool

th

R

Fr

ail

o

ro

n Library/ t

ad

ep

7th

Sunset

Central Elementary

th 18

17 th

19

10

24

Roosevelt

Olive

Torrey

Private Dr

Murray

nd

19th

Ra

Amity

To Meridan and Kuna

ilr

oa

d

Lois

Hawaii

H

lkn

Juniper

Woodland

Iowa

Constitution

Recreation Center

S Valley

ap

d

Hospital Checola

Ada

er

oa

Greenhurst Elementary

wa

Mill

ilr

Io

Essex

Sunrise Mist

Midland

Shay Park

Maine

Bird Colorado

Georgia

Iowa Elementary

Ra

mo

Arrowhead

Aspen Grove

Iowa

NNU

Bird

Nampa High

2n d

Sherman Elementary

Elder

Amity

k sta

Columbia High

Dia

ee gu

Juniper

Cr Owyhee Elementary

Au

Almond

Ivy

Sher idan

Dewey Centennial Elementary

Holly

n

to

Lake Lowell

Badger

Nectarine

es W

Big Creek

Park Ridge Elementary

Washington

Pine

Sheridan

Arbor Pointe

Canyon

FD Roosevelt

Mason

Walnut Creek

Washington Lincoln

ffy Ta

th

aster

5th

Grays

11 th

Norwood

Impression

Lanc

d

Cre

ek

th

Blaine

agle

nE

Gle

oo

17 th 16

th

ian

12

School nw

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

Ind

th

Stillwater

11 th

Neilscott

n

ot

8th

ve

Joe

D

Farmer’s Market

West Park West Middle

Ha

14

th

d

4th

or

gh

r

th th 13

th

1s

12

5th 7th

2n 3r

7th

4th

3R

d

High

Elmore se

Midway

7th

2n 1s

d City Hall/ Civic Center

Lone Star La

Midway

2n

Airport

Lakeview Park

t

Stinson

Smith Gateways Hudson School

Dew Mist

Lone Star Middle School

Roosevelt

d

13

Kin

West Middle School

Stanford

are

Liberty

Sagehen

law

5th

2n

10

ts

Sunny De

Boys and Girls Club

d

ge

Apricot

Snake River Elementary

2n

3r

Sa

Hudson

Crown Pointe

y

9th

2n

Heigh

le

EO

rrit

d

Davis

rp

Yale

Pu

Canyon

Orchard

Summerwind

Smith Willow Pointe

2nd

Lincoln Park

Willow Creek Elementary

Northside

ns

o Ly

38

Ga

4th

Camelot

p am

nR

Exit

Franklin

Broadmore

Gateway

4th

Orchard

Lone Star Middle School

Exit 38

Off R

amp

Flamingo

Windmill

mp

Ra W On

th

riu

Shilo

Exit

22 nd

gitta

Exit 35 E On Ramp

Cassia

Sa

Lake Ha

zel

Be

Maryland

Powerline

Park & Ride

Sunnyridge Sunnyridge

Canyon

Grreenhurst eenhurst

South Middle School School

Skyview Park

Skyview High East Valley Middle School

Blakeslee

Commanche

Primrose

Robinson

Ronald Reagan Elementary

Locust

Buzzard

Sunny Ridge Elementary

Ruth

st

Rails To Trails

Proposed Trails City Proposed Trail

Powerline

12th Ave

High Priority A Sidewalk Project High Priority B Sidewalk Project Med-High Priority Sidewalk Project Med-Low Priority Sidewalk Project Low Priority Sidewalk Project Non-Priority Sidewalk Project

nh

ur

Wilson Ponds

Midland

Legend

ee

Happy Valley

brook Meadow

Dooley

Gr

Blu eg ra ss

Alma

Existing Facilities Existing Bike Lane

Sparks

Existing Trail Private Trail Caldwell Routes

Rim

Upland

School Grounds Hwy 45

Parks

Lake Shore

Dye

Lynwood

City Limits Impact Area

Southside

Lewis

Railroad Parcels

Figure 4.1 Sidewalk Gap In-fill Priorities City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: SM Date: February 2011

I

0

0.5

1

Miles


Knott

Kcid

Flora

Linden

To the Boise River

To the Boise River

Mcmillan

Sugar Factory Road

Dean

Prescott

Future High School

Ustick

Middleton

To Caldwell Airport Corridor Path

Can Ada

Northside

East Canyon Elementary

To Meridian

Jac

ob

Drouillard

Laster

la

Cherry

Bla

ck

Sugar Patch

Midway

Chacartegui

Butt

e

k

4 I8 B

gw

ay

4 I8

Le

Ka rc

Keim

p

Norco

m Ra

idla

nd

Devlin

we

ll

p Exit 35 W On Ram

riu

Exit

36 E

s

Off

Gateway

Broadmore

7th 7th

12

th 13

th 10

th 14

th R

t D ailr e o

7th

th 16

th

Sunset

Joe

13

Ind

th

ian

12

Central Elementary

th 18

th

nd

19

24

Grays

oa

Meyer

Chestnut

Private Dr

nd

d

mo

Elder

19th

Dia

Arrowhead

ilr

Ra

Amity

To Meridan and Kuna

ilr

oa

Holly

d

Lois

Hawaii Iowa

H

Checola

Stanford

Midland

Ra

Dakota

Hospital Constitution

Recreation Center

S Valley

lkn

ap

d

Greenhurst Elementary

wa

Maine

2n

Io

Essex

Sunrise Mist

er

Bird

Colorado

Georgia

Iowa Elementary

Shay Park

Mill

Columbia High Sherman

Sherman Elementary

NNU

Bird

Nampa High

Torrey

Ada

Aspen Grove

Iowa

Juniper

Amity

k

ee sta

idan

Juniper

Cr gu

Ivy

Nectarine

Olive

Canyon

n

to Owyhee Elementary

Au

Sher

Park Ridge Elementary

Badger

Dewey

Centennial Elementary

Nectarine

es W

Big Creek

Washington

Pine

Sheridan

Arbor Pointe

Mason

Walnut Creek

FD Roosevelt

y

Roosevelt

Washington Lincoln

ff Ta

th

aster

5th

Impression

11 th

Norwood

22

agle

nE

Gle

ek

th

Blaine

17

d

10

Lanc

oo

Boundary

nw

Cre

th

School

ve

Lake Lowell

Victory

Endeavor Elementary

th

11 th

Neilscott

n

8th

Stillwater

th

5th

Parkview PreSchool

Fr

Library/ Farmer’s Post Office Market

West Park West Middle

Ha

Middleton

t

or

gh

r

Midway

1s

Lakeview Park

po ad t

Elmore se

Midway

d

d on

Lone Star La

Lone Star Star Lone Middle School School Middle

Roosevelt

2n 3r

4th

High

Dew Mist

Airport

t 1s

d City Hall/ Civic Center

7th

4th

d

17

Kin

West Middle School

Smith Gateways School

Hudson

5th

3rd

2n

13

are

Stanford

law

Liberty

Sagehen

Sunny De

Yale

ts

Hudson

Apricot

Snake River Elementary

2n

2n

ge

EO

Boys and Girls Club

d

Sa

Smith

9th

3r

Heigh

le

38

y

d

Davis

rp

Stinson

Pu

Exit

d

Lincoln Park Summerwind

Canyon

Orchard

Willow Creek Elementary

2nd

nR

Ex

Ram

p am

rrit

2n

ns

o Ly

Ramp

Ga

4th

Camelot

Crown Pointe

Wanz

On it 38 W

Proposed Bus Transit Station

Northside

Nampa Christian Pk-8

Willow Pointe

Franklin

4th

Orchard

Connect to Caldwell Routes and Lake Lowell

Idaho Center

p

Flamingo

Windmill

Centennial/ Ridgecrest GC

Shilo

Exit 35 E On Ramp

Cassia

gitta

k

Karcher

Karcher Mall

Sa

Birch Elementary Elementary Birch

To Meridian

Cr

McDonaugh Park

M

ld

Eaglecrest

es

ee

Off

Karcher Ca

Park & Ride

College of Western Idaho

im

W

Diamond Peak

Gr

3a

he r

e

Canyon County Center

Birch

it 3 Ex

EB

Je

Optimist Park

Chicago

Connect to Caldwell Routes Moss

Star

in

Franklin

m

Mason Creek

W

He

rry

Mac

Brandts Cree

Idaho Center

an

ffm

Ho

Homedale

11th

k ree hl C Stie

on lom So

nd

Madison

ve

Midland

Cle

Lake Ha

zel

Be

Maryland

Powerline

Park & Ride

Sunnyridge Sunnyridge

South Middle School School

Skyview Park

Skyview High East Valley Middle School

Blakeslee

Gr

Blu

ee

eg

Wilson Ponds

Midland

Commanche Primrose Ronald Reagan Elementary

Shoulder Bikeway Ruth

Existing Facilities

Private Pathway Caldwell Routes

Intersection Improvement

Railroad Parcels

Crossing Improvement

School Grounds

Accessway

Parks

Iconic Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge

Impact Area

Figure 4.2

Lewis

Upland

City Limits

Southside

Rim

Other Improvements

Alma

Sparks

Existing Pathway

Hwy 45

Priority Pathway Gap Closure

Existing Bike Lane

Lake Shore

Dye

Lynwood

Proposed Pathways City Proposed Pathway

To Kuna

Buzzard

Sunny Ridge Elementary

Shoulder Bikeway: Future Bike Lane Sidepath

Locust

Rails To Trails

12th Ave

Bicycle Boulevard Bike Lanes Future Bike Lanes Shared Lane Markings Shared Lane Markings: Future Bike Lane

Powerline

Proposed Bicycle Facilities

st

Happy Valley

brook

Legend

ss

Meadow

Dooley

nh

ur

ra

Robinson

Canyon

Greenhurst

Nampa Proposed Bikeway and Off-Street Pathway Network

City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: SM Date: September 2011

I

0

0.5

1

Miles


City of Nampa, Idaho

Pedestrian Facility Selection Criteria Sidewalk improvements were recommended for gaps on major arterials, minor arterials, major collectors and at critical points that connect the pedestrian network to existing or proposed multi-use paths. Although the map does not depict sidewalks on every street, it is the City’s policy to require or provide sidewalks on both sides of all streets (where possible) upon development. The formation of the proposed system of pedestrian improvements also took into account the broader project goals developed the Steering Committee Sidewalk gaps were primarily identified through field observation conducted at an earlier phase of the project. Each documented sidewalk gap was evaluated, using the following four criterions: •

Within ¼ mile of an existing pathway connection or pathway gap closure

Within ¼ mile of a school

Within ¼ mile of a park

Within ¼ mile of a transit stop

Scoring

For each criteria met, a point value of one was assigned. A total score of four was possible for each segment. •

4 = high priority segment

3 = medium high priority segment

2 = medium low priority segment

1 = low priority segment

0 = non-priority segment

Other pedestrian system recommendations include off-street pathways and intersection improvements to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian crossings. Off-street pathways and intersection recommendations are covered in a subsequent section.

Sidewalk Improvements Of the 178.37 miles of sidewalk gaps analyzed, just over 19 miles of sidewalks received a score of four, with a corresponding improvement and/or construction cost of $7,663,580.00 (see Table 4.1). The costs assume 6 foot sidewalks, 6” curb and 18” gutter pan, installation of 12 inch storm sewer pipe, manhole covers every 300 feet, and storm catch basins every 300 feet and no right-of-way purchases. The complete sidewalk evaluation matrices can be found in Appendix B.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 84


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 4.1: High Priority Sidewalk Table

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 85


City of Nampa, Idaho

4.3.1 Selection Criteria The selection criterion used for the off-street pathways and on-street facilities differed slightly depending on the facility type being evaluated. An explanation of each criteria and the scoring system is listed under the facility type.

4.3.2 Pathway Gap Closures Nampa has proposed a strong network of multi-use paths. The project team has not recommended additional off-street multi-use paths. The focus was on improving access to the existing paths from the roadway network and setting top priorities for constructing and closing gaps in the existing network. However, two new gap closure projects were identified to increase access to South Middle School and Iowa Elementary from the neighborhoods to the south of each school.

Evaluation Criterion Alignment Value

A good pathway framework has major and supporting segments. If certain alignments are not included the connectivity of the overall pathway system would be negatively impacted. This criterion looked at how the gap closure project would increase the connectivity of the network. Community Connections

Alignments that connect key destination to each other and to the overall network are instrumental in creating a pathway network that is widely used. Pathway gap closures within ¼ mile of a school, transit stop, or park received a preferential score. Consistency with Local Plans

This category is based on the compatibility of a pathway alignment to meet the objectives of other plans, and connect to existing planned pathways. Implementation Opportunities

Where development or other public projects are planned are there opportunities to leverage costs, materials and design services with another project (e.g. Safe Routes to School projects, required as part of a development application)? Public Support

This criteria considers public identification and support to complete of key segments of existing pathways.

Pathway Gap Closure Scoring and Ranking For each criteria met, a possible score of three could be assigned, with a total score of fifteen possible for each segment. •

14-15 = high priority segment

12-13 = medium priority segment

11 and below = low priority segment Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 86


City of Nampa, Idaho

Fourteen pathway gap closure projects were evaluated, with seven of those projects receiving a high priority score of 14 or higher. The ranking results are shown in Table 4.2 below. The full evaluation matrix for pathway gap closure projects can be found in Appendix B.

Table 4.2: Pathway Gap Closure Ranking Results Pathway Gap Closure Project Grimes Creek Pathway Stanford Street Stoddard Pathway

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Cost

Birch Lane to Franklin Road

High

2055

$

326,756.32

Connection over irrigation ditch

High

112

$

17,734.11

High

5596

$

889,896.13

East Iowa Avenue to 2nd Street South

Wilson Pathway

From east side of Wilson Ponds to York Avenue; from Powerline Road to existing pavement

High

3930

$

624,917.00

Wilson Pathway

Sunnyridge Road to Wilson Ponds

High

1803

$

286,795.87

Wilson Pathway

W. Roosevelt Avenue from Central Boundary Street, west to existing pavement

High

578

$

91,924.55

Wilson Pathway

West Iowa Avenue southeast to existing pathway pavement

High

1487

$

236,525.71

Indian Creek

15th Avenue North, southeast to existing pavement

Med

2581

$

410,415.26

Indian Creek

From the end of pavement near South Sugar Avenue to the start of pavement at about South Taffy Drive

Med

740

$

117,740.89

North Middleton Road to existing pavement near South Freemont Street

Med

1968

$

312,965.72

Canyon Street

Connection between Canyon Street and Bayhill Drive

Low

261

$

41,557.62

Elijah Pathway

Elder Street to Stoddard Pathway

Low

3822

$

607,789.83

Sherman Connector

Intersection of E. Sherman Ave. and Chicago Street to 2nd St. South

Low

1665

$

264,744.48

Mason Creek Pathway

From near Franklin Boulevard to 3rd Street North

Low

1507

$

239,708.71

Wilson Pathway

Total

28,105

$

4,469,472.20

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 87


City of Nampa, Idaho

4.3.3 Sidepaths Five sidepath projects, totaling 6310 linear feet, have been recommended to provide continuity between other bicycle and pedestrian facilities as alternatives to on-street facilities.

Evaluation Criterion Alignment Value

A good pathway framework has major and supporting segments. If certain alignments are not included the connectivity of the overall pathway system would be negatively impacted. This criterion looked at how sidepaths would increase the connectivity of the network. Community Connections

Alignments that connect key destination to each other and to the overall network are instrumental in creating a poathway network that is widely used. Sidepaths within ¼ mile of a school, transit stop, or park received a preferential score. Consistency with Local Plans

This category is based on the compatibility of the alignment to meet the objectives of other plans, and connect to existing planned pathways. Implementation Opportunities

Where development or other public projects are planned are there opportunities to leverage costs, materials and design services with another project (e.g. Safe Routes to School projects, required as part of a development application)?

Sidepath Scoring and Ranking For each criteria met, a possible score of three could be assigned, with a total score of 12 possible for each segment. An explanation of each criteria and the scoring system is listed under the facility type. •

11-12 = high priority segment

9-10 = medium priority segment

8 and below = low priority segment

Of the six sidepath projects evaluated, three projects scored high priority status. The ranking results are shown in Table 4.3 below. The full evaluation matrix for sidepath projects can be found in Appendix B.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 88


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 4.3: Sidepath Ranking Results

Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Cost

Sidepath

Caldwell Boulevard between Orchard Avenue and the existing Phyllis Canal Pathway pavement

High

297

$ 46,787.40

Sidepath

11th Avenue North from 1st Street South to 1st Street North

High

528

$ 83,177.60

Sidepath

Colorado Avenue on NNU property between Holly Street and South Locust Street

High

1144

$ 180,218.13

Sidepath

Garrity Boulevard in Lakeview Park from 12th Avenue North to the Stoddard proposed path

Med

1915

$ 301,676.33

Sidepath

Greenhurst Road from Wilson Pathway to Juniper

Med

494

$ 77,821.47

Sidepath

South side of Greenhurst Road from the proposed Elijah Drain Pathwayto East Valley Middle School

Low

1932

$ 304,354.40

Total

6,310

$ 994,035.33

4.3.4 Bicycle Boulevards A network of bicycle boulevards has been proposed to provide on-street bicycle facilities on lower volume streets. The bicycle boulevard network is intended to increase mobility options and routes for commuter bicyclists, recreational riders and less-experienced bicyclists. The criterion slightly differs in this category from the pathway gap closure and sidepath categories, as there is no existing bicycle network to build from and community-wide connections need to be established. The bicycle boulevards evaluation criterion includes a function and efficiency and a modified community connections.

Evaluation Criterion Alignment Value

A good bicycle network has major and supporting segments. If certain alignments are not included the connectivity of the overall system would be negatively impacted. This criterion looked at how the bicycle boulevard segments would increase the connectivity to community destinations and the bicycle network.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 89


City of Nampa, Idaho Community Connections

Alignments that connect key destination to each other and to the overall network are instrumental in creating a pathway network that is widely used. The ability to connect to schools, transit stops, parks and off-street pathways was evaluated under this category. Consistency with Local Plans

This category is based on the compatibility of a pathway alignment to meet the objectives of other plans, and connect to existing planned pathways. Implementation Opportunities

Where development or other public projects are planned, are there opportunities to leverage costs, materials and design services with another project (e.g. Safe Routes to School projects, required as part of a development application)? Function and Efficiency

Alignments that minimize out‐of‐way travel and provide connections between a pathway and area destinations are more likely to be used than indirect routes. Alignments used as commuter routes fall under this category, as routes used for commuting commonly follow the most direct routes.

Bicycle Boulevard Scoring and Ranking For each criteria met, a possible score of three could be assigned, with a total score of 15 possible for each segment. The results of the evaluation ranked projects based on a “high”, “medium” or “low” scale. An explanation of each criteria and the scoring system is listed under the facility type. •

13 and above = high priority segment

11-12 = medium priority segment

10 and below = low priority segment

Bicycle boulevard routes were grouped into twenty eight projects. Ten projects were ranked as high priority alignments. The ranking results are shown in Table 4.4 below, with the full evaluation matrix in Appendix B.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 90


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 4.4: Bicycle Boulevard Ranking Results Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Bicycle Boulevards

10th Avenue South from Front Street to 4th Street South

High

1496

$

26,125.60

Bicycle Boulevards

14th Avenue North from East Railroad Road to 7th Street North; 7th Street North to 12th Avenue North; 12th Avenue North to Garrity Boulevard

High

3745

$

65,401.32

Bicycle Boulevards

18th Avenue South from 1st Street South to 8th Street South; 8th Street South to Roosevelt Avenue, connecting to Elder Street; Elder Street to East Hawaii Avenue; East Hawaii Avenue to South Juniper Street, turning south on Juniper Street to Greenhurst Road. Constitution Way from 12th Avenue South to South Juniper Street

High

14204

$

248,053.49

Bicycle Boulevards

Canyon Street from Lone Star Road to the Wilson Pathway

High

7229

$

126,244.63

Bicycle Boulevards

East Dewey Avenue from South State Street to Chestnut Avenue

High

6027

$

105,253.34

Bicycle Boulevards

East Oklahoma Avenue from Southside Boulevard to South Avondale Avenue; South Avondale Avenue to South Royal Meadow Drive, continuing on to East Greenhurst Road

High

5852

$

102,197.20

Bicycle Boulevards

1st Street North from 11th Avenue North to Railroad underpass

High

3454

$

60,319.40

Bicycle Boulevards

Meyer Avenue from Sherman Avenue to 3rd Street South; 3rd Street South from Meyer Avenue to 22nd Avenue South.

High

2068

$

36,114.80

Bicycle Boulevards

Stanford Street between Iowa Avenue and Greenhurst Road

High

$

43,624.16

Bicycle Boulevards

York Avenue from Wilson Ponds to Powerline Road

High

671

$

11,718.10

Bicycle Boulevards

13th Avenue South from Front Street to Roosevelt, connecting to Nectarine Street to Dewey

Med

7129

2498

Cost

$

124,498.26

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 91


City of Nampa, Idaho

Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Cost

Bicycle Boulevards

1st Street South from 7th Avenue South to 8th Avenue South, turning northeast to Front Street; Front Street to 14th Avenue South, turning southwest to 1st Street South, turning southeast to 15th Avenue South, turning northeast to Front Street, turning southeast going under the 16th Avenue South overpass to 17th Avenue South, turning northeast to 1st Street South; 1st Street South from 17th Avenue South to 22nd Avenue South

Med

6794

$

118,647.95

Bicycle Boulevards

22nd Avenue South from 1st Street South to 4th Street South, turning up 4th Street South to 20th Avenue South; 20th Avenue South to Roosevelt Avenue, connecting to Chestnut Avenue; Chestnut Avenue to Amity Road

Med

7157

$

124,987.25

Bicycle Boulevards

4th Street North from 11th Avenue North to 17th Avenue North; 17th Avenue North from 4th Street North to Railroad Road

Med

3417

$

59,673.25

Bicycle Boulevards

4th Street South from 3rd Avenue South to 22nd South

Med

7169

$

125,196.81

Bicycle Boulevards

8th Street South from 7th Avenue South to 10th Avenue South; 10th Avenue South from 8th Street South to Roosevelt Avenue

Med

4481

$

78,254.55

Bicycle Boulevards

Camelot Drive between Midland Boulevard and the proposed Elijah Drain Pathway

Med

1772

$

30,945.56

Bicycle Boulevards

Discovery Place from East Iowa Avenue to East Montana Avenue; west on East Montana Avenue to East Pennsylvania Avenue; East Pennsylvania Avenue to accessway to the Stoddard Pathway near East Ohio Avenue to the south and East Maryland Avenue to the north

Med

3277

$

57,228.34

Bicycle Boulevards

East Commanche Street from Southside Boulevard to Seminole Drive to Stoddar Pathway via Arapahoe Ct. and Klamath Ct.

Med

3072

$

53,648.29

Bicycle Boulevards

Maryland Avenue between Midland Boulevard and Horton Street; Valley Drive between Horton Street and 12th Avenue South

Med

5405

$

94,390.95

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 92


City of Nampa, Idaho

Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Cost

Bicycle Boulevards

Roosevelt Avenue from 11th Street South to 8th Street South

Med

1535

$

26,806.68

Bicycle Boulevards

Stillwater Way from Lone Star Road to Blaine Avenue; Blaine Avenue to 9th Avenue South; 9th Avenue South to 11th Street South; 11th Street South to Roosevelt Avenue; connecting to Ivy Street; Ivy Street to Dewey Avenue

Med

5406

$

94,408.42

Bicycle Boulevards

Sunny Lane from Midland Boulevard to Stanford Street; Stanford Street from Smith Avenue and High Street; Smith Avenue between Stanford Street to Canyon Street; High Street between Stanford Street and Sunset Street. Canyon Street from 3rd Street South to High Street; Sunset Street from High Street to Lone Star Road

Med

11522

$

201,216.02

Bicycle Boulevards

Blakeslee Drive from Greenhurst Road to South Powerline Road; Nevada Avenue from South Powerline Road to South Harbour Springs Street, South Harbour Springs Street to East Kara Anne Avenue, on East Kara Anne Avenue onto South Chicago Street to the accessway to the Stoddard Pathway

Low

6895

$

120,411.77

Bicycle Boulevards

Boundary Street between Blaine Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue

Low

1312

$

22,912.29

Bicycle Boulevards

Canyon Street from Greenhurst Road to irrigation facility; Bayhill Drive from irrigation facility to Dooley Lane

Low

2969

$

51,849.54

Bicycle Boulevards

Sugar Factory Road between Midland Boulevard and Madison Road

Low

7921

$

138,329.46

Bicycle Boulevards

Summer Breeze Street from Smith Avenue, west to Pleasant Hill Drive; to Lake Pointe Court; to Walden Ponds Street to Neilscott Drive; to Dew Mist Avenue to Tiaga Avenue; to Lone Star Road. Facility branch from Pleasant Hill Drive on West Crown Pointe Avenue to Sagehen Way; to Smith Avenue

Low

6383

$

111,470.39

Total

143,180

$

2,499,922.80

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 93


City of Nampa, Idaho

4.3.5 Bike Lanes and Shared Lane Markings Bike lane treatments have been reserved for critical east/west, north/south routes. Bike lane treatments recommended include: •

Bike lanes (see Chapter 5 and Appendix A for full descriptions of bike lanes).

Shoulder bikeways (see Chapter 5 for a description of a shoulder bikeway).

Shared Lane Marking to Future Bike Lanes: this facility type allows for shared lane marking (see Chapter 5 and Appendix A for full descriptions of shared lane markings and shared lane marking applications) as interim solution until bike lanes can be installed in conjunction with future roadway expansion projects.

Shared Lane Markings: Projects recommended for shared lane markings are projects that are not recommended as part of a bicycle boulevard treatment.

Bike lanes and shared lane markings will provide bicyclists with transportation routes within Nampa and connection opportunities to regional destinations. The criterion for this facility type matches the criterion used for bicycle boulevards and is intended to support the establishment of a new bicycle network and community-wide connections.

Evaluation Criterion Alignment Value

A good bicycle network has major and supporting segments. If certain alignments are not included the connectivity of the overall system would be negatively impacted. This criterion looked at how the bike lanes would increase the connectivity to community destinations and the bicycle network. Community Connections

Alignments that connect key destination to each other and to the overall network are instrumental in creating a pathway network that is widely used. The ability to connect to schools, transit stops, parks and off-street pathways was evaluated under this criterion. Consistency with Local Plans

This category is based on the compatibility of the alignment to meet the objectives of other plans, and connect to existing and planned pathways. Implementation Opportunities

Where development or other public projects are planned, are there opportunities to leverage costs, materials and design services with another project (e.g. Safe Routes to School projects, required as part of a development application)? Function and Efficiency

Alignments that minimize out‐of‐way travel and provide connections between pathways and area destinations are more likely to be used than indirect routes. Alignments used as commuter routes fall under this category, as routes used for commuting commonly follow the most direct routes.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 94


City of Nampa, Idaho

Bike Lane and Shared Lane Marking Scoring and Ranking For each criteria met, a possible score of three could be assigned, with a total score of 15 possible for each segment. An explanation of each criteria and the scoring system is listed under the facility type. •

13 and above = high priority segment

11-12 = medium priority segment

10 and below = low priority segment

Bike lane projects were grouped into forty five projects. Twenty two of the evaluated projects have a high priority ranking. The high priority bike lane facilities will create the backbone of the bicycle transportation network in Nampa. The ranking results are shown in Table 4.5 below, with the full evaluation matrix in Appendix B.

Table 4.5: Bike Lane Ranking Results

Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Cost

Bike Lanes

Birch Lane between the Mason Creek Pathway and Franklin

High

1266

$

49,500.60

Bike Lanes

Birch Lane between 11th Avenue North and Idaho Center

High

5307

$

207,503.70

Bike Lanes

Smith Avenue from Midway Road to Midland Boulevard

High

10531

$

411,762.10

Bike Lanes

Lone Star Road and 7th Avenue South between Middleton Road and 1st Street South

High

1371

$

53,606.10

Bike Lanes

16th Avenue South from 1st Street South over the railroad overpass

High

899

$

70,546.98

Bike Lanes

Iowa Avenue between Middleton Road and Midland Boulevard

High

5286

$

206,682.60

Bike Lanes

Amity Road/Maple Street between 12th Avenue South and South Locust Street

High

1536

$

60,057.60

Bike Lanes

Holly Street, East Sheridan Avenue, Fern Street, East Bird Avenue, Holly Street between Roosevelt Avenue and Constitution Way

High

7197

$

281,402.70

Bike Lanes

Victory Road between South Sugar Avenue and the intersection of the proposed Mason Drain Pathway

High

5289

$

206,799.90

Bike Lanes

Idaho Center Boulevard/Can Ada Road between Franklin Road and East University Way

High

3855

$

150,730.50

Bike Lanes

Idaho Center Boulevard/Can Ada Road between Franklin Road and I-84

High

3031

$

118,512.10

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 95


City of Nampa, Idaho

Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Cost

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Birch Lanes between Madison and the Mason Creek Pathway

High

1385

$

54,153.50

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Middleton Road between Moss Lane and Greenhurst Road

High

2366

$

92,510.60

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Colorado Avenue, Diamond Street, Amity Road between Holly Street and Happy Valley Road

High

1381

$

53,997.10

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Holly Street between Constitution Way and Avenue and East Greenhurst Road

High

1786

$

69,832.60

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Iowa Avenue between Midway Road and Middleton Road

High

5365

$

209,771.50

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Railroad Street from Badger to RR underpass to the northeast

High

4694

$

183,535.40

Shoulder Bikeway: Future Bike Lane

Victory Road from Grays Lane to Happy Valley Road

High

2641

$

103,263.10

Shoulder Bikeway

Birch Lane between Northside and Madison

High

2648

$

207,795.78

Shoulder Bikeway

Birch Lane (south side) between Franklin and the Grimes Creek Pathway

High

946

$

74,235.20

Shoulder Bikeway

Sunnyridge Road between Greenhurst Road and Ruth Lane

High

8166

$

640,808.28

Shoulder Bikeway

Locust Lane between Sunnyridge Road to Happy Valley Road

High

1382

$

108,449.31

Bike Lanes

Karcher Road between Middleton Road and existing bike lane; Midland Boulevard from existing bike lane on Karcher Road to Laster Lane

Med

6664

$

246,968.80

Bike Lanes

Franklin Boulevard between Birch and 3rd Avenue North

Med

5365

$

209,771.50

Bike Lanes

Flamingo Avenue between the proposed Elijah Drain Pathway and Midland Boulevard

Med

4004

$

156,556.40

Bike Lanes

Midland Boulevard between Flamingo Avenue and Sunny Lane

Med

5949

$

232,605.90

Bike Lanes

12th Avenue South between Iowa Avenue and Constitution Way

Med

486

$

19,002.60

Bike Lanes

Garrity Boulevard from 16th Avenue North to I-84

Med

6019

$

235,342.90

Bike Lanes

Kings Road between the Indian Creek Pathway and Amity Road

Med

2197

$

85,902.70

Bike Lanes

Amity Road from Happy Valley Road to Meridian and Kuna

Med

1021

$

39,921.10

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 96


City of Nampa, Idaho

Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Cost

Bike Lanes

West Ustick Road between 11th Avenue North to Star Road

Med

1049

$

41,015.90

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Lake Lowell Avenue from Middleton Road to 12th Avenue South

Med

1058

$

41,367.80

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Grays Lane between Victory Road and Amity Road

Med

5318

$

207,933.80

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Dooley Lane between Midland Boulevard and Sunnyridge Road

Med

8080

$

315,928.00

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Powerline Road from Dakota Avenue to the Elijah Drain Path

Med

666

$

26,040.60

Shoulder Bikeway

Midland between Iowa and Greenhurst

Med

2629

$

102,793.90

Shoulder Bikeway

Ruth Lane between 12th Avenue South and Sunnyridge Road

Med

2643

$

207,403.41

Bike Lanes

Cherry Lane from Midland to the midpoint between Midland and Ten Lane

Low

1318

$

51,533.80

Bike Lanes

Star Road between West Ustick Road to West McMillan Road

Low

5269

$

206,017.90

Bike Lanes

2nd Street South from proposed Sherman pathway connector to Southside; Southside Boulevard to Kings Road

Low

6445

$

251,999.50

Bike Lanes

Wal Mart/ Sams' Club road from Franklin Road to E. Gate Boulevard

Low

39.10

$

206,799.90

Bike Lanes

West Mcmillan Road from Can-Ada Road to Star Road

Low

5164

$

201,912.40

Future Bike Lanes

Cherry Lane from the midpoint between Midland and Ten Lane to Northside

Low

3987

$

155,891.70

Future Bike Lanes

Northside between Cherry Lane and 4th Street South

Low

9118

$

356,513.80

Shoulder Bikeway

Midland Boulevard between Laster Lane and the Sugar Factory Road alignment

Low

5360

$

420,613.81

Total

169,256

$

7,553,956.77

Seventeen shared lane marking projects were evaluated, with eight receiving a high priority ranking. Shared lane marking projects, coupled with bike lane projects, will form Nampa’s bicycle transportation backbone. The ranking results are shown in Table 4.6 below, with the full evaluation matrix in Appendix B.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 97


City of Nampa, Idaho

Table 4.6: Shared Lane Marking Ranking Results

Project

Street or Alignment

Priority

Length (Ft)

Shared Lane Markings

11th Avenue North from Ustick Road to Stampede Drive; Stampede Drive to Garrity Boulevard

High

19039

$

97,098.90

Shared Lane Markings

1st Street South between Northside Blvd. and 7th Avenue South

High

2575

$

13,132.50

Shared Lane Markings

1st Street South between 17th Avenue South to 15th Avenue South

High

760

$

3,876.00

Shared Lane Markings

Birch Lane (north side) from Franklin to Grimes Creek Pathway alignment

High

1165

$

5,941.50

Shared Lane Markings

Birch Lane between Grimes Creek Pathway alignment and 11th Avenue North

High

4123

$

21,027.30

Shared Lane Markings

Greenhurst Road between Midland and Sunnyridge

High

8524

$

43,472.40

Shared Lane Markings

Iowa Avenue from Midland Boulevard to 12th Avenue South

High

5281

$

26,933.10

Shared Lane Markings

Orchard Avenue between Midland Boulevard and Caldwell Boulevard

High

3186

$

16,248.60

Shared Lane Markings

6th Street North from 14th Avenue North to 4th Avenue North; 4th Avenue North from 6th Street North to Franklin Road

Med

7385

$

37,663.50

Shared Lane Markings

Sherman Avenue between Holly and Powerline

Low

3031

$

15,458.10

Shared Lane Markings

Badger Drive between Kings and Railroad

Med

1351

$

6,890.10

Shared Lane Markings

Davis Street between Midland Boulevard and Canyon Street

Med

3982

$

20,308.20

Shared Lane Markings

Roosevelt Avenue between the Orr Drain Pathway and Canyon Street

Med

8675

$

44,242.50

Shared Lane Markings

Cassia Street between Karcher and West Flamingo Avenue

Low

3200

$

16,320.00

Shared Lane Markings

Linden Street from Madison Road to the proposed Ten Mile Creek Pathway; Madison Road to Karcher Road; Karcher Road to Stoddard Pathway.

Low

8586

$

43,788.60

Shared Lane Markings

Moss Lane from Midway Road to Middleton Road

Low

5210

$

26,571.00

Shared Lane Markings

Powerline Road connecting East Sherman Avenue: East Sherman Ave from Powerline Road to Chicago Street

Low

2799

$

14,274.90

Total

88,872

$

453,247,20

Cost

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 98


City of Nampa, Idaho

4.3.6 Crossings A number of crossing improvements have been recommended at mid-block locations. The crossing improvements at existing crossings that have been identified by city staff and public input. The other crossing locations correspond to future priority pathway construction projects that will require a road crossing. Crossings were not evaluated in a priority project matrix. Crossing improvements at existing crossings are considered high priority, with future crossings to be implemented in conjunction with associated pathway improvements. Cost estimates have not been provided for crossing improvements because the specific design for each crossing can vary widely. Average daily traffic counts, road width and vehicle speed limits influence the type of improvement design considered at each location. Eleven crossings are shown in Table 4.7 below, with the full evaluation matrix in Appendix B.

Table 4.7: Crossing Ranking Results Crossing Status Existing

Existing

Street or Alignment

Priority

Greenhurst Road at the Stoddard Pathway crossing (about .46 miles west of Southside Boulevard)

Lake Lowell Avenue where the Wilson Pathway crossed the road (about .11 miles east of the Midland/Lake Lowell intersection)

High

High

Existing

Locust Lane at the Stoddard Pathway (.32 miles west of Southside Boulevard)

High

Existing

Midland Boulevard where the Wilson Pathway crosses the road (about .11 miles north of the Midland/Lake Lowell intersection)

High

Planned

3rd Street North/Victory Road at the Railroad underpass

Upon pathway implementation

Planned

Amity Road at the Stoddard Pathway crossing (about 150 feet west of South 19th Street)

Upon pathway implementation

Planned

Greenhurst Road at the proposed Elijah Drain Pathway (about .13 miles east of Southside Boulevard)

Upon pathway implementation

Planned

Iowa Avenue at the Stoddard Pathway crossing (about .20 miles east of 12th Avenue South)

Upon implementation of pathway gap closure to the south

Planned

Iowa Avenue at the Wilson Pathway crossing (about .06 miles east of Ventura Drive)

Upon implementation of pathway gap closure to the south

Planned

Sunnyridge Road at the Wilson Pathway crossing (.05 miles north of Stony Meadow Drive)

Upon implementation of pathway gap closure to the east

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 99


City of Nampa, Idaho

Planned

Roosevelt Avenue where the Wilson Pathway crosses the road (about .26 miles west of Midland Boulevard)

Upon implementation of pathway gap closure to the north

4.3.7 Intersection Improvements Sixty-nine intersections were evaluated for improvements. Sixty-four of those intersections are within the recommended bicycle network to improve safety for both bicyclists and pedestrians. The following four intersections (within the recommended bicycle facility network) have been identified as having at least three bicycle and pedestrian crashes in the past five years: •

12th Avenue South and Valley Drive; one bicycle crash and three pedestrian crashes (one fatal pedestrian crash)

Caldwell Boulevard and Canyon Street; three bicycle crashes, one pedestrian crash

Flamingo Avenue and Midland Boulevard; two bicycle crashes, one pedestrian crash

Lake Lowell Avenue and Midland Boulevard: three bicycle crashes, one pedestrian crash

The following two intersections are outside of the recommended bicycle network, but have been added to the improvement list. These two intersections have had at least three bicycle and pedestrian crashes in the past five years: •

11th Avenue South and 1st Street South; six bicycle crashes

12th Avenue South and 9th Street South; two bicycle crashes, one pedestrian crash

Five crashes have been recorded at the following three-way intersection, however, the City plans to remove the crosswalk at this uncontrolled intersection: •

12th Avenue South and Colorado Avenue; three bicycle crashes, two pedestrian crashes

The intersection evaluation process is intended to identify some implementation priorities. However, the evaluation only considers two factors, safety and community connections. Intersection improvements should be implemented in conjunction with bicycle facility projects, in response to safety issues, with roadway improvement projects, and when funding opportunities occur.

Evaluation Criterion Safety

Intersections were three or more pedestrian and bicycle crashes were reported in the last five years received the highest possible score, with an additional weight multiplier of two. Community Connections

Intersections that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to safely cross the roadway are vital aspects to the overall connectivity of the pedestrian and bicycle network. Intersections within a ¼ mile of schools, transit stops, parks and trailheads were evaluated in under this category.

Intersection Scoring and Ranking

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 100


City of Nampa, Idaho

For each criteria met, a possible score of three could be assigned, with a total score of eight possible for each segment. The results of the evaluation ranked projects based on a “high”, “medium-high” or “medium-low” or “low” scale. An explanation of each criteria and the scoring system is listed under the facility type. •

7 and above = high priority intersection

5-6 = medium high priority intersection

4 = medium low priority intersection

2-3 = low priority intersection

Nine of the intersections received a high priority ranking. As noted in the Existing Conditions chapter of this report, high priority intersection improvements improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety through a combination of treatments tailored to the ADT, number of travel lanes and posted speed limits of the relevant roadway. The ranking results are shown in Table 4.8 below, with the full evaluation matrix in Appendix B. Cost estimates have not been provided for intersection improvements because the specific design can vary widely.

Table 4.8: Intersection Ranking Results Intersection Location

Priority

1

11th Avenue South and 1st Street South

High

2

12th Avenue South and 9th Street South

High

3

12th Avenue South and Valley Drive

High

4

Amity Road and Chestnut Avenue

High

5

Amity Road and Southside Blvd./S. Kings Road

High

6

Lake Lowell Avenue/Amity Road and 12th Avenue South

High

7

Caldwell Boulevard and Canyon Street

High

8

Flamingo Avenue and Midland Boulevard

High

9

Lake Lowell Avenue and Midland Boulevard

High

10

4th Street South and 12th Avenue South

Med High

11

4th Street South and 16th Avenue South

Med High

12

Blaine Avenue and Midland Boulevard

Med High

13

Colorado Avenue and Holly Street

Med High

14

Garrity Boulevard and Stampede Drive

Med High

15

Greenhurst Road and 12th Avenue South

Med High

16

Hawaii Avenue and Holly Street

Med High

17

Iowa Avenue and Middleton Road

Med High

18

Iowa Avenue and Midland Boulevard

Med HIgh

19

Lone Star Road and Canyon Street

Med High

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 101


City of Nampa, Idaho 20

Roosevelt Avenue and 16th Avenue South/Holly Street

Med High

21

Roosevelt Avenue and Canyon Street

Med High

22

7th Avenue South and 7th Street South

Med High

Intersection Location

Priority

23

11th Street South and 12th Avenue South

Med Low

24

Amity Road and Almond Street

Med Low

25

Badger Drive and Kings Road

Med Low

th

26

Birch Lane and 11 Avenue North

Med Low

27

Birch Lane and Franklin Road

Med Low

28

Birch Lane and Idaho Center Boulevard

Med Low

29

Birch Lane and Northside Boulevard

Med Low

30

Blakeslee Drive and Powerline Road

Med Low

31

Colorado Avenue and Elder Street

Med Low

32

Davis Avenue and Midland Boulevard

Med Low

33

Dewey Avenue and 12th Avenue South

Med Low

34

Dooley Lane and 12th Avenue South

Med Low

35

Greenhurst Road and Canyon Street

Med Low

36

Greenhurst Road and Juniper Street

Med Low

37

Greenhurst Road and Sunnyridge Road

Med Low

38

Iowa Avenue and Stanford Street

Med Low

39

Lake Lowell Avenue and Middleton Road

Med Low

40

Lone Star Road and Midland Boulevard

Med Low

41

Lone Star Road and Middleton Road

Med Low

42

Midland Boulevard and Camelot Drive

Med Low

43

Orchard Avenue and Midland Boulevard

Med Low

44

Roosevelt Avenue and Middleton Road

Med Low

45

Roosevelt Avenue and Midland Boulevard

Med Low

46

Sherman Avenue and Chicago Street

Med Low

47

Smith Avenue and Middleton Road

Med Low

48

Smith Avenue and Midland Boulevard

Med Low

49

Amity Road and Grays Lane

Low

50

Cherry Lane and 11th Avenue North

Low

51

Cherry Lane and Northside Boulevard

Low

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 102


City of Nampa, Idaho 52

Commanche Street and Southside Boulevard

Low

53

Dewey Avenue and Fern Street

Low

54

Dooley Lane and Canyon Street

Low

Intersection Location

Priority

55

Dooley Lane and Sunnyridge Road

Low

56

Flamingo Avenue and Cassia Street

Low

57

Greenhurst Road and Midland Boulevard

Low

58

Greenhurst Road and Stanford Street

Low

59

Lake Lowell Avenue and Canyon Street

Low

60

Locust Lane and Sunnyridge Road

Low

61

Lone Star Road and Sunset Street

Low

62

Lone Star Road and Tiaga Avenue

Low

63

Sunny Lane and Midland Boulevard

Low

64

Ustick Road and 11th Avenue North

Low

65

Ustick Road and Can Ada Road

Low

66

Victory Road and North Sugar Avenue

Low

67

Victory Road and Grays Lane

Low

68

York Lane and Powerline Road

Low

69

12th Avenue South and Colorado Avenue

To be removed

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 103


City of Nampa, Idaho

5 Design Standards The City of Nampa is committed to implementing pedestrian, on-street bikeway, and shared-use path projects in order to encourage walking and cycling. Many future projects will involve retrofitting existing streets, intersections and pathways to accommodate new facilities. The City would benefit from a set of nonmotorized facility design standards to ensure the uniform implementation of pathways. The design standards presented here are based on current walkway, bikeway, and shared-use path design guidelines provided in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO)’s 5 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009, Part 9, as well as best practices from several communities throughout the country. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is currently being updated, and the new document cannot be quoted at the time of this writing. However, many of the facilities under consideration for the update are included in the following pages. The design standards are grouped into two different categories: on-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities and off-street pathways. Additional guidance for these facilities is located in Appendix A: Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines.

5

The Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is currently being updated, and the new document cannot be quoted at the time of this writing. However, many of the facilities under consideration for the update are included in the following pages.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 104


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.1 On-Street Facility Standards 5.2 On-Street Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks, shared-use paths, and roadway shoulders are typically recognized as pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian travel is accommodated and enhanced by intersection treatments such as crosswalks, curb ramps, as well as boulevards and other amenities.

5.2.1 Sidewalks Sidewalk Widths Design Summary •

Sidewalk or pedestrian pathways along rights of way may be located within/upon the landscape area and shall be at least five feet (5') wide unless required to be otherwise approved by the city engineer (Nampa City Code 10-27-6-J-1-F). Trees in vision triangles shall be pruned to a minimum of fourteen feet (14') above the adjacent roadway surface. Shrubs and ground covers planted within a vision triangle shall not be allowed to exceed thirty inches (30") in height at maturity (achieved either by pruning or using proper plant species selection) (Nampa City Code 10-5-8-C-3-C).

Sidewalk Standards (not including area covered by the Downtown Streetscape Plan) Attached

Detached

Residential Areas

5’ min.

4’

Arterials

Not permitted

5’

Collectors

7’

5’

Arterials, collectors and frontage streets within ¼ mile radius of school*

8’

8’

*

Schools include elementary, middle and high schools, universities and colleges

Downtown Streetscape Plan Sidewalk Standards Furnishing

Pedestrian

Frontage

Zone

Zone

Zone

Urban Historic/ Village/Business

6’

12’

3’

Historic/Village Business Gateway

6’

4’

-

Event Street

6’

8’

Varies

Special Street

6’

8’

3’

Parkway

9’ +/-

6’

-

6’

-

park strip Neighborhood

11’ +/- park strip

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 105


City of Nampa, Idaho Discussion Sidewalk standards apply to new development and depend on available street width, motor vehicle volumes, surrounding land uses, and pedestrian activity levels. Standardizing sidewalk guidelines for different areas of the region, dependent on the above listed factors, ensure a minimum level of quality for all sidewalks. The table to the right provides guidance for minimum sidewalk widths by street type. It may be possible to increase the sidewalk corridor through acquisition of right-of-way or public walkway easements or by re-allocation of the overall right-of-way (such as by narrowing roadway travel lanes or reducing the number of lanes). As part of a roadway reconstruction project on a street with a narrow sidewalk corridor, planners should analyze the impact of reclaiming a portion of the existing right-of-way. If this proves impractical, the feasibility of acquiring additional right-of-way should be examined. Acquisition should be considered where cost is reasonable in proportion to the overall project cost. In the case of infill development, the dedication of public right-of-way or the granting of a public walkway easement to widen the sidewalk corridor may be included as a requirement for obtaining a building permit or land use approval. Construction/reconstruction projects should be designed to follow PROWAG guidelines where practical. Where not practical, ADAAG guidelines should be followed.

Reference •

City of Nampa, (2009). Nampa Streetscape Plan,

United States Access Board. (2002). Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities.

United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 106


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.3 Intersections

5.3.1 Marked Crosswalks Design Summary •

A parallel marking consists of two 12 inch lines separated by 6 feet.

A ladder pavement marking consists of 1 foot wide bars spaced 6 feet apart and located between 1 foot wide parallel stripes that are 10 feet apart. At signalized intersections, all crosswalks should be marked. The engineering division should use the following criteria to evaluate necessity of crosswalks at unsignalized intersections:

At a complex intersection, to orient pedestrians in finding their way across.

At an offset intersection, to show pedestrians the shortest route across traffic with the least exposure to vehicular traffic and traffic conflicts.

At an intersection with visibility constraints, to position pedestrians where they can best be seen by oncoming traffic.

Parallel markings are the most basic crosswalk marking type, and are applied where textured concrete crosswalks are used.

Discussion State law designates all intersections as legal crossings, regardless of whether they are marked. However, marking crosswalks signals to drivers that they should stop for pedestrians, and encourages pedestrians to cross at safer locations. Crosswalk markings indicate to pedestrians the appropriate route across traffic, to facilitate crossing by the visually impaired and remind turning drivers of potential conflicts with pedestrians. Ladder pavement markings are recommended at crossings with high pedestrian use or where vulnerable pedestrians are expected, including: •

School crossings.

Across arterial streets for pedestrian-only signals.

At stop-controlled intersections.

Zebra striped crossings can increase visibility of pedestrians. Reference •

United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

FHWA. (2005). Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 107


City of Nampa, Idaho

High-Visibility Crosswalk Techniques Design Summary •

Additional treatments can be used to increase visibility of the crosswalk at high-use locations and in locations with high use from school children, elderly pede1strians, or pedestrians with disabilities.

Discussion

Rapid Flash Beacon Designed to encourage motorists to stop for a pedestrian waiting at a mid-block crossing, rapid flash beacons call attention to the crossing location. These devices use a stutter flash pattern similar to that used on emergency vehicles.

Rapid flash beacon

Reference •

United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

FHWA, Efficacy of Rectangular-Shaped Rapid Flash LED Beacons. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/intro.htm

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 108


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.3.2 Mid-Block Crossings Design Summary At-grade path/roadway crossings generally will fit into one of four basic categories: •

Type 1: Marked/Unsignalized Unprotected crossings include shared-use path crossings of residential, collector, and sometimes major arterial streets or railroad tracks.

Type 1+: Marked/Enhanced – Unsignalized intersections can provide additional visibility with flashing beacons and other treatments.

Type 2: Route Users to Existing Signalized Intersection Shared-use paths that emerge near existing intersections may be routed to these locations, provided that sufficient protection is provided at the existing intersection.

Type 3: Signalized/Controlled - Shared-use path crossings that require signals or other control measures due to traffic volumes, speeds, and shared-use path usage.

Type 4: Grade-separated crossings - Bridges or under-crossings provide the maximum level of safety but also generally are the most expensive and have right-of-way, maintenance, and other public safety considerations.

An offset crossing forces pedestrians to turn and face the traffic they are about to cross.

Discussion While at-grade crossings create a potentially high level of conflict between path users and motorists, well-designed crossings have not historically posed a safety problem for path users. This is evidenced by the thousands of successful paths around the United States with at-grade crossings. In most cases, at-grade path crossings can be properly designed to a reasonable degree of safety and can meet existing traffic and safety standards. Evaluation of path crossings involves analysis of vehicular and anticipated path user traffic patterns, including •

Vehicle speeds.

Traffic volumes (average daily traffic and peak hour traffic).

Street width.

Path user profile (age distribution, destinations served).

Sight distance.

Crossing features for all roadways include warning signs both for vehicles and path users. Consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and line of sight, with visibility of any signing absolutely critical. Catching the attention of motorists jaded to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing light, roadway striping or changes in pavement texture. Signing for path users must include a “STOP” sign and pavement marking, sometimes combined with other features such as bollards.

Reference •

Highway Administration (FHWA) Report, “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations.”

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 109


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.4 On-Street Bicycle Facility Design There are a range of different types of bicycle facilities that can be applied in various contexts, which provide varying levels of protection or separation from automobile traffic. This section summarizes best practice on-street bicycle facility design from North America and elsewhere.

5.4.1 Facility Selection There are a wide variety of techniques for selecting the type of facility for a given context. Roadway characteristics that are often used include: •

Motor vehicle speed and volume

Demand for bicycle facilities

Presence of heavy vehicles/trucks

User preference

Roadway width

Land use/urban or rural context

There are no ‘hard and fast’ rules for determining the most appropriate type of facility for a particular location; engineering judgment and planning skills are critical elements of this decision. A 2002 study combined bikeway dimension standards for ten different communities in North America. The goal of the study was to survey the varying requirements available and provide a best practices approach for providing bicycle facilities. The study included a comparison with European standards, and found that “North Americans rely much more on wide lanes for bicycle accommodation than their counterparts overseas.” The table below shows the results of this analysis, which recommends use of bike lanes or shoulders, wide lanes, or normal lanes. Finally, shows the ‘worldwide speed-volume chart,’ which synthesizes findings from Europe and North America. This final chart is useful for the inclusion of separated lanes, or cycle tracks, and generally has a lower threshold for increasing separation than the North America selection table.

North American Bicycle Facility Selection Chart (King, Michael. (2002). Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison of Approaches. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 110


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.4.2 Shoulder Bikeways Design Summary •

Recommended widths (measured from painted edgeline to edge of pavement): o 6’-7’ on roadways with posted speed limits > 40 mph o 5’ on roadways with posted speed limits < 35 mph

Can include pavement markings and ‘Share the Road” signage

See bike lane section for additional guidance for determining if bike lanes are required

Discussion On streets without adequate space for bike lanes, or on rural roads with a large shoulder, shoulder bikeways can accommodate bicycle travel. Shoulder bikeways are generally used by commuter and long-distance recreational riders, rather than families with children or more inexperienced riders. Parking is generally not allowed along shoulder bikeways. In many cases, the opportunity to develop a full standard bike lane on a street where it is desirable may be many years. It is possible to stripe the shoulder in lieu of bike lanes if the area is 50 percent of the desirable bike lane width and the outside lane width can be reduced to the AASHTO minimum.

Reference •

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

MUTCD.

Recommended shoulder bikeway configuration

Shoulder bikeways are appropriate along wide rural roads where vehicles can avoid passing close to bicyclists.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 111


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.4.3 Bike Lanes Design Summary Recommended Type of Bike Lane

Width (Min-Max)

Adjacent to on-street parallel parking

6’ (4’-7’)

Adjacent to on-street diagonal parking

6’ (5’-7’)

Without on-street parking, no gutter

6’ (4’-7’)

Without on-street parking, curb & gutter

6’ (5’-8’)*

Note: The Nampa Streetscape Plan recommends 4’ bike lanes in Historic, Village, and Business districts. This width is the minimum allowable, and greater widths are recommended.

*These measurements are from face of curb.

Bike lanes provide a travel lane for bicyclists that is separated from motor vehicle travel and parking lanes.

Discussion Designated exclusively for bicycle travel, bike lanes are separated from vehicle travel lanes with striping and also include pavement stencils. Bike lanes are most appropriate on arterial and collector streets where higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater separation. Bike lanes help to define the road space for bicyclists and motorists, reduce the chance that motorists will stray into the cyclists’ path, discourage bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk, and remind motorists that cyclists have a right to the road. One consideration in designing bike lanes in an urban setting is to ensure that bike lanes and adjacent parking lanes have sufficient width so that cyclists have enough room to avoid a suddenly opened vehicle door. Bike lane pavement markings in Portland, OR, provide character to the roadway.

Reference •

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

City of Nampa, (2009). Nampa Streetscape Plan

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 112


City of Nampa, Idaho

Bike Lane Configurations Bike Lane Adjacent to On-Street Parallel Parking Design Summary •

Bike Lane Width: o 6’ recommended when parking stalls are marked o 4’ minimum in constrained locations o 7’ maximum (wider lanes may be used by drivers)

Travel Lane Width o 10’ travel lane adjacent to a marked bicycle lane may be considered when there is constrained rights-ofway, robust bicycle traffic and approval by city engineer o 12’ for a shared lane adjacent to a curb face

Discussion On bike lanes adjacent to on-street parallel parking, suddenly-opened vehicle doors are a common hazard for bicyclists. However, wide bike lanes may encourage the cyclist to ride farther to the right to maximize distance from passing traffic. Wide bike lanes may also cause confusion with unloading vehicles in busy areas where parking is typically full. Some alternatives include: •

Installing parking “T’s” (top graphic).

Provide a buffer zone (lower graphic) This design also provides motorists with space to stand outside the bike lane when loading and unloading.

Design for a bike lane adjacent to on-street parallel parking. Preferred design if space is available.

Reference •

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

Maximum design width

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 113


City of Nampa, Idaho

Bike Lane Adjacent to On-Street Diagonal Parking Design Summary •

Bike lane width: o 5’ minimum o White 4” stripe separates bike lane from parking bays o Parking bays are sufficiently long to accommodate most vehicles (vehicles do not block bike lane) o 10’ travel lane adjacent to a marked bicycle lane may be considered when there is constrained rights-of-way, robust bicycle traffic and approval by city engineer

Discussion In areas with high parking demand such as urban commercial areas, diagonal parking can be used to increase parking supply. Conventional “headin” diagonal parking is not recommended in conjunction with high levels of bicycle traffic or with the provision of bike lanes as drivers backing out of conventional diagonal parking spaces have poor visibility of approaching bicyclists.

Recommended Design

The use of ‘back-in diagonal parking’ or ‘reverse angled parking’ is recommended over head-in diagonal parking. This design addresses issues with diagonal parking and bicycle travel by improving sight distance between drivers and bicyclists and has other benefits to vehicles including: loading and unloading of the trunk occurs at the curb rather than in the street, passengers (including children) are directed by open doors towards the curb, no door conflict with bicyclists. While there may be a learning curve for some drivers, using back-in diagonal parking is typically an easier maneuver than conventional parallel parking.

Reference •

Currently slated for inclusion in the upcoming AASHTO 2010 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

‘Back-in’ diagonal parking is safer for cyclists than ‘head-in’ diagonal parking due to drivers’ visibility as they exit the parking spot.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 114


City of Nampa, Idaho

Bike Lane Without On-Street Parking Design Summary •

Bike lane width: o 4 feet minimum when no curb & gutter is present o 5 feet minimum, as measured from the face of the curb (3.5 feet more than the 1.5-foot gutter pan)

Recommended width: 6 feet where right-of-way allows

Maximum width: 8 feet adjacent to arterials with high travel speeds (45 mph+)

10’ travel lane adjacent to a marked bicycle lane may be considered when there is constrained rights-of-way, robust bicycle traffic and approval by city engineer

Discussion Wider bike lanes are desirable in certain circumstances such as on higher speed arterials (45 mph+) where a wider bike lane can increase separation between passing vehicles and cyclists. Wide bike lanes are also appropriate in areas with high bicycle use. A bike lane width of 6 to 8 feet makes it possible for bicyclists to ride side-by-side or pass each other without leaving the bike lane, increasing the capacity of the lane. Appropriate signing and stenciling is important with wide bike lanes to ensure motorists do not mistake the lane for a vehicle lane or parking lane.

Recommended design Cross Section

Two Lane Cross-Section with No Parking* *Bike lanes may be 4’ in width under constrained circumstances

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 115


City of Nampa, Idaho

Retrofitting Existing Streets with Bike Lanes Most major streets in the Nampa area are characterized by conditions (e.g., high vehicle speeds and/or volumes) where dedicated bike lanes are appropriate to accommodate safe and comfortable riding. Although opportunities to add bike lanes through roadway widening may exist in some locations, most major streets in the Nampa area pose physical and other constraints requiring street retrofit measures within existing curb-to-curb widths. As a result, many of the recommended measures effectively reallocate existing street width through striping modifications to accommodate dedicated bike lanes.

Roadway Widening Design Summary â&#x20AC;˘

Bike lane width: see bike lane design guidance

Discussion Bike lanes could be accommodated on several streets with excess right-of-way through shoulder widening. Although street widening incurs higher expenses compared with re-striping projects, bike lanes could be added to streets currently lacking curbs, gutters and sidewalks without the high costs of major infrastructure reconstruction. As a long-term measure, the City of Nampa should find opportunities to add bike lanes to other major streets where they are needed. Opportunities include adding bike lanes as streets and bridges are widened for additional auto capacity or as property development necessitates street reconstruction.

Roadway widening is preferred on roads lacking curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

Cross Section

Example of roadway widening to accommodate bike lanes and sidewalk.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 116


City of Nampa, Idaho

Lane Narrowing (Road Diet 1) Design Summary

Design Example

Bike lane width: see bike lane design guidance

Vehicle lane widths: before: 12 to 15 feet; after: 10 to 11 feet

Discussion Also called a ‘Road Diet’, lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to create the needed space to provide bike lanes. Many roadways in the Nampa area have existing lanes that are wider than those prescribed in local and national roadway design standards, or which are not marked. Most standards allow for the use of 11 foot and sometimes 10 foot wide travel lanes to create space for bike lanes. Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before the decision is made to narrow travel lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for bike lanes.

This street previously had 13’ lanes, which were narrowed to accommodate bike lanes without removing a lane.

Cross Section

Example of vehicle travel lane narrowing to accommodate bike lanes

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 117


City of Nampa, Idaho

Lane Reconfiguration (Road Diet 2) Design Summary

Design Example

Bike lane width: see bike lane design guidance.

Vehicle lane width: depends on project. No narrowing may be needed if a lane is removed.

Discussion The removal of a single travel lane will generally provide sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street. Streets with excess vehicle capacity present an opportunity for bike lane retrofit projects. Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations can be applied. For instance, a four-lane street (with two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. Prior to implementing this measure, a traffic analysis should identify impacts. This treatment is currently slated for inclusion in the upcoming AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

This road was re-striped to convert four vehicle travel lanes into three travel lanes with bike lanes.

Cross Section

Example of vehicle travel lane reconfiguration to accommodate bike lanes

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 118


City of Nampa, Idaho

Parking Reduction (Road Diet 3) Design Summary â&#x20AC;˘

Bike lane width: see bike lane design guidance.

â&#x20AC;˘

Vehicle lane width: depends on project. No narrowing may be needed if a lane is removed.

Discussion Bike lanes could replace one or more on-street parking lanes on streets where excess parking exists and/or the importance of bike lanes outweighs parking needs. For instance, parking may be needed on only one side of a street (as shown below and at right). Eliminating or reducing on-street parking also improves sight distance for cyclists in bike lanes and for motorists on approaching side streets and driveways. Prior to reallocating on-street parking for other uses, a parking study should be performed to gauge demand and to evaluate impacts to people with disabilities.

Some streets may not require parking on both sides.

Cross Section

Example of parking removal to accommodate bike lanes

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 119


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.4.4 Shared Lane Markings Design Summary •

Shared lane markings should not be used on roadways with speed limits above 35 mph or on paved shoulders.

Shared lane markings should be placed: o At least 11 feet from face of curb (or shoulder edge) to the center of the marking where there is on-street parking. o At least 4 feet from face of curb (or shoulder edge) to the center of the marking where there is no on-street parking. o Immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet.

The door width zone is generally assumed to be 2.5 feet from the edge of the parking lane.

The MUTCD provides additional design guidance.

Shared lane marking placement guidance for streets with on-street parking.

Discussion Shared lane markings are high-visibility pavement markings that help position bicyclists within the travel lane. These markings are often used on streets where dedicated bike lanes are desirable but are not possible due to physical or other constraints. Shared lane markings are placed strategically in the travel lane to alert motorists of bicycle traffic, while also encouraging cyclists to ride at an appropriate distance from the “door zone” of adjacent parked cars. Placed in a linear pattern along a corridor, shared lane markings also encourage cyclists to ride in a straight line so their movements are predictable to motorists. This marking has been included in the 2009 update of the MUTCD, which allows shared lane markings to be used in locations with and without on-street parking. Placing shared lane markings between vehicle tire tracks (if possible) will increase the life of the markings. The 2010 AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities draft contains information about this facility type. While this document cannot be quoted until adopted, marked shared lane design guidance has been greatly expanded.

Shared lane markings can be used on minor and major roadways.

Cross Section

Recommended shared lane markings where there is no on-street parking

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 120


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.4.5 Bicycle Boulevards Design Summary •

Motor vehicle volumes usually less than 3,000 vehicles per day.

Maximum posted speeds of 25 mph.

Roadway width varies depending on roadway configuration.

Use D11-1 “Bike Route” sign as specified for shared roadways.

Shared lane markings may be applied.

Intersection treatments, traffic calming, and traffic diversions can be utilized to improve the cycling environment, as recommended in the following pages.

Discussion Bicycle boulevards are streets prioritized for safe and convenient bicycle travel and are on shared roadways with no specific vehicle or bike lane delineation. Appropriate road types for bicycle boulevards are residential streets and other local streets with low vehicle volumes. Traffic calming and other treatments along the corridor reduce vehicle speeds so that motorists and bicyclists generally travel at the same speed, creating a more-comfortable environment for all users. Bicycle boulevards incorporate treatments to facilitate convenient crossings where the route crosses a major street. They work best in well-connected street grids where riders can follow reasonably direct and logical routes and when higher-order parallel streets exist to serve thru vehicle traffic. Bicycle boulevards/bike routes can be treated with shared lane markings, directional signage, traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers, and /or other traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes.

Recommended design for bike routes/ bicycle boulevards.

Bicycle boulevards are low-speed streets that provide a comfortable and pleasant experience for cyclists.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 121


City of Nampa, Idaho Bicycle boulevards serve a variety of purposes: •

Parallel major streets lacking dedicated bicycle facilities: Higher-order streets typically include major bicyclist destinations (e.g., commercial and employment areas). However, these corridors often lack bike lanes or other dedicated facilities creating an uncomfortable, unattractive and potentially unsafe riding environment. Bicycle boulevards serve as alternate parallel facilities that allow cyclists to avoid major streets for longer trips.

Parallel major streets with bicycle facilities that are uncomfortable for some users: Some users may not feel comfortable using bike lanes on major streets due to high traffic volumes and vehicle speeds, conflicts with motorists entering and leaving driveways, and/or conflicts with buses loading and unloading passengers. Children and lessexperienced riders might find these environments especially challenging. Utilizing lower-order streets, bicycle boulevards provide alternate route choices for these bicyclists. It should be noted that bike lanes on major streets provide important access to key land uses, and the major street network often provides the most direct routes between major destinations. For these reasons, bicycle boulevards should complement a bike lane network and not serve as a substitute.

Ease of implementation on most local streets: bicycle boulevards incorporate cost-effective and less physicallyintrusive treatments than bike lanes and cycle tracks. Most streets could be provided relatively inexpensive treatments like new signage, pavement markings, striping and signal improvements to facilitate bicyclists’ mobility and safety. Other potential treatments include curb extensions, medians, and other features that can be implemented at reasonable cost and are compatible with emergency vehicle accessibility.

Benefits beyond an improved bicycling environment: Residents living on bicycle boulevards benefit from reduced vehicle speeds and thru traffic, creating a safer and moreattractive environment. Pedestrians and other users can also benefit from boulevard treatments (e.g., by improving the crossing environment where boulevards meet major streets).

Sample bicycle boulevard treatments.

Reference •

Bicycle boulevards have been implemented in Berkeley, Emeryville, Palo Alto, San Luis Obispo, and Pasadena, CA; Portland and Eugene, OR; Madison, WI; Vancouver, BC; Tucson, AZ; Minneapolis, MN; Ocean City, MD; and Syracuse, NY.

Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook. www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.php

City of Berkeley. (2000). Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=6652

Ewing, Reid and Brown, Stephen. (2009). US Traffic Calming Manual.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

MUTCD

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 122


City of Nampa, Idaho Bicycle Boulevard Application Levels Choosing the appropriate treatment application level is dependent on the desired motor vehicle speeds and volumes. Traffic calming treatments primarily affect motor vehicle speeds, but also reduce volumes, as drivers avoid slower streets. Note that corridors targeted for higher-level applications would generally also receive relevant lower-level treatments. For instance, a street targeted for a Level 3 application should also include Level 1 and 2 applications, as necessary. It should be noted, however, that not all applications are appropriate on all streets. For instance, it may not be appropriate or necessary to implement all “Level 2” applications on a Level 2 street. Consultation with engineering staff as well as neighborhood and bicycle groups are advised to identify the appropriateness and feasibility of specific applications. Level 1. Basic Bicycle Boulevard

Signs and pavement markings represent the least physically-intensive treatments and should be included in all bicycle boulevard treatments. Pavement stencils and bicycle boulevard signs provide a strong visual identity for the street and designate the corridor as a bicycle route. This is the minimum treatment for a street to be considered a bicycle boulevard. Level 2. Enhanced Bicycle Boulevards

Wayfinding signs and directional pavement markings improve the experience of a bicycle boulevard and passively market the facility. Intersection treatments that reduce delay can be a major determinant of whether a bicyclist uses the bicycle boulevard rather than a parallel street. Level 3. Limited Traffic Calming

If treatments indicated in Level 1 and 2 do not keep speeds and volumes below the City’s goals, Level 3 treatments should be implemented. Traffic calming should be considered on bicycle boulevards that have 85th percentile speeds greater than 28 mph or the designated goal of the specific bicycle boulevard. Limited traffic calming can also reduce volumes 10 to 20 percent. Specific treatments depend on public input, whether the street is an emergency vehicle or bus route, vehicular speeds, and lane widths. On commercial/industrial bicycle boulevards, minimize loss of parking by using vertical speed control where appropriate. Level 4. Significant Traffic Calming

If treatments indicated in Level 3 do not reduce speeds and volumes below the City’s goals, Level 4 treatments should be implemented. On residential streets where automobile speeds and volumes are identified issues, neck-downs can reduce speeds significantly, as drivers must slow and wait for one car to pass the treatment at a time. This treatment is not recommended on commercial or industrial streets. Treatments should not significantly hinder emergency vehicle or bus routes and the local fire department and transit provider(s) should be consulted in the design, as appropriate. Level 5. Traffic Diversion

If treatments indicated in Level 4 do not reduce speeds and volumes below the City’s goals, Level 5 treatments should be implemented. Where a bicycle boulevard has high traffic volumes, particularly cut-through traffic, diversion should be considered to substantially reduce volumes on the road. Diversion should only be implemented after a thorough traffic analysis and public outreach process, and traffic conditions should be evaluated after six months to determine whether neighboring streets were negatively impacted. Alternatively, a treatment can be implemented based on engineering judgment and monitored to determine impacts to neighboring streets. Based on the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) index, an increase of up to 25 percent of existing volume on an adjacent local street is considered to be acceptable on most streets.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 123


City of Nampa, Idaho

Bicycle Boulevard Application Levels (cont.)

Level

Signs

Pavement Markings

Intersection Treatments

Traffic Calming

Traffic Diversion

1. Basic Bicycle Boulevard

• identification

• shared lane markings

2. Enhanced Bicycle Boulevard

• identification

• shared lane markings

• arterial crossing improvements (highvisibility crosswalks, median islands, HAWK and standard signals)

3. Limited Traffic Calming

• identification

• arterial crossing improvements (highvisibility crosswalks, median islands, HAWK and standard signals)

• horizontal speed control (chicanes, traffic circles, curb extensions)

• horizontal speed control (chicanes, traffic circles, curb extensions)

• wayfinding

• directional markings

• wayfinding

• shared lane markings • directional markings

• improve cyclist visibility (forward stop bars) 4. Significant Traffic Calming

• identification • wayfinding

• shared lane markings • directional markings

• arterial crossing improvements (highvisibility crosswalks, median islands, HAWK and standard signals) • improve cyclist visibility (forward stop bars)

5. Traffic Diversion

• identification • wayfinding

• shared lane markings • directional markings

• arterial crossing improvements (highvisibility crosswalks, median islands, HAWK and standard signals) • improve cyclist visibility (forward stop bars)

• narrowings (chokers, neckdowns, pinchpoints, center island narrowing) • horizontal speed control (chicanes, traffic circles, curb extensions) • narrowings (chokers, neckdowns, pinchpoints, center island narrowing)

• Full and partial closures, diagonal diverters

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 124


City of Nampa, Idaho

Bicycle Boulevard Signs Design Summary •

Signs identify routes to both bicyclists and motorists, provide destination and distance information, and warn users about changes in road conditions as needed.

Signs should be consistent in content, design, and intent throughout the region; colors reserved by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices (MUTCD) for regulatory and warning road signs (red, yellow, orange, etc.) are not recommended. Green and purple are commonly used.

Street signs can be modified to indicate that the street is a bicycle boulevard.

Signs “brand” the bicycle boulevard network, fostering familiarity among bicyclists and motorists with traffic conditions expected on these facilities. Unlike other marketing efforts, signs passively advertise the bicycle boulevard 24 hours a day.

Discussion Identification Signs Also known as ‘confirmation’ signs, identification signs remind bicyclists and motorists that they are on a bicycle boulevard. Identification signs typically include a bicycle logo or bicycle boulevard branding. The use of modified street signs such as in Berkeley, CA and Vancouver, B.C. is an effective way to provide identification of the route without introducing a new sign. Wayfinding Signs Wayfinding signs provide direction, distance and/or estimated travel time to destinations including commercial districts, transit hubs, schools and universities, and other bikeways. Wayfinding signs are placed where multiple routes intersect and at key bicyclist decision points. Wayfinding signs displaying destinations, distances and “riding time” can dispel common misperceptions about time and distance while increasing users’ comfort and accessibility to the boulevard network. Warning Signs Warning signs advise motorists to “share the road” and “watch for bicyclists” as well as warning about pedestrian crossings, and traffic calming. Warning signs should also be placed on major streets approaching bicycle boulevards to alert motorists of bicyclist crossings. See Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for guidance on use of warning signs.

Custom designed wayfinding signs for Nampa provide distance and bicycling time information

Warning signs inform motorists to expect bicyclists.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 125


City of Nampa, Idaho

Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Markings Design Summary •

Pavement markings identify the roadway as a bicycle boulevard for bicyclists and drivers and provide wayfinding and traffic guidance.

Markings encourage proper positioning in the roadway.

Discussion Directional Pavement Markings Directional pavement markings (also known as “breadcrumbs”) lead bicyclists along a bicycle boulevard and reinforce the notion that they are on a designated route. Markings can take a variety of forms, such as small (12-24 inches) bicycle symbols placed every 600-800 feet along a linear corridor or large (6-foot by 30-foot) markings. When a bicycle boulevard follows several streets (with multiple turns at intersections), additional markings accompanied by directional arrows may be provided to guide bicyclists through turns. On streets with narrow lanes where an automobile cannot pass a bicyclist within one lane of traffic, place stencils in the center of the travel lane. On-Street Parking Delineation Delineating on-street parking spaces with paint or other materials clearly indicates where a vehicle should be parked, and can discourage motorists from parking their vehicles too far into the adjacent travel lane. This helps bicyclists by maintaining a wide enough space to safely share a travel lane with moving vehicles.

Shared lane markings can also provide directional support for bicyclists.

Bicycle boulevard marking in Berkeley, CA.

Centerline Striping Removal Motorists have an easier time passing bicyclists on roads without centerline stripes for the majority of the block length. If there is too much oncoming traffic for a motorist to cross the centerline to pass a bicyclist, is likely that there is too much traffic for the subject street to be a successful bicycle boulevard. In addition, not striping the centerline reduces maintenance costs. This treatment may increase speeds, and additional treatments such as traffic circles should be used in conjunction with this treatment.

Example of on-street parking delineation.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 126


City of Nampa, Idaho

Minor Unsignalized Intersections Design Summary •

To encourage use of the bikeways and improve bicyclists’ safety, reduce bicycle travel time by eliminating unnecessary stops and improving intersection crossings.

Discussion Stop Sign on Cross-Street Ideally the majority of intersections along a bicycle boulevard should have cross traffic stop-controlled or signalized. Where stop signs are facing every other block, turning signs along the bikeway to stop the cross traffic should be considered to maximize through-bicycle connectivity and momentum. Stop signs increase bicycling time and energy expenditure due to frequent starting and stopping, leading to non-compliance by both bicyclists and motorists, and/or use of other routes. If several stop signs are turned along a corridor, speeds should be monitored, and traffic-calming treatments used to reduce excessive vehicle speeds on the bicycle boulevard. Bicycle boulevards should have fewer stops or delays than local streets; a typical bicycle trip of 30 minutes 6 is increased to 40 minutes if there is a STOP sign at every block. High-Visibility Crosswalks Crosswalks may be marked to improve visibility, particularly near activity centers with large amounts of pedestrian activity such as schools or commercial areas. Crosswalks are often combined with curb extensions, allowing bicyclists to move further into the road before making the crossing. Bicycle Forward Stop Bar A second stop bar for bicyclists placed closer to the centerline of the cross street than the drivers’ stop bar increases the visibility of bicyclists waiting to cross a street. This treatment is typically used with other crossing treatments (i.e. curb extension) to encourage bicyclists to take full advantage of crossing design. They are appropriate at unsignalized crossings where fewer than 25 percent of motorists make a right turn movement.

Stop signs effectively minimize conflicts along bicycle boulevards.

High-visibility crosswalks increase visibility of bicyclists crossing a street on a bicycle boulevard.

Bicycle forward stop bars encourage cyclists to wait where more visible.

6

Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 127


City of Nampa, Idaho

Minor Unsignalized Intersections Contra-flow Bike Lanes Allowing bicyclists to travel against the flow of traffic on a one-way street can improve connectivity on the bicycle boulevard network. Contra-flow bike lanes are installed on left side of the street facing one-way traffic. The contraflow lane is generally separated from the motor vehicle lane with a doubleyellow line, although a physical barrier or colored pavement can be used. Intersection treatments such as signs and pavement markings should warn drivers to expect bicyclists in the reverse direction. This treatment may require modifications to existing traffic signals to allow bicyclists to activate signal from â&#x20AC;&#x153;wrongâ&#x20AC;? direction.

This contra-flow lane in Portland, OR provides a short cut-through for bicyclists following a bicycle boulevard.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 128


City of Nampa, Idaho

Offset Intersections Design Summary â&#x20AC;˘

Provide turning lanes or pockets at offset intersection, providing bicyclists with a refuge to make a two-step turn.

â&#x20AC;˘

Bike turn pockets: five feet wide, with a total of 11-feet required for both turn pockets and center striping.

Discussion

Example of a bicycle left-turn lane.

Offset intersections can be challenging for bicyclists, who need to briefly travel along the busier cross-street in order to continue along the boulevard. Bicycle Left-Turn Lane A bicycle left-turn lane can be painted where a bicycle boulevard crosses a street that has sufficient gaps in traffic to allow a bicyclist to cross one direction without a long wait. The bicyclist crosses one lane into the center of the crossstreet, and has a protected space to wait for a gap in the other direction. The bike turn pockets should be at least four feet wide, with a total of 11 feet for both turn pockets and center striping.

Short bike lanes protect a left-turn jog.

Bike Lanes on the Cross Street To assist with a bicycle boulevard jog to the left, a short segment of bike lane can be provided along the cross street. Crossing treatments appropriate to the level of street should be provided on both sides, so that bicyclists heading either direction on the bicycle boulevard can cross and ride in the lane on the appropriate side of the street; otherwise, wrong-way riding is likely to occur. Bicycle Sidepath/Cycle Track On particularly busy streets, a two-way or two one-way separated path can be provided on one side of the roadway. Bicyclists enter the sidepath from the bicycle boulevard and ride to a signalized intersection, where they cross, then continue along the bicycle boulevard. While more comfortable for users, this treatment is expensive and requires sufficient right-of-way.

Bicycle side path in Tucson, AZ. Photo: Tom Thivener

A two-way cycle track on one side of the street provides a short connection.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 129


City of Nampa, Idaho

Major Unsignalized Intersections Design Summary •

Bicycle signals may be appropriate for use where high levels of bicycle traffic on a minor street crosses a major street. Instructional and regulatory signage should be included with installation.

Discussion Crossbikes Crossbikes can be provided adjacent to the standard crosswalk marking or independently. Painted markings such as bicycle stencils or color treatment (including pattered surfacing) can accompany crossbikes to indicate to all users that bicyclists may use the crossing. Medians/Refuge Islands At uncontrolled intersections of bicycle boulevards and major streets, an island can be provided to allow bicyclists to cross one direction of traffic at a time when gaps in traffic allow. The bicycle crossing island should be at least 8’ wide (measured perpendicular to the centerline of the major road) to be used as the bike refuge area. Narrower medians can accommodate bikes if the holding area is at an angle to the major roadway, which allows stopped bicyclists to face oncoming motorists. Railings can also be provided so bicyclists do not have to put their feet down, thus making it quicker to start again. Crossing islands can be placed in the middle of the intersection, prohibiting left and thru vehicle movements. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Also known as HAWK signals, pedestrian hybrid beacons can be used where a full traffic signal is otherwise unwarranted by volumes or gaps. Pedestrian hybrid beacons are installed to aid crossings where drivers do not tend to stop. The beacon signal consists of a traffic signal head with a red-yellow-red lens. The unit is off until activated, then: •

The signal flashes yellow to warn approaching drivers.

A solid yellow advises drivers to prepare to stop.

• The signal changes to a solid red, and a WALK indicator is shown. Bicycle signals can be actuated with bicycle sensitive loop detectors, video detection, or push buttons. HAWKS have not been approved for use in California, but are incorporated into the 2010 Federal MUTCD.

Crossbike in Berkeley, California.

Medians on bicycle boulevards should provide space for a bicyclist to wait.

Pedestrian hybrid signals for bicyclists should be clearly marked to minimize confusion.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 130


City of Nampa, Idaho

Traffic Calming: Horizontal Speed Control Measures Design Summary •

Traffic calming treatments reduce vehicle speeds to the point where they generally match bicyclists’ operating speeds, enabling motorists and bicyclists to safely co-exist on the same facility.

Typical designs end bike lanes 70 to 100 feet in advance of slow points, allowing bicyclists to merge with motor vehicle traffic.

In locations with high bicycle and/or motor vehicle volumes, provide five- to six-foot bypass lanes that are separated from motor vehicle lanes.

Discussion Chicanes Chicanes are a series of raised or delineated curb extensions, edge islands, or parking bays on alternating sides of a street forming an S-shaped curb, which reduce vehicle speeds by requiring drivers to shift laterally through narrowed travel lanes. (Edge islands leave a gap by the curb to improve drainage). European designs recommend shifts of least one lane width, deflection angles of at least 45 7 degrees, and islands to prevent drivers from traveling straight. Mini Traffic Circles Mini traffic circles are raised or delineated islands placed at intersections that reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing turning radii and narrowing the travel lane. They can be used to replace four-way stops with yield controls, although they are typically not signed as such. Mini traffic circles can also include a paved apron to accommodate the turning radii of larger vehicles like fire trucks or school buses. Larger circles should include splitter islands at the approaches. Left turns in front of the islands may be allowed to accommodate larger trucks at small intersections. Curb Extensions Curb extensions expand the sidewalk or curb face into the parking lane at an intersection, visually narrowing the roadway. The curb extensions should only extend across the parking lane and should not obstruct bicyclists’ path of travel or the travel lane. Curb extensions can increase the amount of space available for street furniture and trees or act as storm water management features.

7

Chicanes require all vehicles to reduce their speeds to maneuver around the obstacle.

Traffic circles require both drivers and bicyclists to reduce speeds.

Curb extensions can be a good location for pedestrian amenities, including street trees.

Ewing, Reid. (1999). Traffic Calming: State of the Practice.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 131


City of Nampa, Idaho

Traffic Calming: Narrowings Design Summary â&#x20AC;˘

Narrowing the traffic lane requires drivers to stop and allow one vehicle to pass from a single direction at a time.

Discussion Choker Similarly to chicanes, chokers are curb extensions or edge islands placed midblock requiring drivers to reduce speeds to pass each other. This treatment narrows the travel lane to a maximum of 20 feet, with a constricted length of 20 feet in the direction of travel. European versions of this treatment often narrow the lane to considerably less than 20 feet clear width. Neckdown Neckdowns are created by curb extensions on either side of the intersection to narrow the travel lane(s). They are often combined with parking bays on side streets off commercial main streets. Curb radii should allow trucks to pass without having to pass the centerline, or incorporate mountable curbs if an alternate truck route is not available. Pinch point In a pinch point, bicyclists travel on the outside of the islands, reducing potential conflicts with motor vehicles. Pinch points encourage bicyclists to ride on the side of the road, then merge back into traffic, potentially reducing bicyclists comfort levels. Center Island Narrowing A short median island can cause a small amount of deflection without blocking driveway access. Standard size is six feet wide and twenty feet long. A diverging taper can be used to deflect traffic to the right.

Pinch points allow bicyclists to avoid conflicts with motor vehicles in the narrow passageway. Source: Greg Raisman, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Alternative pinch point design with speed hump in Skandinavia.

A neckdown in Eugene, OR narrows the travel lane at an intersection.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 132


City of Nampa, Idaho

Traffic Diversion Design Summary •

Traffic diversion treatments maintain through-bicycle and pedestrian travel on a street while physically restricting through-vehicle traffic.

Traffic diversion is most effective when higher-order streets can sufficiently accommodate the diverted traffic.

Bike lanes through diverters should be five or six feet in width, to allow trailers to pass while discouraging passenger car use.

Discussion

Choker entrances prevent vehicular traffic from turning from a main street.

Full Closure Raised features turn vehicle traffic while permitting through-bicycle travel. The treatment creates a “T” that does not impact vehicular traffic on the cross-street but prevents driving along the bicycle boulevard. Full closures can be permeable to emergency vehicles with the use of removable bollards or mountable curbs (maximum of six inches high). Partial Closure/Choker Entrance Partial closures are intersection bulbouts or islands that allow full bicycle passage while restricting vehicle access to one side only. Motorists on the bicycle boulevard must turn onto the cross-street while bicyclists may continue forward along a short contra-flow bike lane past the closure. These devices can permit some vehicle turning movements from a cross-street onto the bicycle boulevard while restricting other movements. Diagonal Diverter Diverters can be placed diagonally across a four-way intersection, requiring all motor vehicle traffic to turn. Median Island/Diverter A median island can block automobiles from crossing a road while allowing bicyclists to pass through short gaps. Median island diverters can be narrow extruded curbs or wider islands with landscaping. The median can also provide a bike-only left-turn pocket permitting bicyclists to make left turns while restricting vehicle left turns. Supplemental Treatment: Bike Boxes Right-turn conflicts between bicyclists and motorists may occur at intersections at signals where traffic is diverted and forced to turn, while bicyclists continue through the intersections. Bike boxes increase bicyclist visibility to drivers by providing a space for bicyclists to wait at signalized intersections.

Non-motorized only diverters deter motorists from driving on the street.

Median diverters include pass-throughs for bicyclists.

This bike-only left-turn pocket prevents motor vehicles from turning.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 133


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.5 Bicycle Parking Design Summary •

Considerations for sidewalk location (adjacent to the curb in the furnishing strip) include: o 50 foot maximum distance from main building entrance. o 2 foot minimum from the curb face to avoid ‘dooring.’ o Orient racks so bicycles are positioned parallel to the curb, where neither the rack nor the bicycle in it impedes pedestrian traffic. o Avoid fire zones, loading zones, bus zones, snow storage areas, etc. o Make visible from bicycle routes and pedestrian traffic. o Provide a minimum clear distance of 6 feet (5 feet minimum) between the bicycle rack and the property line to allow pedestrian access.

Racks should support a bicycle at two points.

Racks should be permanently secured to a paved surface.

Size: 6 feet long by 2 feet wide, with overhead clearance of at least 7’.

Provide and maintain an aisle (minimum 5 feet wide) for bicycle maneuvering beside or between each row of bicycle parking.

Mark and reserve bicycle parking areas for bicycle parking only.

If two racks are placed in parallel, provide at least 2.5 feet between them.

Standard bicycle rack.

Discussion Lack of secure, convenient bicycle parking is a deterrent to bicycle travel. Bicyclists need parking options that provide security against theft, vandalism, and weather. Like automobile parking, bicycle parking is most effective when it is located close to trip destinations, is easy to access, and is easy to find. Where quality bicycle parking facilities are not provided, determined bicyclists lock their bicycles to street signs, utility poles or trees. These alternatives are undesirable as they are usually not secure, may interfere with pedestrian movement, and can create liability or damage street furniture or trees. Bicycle parking is highly cost-effective when compared with automobile parking.

Custom bicycle rack.

Location Bicycle racks should be located close to the entrances of key destinations such as shops or shopping centers. They are beneficial at commercial and retail areas, office buildings, healthcare/recreational facilities, and institutional uses such as libraries and universities. Where a clear right-of-way for pedestrians cannot be maintained by installing the rack on the sidewalk, place bicycle racks in curb extensions or on-street. A certain number of bicycle racks should be weather protected. This may be achieved by simply locating the racks under awnings. Custom Racks Custom racks using creative designs can double as public artwork or advertising space for local businesses. The “post and ring” style rack is an attractive alternative to the standard inverted-U, which requires only a single mounting point and can be customized to have the City’s name or emblem stamped into the rings. These racks can also be easily retrofitted onto existing street posts, such as parking meter posts. While custom racks can add a decorative element and provide consistency with an existing neighborhood theme, the rack function should not be overlooked; all racks should adhere to the basic functional requirements for bicycle parking as described above.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 134


City of Nampa, Idaho Standards

Bicycle Rack Placement Minimum Rack Height

To increase visibility to pedestrians, racks should have a minimum height of 33 inches or be indicated or cordoned off by visible markers.

Signing

Where bicycle parking areas are not clearly visible to approaching cyclists, signs at least 12 inches square should direct them to the facility. The sign should include the name, phone number, and location of the person in charge of the facility, where applicable.

Lighting

Lighting no less than one foot-candle illumination at ground level should be provided in all bicycle parking areas.

Frequency of Racks on Streets

In popular retail areas, two or more racks should be installed on each side of each block. This does not eliminate the inclusion of requests from the public which do not fall in these areas. Areas officially designated or used as bicycle routes may warrant the consideration of more racks.

Location and Access

Access to facilities should be convenient; where access is by sidewalk or walkway, ADA-compliant curb ramps should be provided where appropriate. Parking facilities intended for employees should be located near the employee entrance, and those for customers or visitors near main public entrances. (Convenience should be balanced against the need for security if the employee entrance is not in a well-traveled area). Bicycle parking should be clustered in lots not to exceed 16 spaces each. Large expanses of bicycle parking make it easier for thieves to be undetected.

Locations within Buildings

Provide bike racks within 50 feet of the entrance. Where a security guard is present, provide racks behind or within view of a security guard. The location should be outside the normal flow of pedestrian traffic.

Locations near Transit Stops

To prevent bicyclists from locking bikes to bus stop poles - which can create access problems for transit users, particularly those who are disabled - racks should be placed in close proximity to transit stops where there is a demand for short-term bike parking.

Locations within a Campus-Type Setting

Racks are useful in a campus-type setting at locations where the user is likely to spend less than two hours, such as classroom buildings. Racks should be located near the entrance to each building. Where racks are clustered in a single location, they should be surrounded by a fence and watched by an attendant. The attendant can often share this duty with other duties to reduce or eliminate the cost of labor being applied to bike parking duties; a cheaper alternative to an attendant may be to site the fenced bicycle compound in a highly visible location on the campus. For long-term parking needs of employees and students, attendant parking and/or bike lockers are recommended.

Retrofit Program

In established locations, such as schools, employment centers, and shopping centers, the City should conduct bicycle audits to assess bicycle parking availability and access, and add additional bicycle racks where necessary.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 135


City of Nampa, Idaho Standards (Continued) Short-Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Short-term bicycle parking accommodates visitors, customers, and others expected to depart within two hours.

Short Term Bicycle Parking Space Recommendations by Land Use Land Use

Bicycle Parking Space Recommendations

Churches

Five percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement reference(City Code 10-22-6): one parking space for every 28 square feet

Hospitals

Five percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement reference(City Code 10-22-6): one per patient bed, plus one per 400 square feet of office floor space

Libraries, museums, art galleries

The greater of 10 spaces or 5 percent of seating capacity Vehicle requirement reference(City Code 10-22-6): one per 250 square feet of gross floor area

Offices

The greater of two or ten percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement reference(City Code 10-22-6): Medical offices (e.g. doctor, dentist, chiropractor) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one per 150 square feet of usable net floor area Standard/professional/business/accessory to industrial use - one per 400 square feet of usable net floor area

Manufacturing and industrial uses (general)

Five percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): one per 500 square feet

Motels, Hotels

Five percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): one per room

Pharmacies

Five percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): one per 150 square feet of gross floor area.

Recreation (including recreation and community centers, Boys and Girls Clubs), entertainment, amusement establishments

Ten percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): Bowling alleys â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6 per lane 6 per lane Participating types (e.g. skating rinks, 1 per 75 sq feet of gross floor area Racquetball, handball, 3 per court Spectator type outdoor/indoor: 1 per 4 seats

Restaurants, cafes, bars and similar uses

Ten percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): Less than 4000 square feet: one per 200 square feet gross floor area Over 4000 square feet: twenty plus one per 100 square feet of gross floor area

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 136


City of Nampa, Idaho Standards (Continued)

Land Use

Bicycle Parking Space Recommendations

Retail

Ten percent of required auto parking Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): Retail, general: one per 250 square feet net floor area Retail, bulky: one per 600 sq ft of gross floor area

Schools, Elementary and/or Junior High

One per ten students Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): Elementary: one per employee and faculty member Junior: one per employee and faculty member, plus one per twenty students *Note: Bicycle use is much higher for Elementary and Junior High School students than motor vehicle use.

Schools, High

One per twenty students Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): one per faculty member and one per four students

Schools, Commuter colleges

One per ten students Vehicle requirement references (City Code 10-22-6): one per equivalent student and faculty member

Long-Term Bicycle Parking Requirements: Long-term bicycle parking accommodates employees, students, residents, commuters, and others expected to park more than two hours. This parking is to be provided in a secure, weather-protected manner and location.

Long Term Bicycle Parking Space Recommendations by Land Use Use Type

Required Bicycle Parking Spaces

Residential Categories Multi-Family Single Family

The greater of two, or one per unit (if no garage is available) None

Commercial Office

The greater of two or five percent of required auto parking

Restaurants, cafes, bars and similar uses

The greater of two or five percent of required auto parking

Retail store and service establishments

The greater of two or five percent of required auto parking

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 137


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.5.1 Bicycle Racks Standards Many commercially available rack types do not provide a high standard of service to the user. The following racks are encouraged and are based on guidance published by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP).

‘Inverted U’ or ‘Staple’ Rack

This type of rack is typically secured to a concrete base and is very secure and easy to use.

Coat Hanger Rack This rack, if used properly, can support a bicycle at two points and can be fixed to a concrete base or moved where needed.

Post and Loop or ‘Lollypop’ Rack This rack has many of the same characteristics as the ‘Inverted U’ rack, but is more compact. This rack can be installed in a series (as shown) or along a curb line in the sidewalk furnishing zone.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 138


City of Nampa, Idaho The following bicycle racks are discouraged Wheelbender Rack This rack only supports the wheel of the bicycle and can cause serious damage to the bicycle if twisted while secured in the rack. This rack also does not work with all types of locks.

Comb Rack This rack suffers from many of the same shortcomings as the wheelbender type rack where only the front or rear wheel of the bicycle is supported. Many users of this rack type lift there bicycle over the top and rest the frame on the rack to allow use of a bicycle lock.

Wave Rack To properly use this rack the cyclist places the bicycle through the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;waveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; pattern where it is only supported at one point. Bicycles parked in these racks are unstable and frequently tip over. Many cyclists park their bicycle sideways in this rack to gain stability, thereby reducing the capacity by 60-80 percent.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 139


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.6 On-Street Wayfinding Standards Design Summary Types of signage include: 

Regulatory signs indicate to cyclists the traffic regulations which apply at a specific time or place on a bikeway.

Warning signs indicate in advance conditions on or adjacent to a road or bikeway that will normally require caution and may require a reduction in vehicle speed.

Guide and information signs indicate information for route selection, for locating off-road facilities, or for identifying geographical features or points of interest.

MUTCD Sign R5-6 is a regulatory sign that designates where bicycling is prohibited.

Discussion The ability to navigate through a region is informed by landmarks, natural features, and other visual cues. Signs throughout Nampa can indicate to pedestrians and bicyclists their direction of travel, location of destinations, and travel time/distance to those destinations.

Reference 

Warning signs are yellow, such as this combination of W11-15 and W11-15P from the MUTCD.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Standard on-street wayfinding signs are green and include an arrow. (MUTCD sign D1-3C). This sign has been customized to include the Nampa bicycle boulevard logo.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 140


City of Nampa, Idaho

Design Summary Destinations for on-street signage can include: •

On-street bikeways

Civic/community destinations

Commercial centers

Local parks and shared-use paths

Public transit sites

Hospitals

Schools

Regional parks and shared-use paths

Recommended uses for on-street signage include: •

Confirmation signs confirm that a cyclist is on a designated bikeway. Confirmation signs can include destinations and their associated distances, but not directional arrows.

Turn signs indicate where a bikeway turns from one street onto another street. Turn signs are located on the near-side of intersections.

Decision signs mark the junction of two or more bikeways. Decision signs are located on the near-side of intersections. They can include destinations and their associated directional arrows, but not distances.

Consolidated wayfinding signage with distance information.

Discussion Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including: •

Helping to familiarize users with the pedestrian and bicycle network.

Helping users identify the best routes to destinations.

Helping to address misperceptions about time and distance.

Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for infrequent cyclists or pedestrians (e.g., “interested but concerned” cyclists). Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and should use caution. Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bicycle routes, including the intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than per vehicle signage standards. Additional recommended guidelines include: •

Place the closest destination to each sign in the top slot. Destinations that are further away can be placed in slots two and three. This allows the nearest destination to ‘fall off’ the sign and subsequent destinations to move up the sign as the bicyclist approaches.

Use pavement markings to help reinforce routes and directional signage. Markings, such as bicycle boulevard symbols, may be used in addition to or in place of directional signs along bike routes. Pavement markings can help cyclists navigate difficult turns and provide route reinforcement.

These bike route decision signs assist bicyclists at critical points.

Reference •

City of Oakland. (2009). Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage.

City of Portland (2002). Bicycle Network Signing Project.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 141


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.7 Off-Street Pathway Design Standards Off-street pathways are those routes that are separated from the roadway system and are dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As noted in the Existing Conditions section of this plan, Nampa has a number of developed off-street pathways. City staff has indicated a particular concern that pathway construction practices are resulting in pathways that require expensive maintenance and refurbishment. As many of Nampa’s off-street pathways may be located on the top of creek banks, on abandoned railbeds or along channelized irrigation canals or ditches, it is critical that appropriate path construction, bank stabilization, erosion prevention and re-vegetation techniques are employed to maximize the life of the pathway surfaces and reduce the life-time maintenance costs. One of the recommendations in this plan is to convene a task force that consists of Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Planning staff to create a construction standards checklist for pathway construction. This construction standards checklist will ensure that all pathways are constructed (or re-constructed) to the design standards presented in the Plan. This group can also assist the Parks and Recreation Department in formulating a maintenance schedule (such as the Asset Management Table published by the Public Works Department) so Parks can budget for routine pathway maintenance. The outcomes from this work group should include •

Pathway construction standards checklist

Identification of which department (or staff) will be responsible for pathway construction inspections

Recommendations on how to incorporate the construction standards checklist into the development permitting process

In addition to ensuring all the relevant engineering requirements, appropriate permits and development agreements are in place, the pathway construction checklist outlines the design standard requirements in this section, including, but not limited to: •

Geotechnical report with soil composition and profile material recommendation and quantities

Retention structures where pathways are located on top of banks or where slopes exceed 3:1 slope

Guard rails where a vertical drop of 18 inches or greater exists at edge of pathway. Guardrails should be 36 inches high (minimum) to meet ADA guidelines

Standard pathway widths

Minimum 2 foot shoulders (per geotechnical engineering material specifications) compacted to withstand water run-off and erosion is preferred, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer

Design speed

Grading and cross slope requirements

Erosion mitigation measures

Re-vegetation and bank stabilization strategies

Signage and wayfinding

This section begins with a set of Pathway Design Standards, followed by a discussion of pathway construction essentials.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 142


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.8 Pathway Design Standards Pathway Description Shared-use (also referred to as multi-use) paths can provide a desirable facility particularly for novice riders, recreational trips, and cyclists of all skill levels preferring separation from traffic. Shared-use paths should generally provide new travel opportunities.

Overview Shared-use paths serve bicyclists and pedestrians and provide additional width over a standard sidewalk. Facilities may be constructed adjacent to roads, through parks, or along linear corridors such as active or abandoned railroad lines or waterways. Regardless of the type, paths constructed next to the road must have some type of vertical (e.g., curb or barrier) or horizontal (e.g., landscaped strip) buffer separating the path area from adjacent vehicle travel lanes. Elements that enhance shared-use path design include: •

Providing frequent access points from the local road network; if access points are spaced too far apart, users will have to travel out of direction to enter or exit the path, which will discourage use.

Placing directional signs to direct users to and from the path.

Building to a standard high enough to allow heavy maintenance equipment to use the path without causing it to deteriorate.

Limiting the number of at-grade crossings with streets or driveways.

Terminating the path where it is easily accessible to and from the street system, preferably at a controlled intersection or at the beginning of a dead-end street. If poorly designed, the point where the path joins the street system can put pedestrians and cyclists in a position where motor vehicle drivers do not expect them.

Identifying and addressing potential safety and security issues up front.

Whenever possible, and especially where heavy use can be expected, separate bicycle and pedestrian ways should be provided to reduce conflicts.

Providing accessible parking space(s) at trailheads and access points.

Shared-use paths are often viewed as recreational facilities, but they are also important corridors for utilitarian trips.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 143


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.8.1 Pathway Design - General Design Summary Width standards •

10 feet is the minimum allowed for a two-way shared-use path and is only recommended for low traffic situations.

12 feet or greater is required where maintenance vehicles will be driving on the path, or in heavy use situations with high concentrations of multiple users such as joggers, bicyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians. Lateral Clearance •

A 2 foot (or greater) shoulder on both sides of the path is preferred, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.

Shoulders are to be constructed with a compacted material (per the geotechnical engineer’s material specifications) to withstand water run-off, rain and erosion. Grade •

When impervious pavement is used, cross-slope pathways at 2% to direct storm water to infiltration trenches or swales. The trenches or swales then direct the water to the nearest water body.

The recommended maximum gradient is 5%. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short distances (500 feet max).

Install a guard rail where vertical drop of 18 inches or greater exists at edge of pathway. Guardrails should be 36 inches high (minimum) to meet ADA guidelines.

Shared-use path design

Overhead Clearance •

Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 8 feet minimum, with 10 feet recommended. Design Speed •

The maximum design speed for bike paths is 20 mph. Speed bumps or other surface irregularities should never be used to slow bicycles.

Discussion Pathway sub-base materials and thicknesses should be determined by soil conditions and projected traffic volumes. Prior to a pathway design, a geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine the soil composition in the project area and the appropriate pathway profile materials and quantities. A hard surface should be used for multi-use paths. Concrete is the hardest of all shared-use path surfaces and lasts the longest. However, joggers and runners often prefer asphalt surfaces due to its relative “softness”. When concrete is used, the shared-use path should be designed and installed using the narrowest possible expansion joints to minimize the amount of ‘bumping’ cyclists experience on the shared-use path. All shared-use paths should be constructed according to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Where possible, shared-use paths should also be designed according to ADA standards. Constructing shared-use paths may have limitations that make meeting ADA standards difficult and sometimes prohibitive. Prohibitive impacts include harm to significant cultural or natural resources, a significant change in the intended purpose of the shared-use path, requirements of construction methods that are against federal, state or local regulations, or presence of terrain characteristics that prevent compliance. Storm water run-off should not be funneled directly from the path into a water body. Run-off should enter an intermediate facility, such as a swale or infiltration trench, then directed into the nearest water body. The intermediate facility slows down the run-off flow, allows the storm water to be pre-treated and helps control water erosion of the soil.

Reference •

U.S. Access Board. Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

FHWA. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 144


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.8.2 Pathway Design: Erosion Mitigation Design Summary The forces of erosion contribute significantly to pathway degradation. Erosion mitigation is a key aspect in maximizing the life of the pathway surface. In addition to the standards in the previous section, these standards apply. Erosion Control •

Construct pathways outside of the floodway whenever possible.

Limit the area disturbed during the construction of the pathway.

Preserve a vegetative buffer between water courses and the pathway shoulder. Note that pathways constructed within an irrigation company right-ofway are subject to the requirements of the irrigation company, which may have specific vegetation palettes or limitations.

Use appropriate plant materials on shoulder edges and banks to offset erosion forces (see the Pathway Construction discussion).

To reduce storm water run-off, consider using permeable pavement materials.

Construct retaining structures where slopes exceed 3:1 or where pathways are located on the edge of embankment. Water must be allowed to drain around, beneath, or through the wall and must not be allowed to accumulate behind it. Certain geologic materials, such as granitic rocks, bedrock, and older alluvium sediments, may be able to withstand slopes greater than 45 degrees, so soil testing is needed to determine if retaining structures are needed. Design and placement of retaining structures should be consistent with the slope of the surface terrain, the underlying geologic structure, parent material and surface soils, and the space available for pathway construction.

This portion of the Indian Creek Pathway is located on the creek bank and the path is crumbli ng. Good pathway design could reduce the incidents of path failure.

Any retaining walls constructed should be designed to double as seating structures whenever possible to enhance the pedestrian experience. Re-vegetation •

See the Pathway Construction discussion for revegetation strategies

The Stoddard Pathway was constructed without shoulders, leaving the asphalt edges above grade. Above grade pathways are highly suseptible to edge crumbling and erosion forces, which increases trail maintenance costs.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 145


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.8.3 Mid-Block Crossings Design Summary At-grade path/roadway crossings generally will fit into one of four basic categories: •

Type 1: Marked/Unsignalized Unprotected crossings include shared-use path crossings of residential, collector, and sometimes major arterial streets or railroad tracks.

Type 1+: Marked/Enhanced – Unsignalized intersections can provide additional visibility with flashing beacons and other treatments.

Type 2: Route Users to Existing Signalized Intersection Shared-use paths that emerge near existing intersections may be routed to these locations, provided that sufficient protection is provided at the existing intersection.

Type 3: Signalized/Controlled - Shared-use path crossings that require signals or other control measures due to traffic volumes, speeds, and shared-use path usage.

Type 4: Grade-separated crossings - Bridges or undercrossings provide the maximum level of safety but also generally are the most expensive and have right-of-way, maintenance, and other public safety considerations.

An offset crossing forces pedestrians to turn and face the traffic they are about to cross.

Discussion While at-grade crossings create a potentially high level of conflict between path users and motorists, well-designed crossings have not historically posed a safety problem for path users. This is evidenced by the thousands of successful paths around the United States with at-grade crossings. In most cases, at-grade path crossings can be properly designed to a reasonable degree of safety and can meet existing traffic and safety standards. Evaluation of path crossings involves analysis of vehicular and anticipated path user traffic patterns, including •

Vehicle speeds.

Traffic volumes (average daily traffic and peak hour traffic).

Street width.

Path user profile (age distribution, destinations served).

Sight distance.

Crossing features for all roadways include warning signs both for vehicles and path users. Consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and line of sight, with visibility of any signing absolutely critical. Catching the attention of motorists desensitized to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing light, roadway striping or changes in pavement texture. Signing for path users must include a “STOP” sign and pavement marking, sometimes combined with other features such as bollards.

Reference •

Highway Administration (FHWA) Report, “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations.”

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 146


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.9 Pathway Wayfinding Standards Design Summary Signage style and imagery should be consistent throughout the shared-use path to provide the path user with a sense of continuity, orientation, and safety. Do not over sign the path. Where possible, incorporate signage into the pathâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vertical elements such as bollards. Types of signage include: â&#x20AC;˘

Regulatory signs indicate to users the regulations which apply at a specific time or place on a bikeway.

â&#x20AC;˘

Guide and information signs indicate information for route selection, for locating off-road facilities, or for identifying geographical features or points of interest.

Signs that show both distance and walking and biking time allow path users to judge how far to the next destination and how long the trip will take.

This sign doubles as a regulatory sign and a wayfinding sign. The logo identifying the Wilson Pathway and blue background color are reinforced in all sign elements along the path. This pavement marking disc can assist path users at decision points

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 147


City of Nampa, Idaho Discussion The ability to navigate through a region is informed by landmarks, natural features, and other visual cues. Signs throughout Nampa can indicate to pedestrians and bicyclists their direction of travel, location of destinations, and travel time/distance to those destinations. Directional signing may be useful for pathway users and motorists alike. For motorists, a sign reading â&#x20AC;&#x153;Path Xingâ&#x20AC;? along with a Nampa emblem or logo helps both warn and promote use of the path itself. For path users, directional signs and street names at crossings help direct people to their destinations. The directional signing should impart a unique theme so path users know which path they are following and where it goes. The theme can be conveyed in a variety of ways: engraved stone, medallions, bollards, or mile markers. A central information installation at trailheads and major crossroads also helps users find and acknowledge the rules of the path. They are also useful for interpretive education about plant and animal life, ecosystems, and local history. Path Etiquette Signage Establishing goals and policies sets a common framework for understanding shared-use path rules and regulations. Rights and responsibilities of path usage should be stated at main access points. Once rules and regulations are established, the managing agency has a means of enforcement. Local ordinances may be adopted to help enforce shareduse path policies. Penalties such as fines or community service may be imposed in response to non-compliance. Informational Kiosks Interpretive signage provides enrichment to the shared-use path user experience, focuses attention on the unique attributes of the local community, and provides educational opportunities. Natural and cultural resources in shared-use path corridors may provide opportunities for interpretation. Including historic signs and photos, boat ramps, and wildlife.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 148


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.10 Pathway Construction Essentials Investing in a good pathway design will increase the life span of the pathway and reduce routine and long term maintenance costs. Pathway construction should be conducted in a similar manner as roadway construction. Sub-base materials and thicknesses should be determined by soil conditions and projected traffic volumes. The soil composition in the project area and the appropriate pathway profile materials and quantities should be determined by a geo-technical engineer. A civil engineer should be consulted to design appropriate retaining structure where required.

5.10.1 Soil The make-up of soil has a strong bearing on how easily it erodes and compacts and therefore how stable a pathway surface is. Soil composition should also determine the materials used for pathway construction and the type and thickness of sub-base materials. The use of geo-textiles may be required, depending on subsurface soil type and drainage, to provide stability and aid drainage to subsurface soils. In Canyon County, the soil types ranges from well-drained silt loams to sandy loams to somewhat poorly drained and moderately well-drained fine sandy loams to silt loams8. The National Park Service’s Southeast Archeological Center has produced a publication titled Soil Science for Archeologists that succinctly describes soil texture and properties (http://www.nps.gov/seac/soilsmanual/part3.htm). A summary of the relevant soils characteristics follows. Overall, loamy soils have characteristics that range between sandy and clayey soils. As the clay content increases, the soils can be more easily molded and becomes firm and resistant to deformation under medium to firm hand pressure. The higher clay content, the slower the rate of water infiltration and the harder the clod when the soil dries.

5.10.2 Silt Loams Silt loams contain 0 to 50 percent sand, 50 to 88 percent silt, and 0 to 27 percent clay. They are slightly cohesive when wet and form soft clods when dry. Silt loams feel smooth when wet and can form a ribbon less than 2.5 cm in length.

5.10.3 Sandy Loams These loams contain 85 to 43 percent sand, 0 to 50 percent silt, and 0 to 20 percent clay. They are slightly cohesive and can form ribbons less than 2.5 cm in length. When wet, they have a very gritty feel. •

Coarse Sandy Loam - This group contains more than 25 percent sand-sized particles greater than 0.50 mm in diameter and less than 50 percent between 0.05 and 0.50 mm.

Medium Sandy Loam - More than 30 percent of this group is made of particles greater than 0.25 mm in diameter; less than 25 percent measures between 1 and 2 mm; and less than 30 percent falls between 0.05 and 0.25 mm.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 149


City of Nampa, Idaho

Fine Sandy Loam - More than 30 percent of the fine sandy loams have particles that range in size between 0.05 and 0.10 mm; 15 to 30 percent are greater than 0.25 mm.

Very Fine Sandy Loam - Silt loams contain 0 to 50 percent sand, 50 to 88 percent silt, and 0 to 27 percent clay. They are slightly cohesive when wet and form soft clods when dry. Silt loams feel smooth when wet and can form a ribbon less than 2.5 cm in length.

5.10.4 Erosion Erosion is caused by the mechanical forces of water and wind. Water run-off, rain and flooding can erode soils, and undermine a pathway surface, causing them to fail. Loamy soil compositions (like those found in Nampa) are more susceptible to wind and water erosion that clay and silt soils. Pathways should have at least a two percent crosssloped. In addition to the other standards outlined in section 6.1 and 6.2, storm water run-off should not be funneled directly from the path into a water body. Runoff should enter an intermediate facility, such as a swale or infiltration trench, then directed into the nearest water body. The intermediate facility slows down the run-off flow, allows the storm water to be pre-treated and helps control water erosion of the soil.

The edges of the Stoddard Pathway are crumbling. Constructing this pathway with compacted shoulders with appropriate materials would have helped maintain the integrity of the pathway surface.

Erosion mitigation of embankments may require additional interventions, including re-vegetation and bank stabilization strategies.

5.10.5 Re-vegetation and Engineered Bank Stabilization The re-vegetation of streambanks performs a number of important functions from bank stabilization and providing wildlife habitat to filtering sediment, chemicals, pesticides, and other materials from the water runoff. Selecting the appropriate plant species with fibrous root systems essentially anchors the soil in place. The Idaho Chapter of the Natural Resources Conservation Service has a number of publications that supply riparian buffer design, bio engineering treatments and plant material listings for re-vegetation and bank stabilization. The Streambank Bioengineering Guide: User’s Guide for Natural Streambank Stabilization Techniques in the Arid and SemiArid Great Basin and Intermountain West outlines riparian buffer design to stabilize eroding stream banks, filter sediment and run-off water, and provide wildlife habitat. A listing of plant materials used to control erosion is included. The publication also suggests that a three level buffer system has been effective in some communities. The three-level system puts the fist buffer zone adjacent to the waterway to allow natural functions to occur. The second buffer zone permits for recreational uses such as pathways. The third zone allows for additional uses.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 150


City of Nampa, Idaho

Other resources include: •

Riparian Buffer Design and Species Considerations, Plant Materials Technical Note No. 5: http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmstn7248.pdf

Users Guide to Description, Propagation and Establishment of Wetland Plant Species and Grasses for Riparian Areas in the Intermountain West: http://www.plantmaterials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmstn7248.pdf

Streambank Soil Bioengineering Field Guide for Low Precipitation Areas: http://www.plantmaterials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcpussbfglpa.pdf

Storm Water Plant Materials: http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcar2261.pdf

Descriptions of native shrubs and trees for riparian areas: o

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/programs/technotes/table_shrubtree.pdf and

o

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/programs/technotes/table_willow.pdf

Steep banks, watercourses with high water velocities or unstable water flows may require engineered structures to prevent bank erosion. Engineered structures can vary widely depending on the site conditions. A civil engineer should be consulted to design appropriate retaining structure where required.

Built-up or levee trail

A dry-laid urbanite wall is used to reinforce the banks along this irrigation ditch.

Gabion trail concept

A gabion mattress stabilzes this bank.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 151


City of Nampa, Idaho

5.10.6 Paths through Wetlands and Riparian Areas The specific soil, water and biological conditions may require an engineered pathway application on some pathway segments. Engineered pathways can include boardwalks and elevated walkways, which minimize the impact to wetland areas. Engineered pathways can create â&#x20AC;&#x153;showcaseâ&#x20AC;? pathway segments that allow users to experience riparian or other sensitive ecosystems with minimal impact. Biological conditions may require platforms to be located so as not to shade sensitive resources. Pathway treads should allow light to penetrate to vegetation under the pathway. Screw piles are recommended for building boardwalks and viewing platforms along the pathway. Screw piles are less disruptive to creek or wetland beds than wooden pier foundations and more environmentally sensitive than using chemically treated lumber. Pathway surfacing should resist deformation and user slippage.

An example of a boardwalk through a wetland.

Boardwalks and elevated pathways can be very expensive and should go through an extensive design process so they do not contribute to flooding hazards, are ADAcompliant, and minimize impact to the surrounding environment.

5.10.7 Flooding

An example of a boardwalk through an environmentally sensitive area.

If pathways are located in drainage areas, and are expected to be inundated on an annual basis, the pathway should be constructed of concrete in a sufficient thickness to allow for regular blading (cleaning) of the surface by equipment. Where concrete is used, surfaces should be broom finished for traction, with the joints saw-cut to reduce bumps. Concrete paths are better suited to withstand high-velocity flows than other surface materials. Concrete surfaces can be expensive, although at the time of this writing, concrete material costs are similar to asphalt material costs, due to the price of oil. Concrete is a very good community investment, as it lasts much longer than asphalt and is easier to maintain. When properly installed, concrete will last 25 years or longer and will need little maintenance. Concrete may be dyed any color to complement the surrounding environment, if desired. Pathway amenities (benches, signage, and trash receptacles) subject to flooding should be carefully considered. Where amenities are appropriate or necessary they should be installed to withstand high velocity flows. Where retaining walls are required, they can double as seating areas and increase pedestrian comfort along pathways.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 152


City of Nampa, Idaho

6 Education Enforcement, Encouragement and Evaluation The Nampa recommended bicycle and pedestrian network should be complemented by programs and activities designed to promote walking and bicycling. There are many existing efforts to promote walking and bicycling in southwest Idaho, including efforts by local agencies, active community groups and individual residents. The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will recognize these efforts and will encourage Nampa to support, promote and build upon these efforts. Pedestrian and bicycle planning commonly talks about the five “Es”: engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation. Chapter 5 described engineering strategies for improving the pedestrian and bikeway network, this chapter addresses education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation measures.

6.1 Existing Education and Outreach Efforts The City of Nampa and the State of Idaho have produced a number of valuable educational materials aimed at pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike.

Existing Materials: The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizens Advisory is a 501(c)3 non-profit group that advocates for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizens Advisory maintain a website (http://www.bikewalknampa.org/) that offers Nampa residents numerous bicycle and pedestrian resources in one location. The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizens Advisory website contains: •

A list of all walking and bicycling groups, including clubs, racing teams, and advocacy groups in the region

Information about current projects and how to get involved (e.g., public meetings, comment periods)

Links to on-line maps and brochures

Links to relevant local jurisdictions

Information about walking and cycling events (e.g., rides, classes, volunteer opportunities)

Bicycle registration information

Events calendar

Discussion forum

Photo Gallery

Blog featuring stories and news

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 153


City of Nampa, Idaho

Other existing materials include: •

Nampa Parks and Recreation Interactive Trails Map: http://www.nampaparksandrecreation.org/ParksDepartment/trails.aspx

Idaho Bicycle Commuter Guide: http://itd.idaho.gov/bike_ped/2010_bicycle_commuter.pdf

Idaho Street Smarts: http://itd.idaho.gov/bike_ped/order.htm

Idaho Transportation Department Bike and Pedestrian program: http://itd.idaho.gov/bike_ped/program.htm

Walk Smart: http://itd.idaho.gov/ohs/docs/WalkSmart_digital.pdf

Existing Organizations Clubs, Organizations, and Racing Teams

Several organizations and clubs encourage people to walk, ride bicycles, and participate in organized walks, runs, bicycle rides, and triathlons. •

Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizens Advisory: http://www.bikewalknampa.org/

Nampa Cycling Group: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/nampacycling/

Scenic Pedaling is Nearby (SPIN): http://www.spinidaho.org/

Treasure Valley Cycling Alliance: http://www.biketreasurevalley.org/resources.html#mce_temp_url#

Idaho Pedestrian & Bicycle Alliance: http://www.idahopedbike.org/

Boise Bicycle Project: http://www.boisebicycleproject.org/Home.html

Cycle Idaho: http://www.cycleidaho.com/

Gem State Mountain Bike Alliance: http://www.gsmba.org/

Southwest Idaho Mountain Biking Association: http://www.swimba.org/

South West Idaho Cycling Association: http://www.idahobikeracing.org/

Treasure Valley BMX: http://www.treasurevalleybmx.net/

Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts: Cycling merit badges are a popular goal for many scouts in Canyon County. To earn this badge, Boy Scouts must demonstrate knowledge of first aid, basic bicycle maintenance and repair, safe braking, flat repair, road skills and state cycling laws. They must also plan and complete two rides of 10 miles each, two rides of 15 miles each, two rides of 25 miles each, and one 50-mile ride. Also, many local Girl Scout troops earn their “Rolling Along Interest Award” by participating in cycling activities.

Existing Programs Safe Routes to School

The Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program is designed to promote walking and bicycling to school. SR2S programs can reduce traffic congestion and motor vehicle emissions, improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and promote active lifestyles. The SR2S program is based on the five E’s: education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation. An overarching goal is to create a task force of school staff and parents at each school to guide and implement the program.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 154


City of Nampa, Idaho

Eight Nampa schools currently participate in the Safe Routes to School program: •

Birch Elementary

Sherman Elementary

Endeavor Elementary

Lone Star Middle School

Ronald Reagan Elementary

Willow Creek Elementary

Owyhee Elementary

Sunnyridge Elementary

SR2S activities in Nampa have included bicycle rodeos and safety courses. Slated infrastructure improvements include thermoplastic striping of crosswalks around Nampa’s nineteen schools, sidewalk construction, and the installation of a flashing beacon. The Nampa Police Department has School Resource Officers that work in the elementary, middle and high schools. These officers are a terrific resource to the Safe Routes to School program as they have traditionally been willing to assist with training and education efforts. LAB/LCI programs

The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) offers a number of courses that teach adults and children to ride their bicycles safely and confidently. These courses are taught by League Certified Instructors (LCIs). There are currently two League-Certified Instructors in Nampa, 8 three in Boise and one in Star, Idaho. Bicycle Rodeos

Bicycle Rodeos are fun, simple events that teach bicycle safety to younger children. Bicycle rodeos often include a helmet fitting, bicycle safety check, and obstacle course. A League of American Bicyclists Smart Cycling Training Course Bicycle rodeos are offered by various Nampa organizations and groups, such as scout troops church groups and the Safe Routes to School program. Bicycle rodeos are not available city-wide on a regular basis.

8 More information about LAB/LCI programs is available at: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/index.php

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 155


City of Nampa, Idaho

6.2 Recommended Programs The recommended programs are organized into the following categories: •

Education and Outreach

Enforcement

Encouragement

Evaluation and Policy

Safe Routes to School

6.2.1 Education and Outreach Nampa Bike/Walk Central Website Nampa Bike/Walk Central Website Target audience

Current and potential cyclists and walkers

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group

Key elements

Resources, maps and map orders, safety, events, groups

Time frame

Ongoing

Cost

$ - $$ (depending on design and scope)

Potential funding sources

Low cost; may not require outside funding

Sample programs

Tucson Bicycle and Pedestrian website: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/bicycle Salt Lake City Bicycling website: http://www.slcgov.com/transportation/bicycletraffic/

The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group currently maintain a website that contains many of the important elements recommended for a central website. However, since a number of additional services and resources planned, it is recommended that the City create a convenient “one stop shopping” bicycle and pedestrian website that not only provides information, but handles complaints, requests and map orders. A potential name is Nampa Bike/Walk Central, though other names could be used. The URL http://www.bikewalknampa.com is available at time of writing. The Nampa Bike/Walk Central website should contain: •

Information about specific Nampa Boards and Commissions that discuss bicycle and pedestrian issues (how to get involved, meeting times and dates, agendas and minutes)

Maps and brochures (e.g., links to online maps and brochures, where to find in person, and how to request mailed materials)

Updates about new facilities as they come onboard

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 156


City of Nampa, Idaho

Links to all relevant local jurisdictions and their bicycle and pedestrian contacts (City of Nampa, Canyon County, IDT transportation office, etc.)

Relevant phone numbers (e.g., contact numbers to request pothole repair, parking enforcement, bike rack installation request, pathway maintenance, etc.)

Direct link to state and local laws and statutes relating to walking and bicycling, including Nampa’s current relevant codes (e.g. 6.5.3, 9.5.2, 10.4.10), the “Alternative Modes of Travel” section City of Nampa Engineering Development Process and Policy Manual.

Link to the Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group’s website

Request form for route planning assistance

Bicycle registration information

The website may also offer the following supplemental information: •

Online request, complaint and comment capabilities

Events calendar

Message boards

Blog featuring stories and news

Photo galleries from events and submitted by readers

Popular riding and walking routes

Note that these additional features may increase the cost to set up and maintain the website. A one-stop bike/walk website will not be difficult to set up, but it will only be successful if the site is both easy to use and updated regularly. Corners should not be cut in either design or in the maintenance of the site and its information. All Bike/Walk Central website content should be reviewed annually for accuracy. The bicycle/pedestrian community can assist in keeping the website up to date. Nampa should consider adding a standing agenda item for the Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group to discuss the Bike/Walk Central website in order to identify new content that should be added or out-of-date content that should be updated or removed. The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group may also consider either consolidating their website with the City maintained site or hosting the supplemental information (with the exception of the online request, complaint and comment forms) noted above.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 157


City of Nampa, Idaho

Youth Bicycle Safety Education Youth Bicycle Safety Education Target audience

Educate school-aged children on safe bicycling skills and rules of the road; encourage bicycling among children

Primary agency

School District and the Nampa Police Department

Partners

Treasure Valley Cycling Alliance, Local League of American Bicycle Certified Instructors (LCI), Safe Routes to School Program

Key elements

Safety, train-the-trainer, events, group

Time frame

Ongoing

Cost

$ - $$ (depending on scope)

Potential funding sources

Low cost; may not require outside funding

Sample programs

League of American Bicyclists: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#kids1 Bicycle Transportation Alliance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Portland, OR: http://www.bta4bikes.org/resources/educational.php

Most children learn to ride a bicycle, but few are taught the bicycle handling skills and rules of the road needed to bicycle regularly for practical purposes. A comprehensive school-based bicycle education program is recommended to educate students about the rules of the road, proper use of bicycle equipment, biking skills, street crossing skills, and the benefits of biking. Education programs can be part of a Safe Routes to School program. These types of education programs are usually sponsored by a joint City/school district committee that includes appointed parents, teachers, student representatives, administrators, police, active bicyclists and public works department staff. Any program should have a significant on-bike component. The local LCI instructors can provide a train-the-trainer course to train school staff, parents and other volunteers to teach a standardized bicycle rodeo course to satisfy the on-bike education component.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 158


City of Nampa, Idaho

Media Safety Campaign Media Safety Campaign Target audience

General public

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners

Treasure Valley Cycling Alliance, Idaho Transportation Department’s Office of Highway Safety, Idaho Pedestrian and Bicycle Alliance, Nampa Highway District, Canyon County Highway District, Ada County Highway District, Law Enforcement Agencies

Key elements

Bicycling and Pedestrian Safety campaign with billboard, radio and/or TV spots

Time frame

Late spring or early summer, in conjunction with Bike to Work Month or back to school

Cost

$ - $$$ (depending on whether ad space is purchased or donated)

Potential funding sources

Local transit agencies (for donated airtime), traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance companies

Sample programs

New York City Department of Transportation “Look” Safety Campaign: www.looknyc.org

A marketing campaign that highlights cyclists’ safety is an important part of creating awareness of bicycling. Such campaigns are an effective way to reach the general public and reinforce other education and outreach messages. A well-produced safety campaign will be memorable and effective. One stellar example is the “LOOK” campaign produced by the New York City Department of Transportation; it combines compelling ads with an easy-touse website focused at motorists and cyclists. It is recommended that Nampa create a safety campaign similar to the “LOOK” campaign that places safety messages near high-traffic corridors (e.g., on billboards, in bus shelters, and in print publications). It is also suggested that this campaign be kicked off in conjunction with Bike to Work Month (May) or back to school in the fall.

NYC’s LOOK Bicycle Safety Campaign has developed posters and other graphics to promote safe driving around bike lanes

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 159


City of Nampa, Idaho

Family Bicycling Day Family Bicycling Day Target audience

Parents and families

Primary agency

City of Nampa Parks and Recreation

Partners

Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizens Advisory, Treasure Valley Cycling Alliance, Idaho Pedestrian & Bicycle Alliance

Key elements

Education and encouragement

Time frame

Late spring or early summer. Can be held conjunction with opening of a major section of a bicycle boulevard

Cost

$

Potential funding sources

City, local businesses, local bike groups, Chamber of Commerce, Smart Growth Idaho

Sample programs

San Francisco Coalition’s annual Family Day event: http://www.sfbike.org/?family_day

Family bicycling programs help parents figure out how to safely transport children by bicycle and help children learn bicycling skills. The format can vary. Some events are panel discussions; others are an openhouse style event (e.g. at a park), while others may be a class. Activities may include: •

Training for kids on how to ride a bicycle without training wheels

Bicycle skills/safety course for children (e.g. bicycle rodeo)

Information about options to transport children (e.g. trailers, cargo bicycles, kid seats, family

tandems) and the opportunity to test ride these devices

Group ride or parade (possibly with bicycle decorating station)

Bicycle safety check

Basic bike maintenance course

Distribution of bicycling maps & brochures

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s annual Family Day event, held in Golden Gate Park, includes a bike rodeo, a “freedom from training wheels” training, family bike games and safety clinic, a family biking showcase with vendors and equipment, bike scavenger hunt, a basic bike maintenance workshop, and a family bike parade.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 160


City of Nampa, Idaho

6.2.2 Enforcement Crosswalk Enforcement Actions Crosswalk Enforcement Actions Target audience

Motorists

Primary agency

Nampa Police Department

Partners

Nampa School District #131

Key elements

Plainclothes police officers or selected volunteer decoys attempt to cross streets and marked mid-block crossings. If motorists fail to yield to the pedestrian in a crosswalk, a second police officer issues a ticket.

Time frame

Annual, spring or fall, in conjunction with back to school dates for Nampa School District #131 and Northwest Nazarene University

Cost

$ - $$ (depending on scope)

Potential funding sources

Federal Highway Administration safety funding, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Sample programs

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center website: http://www.walkinginfo.org/enforcement/programs-enforcement.cfm

Crosswalk enforcement actions (sometimes known as “pedestrian stings”) raise public awareness about the legal obligation of motorists to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks. While crosswalk enforcement actions do result in tickets being distributed, the greater impact comes through media publicity of the event to reinforce the importance of motorists’ obeying pedestrian crossing laws. Most crosswalk enforcement sites are selected because they have been identified as locations where pedestrians have trouble crossing, and/or where a large volume of pedestrians (especially vulnerable pedestrians such as children and seniors) is expected. High-crash locations may also be candidates for enforcement actions. If locations near schools are selected, the best timing for an enforcement action is the back-to-school window just after school has begun for the year. Plainclothes police officers or selected volunteer decoys attempt to cross at corners and marked mid-block crossings. If motorists fail to yield to the pedestrian in a crosswalk, a second police officer issues a ticket. Decoys may also be notable community members (such as the mayor or a well-known business leader) to increase media interest in the event. Media outreach should precede the enforcement action. The City of Nampa should conduct at least three crosswalk enforcement actions each year. Key locations include downtown, near an elementary school, and near NNU.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 161


City of Nampa, Idaho

Back to School Enforcement Blitz Back to School Enforcement Blitz Target audience

Motorists

Primary agency

Nampa Police Department

Partners

Nampa School District #131 and City of Nampa Public Works

Key elements

Enforcement centered around schools

Time frame

Annual, spring or fall, in conjunction with back to school dates for Nampa School District #131 and Northwest Nazarene University

Cost

$ - $$ (depending on scope)

Potential funding sources

Federal Highway Administration safety funding, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Sample programs

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center website: http://www.walkinginfo.org/enforcement/programs-enforcement.cfm

A â&#x20AC;&#x153;back to school blitzâ&#x20AC;? is a targeted traffic enforcement campaign centered around schools. School zone speed limits should be enforced, along with failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Media outreach should precede the blitz.

Community Speed Reader Board Request Program Community Speed Reader Board Request Program Target audience

Motorists

Primary agency

Nampa Police Department or Department of Public Safety

Partners

Nampa School District #131 and City of Nampa Public Works

Key elements

Roving enforcement tool

Time frame

As requested

Cost

$ - $$ (depending on if board needed to be purchased)

Speeding vehicles endanger cyclists and discourage cycling. A speed reader board request program will deploy speed reader boards at the request of neighborhood associations and schools. The boards should be mounted temporarily (e.g., for two weeks) and then be moved to another location to keep motorists from becoming inured to the speed reader board effect. The program should prioritize school locations.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 162


City of Nampa, Idaho

6.2.3 Encouragement Bicycle Boulevard Launch Party Bike Boulevard Launch Party Target audience

Residents living near a newly-completed bicycle boulevard

Primary agency

City of Nampa Public Works

Partners

Valley Regional Transit, Idaho Smart Growth, Southwest District Health, COMPASS, Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizens Advisory

Key elements

Outreach to a target geographic area promoting a new bicycle facility

Time frame

Completion of new facilities

Cost

$-$$$

Potential funding sources Sample programs

Federal flexible transportation funds; public transportation funds; hospitals and insurance companies; health funds City of Vancouver (BC)

When a new bicycle facility is built, some residents will become aware of it and use it, but others may not realize that they have improved bicycling options available to them. A launch party is a good way to inform residents about a new bikeway, and can also be an opportunity to share other bicycling information (such as maps and brochures) and answer resident questions about bicycling. It should be a media-friendly event, with elected official appearances, ribbon cuttings, and a press release that includes information about the new bikeway, other bicycle facilities, and any timely information about bicycling (such as Bicycle Friendly Community designation, any increase in bicycle mode share or user counts, etc.). When a new bikeway is built, the City of Vancouver throws a neighborhood party to celebrate. Cake, t-shirts, media and festivities are provided and all neighbors are invited to attend as well as city workers (engineers, construction staff, and planners) who worked on it. This approach could work well for Nampa.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 163


City of Nampa, Idaho

Pilot SmartTrips Program Pilot SmartTrips Program Target audience

Nampa residents who are interested in biking, walking and transit

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners

Valley Regional Transit, Idaho Smart Growth, Southwest District Health, COMPASS

Key elements

Outreach to a target geographic area promoting biking, walking and transit usage

Time frame

Program launch in late spring of selected year

Cost

$$$

Potential funding sources

Federal flexible transportation; public transportation funds; hospitals and insurance companies; health funds

Sample programs

Portland SmartTrips program: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=ediab

SmartTrips programs (also known as individualized social marketing programs) are encouragement programs based on saturating a target geographic area with resources to help residents reduce drive-alone trips and increase biking, walking, transit and carpool trips. SmartTrips programs have demonstrated a lasting reduction in drive-alone trips; for example, in Portland, OR target areas have experienced a ten percent reduction in motor vehicle traffic. Programs offer residents maps, brochures and other printed materials, classes, guided rides and walks, and other tools and programs that make bicycling, walking and transit usage a more inviting travel option compared to drive-alone trips. Resources are often delivered to interested residents by bicycle. Compared to infrastructure improvements, these programs are scalable, flexible, inexpensive, and siteindependent. Once the program has been established for a specific geographic target area, it can be run with low start-up costs in other target areas. This model, however, is unlikely to be successful in areas that have failed to make initial infrastructure investments sufficient to provide a functional bicycling, walking and transit network. It is most effective as an approach that leverages investments in infrastructure, not one that replaces those investments.

Maps and materials are delivered to interested residents by bike in the SmartTrips prograM.

One of the strengths of the individualized marketing model is that it reaches every resident with an appealing invitation to participate, but then focuses the bulk of resources on those who identify themselves as interested. The many classes, rides, and activities continue to be publicized and open to all, so residents have multiple opportunities to opt into the program. This focus allows for both broad reach and strategic investment. It is recommended that Nampa implements a pilot SmartTrips program in a limited geographic area (to be selected at time of program planning) in conjunction with the first phase of infrastructure improvements.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 164


City of Nampa, Idaho

The program may include the following: •

Maps and brochures

Classes, clinics, workshops

Guided rides and walks

Fun social events

Giveaways (e.g., coupons, pedometers, etc.)

Targeted outreach (e.g., Women on Bikes, Senior Strolls)

Route planning help (bike, walking, or transit)

The exact program components and budget should be determined at time of program planning.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 165


City of Nampa, Idaho

6.2.4 Evaluation and Policy Formalize the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group Formalize the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group Target audience

Citizen volunteers

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners

N/A

Key elements

Advise the city council on pedestrian and bicycling issues.

Time frame

Immediately

Cost

$

Sample programs

ACHD Bicycle Advisory Committee: http://www.achdidaho.org/Committees/BAC.aspx City of Coeur dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Alene, ID: http://parks.cdaid.org/index.php?Itemid=38&id=11&option=com_content&task=view Salt Lake City, UT: http://www.slcgov.com/transportation/bicycletraffic/mbac.htm

The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group is a non-profit advocacy group that periodically provides the city council with general information. Originally, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group was intended to be a formally appointed committee that advised the City on bicycle and pedestrian related matters. The Plan recommends that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group be acknowledged as a committee, commission or board, with a city staffer designated as the liaison to the group. The newly formed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee would advise the City on pedestrian and bicycling issues.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 166


City of Nampa, Idaho

Perform Annual Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Perform Annual Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Target audience

N/A

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners

Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group, Valley Regional Transit, Idaho Smart Growth, Southwest District Health, COMPASS, Safe Routes to School, Northwest Nazarene University and local service organizations

Key elements

Create a count database to track walking and bicycle trends and measure success of Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan

Time frame

Annually (minimum), bi-annually recommended

Cost

$$ (for data collection and analysis)

Potential funding sources

Federal flexible transportation; public transportation funds; hospitals and insurance companies

Sample programs

National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/

Many jurisdictions, including Nampa, do not perform regular bicycle or pedestrian counts. As a result, they do not have a mechanism for tracking ridership and walking trends over time or for evaluating the impact of projects, policies, and programs. The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group has initiated a counting program. It is recommended that Nampa build on this initial data gathering push and perform and/or coordinate annual counts of bicyclists and pedestrians according to national practices. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD) has developed a recommended methodology, survey, count, and reporting forms. This approach may be modified to serve the needs and interests of individual jurisdictions. The NBPD was established to provide communities with a consistent methodology for collecting bicycle and pedestrian data. Nampa should take the lead role in standardizing a regional approach to counts and surveys. City staff may perform the counts themselves or assist partner agencies or volunteer groups in performing the counts. The City should also handle tracking, analysis, and reporting. If desired, further bicycle and pedestrian data collection opportunities may be pursued as well, including: •

Require counting of bicyclists/pedestrians in all traffic studies

Collect before/after bicycle/pedestrian/vehicle data collection on priority roadway projects

Insert bicycle/pedestrian survey questions into any existing travel mode or city audit survey instrument

Purchase National Household Travel Survey add-on

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 167


City of Nampa, Idaho

Annual Walking and Bicycle Report Card Annual Walking and Bicycling Report Card Target audience

General public; elected officials an decision makers

Primary agency

City of Nampa Public Works

Partners

Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group, Valley Regional Transit, Idaho Smart Growth, Southwest District Health, COMPASS, Safe Routes to School, Northwest Nazarene University and local service organizations

Key elements

Create a count database to track walking and bicycle trends and measure success of Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan

Time frame

Annually

Cost

$$ (for data collection and analysis)

Potential funding sources

Federal flexible transportation; public transportation funds; hospitals and insurance companies

Sample programs

National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/

This Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan contains goals, objectives, and performance measures related to walking and bicycling. A useful benchmarking activity is to publish an annual report measuring accomplishments and performance against benchmarks. An annual report should include relevant walking and cycling metrics (number of pedestrians/riders, new facility miles, major completed projects, crashes) and may also include information on user satisfaction, public perception of safety, or other qualitative data that has been collected related to walking and bicycling. A report of all education and outreach programs implemented in the previous year should also be included.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 168


City of Nampa, Idaho

Create an Integrated Pathway Map Create an Integrated Pathway Map Target audience

Current and potential cyclists and walkers

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners Key elements

Clear symbology, designations and services attractive for cyclists and walkers, good selection of routes

Time frame

One-time, with regular updates; can happen at any time

Cost

$$ - $$$

Potential funding sources

Parks and recreation funding, Safe Routes to School funding, private donors

One of the most effective ways of encouraging people to bike and walk is through the use of maps and guides showing the pathway resources that exist in their community. Maps show walkers and bikers how easy it is to access different parts of the City by bike or on foot. It is recommended that Nampa create a comprehensive pathway map that contains both on-street facilities and off-street facilities to promote tourism, encourage residents to walk and bicycle, and promote local business districts. This new map would be created after the creation of the initial round of on-street facilities Once an updated map is in place, regular updates should be scheduled and a distribution plan should be created. Paper copies of the map may be distributed by Nampa as well as through bike shops, community groups, and at events throughout the year. An electronic copy of the map should be posted on the Nampa Walk/Bike Central website (recommended earlier in this chapter).

A good map makes bicycling and walking easy and pleasurable for residents.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 169


City of Nampa, Idaho

Apply to Become a Bicycle Friendly Community Apply to Become a Bicycle Friendly Community Target audience

League of American Bicyclists

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners

COMPASS, Canyon County

Key elements

Implement Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, highlight implemented initiatives in the Bicycle Friendly Community Application

Time frame

One-time, with regular updates; can happen at any time

Cost

$

Potential funding sources

Little funding is required to complete application

Sample programs

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/

The League of American Bicyclists has a well-respected Bicycle-Friendly Communities award program. Communities fill out a detailed application that covers bike-related facilities, plans, education efforts, promotion initiatives, and evaluation work that has been completed by the jurisdiction. The award is designed to recognize progress that has been made, as well as to assist communities in identifying priority projects to improve bicycling conditions. Receiving the award is a media-worthy event, and may give elected officials the opportunity to receive media coverage for the positive work they are doing. Awards are granted for Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum bicycle-friendly communities. Idaho communities that have received awards include: •

Wood River Valley: Silver

Ada County: Bronze

Coeur d’Alene: Bronze

It is recommended that the Nampa apply for bicycle-friendly community status after a substantial number of the recommended bicycle improvements have been implemented. Nampa staff should obtain a copy of the application and review it annually to determine when the City is ready to apply. The League may also be able to assist with a readiness assessment.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 170


City of Nampa, Idaho

Complete Streets Policy Complete Streets Policy Target audience

City of Nampa, Canyon County and IDT

Primary agency

City of Nampa

Partners

Federal Highway Administration, Idaho Department of Transportation, Canyon , Smart Growth Idaho, health organizations, etc.

Key elements

Policy language that creates streets to work for all users, including drivers, freight, walkers, cyclists and transit riders

Time frame

Adoption is planned for February 2012

Cost

Minimal to adopt policy; potentially high to fully implement

Potential funding sources

N/A (policy effort)

Sample programs

The website http://www.completestreets.org/ contains sample policies and real-life examples

The City of Nampa is currently working with Idaho Smart Growth to implement Complete Street Policies by February of 2012. Complete Streets policies direct transportation planners and engineers to consistently design roadways with all users in mind (e.g., motorists, transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, seniors, children, and people with disabilities). There are many ways to implement Complete Streets policies. Once a policy is in place, training is recommended for professionals whose work will be affected by the policy (e.g., planners and engineers). Guidance from the Complete Streets Coalition provides the following principles: •

Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street.

Creating complete streets means changing the policies and practices of transportation agencies.

A Complete Streets policy ensures that the entire right-of-way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users.

Transportation agencies must ensure that all road projects result in a complete street appropriate to local context and needs.

Elements of a good Complete Streets policy: o

Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists, of all ages and abilities.

o

Aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network.

o

Recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced.

o

Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.

o

Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right-of-way.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 171


City of Nampa, Idaho

o

Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.

o

Directs the use of the latest and best design standards.

o

Directs that complete streets solutions fit in with context of the community.

o

Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 172


City of Nampa, Idaho

Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School Target audience

School-aged children and their parents; School administrators, faculty, and staff

Primary agency

School District, School and City staff

Partners

Parents, neighbors, advocates, law enforcement, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Group

Key elements

Maps, programs, education

Time frame

Annually

Cost

$$ (for data collection and analysis)

Potential funding sources

Federal flexible transportation; public transportation funds; hospitals and insurance companies

Sample programs

Marin County National Model Program: http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/index.shtml

Safe Routes to School refers to an international approach aimed at increasing the number and safety of children walking and bicycling to school. Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) programs are often called “Five Es” programs, because they include Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation strategies. The Idaho Department of Transportation administers a federally-funded Safe Routes to School grant program, and Nampa schools have benefited from numerous infrastructure (“Engineering”) projects funded by the statewide program. Safe Routes to Schools programs directly benefit schoolchildren, parents and teachers by creating a safer travel environment near schools and by reducing motor vehicle congestion at school drop-off and pick-up zones. Students that choose to bike or walk to school are rewarded with the health benefits of a more active lifestyle, learn responsibility and independence that comes from being in charge of the way they travel, and learn at an early age that biking and walking can be safe, enjoyable and good for the environment. Safe Routes to Schools programs offer ancillary benefits to neighborhoods by helping to slow traffic and by providing infrastructure improvements that facilitate biking and walking for everyone. Identifying and improving routes for children to safely walk and bicycle to school is also one of the most cost-effective means of reducing weekday morning traffic congestion and can help reduce auto-related pollution. The two most important actions that can be taken in Nampa to further Safe Routes to School efforts are to convene a Safe Routes to School Task Force and have them lead an effort to create a citywide SR2S Plan. The Task Force should include representatives from the school district, school administrators, teachers, and families; City staff from Public Works (and possibly Parks and Recreation if a significant role is anticipated from them); law enforcement; Nampa Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Group; COMPASS staff; and neighbors and local volunteers/advocates. The Citywide Safe Routes to School Plan should be created based on walking audits for each elementary school, resulting in maps of needed Engineering improvements. It is also strongly recommended that the national standard evaluation activities (parent survey and student travel mode tally) be implemented, along with plans to repeat the evaluation activities annually. Maps of recommended walking and bicycling routes to

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 173


City of Nampa, Idaho

school should be created and distributed to parents. Finally, Education and Encouragement strategies should be created and prioritized. Several of the program recommendations already listed in this chapter will directly help achieve SR2S goals, including: •

Youth Bicycle Safety Education Program

Family Bicycle Day

Back to School Blitz

Community Speed Reader Board Deployment Program

Other recommended SR2S programs that can be implemented as stand-alone programs or as part of a larger SR2S Plan include: Start a Freiker (FREquent bIKER) Program – This program uses a solar-powered, Wi-Fi enabled RFID tracking device to track and reward students bicycling (and walking, if desired) to school. Because the tracking tags are mounted onto children’s helmets, there is an added incentive for children to always wear a helmet. In prototype programs, walking and bicycling has increased by up to 500% in the first year of the program. (Please note that the FREIKER company has changed its name to Boltage.) Integrate walking and bicycling into the classroom curriculum – Children can keep track of their walking and bicycling miles. Classroom teachers can use this data in different ways depending on the class subject. Mathematics classes can perform calculations using the numbers (e.g. average daily walking/biking miles, predicted mileage over the year); physical education classes can use mileage to help students ‘run’ a marathon; social studies classes can use the data to “walk across Idaho”, etc. Start a Walking School Bus or Park and Walk Program – Walking School Buses are organized groups of students accompanied by one or more adults along a regular route to school. Children join the bus at set times and stops. If a Walking School Bus cannot be formed, a first step or an alternative activity is to designate a Park and Walk location where parents park at a designated spot (such as a community park) and walk their children the rest of the way to school. Both Walking School Bus and Park and Walk programs can reduce traffic congestion at schools. A good opportunity to kick-off a walking school bus program is during International Walk to School Day, held annually in early October. Good resources and start-up material can be found at the City of Portland’s new Safe Routes to School website, http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/saferoutes/program/. Organized Bike and Walk to School Days should be held monthly or weekly to keep the momentum going and encourage more children and their parents to walk or bike to school. Prizes or drawings for prizes offered to participants have been used in some schools as an incentive.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 174


City of Nampa, Idaho

7 Implementation Plan 7.1 Introduction This section identifies steps towards implementation of the proposed facilities and programs of this plan, and recommended maintenance guidelines and costs.

7.2 Implementation Process The steps between the network improvements and concepts identified in this Plan and the final completion of the improvements will vary from project to project, but typically include: 1.

Conceptual design (with consideration of possible alternatives and environmental issues) and cost estimate for individual projects as needed.

2.

Secure, as necessary, outside funding and any applicable environmental approvals.

3.

Approval of the project by the Planning Commission and the City Council, including the commitment by the latter to provide for any unfunded portions of project costs.

4. Completion of final plans, specifications and estimates, advertising for bids, receipt of bids and award of contract(s). 5.

Construction of Project.

It is also important to remember that the lists of bikeway projects and programs are flexible concepts that serve as guidelines to those responsible for implementation. The project prioritization exercise performed in Chapter Four of this plan guides the City on implementation priorities but does not preclude the City from pursuing funding for any of the listed projects on the list when a funding opportunity arises (e.g. a Safe Routes to School grant, land development activities, road re-striping project). The bikeway network project list may change over time as a result of changing bicycling patterns and implementation constraints and opportunities. Nampa city staff should review the project list on an periodic basis to ensure that it reflects the most current priorities, needs, and opportunities for implementing the bikeway network in a logical and efficient manner, and that in particular the list takes advantage of all available funding opportunities and grant cycles. As projects get implemented and taken off the list, new projects should be moved up on the list.

7.2.1 Funding Like many communities, the City is severely short on funds to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The aggressive pursuit of grant funding can aid the City in achieving their non-motorized transportation goals. The acquisition of grant funding has already occurred, with funding already secured to implement a pilot bicycle boulevard project on 18th Avenue South. Additionally, coordination with the Public Works department is underway to implement on-street bicycle facilities in conjunction with roadway construction and maintenance projects.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 175


City of Nampa, Idaho

7.2.2 System Management System management can be an important factor in the success of a non-motorized network. Two major steps that can be taken by Nampa city staff to manage the implementation process include: 1.

The formation of a work group/task force (Planning and Public Works staff) to develop a pathways construction checklist based on the Pathway Design Standards and other City requirements (e.g. development agreements, NEPA, engineering requirements, etc.)

2.

The Parks and Recreation department should formulate a pathway maintenance schedule (such as the Asset Management Table (see below) published by the Public Works Department) and a corresponding budget to ensure pathways receive routine maintenance and upkeep. A suggested maintenance schedule is provided later in this section.

3.

Planning Department coordination to ensure new developments not only connect to nearby pathways, but also allow for pedestrian and bicycle connections between adjacent developments.

4. Formalize the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group as an advisory committee, commission or board. The newly formed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee would advise the City on pedestrian and bicycle issues, including reviewing development plans to ensure the bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included or connections are made.

Table 7.1: Public Works Asset Management Table

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 176


City of Nampa, Idaho

Maintenance While implementing bike and pedestrian facilities is important, keeping them in good condition is equally important. When a bicycle lane becomes filled with debris, for example, cyclists are forced into the motor vehicle lane, which can slow traffic and contribute to accidents. Ill-maintained facilities also deter cyclists who are unwilling to risk flat tires and deal with a more hazardous riding experience. Proper maintenance includes replacing any signage that is missing and refreshing striping or stenciling that has become worn.

Sweeping To avoid shoulders and bike lanes filled with gravel, broken glass and other debris, bicyclists will ride in the roadway to avoid these hazards, causing conflicts with motorists. Debris from the roadway should not be swept onto sidewalks (pedestrians need a clean walking surface), nor should debris be swept from the sidewalk onto the roadway. A regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance program helps ensure that roadway debris is regularly picked up or swept. Action items involving sweeping activities include: •

Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule that prioritizes roadways with major bicycle routes.

Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is an accumulation of debris on the facility.

In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up debris; on open shoulders, debris can be swept onto gravel shoulders.

Pave gravel driveway approaches to minimize loose gravel on paved roadway shoulders.

Provide extra sweeping in the fall where leaves accumulate.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 177


City of Nampa, Idaho

Roadway Surface Bicycles are more sensitive to subtle changes in roadway surface than motor vehicles. Some paving materials are smoother than others, and compaction/uneven settling can affect the surface after trenches and construction holes are filled. Uneven settlement after trenching can affect the roadway surface nearest the curb where bicycles travel. Sometimes compaction is not achieved to a satisfactory level, and an uneven pavement surface can result due to settling over the course of days or weeks. When resurfacing streets, the City should use the smallest chip size and ensure that the surface is as smooth as possible to improve safety and comfort for bicyclists. Recommended action items involving maintaining the roadway surface include: •

On all bikeways, use the smallest possible chip for chip sealing bike lanes and shoulders.

During chip seal maintenance projects, if the pavement condition of the bike lane is satisfactory, it may be appropriate to chip seal the travel lanes only.

Ensure that on new roadway construction, the finished surface on bikeways does not vary more than ¼”.

Maintain a smooth surface on all bikeways that is free of potholes.

Maintain pavement so ridge build-up does not occur at the gutter-to-pavement transition or adjacent to railway crossings.

Inspect the pavement 2 to 4 months after trenching construction activities are completed to ensure that excessive settlement has not occurred.

Gutter-to-Pavement Transition On streets with concrete curbs and gutters, 10”-20” of the curbside area is typically devoted to the gutter pan, where water collects and drains into catch basins. On many streets, the bikeway is situated near the transition between the gutter pan and the pavement edge. It is at this location that water can erode the transition, creating potholes and a rough surface for travel. The pavement on many streets is not flush with the gutter, creating a vertical transition between these segments. This area can buckle over time, creating a hazardous environment for bicyclists. Since it is the most likely place for bicyclists to ride, this issue is significant for bike travel. Action items related to maintaining a smooth gutter-to-pavement transition include:

Drainage Grates Drainage grates are typically located in the gutter area near the curb of a roadway. Drainage grates typically have slots through which water drains into the municipal wastewater system. Many grates are designed with linear parallel bars spread wide enough for a tire to become caught so that if a bicycle were to ride on them, the front tire would become caught and fall through the slot. This would cause the cyclist to tumble over the handlebars and sustain potentially serious injuries. The City should consider the following: •

Continue to require all new drainage grates be bicycle-friendly, including grates that have horizontal slats on them so that bicycle tires and assistive devices do not fall through the vertical slats.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 178


City of Nampa, Idaho

Create a program to inventory all existing drainage grates and replace hazardous grates as necessary – temporary modifications such as installing rebar horizontally across the grate is no alternative to replacement.

Pavement Overlays Pavement overlays represent good opportunities to improve conditions for cyclists if done carefully. A ridge should not be left in the area where cyclists ride (this occurs where an overlay extends part-way into a shoulder bikeway or bike lane). Overlay projects offer opportunities to widen a roadway, or to re-stripe a roadway with bike lanes. Action items related to pavement overlays include: •

Extend the overlay over the entire roadway surface to avoid leaving an abrupt edge.

If there is adequate shoulder or bike lane width, it may be appropriate to stop at the shoulder or bike lane stripe, provided no abrupt ridge remains.

Ensure that inlet grates, manhole and valve covers are within ¼” of the pavement surface and are made or treated with slip resistant materials.

Pave gravel driveways to property line to prevent gravel from spilling onto shoulders or bike lanes.

Signage Signage is crucial for safe and comfortable use of the bicycle and pedestrian network. Such signage is vulnerable to vandalism or wear, and requires regular maintenance and replacement as needed. The City should consider: •

Check regulatory and wayfinding signage along bikeways for signs of vandalism, graffiti, or normal wear.

Replace signage along the bikeway network as-needed.

Perform a regularly-scheduled check on the status of signage with follow-up as necessary.

Create a Maintenance Management Plan (see below).

Landscaping Bikeways can become inaccessible due to overgrown vegetation. All landscaping should be designed and maintained to ensure compatibility with the use of the bikeways. After a flood or major storm, bikeways should be checked along with other roads, and fallen trees or other debris should be removed promptly. Landscaping maintenance action items include: •

Ensure that shoulder plants do not hang into or impede passage along bikeways.

After major damage incidents, remove fallen trees or other debris from bikeways as quickly as possible.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 179


City of Nampa, Idaho

Sidewalk Maintenance The ongoing maintenance of sidewalks and promenades is key in providing a safe and convenient access to recreational opportunities in and around developed areas. It should be the ultimate goal of the management agencies to clear all sidewalks in winter and summer to enhance mobility, access to recreational opportunities, and public safety. Sidewalk maintenance is typically the responsibility of a Public Works Department and should be achieved either through ordinance or the creation of new assessment districts. Recreational pathway funding should not be used for sidewalk maintenance purposes.

Paved Multi-Use Path Maintenance Cracks, ruts and water damage will have to be repaired periodically. In addition, vegetation control will be necessary on a regular basis. Where A sidewalk and street shoulder in need of drainage problems exist along the pathways, ditches and drainage maintenance. structures will need to be kept clear of debris to prevent wash outs. Inspecting for erosion along the pathways should occur immediately after any storm that brings flooding to the local area. The pathway surface should be kept free of debris, especially broken glass and other sharp objects, loose gravel, leaves and stray branches. Pathway surfaces should be swept periodically to keep them clear of debris. Sweeping should be scheduled based on need. For example, path segments under tree canopies areas will tend to accumulate surface debris such as leaves and branches at a faster rate than other path segments. These areas should be swept more frequently in order to maintain safe surface conditions on paved multi-use paths. In general, visibility between plantings along the path should be maintained to give path users good, clear views of their surroundings, which enhances the aesthetic experience of the pathway. Under story vegetation along pathway corridors should not be allowed to grow higher than 24 inches. Tree species selection and placement should be made that minimizes vegetative litter on the pathway. Vertical clearance along the pathway should be periodically checked and any overhanging branches over the pathway should be pruned to a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet (12 feet if equestrians are anticipated).

Poor drainage infrastructure can damage pathway surfaces. The edge of this multi-use path is crumbling due to and inadequate drainage system

7.3 Maintenance Management Plan 7.3.1 On-Street Facilities Bikeway users need accommodation during construction and maintenance activities when bikeways may be closed or unavailable. Users must be warned of bikeway closures and given adequate detour information to bypass the closed section. Users should be warned through the use of standard signing approaching each Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 180


City of Nampa, Idaho

affected section (e.g., “Bicycle Lane Closed”) including information on alternate routes and dates of closure. Alternate routes should provide reasonable directness, equivalent traffic characteristics, and be signed. Action items related to a Maintenance Management Plan include: •

Provide fire and police departments with map of system, along with access points to gates/bollards

Enforce speed limits and other rules of the road

Enforce all trespassing laws for people attempting to enter adjacent private properties

Table 7.2: Recommended Bikeway Maintenance Activities Maintenance Activity

Frequency

Inspections

Seasonal – at beginning and end of Summer

Pavement sweeping/blowing

As needed, weekly in Fall

Pavement sealing

5 - 15 years

Pothole repair

1 week – 1 month after report

Culvert and drainage grate inspection

Before Winter and after major storms

Pavement markings replacement

1 – 3 years

Signage replacement

1 – 3 years

Shoulder plant trimming (weeds, trees, brambles)

Twice a year; middle of growing season and early fall

Tree and shrub plantings, trimming

1 – 3 years

Major damage response (washouts, fallen trees, flooding)

As soon as possible

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 181


City of Nampa, Idaho

7.3.2 Off-Street Facilities Table 7.3 below summarizes a suggested maintenance schedule for the Nampa pathway system:

Table 7.3: Suggested Maintenance Schedule Maintenance Task

Suggested Frequency

Inspections

Seasonally (4 times/year)

Sign repair/replacement

1-3 years

Site furnishings; replace damaged components

As needed

Fencing repair

Inspect monthly for holes and damage, repair immediately

Pavement markings replacement

1-3 years

Pavement sweeping/blowing

As needed; before high use season

Pavement sealing; pothole repair

5-15 years

Lighting repair

Annually

Introduced tree and shrub plantings, trimming

1-3 years

Shrub/tree irrigation for introduced planting areas

Weekly during summer months until plants are established

Shoulder plant trimming (weeds, trees, branches)

Bi-annual (Fall or Spring)

Major damage response (fallen trees, washouts, flooding)

As needed

Culvert inspection

Before rainy season; after major storms

Maintaining culvert inlets

Inspect before onset of wet season

Waterbar maintenance (earthen pathways)

Annually

Trash disposal

Weekly during high use; twice monthly during low use

Litter pick-up

Weekly during high use; twice monthly during low use

Graffiti removal

Weekly; as needed

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 182


City of Nampa, Idaho

7.3.3 Temporary Pathway Closures The pathway, or sections of the pathway, may be closed from time to time during periodic maintenance of the facility. Pathway users will need to be managed during these closures. The procedural policies that should be followed prior to the closing of pathways, are listed below. •

The management agency should post signs at all pathway entrances on the impacted segments to be closed indicating the duration of the closure.

The management agency should do everything reasonably possible to keep the public informed and make every effort to keep the closure period as short as possible. The 48-hour notice will be waived in the case of emergencies.

The management agency should physically block the pathway that is being closed with barriers and post “Pathway Closed” signs.

The management agency should provide “Detour” signs describing alternate routes.

Trail closure signage identifying the dates of closure and impacted trail segment

The management agency should not re-open the pathway until it has been inspected to ensure that the pathway is in usable condition. Where obstructions remain, the management agency should provide warning signs for pathway users to slow down or dismount where needed.

Maintenance Costs Bikeways require regular maintenance and repair. On-street bikeways are maintained as part of the City’s roadway maintenance and should receive priority over roadways not designated as bikeways. Off-street paths should be also maintained on a regular basis, kept clear of debris and vegetation overgrowth. Table 7.4 presents the costs of these maintenance procedures through the next ten years.

Table 7.4: Maintenance Cost of Bikeway Network Facility

Unit Cost

Description

Notes

Pathway

$8,500

Miles/Year

Lighting and debris and removal of vegetation overgrowth.

Bicycle Lane

$2,000

Miles/Year

Repainting lane stripes and stencils, sign replacement as needed

Bicycle Boulevard

$1,000

Miles/Year

Replacing signage and shared use stencils as needed

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 183


City of Nampa, Idaho

7.4 Pathway Monitoring and Safety This section discusses security and public safety and pathway user education and outreach for the Nampa pathway system.

Security and Public Safety Properly designed and managed, the Nampa pathway system will provide a reasonable level of safety and security. Additionally, studies have shown that high use is the most effective method of enhancing safety and security.

Pathway Patrols and Enforcement Generally, the pathway rules are expected to be selfenforcing by the general public. For the first three (3) months after opening, the management agencies should patrol the pathway on a daily basis. After the first three months, the management agencies should patrol on an intermittent basis. The level of patrols should be based on reported incidents and problems.

Patrols encourage appropriate facility use

Community Involvement with Pathway Safety Creating a safe pathway environment goes beyond law enforcement officers and should involve the entire community. The most effective and most visible deterrent to illegal activity on any pathway is the presence of legitimate pathway users. As a general pattern, introducing legitimate use on the pathway right-of-way will discourage illegitimate use. Getting as many “eyes on the corridor” as possible is a key deterrent to undesirable activity on the pathway. There are several components to accomplishing this as outlined in this section.

Provide Access to the Pathway Wherever feasible, provide public access to the pathway. Access points should be inviting and signed to welcome the public onto the pathway. This includes access from trailheads, other pathways, adjacent communities, at roadway crossings and destination points.

Good Visibility from Adjacent Neighbors Neighbors adjacent to the pathway potentially provide 24-hour surveillance of the pathway and can become a pathway manager’s ally. Though some screening and setback of the pathway is needed to protect an adjacent neighbor’s privacy, complete blocking out of the pathway from neighborhood view should be discouraged.

Programmed Events Events along the pathway will help increase public awareness of the pathway, thereby bringing more people to the pathway. Efforts should aim to raise public awareness and increase support for the pathway. Events might include a daylong pathway clean up or a series of short walks led by long time residents or local leaders.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 184


City of Nampa, Idaho

Community Projects Community projects are the strongest means of creating a sense of ownership along the pathway and they are perhaps the strongest deterrent to undesirable activity along the pathway. Ideas for community projects include volunteer planting events and art projects.

Adopt-a-Pathway Program Businesses and residential communities may formally or informally adopt the pathway. Neighbors of the pathway often see the benefit of involvement in the pathway development and maintenance. Businesses and developers may view the pathway as an integral piece of site planning and thus be willing to take on some level of responsibility for the pathway. Creation of an adopt-a-pathway program should be explored to capitalize on this opportunity and build civic pride. The adopt-a-pathway program could include an adopt-acreek component to keep Nampa’s waterways clean from garbage and natural materials such as tree limbs and leaves.

Pathway Patrols for User Outreach Volunteer or professional pathway patrols are also beneficial in improving pathway safety. Patrols range from informal monthly clean-up and maintenance crews to daily patrols that provide maps, information and emergency assistance. The primary function of these patrols should be to educate pathway users and to provide assistance when necessary. Patrols should also be equipped to alert emergency services quickly if needed. Above all, the presence of a patrol deters crime and improves users’ enjoyment of the pathway. Pathway managers should be creative in using “friends of the pathway” groups, local community organizations and law enforcement to maintain and monitor the pathway.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 185


City of Nampa Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan APPENDIX August 2011 PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.


Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | i


Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4  Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4  Appendix A: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines ........................................................................................ 1  Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1  On- and Off-Street Facility Guidelines ................................................................................................................................. 3  1. 

On-Street Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. 

2.

3.

4.

Intersections ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1. 

Marked Crosswalks ................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.2.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Signals .............................................................................................................. 14

2.3.

Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians at Signals .................................................................................15

2.4.

Pedestrian Travel in Construction Zones ........................................................................................................18

2.5.

Pedestrians at Transit Stops.................................................................................................................................19

Off-Street Facility Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1. 

Shared-Use Paths ................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.

Path/Roadway Crossings ..................................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.

Path Amenities ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

3.4.

Trailheads ................................................................................................................................................................. 26

3.5.

Accessways............................................................................................................................................................... 27

On-Street Facility Design Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.1. 

5.

6.

Sidewalks .................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Single-Lane Roundabouts .................................................................................................................................... 28

Bicycle Parking ................................................................................................................................................................. 30 5.1. 

Bicycle Corrals......................................................................................................................................................... 30

5.2.

Shelters ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Innovative Bike Lane Treatments ................................................................................................................................ 32 6.1. 

Bike Boxes................................................................................................................................................................. 32

6.2.

Colored Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................................ 33

6.3.

Buffered Bike Lanes................................................................................................................................................ 34

6.4.

Advisory Bike Lanes............................................................................................................................................... 35

6.5.

Contraflow Bike Lane ........................................................................................................................................... 36 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | ii


6.6.

Cycle Tracks ............................................................................................................................................................ 37

Appendix B. Project Evaluation Matrices and Cost Tables .............................................................................................. 38 Facility Evaluation Matrices and Costs .............................................................................................................................. 38  Appendix C: Priority Projects ................................................................................................................................................... 64  Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 64  11th Avenue from 1st Street South to 1st Street North .................................................................................................... 65  Front Street – 15th Street South to 17th Street South ..................................................................................................... 74  18th Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project – 1st Street South to Roosevelt Avenue ..................................................... 80  Wilson Pathway Signage – Middleton Road to Powerline Road ................................................................................ 84  South Chestnut Street Bicycle Boulevard: Amity Avenue Crossing ............................................................................91  Appendix D. Potential Funding Sources ................................................................................................................................94  Existing and Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................94  Federal Funding Sources .........................................................................................................................................................94  State Funding ............................................................................................................................................................................. 97  Local Funding ............................................................................................................................................................................. 98  Funding Strategy for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements ...................................................................................... 100  Appendix E: Background Data and Plans ............................................................................................................................. 101  Background Plans ..................................................................................................................................................................... 101  City of Nampa....................................................................................................................................................................... 101  Neighboring City Plans ...................................................................................................................................................... 115  County Plans ......................................................................................................................................................................... 116  Legislation and Policy Review .............................................................................................................................................. 117  City of Nampa....................................................................................................................................................................... 117  Idaho Transportation Department ................................................................................................................................. 118  State of Idaho ........................................................................................................................................................................ 118  Appendix D. References ............................................................................................................................................................ 121  National and State Guidelines / Best Practices ................................................................................................................ 121 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | iii


Figures Figure 2: 11th Avenue between 1st Street South and 1st Street North ................................................................................ 66 Figure 3: Mural Examples ............................................................................................................................................................ 72  Figure 4: Mural Examples............................................................................................................................................................ 73  Figure 5: Front Street from 15th Avenue South to 17th Avenue South .............................................................................. 75  Figure 6: Mural Examples ............................................................................................................................................................ 79  Figure 7: 18th Avenue South Bicycle Boulevard .......................................................................................................................81  Figure 8: Wilson Drain Pathway Signage, Middleton to Midland .................................................................................. 85  Figure 9: Wilson Drain Pathway Signage, Midland to Sunnyridge ................................................................................. 86  Figure 10: Wilson Drain Pathway Signage, Sunnyridge to Powerline ............................................................................ 87  Figure 11: Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan ....................................................................................................... 108  Figure 12: Nampa Downtown Streetscape Plan .................................................................................................................... 111  Figure 13: Nampa Street/Path Master Plan ............................................................................................................................ 112 

Tables Table 1: High “A” Priority Sidewalk Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 39 Table 2: High“B” Priority Sidewalk Evaluation .....................................................................................................................40  Table 3: Med High Sidewalk Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 41  Table 4: Med Low Sidewalk Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 45  Table 5: Low Sidewalk Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 48  Table 6: Non-Priority Sidewalk Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 50  Table 7: Pathway Gap Closure Projects ................................................................................................................................... 52  Table 8: Sidepaths .......................................................................................................................................................................... 54  Table 9: Bike Lanes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 55  Table 10: Shared Lane Markings ................................................................................................................................................ 59  Table 11: Bicycle Boulevards .........................................................................................................................................................61  Table 12: Nampa Street Classifications ................................................................................................................................. 103  Table 13: City of Nampa Parks and Recreation Summary of Existing Trails, 2001 ................................................... 107  Table 14: Caldwell Proposed Paths or Routes ..................................................................................................................... 115 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | iv


Appendix A: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines Introduction Appendix A provides additional guidelines that complement the bicycle and pedestrian treatment standards found in Chapter 5. The guidelines are intended to find creative solutions to the problem of providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a wide variety of conditions. These treatments draw upon creative solutions in use in other states as well as additional treatments in use in other urban areas in the U.S. and abroad. Some of the more innovative designs in this document are being tested, and as with all traffic devices should be carefully tailored before being applied at specific locations in Nampa. These design guidelines will allow Nampa to improve the quality of the pedestrian, bicycle, and shared-use path network by applying a high standard of bicycle safety, comfort, and convenience. The following are key principles for these pedestrian and bicycle guidelines: 

The walking and bicycling environments should be safe. Sidewalks, pathways, crossings, and bicycle routes should be designed and built to be free of hazards and to minimize conflicts with external factors such as noise, vehicular traffic and protruding architectural elements. The pedestrian and bicycle network should be accessible. Sidewalks, pathways and crosswalks should ensure the mobility of all users by accommodating the needs of people regardless of age or ability. Bicyclists have a range of skill levels and facilities should be designed for the use of experienced cyclists at a minimum, with a goal of providing for inexperienced / recreational bicyclists (especially children and seniors) to the greatest extent possible. In areas where specific needs have been identified (for example, near schools) the needs of appropriate types of bicyclists should be accommodated. The walking and bicycling environment should be clear and easy to use. Sidewalks, pathways and crossings should be designed so people, including those with or without mobility and sensory impairments, can easily find a direct route to a destination and delays are minimized. All roads in the Nampa are legal for the use of bicyclists (except those roads designated as limited access facilities which prohibit bicyclists). The walking and bicycling environment should provide good places. Good design should integrate with, and support the development of, complementary uses, and should encourage preservation and construction of art, landscaping and other items which add value to public ways. These components might include open spaces such as plazas, courtyards, squares and amenities including street furniture, banners, art, plantings and special paving. Each of these cooperate with historical elements and cultural references and as a result promote a sense of place. Public activities should be encouraged and commercial activities such as dining, vending and advertising may be permitted when they do not interfere with safety and accessibility. A complete network of on-street bicycling facilities should connect seamlessly to the existing and proposed off-street pathways to complete recreational and commuting routes around the region. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be economical. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be designed to achieve the maximum benefit for their cost, including initial cost and maintenance cost as well as reduced reliance on more expensive modes of transportation. Where Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 1


possible, improvements in the right-of-way should stimulate, reinforce and connect with adjacent private improvements. ď&#x201A;ˇ Design guidelines are intended to be flexible and can be applied with professional judgment by designers. Specific national and state guidelines are identified in this document, as well as design treatments that may exceed these guidelines. It is recognized that statutory and regulatory guidance may change. For this reason, among others, it is noted that the guidance and recommendations in this document are meant to complement the other resources considered during the design process. The following pages include guidance and potential treatments for providing improved accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians in a variety of contexts.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 2


On- and Off-Street Facility Guidelines 1. On-Street Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks, shared-use paths, and roadway shoulders are typically recognized as pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian travel is accommodated and enhanced by intersection treatments such as crosswalks, curb ramps, as well as boulevards and other amenities.

1.1. Sidewalks Design Summary Attributes of well-designed sidewalks include the following: Accessibility: A network of sidewalks shall be accessible to all users. Adequate width: Two people should be able to walk side-by-side and pass a third comfortably, and different walking speeds should be possible. In areas of intense pedestrian use, sidewalks should accommodate the high volume of walkers. Safety: Design features of the sidewalk should allow pedestrians to have a sense of security and predictability. Sidewalk users should not feel they are at risk due to the presence of adjacent traffic. Continuity: Walking routes should be obvious and should not require pedestrians to travel out of their way unnecessarily. Landscaping: Plantings and street trees within the boulevard should contribute to the overall psychological and visual comfort of sidewalk users, and be designed in a manner that contributes to the safety of people. Social space: There should be places for standing, visiting, and sitting. The sidewalk area should be a place where adults and children can safely participate in public life. Quality of place: Sidewalks should contribute to the character of neighborhoods and business districts.

A well-designed sidewalk provides plenty of pedestrian space.

Discussion Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area for pedestrian travel that is separated from vehicle traffic. Sidewalks are typically constructed out of concrete and are separated from the roadway by a curb or gutter and sometimes a landscaped boulevard. Sidewalks are a common application in urban and suburban environments. Installing new sidewalks can be costly, particularly if drainage improvements such as undergrounding of roadside culverts and installation of curb/gutter are part of the design. However, fixing short gaps in an existing sidewalk network is important to maximize system continuity, and can be improved through participation in Local Improvement District (LID) program.

Guidance United States Access Board. (2002). Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 3


1. On-Street Pedestrian Facilities Zones in the Sidewalk Corridor Design Summary The sidewalk corridor is typically located within the public right-of-way between the curb or roadway edge and the property line. The sidewalk corridor contains four distinct zones, which have different purposes. Recommended and minimum widths are provided following.

Zones in the sidewalk network

Discussion The Gutter Zone Curbs prevent water in the street gutters from entering the pedestrian space, discourage vehicles from driving over the sidewalk, and make it easy to sweep the streets. In addition, the gutter helps define the pedestrian environment within the streetscape, although other designs can be effective for this purpose. At the corner, the curb is an important tactile element for pedestrians who are finding their way with the use of a cane. The Furnishing Zone/Border The furnishing zone buffers pedestrians from the adjacent roadway, and is where elements such as street trees, signal poles, utility poles, street lights, controller boxes, hydrants, signs, parking meters, driveway aprons, grates, hatch covers, and street furniture are properly located. This is the area where people alight from parked cars. The Pedestrian Zone The Pedestrian Zone intended for pedestrian travel. This zone should be entirely free of permanent and temporary objects. The Frontage Zone The Frontage Zone allows pedestrians a comfortable "shy" distance from the building fronts, in areas where buildings are at the lot line, or from elements such as fences and hedges on private property.

Guidance City of Nampa, (2009). Nampa Streetscape Plan United States Access Board. (2002). Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 4


1. On-Street Pedestrian Facilities Addressing Sidewalk Obstructions Design Summary Obstructions to pedestrian travel in the sidewalk corridor typically include sign posts, utility and signal poles, mailboxes, fire hydrants and street furniture.

Discussion Obstructions should be placed between the sidewalk and the roadway to create a buffer for increased pedestrian comfort. When sidewalks abut perpendicular or angled on-street parking, wheel stops should be placed in the parking area to prevent parked vehicles from overhanging in the sidewalk. When sidewalks abut hedges, fences, or buildings, an additional two feet of lateral clearance should be added to provide appropriate shy distance. 

Reducing the number of accesses reduces the need for special provisions. This strategy should be pursued first.

Constructing wide sidewalks avoids excessively steep driveway slopes. The overall width must be sufficient to avoid an abrupt driveway slope.

Planter strips allow sidewalks to remain level, with the driveway grade change occurring within the planter strip (top graphic at right).

Where constraints preclude a planter strip, wrapping the sidewalk around the driveway has a similar effect (middle graphic at right). However, this method may have disadvantages for visually-impaired pedestrians who follow the curb line for guidance.

Driveways represent another sidewalk obstruction, especially for wheelchair users. The following techniques can be used to accommodate wheelchair users at driveway crossings:

When constraints only allow curb-tight sidewalks, dipping the entire sidewalk at the driveway approaches keeps the cross-slope at a constant grade (bottom graphic at right). However, this may be uncomfortable for pedestrians and could create drainage problems behind the sidewalk.

Driveway apron utilizing the planting strip

Sidewalk wrapped around the driveway

Entire sidewalk dips at driveway.

Guidance United States Access Board. (2002). Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities.

United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 5


1. On-Street Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk Maintenance Design Summary Minimize barriers for pedestrians, particularly with mobility and sensory impairments, by providing a level surface with a minimum of Âź inch grade changes. Grade changes and impervious surfaces shall be allowed at a distance from the trunk of a retained tree equal to the diameter of the tree trunk plus six feet (6'), or to the drip line, whichever is farthest from the trunk (Nampa City Code 10-33-4-C-3). Vision triangles, nonblanketing of signs, and above grade clearance shall be factors affecting actual siting of trees within buffer areas (Nampa City Code 10-33-4-D-1).

Subsurface tree roots can lift concrete sidewalk slabs, causing the surface to become uneven.

Discussion Root Protection Street trees are a highly desirable part of the pedestrian environment, especially large-canopied shade trees. Two common causes of sidewalk damage are from the wrong tree in the wrong place and from soil freeze/thaw, causing inflexible infrastructure to crack and heave. To minimize sidewalk damage from trees, choose appropriate trees based on the climatic conditions, such as water and light availability, the quantity of air, and root space available at the specific location. The Nampa Streetscape Plan provides guidance for tree selection. Grates Designers should consider using tree well grates or treatments such as unit pavers in high pedestrian use areas.All grates within the sidewalk should be flush with the level of the surrounding sidewalk surface, and should be located outside the Through Pedestrian Zone. Ventilation grates and tree well grates shall have openings no greater than 15 mm in width.

Tree well grates can create uneven sidewalk conditions.

Hatch Covers Hatch covers should be located within the sidewalk furnishings zone. Hatch covers must have a surface texture that is rough, with a slightly raised pattern. The surface should be slip-resistant even when wet. The cover should be flush with the surrounding sidewalk surface. Curb Ramp Maintenance It is critical that the interface between a curb ramp and the street be maintained adequately. Asphalt street sections typically have a shorter life cycle than a concrete ramp, and can develop potholes at the foot of the ramp, which can catch the front wheels of a wheelchair. Existing ramps, and crossings without ramps, must be brought to current accessibility standards during reconstruction periods.

Guidance Nampa City Code 10-33 City of Nampa, (2009). Nampa Streetscape Plan United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 6


2. Intersections Design Summary Intersection frequency on mixed-use streets and other high pedestrian use areas: Generally not farther apart than 200-300 feet where blocks are longer than 400 feet. Generally not closer together than 150 feet. Intersection frequency on residential or local streets: Frequency based on adjacent uses. Do not prohibit for more than 400 feet.

Intersections with many user types should provide good crossing opportunities and clearly delineate crossing patterns.

Discussion In general, pedestrians are not inclined to travel very far out-of-direction to access a designated crosswalk, so providing sufficient crossings is critical for a safe pedestrian environment. Crosswalks can also be designed for increased visibility of pedestrians, and curb ramps and vehicle turning radii should also be considered for the pedestrian environment. In areas of high pedestrian use, the convenience and travel time of pedestrians deserves special consideration when considering signal placement and timing. In these locations, pedestrian mobility and access may need to be weighted against the efficiency of vehicle progression. A wide variety of intersection treatments exist, which provide safe crossing and turning movements of bicyclists on bikeways. Treatments specific to particular facility types were previously discussed. This section addresses general guidelines for crossings. Attributes of pedestrian and bicycle-friendly intersection designs include: 

Clear Space — Corners should be clear of obstructions. They should also have enough room for curb ramps, for transit stops where appropriate, and for street conversations where pedestrians might congregate.

Visibility — It is critical that pedestrians on the corner have a good view of vehicle travel lanes 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 the pedestrian should take.

Accessibility — All corner features, such as curb ramps, landings, call buttons, signs, symbols, markings, textures, must meet accessibility standards.

Separation from Traffic — Corner design and construction must be effective in discouraging turning vehicles from driving over the pedestrian area.

Guidance United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 7


2.1. Marked Crosswalks Marked/Unsignalized Crossings A marked/unsignalized crossing (Type 1 in the table on the following page) consists of a crosswalk, signage, and often no other devices to slow or stop traffic. The approach to designing crossings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, path traffic, use patterns, vehicle speed, road type and width, and other safety issues such as proximity to schools. The following thresholds recommend where unsignalized crossings may be acceptable: Maximum traffic volumes: 

≤9,000-12,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes

Up to 15,000 ADT on two-lane roads, preferably with a median.

 Up to 12,000 ADT on four-lane roads with median. Maximum travel speed:  35 MPH Minimum line of sight: 

25 MPH zone: 155 feet

35 MPH zone: 250 feet

45 MPH zone: 360 feet

An unmarked, unsignalized crossing can be indicated with a high-visibility crosswalk and warning signs.

Discussion If well-designed, crossings of multi-lane higher-volume arterials over 15,000 ADT may be unsignalized with features such as a combination of some or all of the following: excellent sight distance, sufficient crossing gaps (more than 60 per hour), median refuges, and/or active warning devices like flashing beacons or in-pavement flashers. These are referred to as “Type 1 Enhanced” (Type 1+ in the table on the following page). Such crossings would not be appropriate; however, if a significant number of schoolchildren used the path. Furthermore, both existing and potential future path usage volume should be taken into consideration. On two-lane residential and collector roads below 15,000 ADT with average vehicle speeds of 35 MPH or less, crosswalks and warning signs (“Path Xing”) should be provided to warn motorists, and stop signs and slowing techniques (bollards/geometry) should be used on the path approach. Curves in paths that orient the path user toward oncoming traffic are helpful in slowing path users and making them aware of oncoming vehicles. Care should be taken to keep vegetation and other obstacles out of the sight line for motorists and path users. Engineering judgment should be used to determine the appropriate level of traffic control and design. On roadways with low to moderate traffic volumes (<12,000 ADT) and a need to control traffic speeds, a raised crosswalk may be the most appropriate crossing design to improve pedestrian visibility and safety. These crosswalks are raised 75 millimeters above the roadway pavement (similar to speed humps) to an elevation that matches the adjacent sidewalk. The top of the crosswalk is flat and typically made of asphalt, patterned concrete, or brick pavers. Brick or unit pavers should be discouraged because of potential problems related to pedestrians, bicycles, and ADA requirements for a continuous, smooth, vibration-free surface. Detectable warning strips are needed at the sidewalk/street boundary so that visually impaired pedestrians can identify the edge of the street.

Guidance U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Study, “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations,” February 2002.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 8


2.1. Marked Crosswalks Marked/Unsignalized Crossings (cont.) Summary of Path/Roadway At-Grade Crossing Recommendations1

Vehicle 9,000

ADT

Vehicle ADT > 9,000 to 12,000

Vehicle ADT > 12,000 to 15,000

Vehicle > 15,000

ADT

Roadway Type Speed Limit (mph)** 30

35

40

30

35

40

30

35

40

30

35

40

2 Lanes

1

1

1/1+

1

1

1/1+

1

1

1+/3

1

1/1+

1+/3

3 Lanes

1

1

1/1+

1

1/ +

1/1+

1/1+

1/1+

1+/3

1/1+

1+/

1+/3

Multi-Lane (4 or more lanes) with raised median ***

1

1

1/1+

1

1/1+

1+/3

1/1+

1/1+

1+/3

1+/3

1+/3

1+/3

Multi-Lane (4 or more lanes) without raised median

1

1/1+

1+/3

1/1+

1/1+

1+/3

1+/3

1+/3

1+/3

1+/3

1+/3

1+/3

*General Notes: Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding which treatment to use. For each pathway-roadway crossing, an engineering study is needed to determine the proper location. For each engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites. ** Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mi/h (64.4 km/h), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. *** The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft (1.2 m) wide and 6 ft (1.8 m) long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestrians in accordance with MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median.

1

This table is based on information contained in the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Study, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations,â&#x20AC;? February 2002.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 9


2.1. Marked Crosswalks Crossing Types: 1= Type 1 Crossings. Ladder-style crosswalks with appropriate signage should be used. 1/1+ = With the higher volumes and speeds, enhanced treatments should be used, including marked ladder style crosswalks, median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as sight distance. 1+/3 = Carefully analyze signal warrants using a combination of Warrant 2 or 5 (depending on school presence) and EAU factoring. Make sure to project pathway usage based on future potential demand. Consider Pelican, Puffin, or Hawk signals in lieu of full signals. For those intersections not meeting warrants or where engineering judgment or cost recommends against signalization, implement Type 1 enhanced crosswalk markings with marked ladder style crosswalks, median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as sight distance.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 10


2.1. Marked Crosswalks Reducing Crossing Distance Design Summary Pedestrian exposure to travel lanes should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. In general, 50 feet is the longest uninterrupted crossing a pedestrian should encounter at an unsignalized crosswalk.

Discussion Curb Extension Curb extensions reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic by shortening the crossing distance and giving pedestrians a better chance to ‘see and be seen’ before committing to a crossing. Curb extensions are appropriate for any crosswalk where it is desirable to shorten the crossing distance and where there is a parking lane adjacent to the curb. Curb extensions can be used as bus stop locations to improve safety for transit riders. (Note that if there is no parking lane, the extensions may be a problem for bicycle travel and truck or bus turning movements). Guidelines for use: 

In most cases, the curb extensions should be designed to transition between the extended curb and the running curb in the shortest practicable distance.

For purposes of efficient street sweeping, the minimum radius for the reverse curves of the transition is 10 feet (3 meters) and the two radii should be balanced to be nearly equal.

Curb extensions can be planted and include pedestrian furniture.

Curb extensions should stop 1 foot short of the parking zone for bicycle safety. Median Refuge Island Median refuge islands minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by shortening crossing distance and increasing the number of available gaps for crossing. Crossing refuges improves safety by allowing pedestrians to gauge safe crossing of “one direction” of traffic at a time, and slowing motor vehicle traffic.

Median refuge islands break up a crossing and allow pedestrians to cross one side of a street at a time.

This treatment is appropriate where the roadway to be crossed is greater than 50 feet wide or more than four travel lanes; can be used where distance is less to increase available safe gaps. Use at signalized or unsignalized crosswalks. The refuge island must be accessible, preferably with an at-grade passage through the island rather than ramps and landings. Refuge islands at intersections should have a median “nose” that gives protection to the crossing pedestrian. A median refuge island should be at least six feet wide between travel lanes and at least 20 feet long. On streets with speeds higher than 25 mph there should also be double centerline marking, reflectors, and “KEEP RIGHT” signage. If a refuge island is landscaped, the landscaping should not compromise the visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk. Tree species should be selected for small diameter trunks and tree branches should be no lower than 14 feet from the ground surface. Shrubs and ground plantings should be no higher than 1’ 6” at mature height.

Guidance United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 11


2.1. Marked Crosswalks Minimizing Curb Radius Design Summary Consider the desired pedestrian area of the corner, traffic turning movements, the turning radius of the design vehicle, the geometry of the intersection, the street classifications, and whether there is parking or a bicycle lane (or both) between the travel lane and the curb. 

Use the smallest possible curb radius for the circumstances:

May be 3 feet where there are no turning movements

5 feet where there are turning movements and where there is adequate street width and a larger effective curb radius created by parking or bicycle lanes.

Work with transit providers and freight interests to minimize impacts on streets where these vehicles are present.

Discussion In general, the smaller the curb radius, the better for pedestrians. In comparison to a large curb radius, a tight curb radius provides more pedestrian area at the corner, allows more flexibility in the placement of curb ramps, results in a shorter crosswalk, and requires vehicles to slow more as they turn the corner. A small curb radius is also beneficial for street sweeping operations. The presence of a lane for parking or bicycles creates an “effective radius” that allows the designer to choose a radius for the curb that is smaller than the turning radius required by the design vehicle. Several factors govern the choice of curb radius in any given location. These include the desired pedestrian area of the corner, traffic turning movements, the turning radius of the design vehicle, the geometry of the intersection, the street classifications, and whether there is parking or a bike lane (or both) between the travel lane and the curb. Designers sometimes consider that on-street parking will begin or end at the point of tangency or point of curvature of the corner radius. In practice, however, this point is not always evident in the field. Parking control should not be a factor in selecting curb radius.

An “effective radius” is created by the presence of a parking lane or bike lane.

Where there is an effective curb radius sufficient for turning vehicles, the actual curb radius may be as small as 5 feet (1.5 meters).

Guidance United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 12


2.1. Marked Crosswalks Minimizing Conflict with Automobiles Design Summary Separating pedestrians and motor vehicles at intersections improves safety and visibility.

Discussion Parking Control Parking control improves visibility in the vicinity of the crosswalk. Parking is prohibited within all intersections and crosswalks unless otherwise signed. At “T” and offset intersections, where the boundaries of the intersection may not be obvious, this prohibition should be made clear with signage. In areas where there is high parking demand (as determined by a Traffic Engineer), parking for compact vehicles may be allowed within "T" or offset intersections and on either side of the crosswalk. At these locations, signs will be placed to prohibit parking within the designated crosswalk areas, and additional enforcement should be provided, particularly when the treatment is new. Parking shall not be allowed within any type of intersection adjacent to schools, school crosswalks, and parks. This includes "T" and offset intersections. Installation of parking signage to allow and/or prohibit parking within any given intersection will occur at the time that the Parking Control section is undertaking work at the intersection. Advance Stop Bars Advance stop bars increase pedestrian comfort and safety by stopping motor vehicles well in advance of marked crosswalks, allowing vehicle operators a better line of sight of pedestrians and giving inner lane motor vehicle traffic time to stop for pedestrians. Pedestrians feel more comfortable when motor vehicles are not stopped adjacent to the crosswalk. The multiple threat of motor vehicles is reduced, since vehicles in the inner travel lane have a clearer line of sight to pedestrians entering the sidewalk. Without an advance stop bar, the vehicle in the outer lane may stop for the pedestrian, but the vehicle in the inner lane proceeds, increasing the possibility of a vehicle-pedestrian conflict. Advanced stop bars should be used: 

On streets with at least two travel lanes in each direction.

Prior to a marked crosswalk

In one or both directions of motor vehicle travel

Recommended 30 feet in advance of the crosswalk.

A “Stop Here for Pedestrians” sign must accompany the advance stop bar.

In areas with high parking demand, compact parking may be permitted within the intersection, but crosswalks should be kept clear.

Advance stop bars alert motorists of pedestrians.

Guidance United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 13


2.2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Signals Design Summary Pelican (Pedestrian Light Control Activated crossing) signals activate when a pedestrian pushes a button, and can be used with a median island. Puffin (Pedestrian User Friendly Intelligent) signals use a detector to verify the presence of the pedestrian at the curbside, eliminating false signal calls. Puffin signals are designed to be crossed in a single movement by the pedestrian. HAWK (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) signals are a combination of a beacon flasher and traffic control signaling technique for marked crossings. The beacon signal consists of a traffic signal head with a redyellow-red lens. Scramble signals provide a simultaneous “All Red” phase for motorists and a green phase for bicycle/pedestrian movements.

Discussion In cases where there is less bicycle traffic, a demand-only pedestrian or bicycle signal can be used to reduce vehicle delay. This technique would prevent an empty signal phase from regularly occurring. For the demandresponsive signal, a push button or imbedded loop should be available to actuate the bicycle phase. Pedestrian signals are recognized by their flashing green operation. They feature ‘full’ signal control for vehicles on major streets and stop sign control for vehicles on minor streets. Pedestrians are provided with signalized crosswalks in all directions. The signal rests in flashing green for the major street until a pedestrian pushes the button to activate the crossing across the major street. For major street traffic, the signal changes to yellow, then red, at which time the WALK and FLASH DON’T WALK phases are displayed. Scramble signals can be used at intersections with frequent vehicle/bicycle conflicts, and/or intersections experiencing high bicycle turning movements (especially left turns that force bicyclists to cross vehicle traffic). Scramble signals provide a simultaneous “All Red” phase for motorists and a green phase dedicated for bicycle/pedestrian movements (using special signal heads with accompanying signage). This phase enables non-motorized users to cross an intersection using their desired travel path (straight or diagonal).

Pedestrian signal

HAWK signal

Guidance Scramble signals have been used successfully in urbanized areas and locations with high bicycle/pedestrian volumes. Cities currently using this application include Davis and Los Angeles California, Honolulu, Hawaii and Portland, Oregon.

Scramble signals allow cyclists to cross an intersection diagonally

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 14


2.3. Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians at Signals Pedestrian Push-Buttons Design Summary Pedestrian can be accommodated by an automatic pedestrian phase, or by using a push button (demand-actuated signal). U.S. Access Board recommends buttons be raised above or flush with their housing, and large enough for people with visual impairments to see (min. 2 inches). The U.S. Access Board also recommends the force to activate the signals should be no more than 5 pounds of force (lbf) or 22.2 newtons (N)

Discussion Pedestrian push buttons are used to permit the signal controller to detect pedestrians desiring to cross. They can be used at an actuated or semi-actuated traffic signal at intersections with low pedestrian volumes, and at mid-block crossings. Accessible pedestrian signals are required to be installed whenever major signalized intersection upgrades are undertaken or when new signals are installed. 

When push buttons are used, they should be:

Located so that someone in a wheelchair can reach the button from a level area of the sidewalk without deviating significantly from the natural line of travel into the crosswalk.

Example standard pedestrian push button.

Marked (for example, with arrows) so that it is clear which signal is affected. Signalized crossings in areas of high pedestrian use may automatically provide a pedestrian crossing phase during every signal cycle, excluding the need for pedestrian push-buttons. However, the pedestrian classification must be balanced with the other functions of the street. In High Pedestrian Use areas, there should be a demonstrated benefit for actuated signals before push buttons are installed. The following are some criteria for that benefit: 

The main street carries through traffic or transit, such as major city traffic or transit street, or a district collector.

Traffic volumes on the side street are considerably lower than on the main street.

The pedestrian signal phase is long (for example, on a wide street) and eliminating it when there is no demand would significantly improve the level of service of the main street. Where push buttons must be installed in high pedestrian use areas, designers should consider operating the signal with a regular pedestrian phase during off-peak hours.

Pedestrian push buttons can be accompanied by informational signage.

Guidance United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 15


2.3. Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians at Signals Accommodating Pedestrians at Signals Design Summary Pedestrians benefit from information provided by signal head indications, countdown signals, and audible signals. Traffic signal timing should assume a pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 feet per second, meaning that the length of a signal phase with parallel pedestrian movements should provide sufficient time for a pedestrian to safely cross the adjacent street. At crossings where older pedestrians or pedestrians with disabilities are expected, crossing speeds as low as 3 feet per second may be assumed. Special pedestrian phases can be used to provide greater visibility or more crossing time for pedestrians at certain intersections.

Pedestrian signal indication

Discussion Pedestrian Signal Indication (“Ped Head”) and Countdowns Pedestrian signal indicators use a symbol to indicate when to cross at a signalized crosswalk. All traffic signals should be equipped with pedestrian signal indications except where pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signage. Countdown pedestrian signals indicate whether a pedestrian has time to cross the street before the signal phase ends. Audible Pedestrian Traffic Signals Audible pedestrian traffic signals provide crossing assistance to pedestrians with vision impairment at signalized intersections. To be considered for audible signals, the location must: 

Speaker on pedestrian traffic signal

Be suitable to the installation of audible signals (safety, noise level, and neighborhood acceptance).

 Have a need, demonstrated through a user request. Audible signals should be activated by a pedestrian push-button with at least a one second-delay to activate the sound. Pre-Timed Signal Pre-timed signals use automatic “phasing” concurrent with parallel vehicle traffic, as opposed to actuated signals, where pedestrians push an activation button to trigger the walk signal.

Traffic signals should provide sufficient time for pedestrians of all ages and abilities to cross.

Video Detection In Nampa, pedestrians are generally detected through the use of video cameras, which trigger the signal cycle. Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) At intersections where there are conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians, pedestrians are given a “walk” designation a few seconds before the associated green phase for the intersection.

Guidance United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). MUTCD, 2009 Edition, dated December 2009: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 16


2.3. Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians at Signals Accommodating Bicyclists at Intersections Design Summary At signalized intersections, cyclists should be able to trigger signals when cars are not present. Requiring cyclists to dismount to press a pedestrian button is inconvenient and requires the cyclist to merge in into traffic at an intersection. It is particularly important to provide bicycle actuation in a left-turn only lane where cyclists regularly make left turn movements.

Discussion Loop Detectors Bicycle-activated loop detectors are installed within the roadway to allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in the traffic signal. This allows the cyclist to stay within the lane of travel and avoid maneuvering to the side of the road to trigger a push button. Most demand-actuated signals in the CRD currently use loop detectors, which can be attuned to be sensitive enough to detect any type of metal, including steel and aluminum. Current and future loops that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles should have pavement markings to instruct cyclists how to trip them, as well as signage (see right). Detection Cameras Video detection cameras can also be used to determine when a vehicle is waiting for a signal. These systems use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at the location. Cameras can detect bicycles, although cyclists should wait in the center of the lane, where an automobile would usually wait, in order to be detected. Video camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection. Detection cameras are currently used for cyclists in the City of San Luis Obisbo, CA, where the system has proven to detect pedestrians as well. Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS) RTMS is a system developed in China, which uses frequency modulated continuous wave radio signals to detect objects in the roadway. This method is marked with a time code which gives information on how far away the object is. The RTMS system is unaffected by temperature and lighting, which can affect standard detection cameras.

Recommended loop detector marking design

Instructional Sign (MUTCD Sign R10-15)

Guidance Additional technical information is available at: www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm ITE Guidance for Bicycleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Sensitive Detection and Counters: http://www.ite.org/councils/Bike-Report-Ch4.pdf

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 17


2.4. Pedestrian Travel in Construction Zones Design Summary Measures should be taken to provide for the continuity of a pedestrian's trip through a construction closure. Only in rare cases should pedestrians be detoured to another street when travel lanes remain open.

Discussion The removal, even for a short time, of a pedestrian access route, curb ramp, or pedestrian street crossing may severely limit or totally preclude pedestrians, especially those with a disability, from navigating in the public right-of-way. It might also preclude access to buildings, facilities, or sites on adjacent properties. In order to accommodate pedestrians through various lane closures and detours, the following guidelines are recommended: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Pedestrians should not be led into conflicts with work site vehicles, equipment, moving vehicles, or temporary construction signage.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Pedestrians should be provided with a safe, accessible, convenient path that replicates as nearly as practical the most desirable characteristics of the existing sidewalk(s) or a footpath(s).

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Recommendations for accommodating pedestrian and bicycle travel through construction zones

Signage related to construction activities shall be placed in a location that does not obstruct the path of bicycles or pedestrians, including bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, or sidewalks.

Guidance The alternate circulation path shall be parallel the disrupted pedestrian access route, be located on the same side of the street, and accommodate the disabled. In rare cases where access is not available on the same side of the street, the alternate pedestrian route may be located on the opposite side of the street as long as the distance of the disrupted pedestrian route does not exceed 300 feet (91.4 m). The alternate pedestrian route should include sidewalks and pedestrian access routes, curb ramps, pedestrian crossings, lighting, and all other elements included in these standards. It should have a width of five feet (1.5m) minimum, and an additional foot of width for each vertical element along the route.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 18


2.5. Pedestrians at Transit Stops Design Summary 

All bus stops shall have a firm, stable boarding surface.

All new stops should meet ADA requirements, defined by ADAAG 10.2 Bus Stops and Terminals.

Discussion Pedestrian friendly design encourages transit use. In order to be a successful alternative to the automobile, transit service must be frequent, reliable, convenient, comfortable affordable, and accessible to pedestrians of all abilities. ADAAG and PROWAG standards provide the legal baseline for accessible bus stops: 

Firm, stable surface

Minimum clear length of 96 inches (measured from the curb or vehicle roadway edge) and a minimum clear width of 60 inches (measured parallel to the vehicle roadway) to the maximum extent allowed by legal or site constraints

Slope of the pad parallel to the roadway shall, to the extent practicable, shall be the same as the roadway Bus stop sites shall be chosen such that, to the maximum extent practicable, the areas where lifts or ramps are to be deployed comply with the above.

Example of a good transit stop

The standard of a “firm, stable surface” is paved with concrete, although gravel or other surfacing may be acceptable in constrained locations. Similarly, ADA-accessible curb ramps should be provided on the block of all bus stops, to the maximum extent practicable. Bus stops shall provide an improved hardscape surface that extends from the curb to the sidewalk. Hardscape surfaces may include paving materials other than poured concrete. The surface should be large enough to accommodate both seated and standing passengers, extend to the street curb, and meet any applicable disabled access regulations. New sidewalk connections from the transit stop to the nearest improved sidewalk should be provided. When designing or improving a transit stop, certain amenities are desired for the stop to accommodate transit passengers. Based on ridership at a particular stop location, Pierce Transit could provide the following amenities: 

Curb extensions to reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic and to enhance transit speeds

Bus stop markers/signs that are oriented to the pedestrian, rather than to passing vehicles

Bus schedules and route map display areas

Seating for transit passengers, placed so that the waiting passengers are visible to the bus driver

A shelter to shield passengers from the weather

Pedestrian scale lighting to increase security and visibility for riders and transit operators

A trash container

Short term bicycle parking

Guidance Nampa Streetscape Plan

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 19


3. Off-Street Facility Guidelines 3.1. Shared-Use Paths Shared-Use Path Opportunities Design Summary Shared-use paths can be constructed along abandoned or active rail corridors, as well as utility and waterway corridors.

Discussion Rails-to-Trails Commonly referred to as Rails-to-Trails, these projects convert vacated rail corridors into off-street paths. Rail corridors offer several advantages, including relatively direct routes between major destinations, and following generally flat terrain. Rails-with-Trails Rails-with-Trails projects typically consist of paths adjacent to active railroads. Offering the same benefits as rail-to-trail projects, these facilities utilize active rail corridors. It should be noted that some constraints could impact the feasibility of railwith-trail projects. In some cases, space needs to be preserved for future planned freight, transit or commuter rail service. In other cases, limited right-of-way width, inadequate setbacks, concerns about trespassing, and numerous mid -block crossings may affect a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feasibility. Utility and Waterway Corridor Shared-Use Paths Utility and waterway corridors offer excellent shared-use path development and bikeway gap closure opportunities. Utility corridors typically include power line and sewer corridors, while waterway corridors include canals, drainage ditches, rivers, and beaches. These corridors offer excellent transportation and recreation opportunities for cyclists of all ages and skills.

Rails-to-Trails Corridor next to an active rail line

Rails-with-Trails Corridor, Springwater Trail, Portland, Oregon

Guidance FHWA. (2002). Rails-with-Trails: Lessons http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/rwt/

Learned.

Wilson Drain Trail near Roosevelt Avenue, Nampa, Idaho

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 20


3.1. Shared-Use Paths Managing Multiple Users Design Summary Where standard width (12-14) feet is insufficient due to many users or several user types sharing a facility, consider the following measures: 

Stripe a path centerline.

Provide barrier separation – vegetated buffers or barriers, elevation changes, walls, fences, railings and bollards.

Provide differing surfaces for cyclists and runners.

Sign the shared-use path with behavior guidance signage.

Discussion Centerline Striping Centerline striping can be used to encourage users to stay on a particular side of the shared-use path. AASHTO recommends a 4-foot wide yellow stripe, which can be dashed where passing sight distance exists, and solid in other directions. This may be particularly beneficial in the following circumstances:

Centerline striping encourages shared-use path users to provide space for other users to pass.

 For heavy volumes of bicycles and/or other users,  On curves with restricted sight distance, and  On unlighted paths where nighttime riding is expected Barrier Separation A physical barrier such as a hedge, fence, or elevation change can separate user types or directions. Provide a shy distance of 2-feet from any physical barrier. Differing Surfaces Differing surfaces suitable to each user group foster visual separation and clarity of where each user group should be. When shared-use path corridors are constrained, the approach is often to locate the two different shared-use path surfaces side by side with no separation. Etiquette Signs

Informing shared-use path users of acceptable path etiquette is a common issue when multiple user types simulataneously use the trail. Yielding the right-of-way is a courtesy and yet a necessary part of a safe shared-use path experience involving multiple shared-use path users. Shared-use path right-of-way information should be posted at path access points and along the path. The message must be clear and easy to understand. Where appropriate, shared-use path etiquette systems should instruct path users to the yielding of cyclists to pedestrians and equestrians and the yielding of pedestrians to equestrians.

Guidance signage encourages multiple users to share shared-use path facilities.

Guidance

The 2009 MUTCD (Section 9C.03) contains additional information about centerline striping on a shared-use path. A commonly used multi-use shared-use path etiquette sign.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 21


3.1. Shared-Use Paths Shared-Use Paths Along Roadways (Side Paths) Design Summary Shared-use paths may be considered along roadways under the following conditions: 

The path will generally be separated from all motor vehicle traffic.

Bicycle and pedestrian use is anticipated to be high.

To provide continuity with an existing path through a roadway corridor.

The path can be terminated at each end onto streets with good bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or onto another well-designed path.

There is adequate access to local cross-streets and other facilities along the route.

Example of a sub-standard side path

Discussion Also known as “sidepaths”, these facilities create a situation where a portion of the bicycle traffic rides against the normal flow of motor vehicle traffic and can result in wrong-way riding where cyclists enter or leave the path. This can create an unsafe situation where motorists entering or crossing the roadway do not notice bicyclists coming from their right, as they are not expecting traffic from that direction. Stopped cross-street motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting side streets or driveways may frequently block path crossings. Bicyclists coming from the left may also be unnoticed, particularly if sight distances are poor. Additional concerns about shared-use paths directly adjacent to roadways (with minimal separation) are: 

When the path ends, cyclists riding against traffic tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street, as do cyclists making their way to the path. Wrong-way bicycle travel is a major cause of vehicle/bicycle crashes.

At intersections, motorists crossing the path often do not notice bicyclists approaching from certain directions, especially where sight distances are poor.

Bicyclists on the path are required to stop/yield at cross-streets or driveways, unless posted.

Stopped vehicles on a cross-street or driveway may block the path.

Because of the closeness of vehicle traffic to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers are often necessary to separate motorists from cyclists. These barriers serve as obstructions, complicate facility maintenance and waste available right-of-way.

Paths directly adjacent to high-volume roadways diminish users’ experience by placing them in an uncomfortable environment. This could lead to a path’s underutilization. As bicyclists gain experience and realize some of the advantages of riding on the roadway, some riders stop using paths adjacent to roadways. Bicyclists may also tend to prefer the roadway as pedestrian traffic on the shared-use path increases due to its location next to an urban roadway. When designing a bikeway network, the presence of a nearby or parallel path should not be used as a reason to not provide adequate shoulder or bike lane width on the roadway, as the on-street bicycle facility will generally be superior to the “sidepath” for experienced cyclists and those who are cycling for transportation purposes. Bike lanes should be provided as an alternate (more transportation-oriented) facility whenever possible.

Guidance AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 22


3.2. Path/Roadway Crossings Grade Separated Undercrossing Design Summary Width: 14’ minimum to allow for access by maintenance vehicles if necessary 

Height: 10’ minimum.

The undercrossing should have a centerline stripe even if the rest of the path does not.

Vandal-resistant lighting should be installed with all undercrossings in culverts or tunnels.

As with other path sections, grade should not exceed 5%.

Discussion Undercrossings design should minimize concerns about personal safety. Undercrossings should be considered when high volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians are expected along a corridor and: 

Vehicle volumes/speeds are high.

The roadway is wide.

An at-grade crossing is not feasible.

Crossing is needed under another grade-separated facility such as a freeway or rail line. Advantages of grade separated undercrossing:

Improves bicycle safety while reducing delay for all users.

Design of an undercrossing

 Eliminates barriers to bicyclists. Undercrossings often require less ramping and elevation change for the user versus an overcrossing. Disadvantages / potential hazards: 

If the crossing is not convenient or does not serve a direct connection, it may not be well utilized.

Potential issues with vandalism, maintenance.

Security may be an issue if sight lines through undercrossing and approaches are inadequate.

High cost.

Undercrossings should include a centerline strip and marked shoulders.

Guidance AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 23


3.2. Path/Roadway Crossings Grade Separated Overcrossing Design Summary 

12’ minimum width. 14’ preferred.

If overcrossing has any scenic vistas additional width or belvederes should be provided to allow for stopped path users. A separate 5’ pedestrian area may be provided for facilities with high bicycle and pedestrian use.

Height: 10’ vertical clearance.

Dashed centerline and shoulder striping should be used.

Ramps should not exceed 5% grade.

Minimum of 17’ of vertical clearance to the roadway below

Follow ADA, guidance for slope of ramp and frequency of landings.

Grade-separated overcrossings can provide bicycle and pedestrian access over freeways and other obstacles.

Discussion Grade separated overcrossings improve bicycle safety while reducing delay for all users and eliminate barriers to bicyclists. Overcrossings should be considered when high volumes of bicycles are expected along a corridor and: 

Vehicle volumes/speeds are high

The roadway is wide

An at-grade crossing is not feasible

Crossing is needed over a grade-separated facility such as a freeway or rail line

Disadvantages and potential hazards of overcrossings: 

Potential issues with vandalism, maintenance

If the crossing is not convenient or does not serve a direct connection, it may not be well utilized

Overcrossings require at least 17 feet of clearance to the roadway below involving up to 400 feet or greater of approach ramps at each end

High cost

Guidance MUTCD AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 24


3.3. Path Amenities Design Summary A variety of amenities can make a path inviting to the user. Costs vary depending on the design and materials selected for each amenity. Amenities shall be designed and located so as not to impede accessibility.

Discussion Benches Providing benches at key rest areas and viewpoints encourages people of all ages to use the shared-use path by ensuring that they have a place to rest along the way. Benches can be simple (e.g., wood slates) or more ornate (e.g., stone, wrought iron, concrete). Restrooms Restrooms benefit path users, especially in more remote areas where other facilities do not exist. Restrooms can be sited at trailheads along the path system. Water Fountains Water fountains provide water for people (and pets, in some cases). Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking allows shared-use path users to store their bicycles safely for a short time. Bicycle parking should be provided if a path transitions to an unpaved pedestrian-only area. Bicycle parking is only necessary at activity centers or places where bicyclists are likely to leave bikes unattended, such as parks, restrooms, etc. Trash Receptacles Litter receptacles should be placed at access points. Litter should be picked up once a week and after any special events held on the shareduse path, except where specially designed trash cans have been installed. If maintenance funds are not available to meet trash removal needs, it is best to remove trash receptacles. Signage Informational kiosks with maps at trailheads and signage for other destinations can provide information shared-use path users. They are beneficial for areas with high out-of- area visitation rates as well as the local citizens. Art Local artists can be commissioned to provide art for the pathway system, making it uniquely distinct. Many pathway art installations are functional as well as aesthetic, as they may provide places to sit and play on.

Benches and rest areas encourage shared-use path use by seniors and families with children.

Bathrooms are recommended for longer shareduse paths and in more remote areas.

Guidance City of Nampa. (2007). Nampa Streetscape Plan. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Art installations can provide a sense of place for the shared-use path.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 25


3.4. Trailheads Design Summary Major trailheads should include automobile and bicycle parking, trail information (maps, user guidelines, wildlife information, etc.), garbage receptacles and restrooms. Minor trailheads can provide a subset of these amenities.

Discussion Good access to a path system is a key element for its success. Trailheads (formalized parking areas) serve the local and regional population arriving to the path system by car, transit, bicycle or other modes. Trailheads provide essential access to the shared-use path system and include amenities like parking for vehicles and bicycles, restrooms (at major trailheads), and posted maps. Trailheads with a small parking area should additionally include bicycle parking and accessible parking. Neighborhood access should be achieved from all local streets crossing the path. No parking needs to be provided, and in some situations â&#x20AC;&#x153;No Parkingâ&#x20AC;? signs will be desirable to minimize impact on the neighborhood.

Example major trailhead

Guidance AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Example minor trailhead

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 26


3.5. Accessways Design Summary Width 

12 feet of right-of-way with a centered 8 foot paved surface and two 2 feet wide planter strips/shoulders for a heavily-used accessway.

8 feet minimum generally recommended.

Narrower widths can be acceptable in less-heavily trafficked physically-constrained areas. Surface 

Pervious concrete and interlocking pavers reduce rainwater runoff into neighboring yards. Fencing 

Review fencing requests on case-by-case basis. Consider installing a fence if credible evidence suggests that trespassing and crime issues on a specific property result from an accessway,

Preferred accessway design

Avoid using solid fencing that does not allow any visual access to the shared-use path.

Consider vegetative buffers to provide privacy while allowing informal surveillance of the accessway. Lighting Lighting should meet the standards set by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) standards. IES lighting recommendations are: 

Up to 4 foot candles, with illumination coming from multiple angles to minimize shadowing, thereby increasing facial identification opportunities.

Install LED lighting (LED preferred, with Metal Halide at a minimum) with full cut-off light fixtures to provide excellent color rendition and reduce light trespass.

Uniform lighting coverage to prevent dark or shadowed areas.

Accessways can connect two cul-de-sac streets, improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.

Discussion Accessways provide direct routes between residential areas, retail/office areas, institutional facilities, industrial parks, transit streets, neighborhood activity centers, and transit oriented developments. Accessways are beneficial where routes for pedestrians and bicyclists are not otherwise provided by the street system, particularly in neighborhoods with a disconnected street grid that requires both out-of-direction travel and walking or biking on a major street. Accessways should be considered when ‘desire lines’ or informal, unauthorized and unmaintained paths have been created. These routes are intended to provide safe, direct, and convenient connections to reduce out-of-direction travel and make walking and bicycling easier. The design of accessways varies according to the functional classification of the facility as well as the expected user group. Safety for bicyclists and pedestrians on these routes is paramount, as they often intersect busy roadways, are located in residential areas without regular surveillance, and can be quite dark.

Guidance AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 27


4. On-Street Facility Design Guidelines 4.1. Single-Lane Roundabouts Design Summary Reduce the speed differential between circulating motorists and bicyclists. A 25 mph maximum circulating design speed is recommended.2 Design approaches and exits to the lowest speeds possible, in order to reduce the severity of potential collisions with pedestrians. Design approaches, circulating lanes and exits to encourage bicyclists navigating the roundabout in the circulating roadway to control the lane. This approach reduces the chances of a bicyclist being cut off by a â&#x20AC;&#x153;right hook.â&#x20AC;? Maximize yielding rate of motorists to pedestrians and bicyclists at crosswalks. Provide separated facilities for bicyclists who prefer not to navigate the roundabout on the roadway. Clearly indicate to motorists and bicyclists the correct way for them to circulate through the roundabout through appropriately designed signage, pavement markings, and geometric design elements.

2

A 2004 FHWA study that collected field data in 21 locations around the United States measured the 85th percentile speed of bicyclists at 14 mph. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04103/index.htm.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 28


4. On-Street Facility Design Guidelines 4.1. Single-Lane Roundabouts Discussion Roundabouts typically include multiple uncontrolled crossings which can be challenging for pedestrians, especially those with visual impairments or other disabilities. The use of pedestrian hybrid beacons at roundabouts are now included in the 2009 MUTCD and the beacons show promise for improving roundabout operations for pedestrians and bicyclists in general as well as specifically for pedestrians with disabilities. These beacons allow pedestrians to actuate overhead signals, which will first flash yellow, then steady yellow, then steady red. The signal is dark when it is not activated. The table below shows treatments that can be used at roundabouts to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Treatments for Single-Lane Roundabouts

Treatment

Design Principles

Stripe ladder style crosswalks at all crosswalks

Improve Visibility

Install “Yield Here to Pedestrian” signs in advance of crosswalks

Clarify Right-of-Way

Install Pedestrian Warning signs at crosswalks

Improve Visibility

Install “Bikes May Use Full Lane” signs after ramp up to path

Clarify Right-of-Way

Stripe “fishhook” guidance arrows on pavement on approach to intersection to One Decision at a assist motorists with lane placement Time Construct the smallest diameter roundabout necessary, with the minimum Slow It Down number of lanes (single lane preferred) Construct roundabouts with maximum circulating speed of 25 MPH

Slow It Down

Construct speed tables at crosswalks

Slow It Down

Slow motorists in advance of roundabout through the use of reverse curves, Slow It Down rumble strips, speed feedback signs, or other physical or enforcement strategies Construct splitter islands at all approaches

Shorten Crossings

Construct separate bike path, with ramps connecting bike path and approaches

Clarify Right-of-Way

Consider pedestrian signals at the roundabout if the elderly or people with Access for All disabilities (particularly people with visual impairments) regularly walk through the intersection.

Guidance Federal Highway Administration’s Roundabouts: An Informational Guide FHWA-RD-00-067.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 29


5. Bicycle Parking

5.1. Bicycle Corrals Design Summary 

Bicycle corrals can be used with parallel or angeled parking.

Each motor vehicle parking space can be replaced with approximately 6 to 10 bicycle parking spaces.

Protect bicycles from motor vehicles with physical barriers such as curbs, bollards, or fences or through the application of other unique surface treatments.

Establish maintenance responsibility when facility is built, particularly street sweeping and snow removal.

Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions are good candidates for bicycle corrals since the concrete extension serves as delimitation on one side.

Cyclists should be able to access the corral from both the sidewalk and the roadway.

Cyclists should have an entrance width from roadway of 5 to 6 feet.

On-street bicycle parking may be installed at intersection corners or at mid-block locations.

Discussion Bicycle corrals (also known as “in-street” bicycle parking) consist of bicycle racks grouped together in a common area within the public right-of-way traditionally used for automobile parking. Bicycle corrals are reserved exclusively for bicycle parking and provide a relatively inexpensive solution to providing high-volume bicycle parking. Bicycle corrals can be implemented by converting one or two on-street motor vehicle parking spaces into on-street bicycle parking. Bicycle corrals move bicycles off the sidewalks, leaving more space for pedestrians, sidewalk café tables, etc. Because bicycle parking does not block sightlines (as large motor vehicles would do), it may be possible to locate bicycle parking in ‘no-parking’ zones near intersections and crosswalks. Bicycle corrals can be considered instead of other on-street bicycle parking facilities where: 

High pedestrian activity results in limited space for providing bicycle racks on sidewalks.

There is a moderate to high demand for short-term bicycle parking.

Sufficient on-street vehicular parking is provided

 The business community is interested in sponsoring the bicycle corral. In many communities, including Portland, the installation of bicycle corrals is driven by requests from adjacent businesses, and is not a city-driven initiative. In such cases, the City does not remove motor vehicle parking unless it is explicitly requested. In other areas, the City provides the facility and business associations take responsibility for the maintenance of the facility. Many communities, including the City of Portland, establish maintenance agreements with the requesting business. The bicycle corral can be visually enhanced through the use of attractive planters and vegetation to act as buffers from the motor vehicle parking area as well as the use of creative demarcation elements to separate the corral for motor vehicle traffic.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 30


5.2. Shelters Design Summary See guidelines for sidewalk bicycle rack placement and clear zones. To be located on-street or off-street, in areas of high potential demand, such as areas in close proximity to major employment areas, schools, or community and recreational facilities. Recommended height: 8 to 12 inches minimum. Roof area: 12 to 15 feet. If the bicycle racks are located perpendicular to a wall, 2 feet minimum clearance (single-side access); and 2.5 feet minimum (double-sided access). If the bicycle rack is located parallel to a wall, 8 feet minimum clearance should be provided. A clear width of 3 feet should be provided between rack ends to balance the maximization of bicycle parking capacity with the need for adequate bicycle manoeuvrability.

Bicycle parking shelter

Discussion Bicycle shelters consist of bicycle racks grouped together within structures with a roof that provides weather protection. Bicycle shelters provide convenient short-term and long-term bicycle parking. They also offer extra protection against accidental damages by providing greater separation between the bicycles and the sidewalk or parking lane. Information boards and advertising space can also be incorporated onto the bicycle shelter which is often used to post cycling or bicycle related information. Bicycle shelters provide a high level of aesthetic adaptation as each of its components (shelter, racks, roof) may be enhanced with different shapes, colors and materials. Bicycle shelters are warranted anywhere that bicycle racks may be located, particularly: 

Major commercial and retail areas, particularly in the major commercial nodes.

Areas with sufficient space on sidewalks, promenades or public plazas, or curb extensions, so that adequate sidewalk width can be maintained.

Demand for bicycle parking is oriented more towards long-term parking.

The location chosen for the bicycle shelter should be central to all surrounding activities so cyclists can park and walk conveniently to their final destination. Bicycle parking area signage should be provide to indicate to cyclists and pedestrians that the bicycle shelter is intended exclusively for bicycle use and to alert pedestrians and motorists that they can expect higher bicycle volumes in the area.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 31


6. Innovative Bike Lane Treatments The innovative treatments presented in this section offer solutions to improve bike lane visibility, address unique situations and provide facilities to meet heavy demand.

6.1. Bike Boxes Design Summary Bike box dimensions: 14’ deep to allow for bicycle positioning. Use appropriate signs as recommended by the MUTCD. Signs should prohibit ‘right turn on red’ and to indicate where the motorist must stop.

Discussion A bike box is generally a right angle extension of a bike lane at the head of a signalized intersection. The bike box allows bicyclists to move to the front of the traffic queue on a red light and proceed first when that signal turns green. Motor vehicles must stop behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box. Bike boxes can be combined with dashed lines through the intersection for green light situations to remind right-turning motorists to be aware of bicyclists traveling straight, similar to a colored bike lane treatment. Bike boxes can be installed with striping only or with colored treatments to increase visibility. Use of coloration substantially increases costs of maintenance over uncolored (striping, bicycle symbol, and text only) treatments. Bike boxes should be located at signalized intersections only, and right turns on red should be prohibited. Bike boxes should be used locations that have a large volume of cyclists, and are often utilized in central areas where traffic is usually moving slowly. Reducing right turns on red improves safety for cyclists and does not significantly impede motor vehicle travel. On roadways with one travel lane in each direction, the bike box also facilitates left turning movements for cyclists.

Recommended design of bike box

Guidance Evaluation of Innovative Bike‐Box Application in Eugene, Oregon, Author: Hunter, W.W., 2000

Bike boxes have been installed at several intersections in Portland, Oregon, where right-turning motorists conflict with through bicyclists.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 32


6.2. Colored Bike Lanes Design Summary 

Bike lane pocket – min. 4 to 5 feet preferred.

Use colored pavement through entire merge area.

Dashed lines can be used to indicate that automobiles are crossing the bike lane.

Discussion Cyclists are especially vulnerable at locations where the volume of conflicting vehicle traffic is high, and where the vehicle/bicycle conflict area is long. Some cities are using colored bike lanes to guide cyclists through major vehicle/bicycle conflict points. These conflict areas are locations where motorists and cyclists must cross each other’s path (e.g., at intersections or merge areas). Colored bike lanes typically extend through the entire bicycle/vehicle conflict zone (e.g., through the entire intersection, or through the transition zone where motorists cross a bike lane to enter a dedicated right turn lane. There are three colors commonly used in bike lanes: blue, green, and red. Several cities initially used blue; however, this color is associated with amenities for handicapped drivers or pedestrians. Green is the color recommended for use in Nampa. Although colored bike lanes are not an official standard at this time, they continue to be successfully used in cities, including Portland, OR, Philadelphia, PA, Cambridge, MA, Toronto, Ontario, Vancouver, BC and Tempe, AZ. This treatment typically includes signage alerting motorists of vehicle/ bicycle conflict points. Portland’s Blue Bike Lane report found that significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the conflict area after the application of the colored pavement.

Recommended colored bike box design

Guidance Portland Office of Transportation (1999). Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes: Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility. Available: www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=58842

Portland, Oregon has implemented blue bike lanes and has since changed them to green.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 33


6.3. Buffered Bike Lanes Design Summary 

Width: 6’ recommended

Minimum of 2’ buffer area

Discussion Bike lanes on high-volume or high-speed roadways can be dangerous or uncomfortable for cyclists, as automobiles pass or are parked too close to bicyclists. Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lanes and the travel lane or parked cars. This treatment is appropriate on bike lanes with high automobile traffic volumes and speed, bike lanes adjacent to parked cars, and bike lanes with a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Frequency of right turns by motor vehicles at major intersections should determine whether continuous or truncated buffer striping should be used approaching the intersection. Advantages of buffered bike lanes: 

Provides cushion of space to mitigate friction with motor vehicles on streets with narrow bike lanes.

Provides space for cyclists to pass one another without encroaching into the travel lane.

Provides space for cyclists to avoid potential obstacles in the bike lanes, including drainage inlets, manholes, trash cans or debris.

Parking side buffer provides cyclists with space to avoid the ‘door zone’ of parked cars.

Recommended buffered bike lane design

Provides motorists greater shy distances from cyclists in the bike lane. Disadvantages / potential hazards 

Requires additional roadway space.

Requires additional maintenance for the buffer striping.

Frequency of parking turnover should be considered prior to installing buffered bike lanes.

Increases the debris collection in the bike lane.

Buffered bike lanes protect cyclists from fastmoving traffic.

Guidance City of Portland, OR Bikeway Design Best Practices for the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan. Currently used in Brussels & Bruges, Belgium, Budapest, Hungary, London, UK, Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, and New York, NY.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 34


6.4. Advisory Bike Lanes Design Summary Use on roadways with the following characteristics: 

Motor vehicles traffic <4000 vehicles per day.

Motor vehicle speed is 25 mph or less.

Roadways is straight with few bends, inclines or sightline obstructions.

Two‐way streets.

No centerline on roadway.

Discussion This treatment uses dotted white lines on both sides of a narrow roadway to delineate bicycle areas. It should be used on a road where the automobile zone is not sufficiently wide for two cars to pass in both directions. Motorists may enter the bicycle zone when no bicycles are present. Motorist must overtake with caution due to traffic traveling in the opposite direction. The bike lanes should have colored pavement to discourage encroachment by motorists or parked vehicles. See bike lane standards for width guidance. Minimum travel lane width of 13 feet. Advantages of advisory bike lanes:

  

Option when cross‐section is too narrow for mandatory bike lanes Striping offers visual separation on a low traffic roadway Motorists tend to travel slower due to friction created with oncoming vehicles.

Disadvantages / potential hazards  

Recommended advisory bike lane design

Unorthodox design can be confusing to both cyclists and motorists.

Advisory bike lanes in the Netherlands. Source: Portland Bureau of Transportation

Enforcement is required.

Guidance City of Portland, OR, Bikeway Design Best Practices for the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan (2010). Currently used in the Netherlands, Germany and London, England.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 35


6.5. Contraflow Bike Lane Design Summary 

Width: 5.0 feet to 6.5 feet and marked with a solid double yellow line and appropriate signage.

Bike lane markings should be clearly visible to ensure that contraflow lane is exclusively for bicycles.

Coloration should be considered on the bike lane.

Discussion Contraflow bike lanes provide bi-directional bicycle access along a roadway that is one-way for automobile traffic. This treatment can provide direct access and connectivity for bicyclists, avoiding detours and reducing travel distances for cyclists. Advantages of contraflow bike lanes: 

Provides direct access and connectivity for bicycles traveling in both directions.

Influences motorist choice of routes without limiting bicycle traffic.

Recommended contraflow bike lane design

Cyclists do not have to make detours as a result of oneway traffic. Disadvantages / potential hazards 

Parking should not be provided on the far side of the contraflow bike lane.

Space requirements may require reallocation of roadway space from parking or travel lanes.

The lane could be illegally used by motorists for loading or parking.

Conversion from a two-way street requires elimination of one direction of automobile traffic

Public outreach should be conducted implementation of this treatment.

prior

to

Guidance

This contraflow bike lane in Portland, Oregon (left) provides a key connection along a narrow one-way street.

Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook. City of Portland, OR Bikeway Design Best Practices for the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan. Currently used in Olympia and Seattle, WA; Madison, WI, Cambridge, MA, San Francisco, CA, Boulder, CO and Portland, OR.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 36


6.6. Cycle Tracks Design Summary 

Use on for one-direction bicycle travel (both sides of street).

7’ minimum to allow passing.

12’minimum for two-way facility.

Discussion A cycle track is an exclusive bicycle facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. Cycle tracks can be either one-way or twoway, on one or both sides of a street, and are separated from vehicles and pedestrians by pavement markings or coloring, bollards, curbs/medians or a combination of these elements. Cycle tracks provide: 

Increased comfort for bicyclists

Greater clarity about expected behavior

Fewer conflicts between bicycles and parked cars as cyclists ride inside the parking lane

Space to reduce the danger of “car dooring”

Recommended cycle track design without parking, using striping and flexible bollard separation.

Danish research has shown that cycle tracks can increase bicycle ridership 18-20%, compared with the 5-7% increase associated with bike lanes. However, disadvantages of cycle tracks include: 

Increased vulnerability at intersections

Regular street sweeping trucks cannot maintain the cycle track; requires smaller sweepers.

Conflicts with pedestrians and bus passengers can occur, particularly on cycle tracks that are un-differentiated from the sidewalk or that are between the sidewalk and a transit stop. While recently implemented in the US, cycle tracks have been used in European countries for several decades. The cycle track design guidance following was developed using European experience applied to American situations.

Guidance Cycle Tracks: Lessons Learned, Alta Planning + Design (2009). www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/Cycle% 20Track%20lessons%20learned.pdf

Recommended design with on-street parking, using a raised buffer with planter boxes for separation.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 37


Appendix B. Project Evaluation Matrices and Cost Tables Facility Evaluation Matrices and Costs The full evaluation matrices used to determine the project prioritization in Chapter 4 are listed here.

Sidewalk Evaluation Matrices  Table 1: High “A” Priority Sidewalk Evaluation  Table 2: High“B” Priority Sidewalk Evaluation  Table 3: Med High Sidewalk Evaluation  Table 4: Med Low Sidewalk Evaluation  Table 5: Low Sidewalk Evaluation  Table 6: Non-Priority Sidewalk Evaluation Multi-Use Paths  Table 7: Pathway Gap Closure Projects  Table 8: Sidepaths Bicycle Facilities  Table 9: Bike Lanes  Table 10: Shared Lane Markings  Table 11: Bicycle Boulevards

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 38


Table 1: High “A” Priority Sidewalk Evaluation High A Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Pathway Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Location

From

To

16th

1st

1st

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.18

$70,824

1st

5th

11th

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.49

$197,710

3rd

20th

Sugar

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.27

$110,267

Amity

Amity

Chicago

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.62

$250,222

Blaine

Midland

Canyon

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.91

$366,838

Blakeslee

Greenhurst

Powerline

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.31

$126,450

Canyon

Greenhurst

Crestwood

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.17

$67,241

Canyon

Lake Lowell

Georgia

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.48

$191,646

Colorado

Chestnutt

Powerline

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.09

$37,553

Constitution

12th

Sunnyridge

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.68

$274,005

Elder

Colorado

Hawaii

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.31

$125,726

Georgia

Canyon

12th

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.54

$217,725

Greenhurst

12th

Sunnyridge

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.37

$149,122

Greenhurst

Midland

12th

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.63

$254,588

Greenhurst

Sunnyridge

Powerline

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.20

$82,102

Hawaii

12th

Elder

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.38

$152,756

Iowa

Midland

12th

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.79

$320,024

Juniper

Hawaii

Maryland

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.20

$82,561

Lone Star

Park

Greenleaf

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.63

$255,604

Maine

Fern

Elder

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.02

$9,924

Powerline

Amity

Iowa

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.73

$296,068

Powerline

Washington

Amity

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.29

$116,617

Sherman

Powerline

Chicago

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.48

$193,522

Stanford

Iowa

Valley

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.24

$98,528

Sugar

Garrity

Victory

1

1

1

1

4

High A

1.12

$452,890

Sugar

Victory

Railroad

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.40

$162,282

Sunnyridge

Fern

Greenhurst

1

1

1

1

4

High A

0.40

$162,605

Sunnyridge

Greenhurst

Locust

1

1

1

1

4

High A

1.43

$576,394

13.40

$5,401,794

High Priority Sidewalk Project Totals

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 39


Table 2: Highâ&#x20AC;&#x153;Bâ&#x20AC;? Priority Sidewalk Evaluation High B Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

High B

1.54

$621,274

High B

0.13

$51,533

Location

From

To

6th

Northside

8th

1

1

1

1

4

Canyon

Lincoln

Lake Lowell

1

1

1

1

4

Canyon

Lone Star

Blaine

1

1

1

1

4

High B

0.36

$143,180

High

Stanford

7th

1

1

1

1

4

High B

0.54

$216,410

Horton

Orchard

Davis

1

1

1

1

4

High B

0.41

$166,085

Hudson

Stanford

Yale

1

1

1

1

4

High B

0.56

$224,465

Orchard

Middleton

Midland

1

1

1

1

4

High B

1.28

$517,729

Smith

Midland

Canyon

1

1

1

1

4

High B

0.43

$172,121

Stanford

Smith

High

1

1

1

1

4

High B

0.37

$148,990

5.61

$2,261,786

High Priority Sidewalk Project Totals

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 40


Table 3: Med High Sidewalk Evaluation Medium High Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

CWithin 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Location

From

To

10th

Roosevelt

11th

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.19

$76,342

11th

1st

Front

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.04

$15,172

11th

Flamingo

Franklin

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

1.03

$416,470

12th

Blaine

10th

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.03

$12,424

25th

Oak

Port

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.17

$70,026

2nd

Northside

6th

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.25

$99,893

3rd

18th

24th

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.19

$76,559

3rd

2nd

3rd

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.03

$10,678

4th

Ogden

3rd

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.05

$21,254

5th

5th

6th

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.02

$9,660

5th St

19th

20th

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.03

$10,692

6th

5th

Lone Star

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.07

$30,064

7th

16th

Roosevelt

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.19

$76,066

Amity

Chicago

Kings

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.55

$222,309

Amity

Stadium

Olive

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.05

$19,285

Birch

11th

Idaho Center

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.18

$70,645

Birch

Franklin

11th

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.98

$393,862

Blaine

Boise

Midland

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.18

$72,201

Boone

Midland

Orchard

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.55

$219,838

Cherry

11th

Idaho

0

1

1

1

3

Med

1.58

$638,060

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 41


Medium High Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

CWithin 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Center

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

High

Cherry

Franklin

11th

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

1.73

$696,500

Chicago

2nd

Amity

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.23

$91,735

Chicago

Amity

Iowa

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.62

$248,199

Comstock

11th

Kings

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.86

$345,709

Dewey

State

State

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.06

$25,527

Diamond

Sherman

Clark

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.13

$51,334

Dooley

Midland

12th

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

1.25

$505,825

Franklin

I84

11th

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.91

$367,691

Franklin

Idaho Center

Star

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

1.13

$457,511

Greenhurst

Powerline

Southside

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

1.10

$442,402

Greenhurst

Southside

Happy Valley

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

1.09

$438,164

Hawthorne

Mollywood

Lake Lowell

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.22

$89,767

Horton

Iowa

Greenhurst

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.47

$189,451

Idaho Center

Cherry

Franklin

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.64

$259,983

Industrial

Franklin

11th

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

1.06

$428,777

Iowa

Powerline

Chicago

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.81

$326,124

Lake Lowell

Middleton

Midland

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.35

$141,572

Lake Lowell

Midland

Stanford

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.51

$204,043

Locust

Powerline

Southside

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

1.93

$778,621

Lone Star

Middleton

Midland

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

1.05

$421,373

Mason

Road End

Lake

1

1

1

0

3

Med

0.35

$142,339

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 42


Medium High Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

CWithin 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Lowell

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

High

Middleton

Lone Star

Roosevelt

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.49

$197,701

Middleton

Roosevelt

Lake Lowell

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.34

$135,588

Midland

Iowa

Greenhurst

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.47

$188,776

Midland

Hollywood

Iowa

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.63

$254,818

Nevada

Powerline

Sierra

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.31

$125,426

Northside

2nd

3rd

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.06

$23,188

Oak

Sugar

Venice

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.31

$124,318

Oklahoma

Southside

Avondale

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.26

$104,540

Port

Ethel

Kings

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.60

$241,628

Powerline

Greenhurst

Locust

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

1.10

$442,002

Powerline

Iowa

Greenhurst

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.95

$383,347

Roosevelt

Beechwood

Pine

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.59

$237,432

Roosevelt

Middleton

Midland

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.92

$369,719

Sherman

Holly

Powerline

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.55

$222,586

Southside

Greenhurst

Locust

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

1.41

$567,495

State

Dewey

Lake Lowell

1

1

0

1

3

Med High

0.25

$100,244

State

Roosevelt

Sherman

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.15

$60,313

Sugar

11th

Garrity

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.89

$359,081

Sunny

Midland

Stafford

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

0.47

$189,105

Venice

Garrity

Port

0

1

1

1

3

Med High

0.42

$168,365

Ventura

Iowa

Greenhurst

1

1

1

0

3

Med

0.46

$183,801

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 43


Medium High Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

CWithin 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

0.60

$242,821

35.06

$14,136,442

High York

Powerline

Harbor Springs

Med High Priority Project Totals

1

1

1

0

3

Med High

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 44


Table 4: Med Low Sidewalk Evaluation Medium Low Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Location

From

To

11th

Birch

I84

0

1

1

0

2

Med Low

1.15

$464,994

11th

Cherry

Birch

0

1

1

0

2

Med Low

0.72

$288,736

11th

Ustick

Cherry

0

1

1

0

2

Med Low

1.99

$803,041

12th

Dooley

Locust

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.46

$186,240

1st

6th

Gateway

1

0

0

1

2

Med Low

0.30

$120,511

20th

Karcher

Fargo

1

0

1

0

2

Med Low

0.41

$167,199

24th

3rd

2nd

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

0.07

$27,077

2nd

24th

Amity

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

0.99

$399,874

5th

12th

13th

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.03

$12,210

Amity

Southside

Robinson

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

3.16

$1,273,067

Blaine

Canyon

9th

0

0

1

1

2

Med Low

0.15

$59,923

Bonneville

Flamingo

Willow

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.30

$119,616

Can Ada

Ustick

Cherry

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

1.99

$802,363

Cherry

Idaho Center

Star

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

1.88

$758,496

Davis

Midland

Horton

0

1

1

0

2

Med Low

0.21

$86,457

Fargo

Franklin

20th

1

0

1

0

2

Med Low

0.63

$254,339

Franklin

Birch

Karcher

1

0

1

0

2

Med Low

0.29

$117,762

Franklin

Karcher

I84

1

0

1

0

2

Med Low

0.68

$275,783

Garrity

I84

Flamingo

0

0

1

1

2

Med Low

0.25

$100,462

Garrity

Ridgecrest

I84

0

0

1

1

2

Med

0.32

$127,780

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 45


Medium Low Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Low Grays

Victory

Amity

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

1.20

$485,495

Greenhurst

Middleton

Midland

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

1.64

$662,048

Happy Valley

Commerce

Stamm

0

0

1

1

2

Med Low

0.11

$44,089

Happy Valley

Greenhurst

Locust

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

1.54

$619,608

Happy Valley

Stamm

Airport

0

0

1

1

2

Med Low

0.97

$392,902

Karcher

Franklin

20th

1

0

1

0

2

Med Low

0.32

$128,943

Karcher

Middleton

Midland

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.46

$187,420

Karcher

Northside

Franklin

1

0

0

1

2

Med Low

1.49

$602,152

Kings

Airport

Victory

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

1.32

$532,575

Kings

Flamingo

Brandt

0

0

1

1

2

Med Low

0.64

$256,745

Kings

Victory

Railroad

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

0.71

$288,227

Locust

12th

Powerline

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

1.62

$651,629

Locust

Southside

Happy Valley

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

0.75

$301,179

Madison

Ustick

Cherry

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

1.98

$798,295

Middleton

Cherry

Karcher

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.94

$378,063

Middleton

Karcher

Sagittarius

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.17

$70,536

Middleton

Lake Lowell

Iowa

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

0.21

$85,850

Northside

Karcher

6th

1

0

0

1

2

Med Low

0.59

$237,025

Roosevelt

12th

Holly

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.25

$100,185

Roosevelt

Holly

Banner

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.36

$144,636

Sherman

12th Ave

Holly

0

1

0

1

2

Med

0.45

$180,772

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 46


Medium Low Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Low Smith

Wedgewood

Midland

0

1

1

0

2

Med Low

0.53

$211,768

Southside

Amity

Lexis

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

0.89

$360,525

Stamm

Garrity

Robinson

0

0

1

1

2

Med Low

1.76

$709,996

Victory

Sugar

Kings

1

1

0

0

2

Med Low

0.53

$212,697

Willow

Bonneville

Midland

0

1

0

1

2

Med Low

0.74

$296,432

38.16

$15,385,724

Med Low Priority Project Totals

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 47


Table 5: Low Sidewalk Evaluation Low Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Location

From

To

39th

Garrity

Airport

0

0

0

1

1

Low

0.57

$228,278

3rd

Franklin

6th

0

0

1

0

1

Low

1.21

$486,507

Airport

Kings

Happy Valley

0

0

0

1

1

Low

1.69

$683,004

Birch

Madison

Franklin

1

0

0

0

1

Low

0.26

$104,707

Birch

Northside

Madison

1

0

0

0

1

Low

0.73

$294,553

Cassia

Karcher

Flamingo

0

0

0

1

1

Low

0.35

$140,049

Cherry

Northside

Franklin

1

0

0

0

1

Low

1.64

$660,947

Flamingo

11th

Kings

0

0

1

0

1

Low

0.44

$176,512

Flamingo

Middleton

Midland

0

0

0

1

1

Low

0.44

$177,636

Franklin

Cherry

Birch

1

0

0

0

1

Low

0.56

$226,849

Franklin

Linden

Ustick

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.98

$799,162

Franklin

Ustick

Cherry

1

0

0

0

1

Low

1.11

$449,410

Happy Valley

Amity

Greenhurst

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.98

$799,480

Happy Valley

Victory

Amity

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.63

$655,443

Karcher

Marketplace

Northside

0

0

0

1

1

Low

1.85

$745,887

Kings

Brandt

Garrity

0

0

0

1

1

Low

0.05

$18,421

Linden

Madison

Franklin

0

1

0

0

1

Low

0.49

$198,536

Linden

Midland

Northside

0

1

0

0

1

Low

0.98

$396,773

Linden

Northside

Madison

0

1

0

0

1

Low

0.49

$197,769

Locust

Happy Valley

Robinson

1

0

0

0

1

Low

0.97

$389,240

Locust

Midland

12th

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.52

$614,185

Madison

Birch

Karcher

1

0

0

0

1

Low

0.49

$198,138

Madison

Cherry

Birch

1

0

0

0

1

Low

0.99

$398,724

Madison

Linden

Ustick

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.98

$797,129

Middleton

Delaware

Lone Star

0

1

0

0

1

Low

0.24

$95,755

Middleton

Flamingo

Smith

1

0

0

0

1

Low

0.76

$307,101

Middleton

Laster

Cherry

0

0

0

1

1

Low

0.47

$190,722

Midland

Flamingo

Corporate

0

0

0

1

1

Low

0.04

$15,303

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 48


Low Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Midland

Greenhurst

Locust

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.81

$729,577

Northside

Cherry

Karcher

0

0

0

1

1

Low

1.97

$796,198

Northside

Linden

Ustick

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.98

$798,597

Northside

Ustick

Cherry

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.96

$790,492

Orchard

Happy Valley

Robinson

0

0

0

1

1

Low

1.94

$782,916

Railroad

Greenhurst

Robinson

0

1

0

0

1

Low

2.23

$900,791

Star

Cherry

Franklin

0

1

0

0

1

Low

0.94

$378,496

Ustick

Midland

Northside

0

1

0

0

1

Low

2.22

$893,247

Ustick

Northside

Franklin

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.74

$699,629

Victory

Happy Valley

Robinson

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.89

$761,593

Victory

Kings

Happy Valley

0

1

0

0

1

Low

1.86

$750,028

46.44

$18,727,782

Low Priority Project Totals

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 49


Table 6: Non-Priority Sidewalk Evaluation Non-Priority Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Location

From

To

11th

McmIllan

Ustick

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.99

$801,964

Airport

Happy Valley

Robinson

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.92

$772,327

Brent

Airport

Howard

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.47

$187,772

Can Ada

McMillan

Ustick

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.99

$801,585

Cherry

Stiehl Creek

Northside

0

0

0

0

0

None

2.43

$978,179

Dean

McMillan

Ustick

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.99

$801,182

Happy Valley

Airport

Victory

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.40

$566,193

Howard

Pilatus

Brent

0

0

0

0

0

None

2.01

$810,355

Joe

Happy Valley

Robinson

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.91

$770,609

Linden

Middleton

Midland

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.74

$299,661

Middleton

Linden

Spruce

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.49

$197,916

Middleton

Spruce

Laster

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.41

$167,177

Midland

Cherry

Marketplace

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.47

$191,069

Midland

Linden

Ustick

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.99

$802,416

Midland

Ustick

Cherry

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.98

$797,279

Pit

Airport

Victory

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.44

$579,136

Pit

Stamm

Airport

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.94

$378,106

Prescott

Mcmillan

Ustick

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.99

$801,077

Robinson

Airport

Joe

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.49

$199,169

Robinson

Amity

Greenhurst

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.50

$604,967

Robinson

Franklin

Stamm

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.73

$294,902

Robinson

Greenhurst

Locust

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.49

$197,898

Robinson

Joe

Victory

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.24

$97,976

Robinson

Stamm

Airport

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.47

$188,967

Robinson

Victory

Amity

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.99

$401,029

Santa Ana

Spruce

Ustick

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.25

$102,309

Santa Ana

Ustick

Longtail

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.10

$39,858

Spruce

Middleton

Santa Ana

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.50

$201,825

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 50


Non-Priority Priority Sidewalk Projects

Proximity to Existing Trail Connection or Priority Trail Gap Closure

Within 1/4 mile of a school

Within 1/4 mile of a park

Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Total Score

Priority

Length in Miles

Cost

Location

From

To

Star

Ustick

Cherry

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.00

$401,344

Ustick

11th

Star

0

0

0

0

0

None

3.93

$1,582,694

Ustick

Franklin

11th

0

0

0

0

0

None

1.97

$793,069

Ustick

Santa Ana

Midland

0

0

0

0

0

None

0.50

$200,881

39.71

$16,010,890

Non-Priority Project Totals

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 51


1

1

Grimes Creek Trail: Birch Lane to Franklin Road

3

3

3

2

3

14

2055

$326,756.32

Stanford Street: Connection over irrigation ditch

3

3

3

3

3

15

112

$ 17,734.11

Stoddard Trial: East Iowa Avenue to 2nd Street South

3

2

3

3

3

14

5596

$889,896.13

Wilson Drain Trail: From east side of Wilson Ponds to York Avenue; York Avenue to Wilson Drain Trail at Powerline Road; Powerline Road to existing pavement

3

2

3

3

3

14

3930

$624,917.00

Wilson Drain Trail: Sunnyridge Road to Wilson Ponds

3

2

3

3

3

14

1803

$286,795.87

Wilson Drain Trail: W. Roosevelt Avenue from Central Boundary Street, west to existing pavement

3

3

3

2

3

14

578

$ 91,916.45

Wilson Drain Trail: West Iowa Avenue southeast to existing trail pavement

3

3

3

3

3

15

1487

$ 36,525.71

Canyon Street: Connection between Canyon Street and Bayhill Drive

2

2

3

1

1

9

261

$ 41,557.62

Elijah Drain Trail: Elder Street to Stoddard Trail

2

2

3

1

1

9

3822

$607,793.56

From near Franklin Boulevard to 3rd Street North

2

2

3

1

1

9

740

$117,740.89

Intersection of E. Sherman Ave. and Chicago Street to 2nd St. South

2

2

2

1

1

8

1665

$ 264,744.48

Campus

2

2

2

3

1

10

3527

$560,815.15

3

3

3

1

3

13

2581

$410,415.26

3

2

3

1

3

12

277

$ 44,057.75

Length (ft)

1

Priority *,**

1

Total Score

Implementation Opportunities

Weight

Pathway Gap Closure Projects

Community Connections

Consistency with Local Plans

Alignment Value

Table 7: Pathway Gap Closure Projects

Cost

Street or Alignment

15th Avenue southeast to pavement

North, existing

From the end of pavement near South Sugar Avenue

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 52


Total Score

1

3

Length (ft)

Implementation Opportunities

3

Priority *,**

Consistency with Local Plans

Community Connections

Alignment Value

Pathway Gap Closure Projects

Cost

to the start of pavement at about South Taffy Drive North Middleton Road to existing pavement near South Freemont Street

3

3

13

Pathway Gap Closure Project Totals

303

$ 48,221.24

28737

$4,521,666.3

Scoring: scale of 1 to 3  1: option is neutral  2: option is positive  3: best solution to satisfy criteria 

Criteria: Alignment Value‐ is the project key to the overall success of the network and connect to local or regional destinations?  Community Connections ‐ do the bike lanes or shared lane markings located connect to schools, transit stops, parks, or off‐ street trails?  Consistency  with  Local  Plans  ‐  does  the  alignment  meet  the  objectives  of  other  plans  and  connect  to  existing  and  planned  projects?  Function and Efficiency ‐ does the route minimize out‐of‐direction travel (transportation routes)?  Implementation Opportunities ‐ are there opportunities to leverage costs, materials and design services with another project  (e.g. Safe Routes to School projects, required as part of a development application, etc.)? 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 53


Alignment Value

Community Connections

Consistency with Local Plans

Implementation Opportunities

Total Score

Priority *,**

Length (ft)

Table 8: Sidepaths

Weight

1

1

1

1

Caldwell Boulevard between Orchard Avenue and the existing Phyllis Canal Trail pavement

3

3

3

1

10

Med

297

$ 46,787.40

11th Avenue North from 1st Street South to 1st Street North

3

3

3

2

11

High

528

$ 83,177.60

Colorado Avenue on NNU property between Holly Street and South Locust Street

3

3

3

2

11

High

1144

$180,218.13

Garrity Boulevard in Lakeview Park from 12th Avenue North to the Rails-toTrail proposed path

3

3

3

3

12

High

1915

$301,676.33

South side of Greenhurst Road from the proposed Elijah Drain Trail to East Valley Middle School

2

3

2

1

8

Low

1932

$304,354.40

Greenhurst Road from Wilson Drain to Juniper

3

3

3

1

10

Low

494

$ 77,821..47

6310

$994,035.33

Sidepaths

Cost

Street or Alignment

Sidepath Project Totals Scoring: scale of 1 to 3  1: option is neutral  2: option is positive  3: best solution to satisfy criteria  Criteria:  Alignment Value ‐ is the project key to the overall success of the network?

Community Connections ‐ is the path located within 1/4 mile of a school, transit stop, park or off‐street trail?  Consistency  with  Local  Plans  ‐  does  the  alignment  meet  the  objectives  of  other  plans  and  connect  to  existing  and  planned  projects?  Implementation  Opportunities  ‐  are  there  opportunities  to  leverage  costs,  materials  and  design  services  with  another  project  (e.g. Safe Routes to School projects, required as part of a development application, etc.)? 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 54


Community Connections

Consistency with Local Plans

Implementation Opportunities

Function Efficiency

Total Score

Priority *,**

1

1

1

1

12th Avenue South between Iowa Avenue and Constitution Way

3

3

2

1

3

12

Med

486

$ 19,002.60

16th Avenue South from 1st Street South over the railroad overpass

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

899

$ 35,150.90

2nd Street South from proposed Sherman pathway connector to Southside

2

2

2

1

2

9

Low

Bike Lanes

Amity Road from Happy Valley Road to Meridian and Kuna

2

3

2

2

3

12

Med

Bike Lanes

Amity Road/Maple Street between 12th Avenue South and South Locust Street

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

Bike Lanes

Birch Lane between 11th Avenue North and Idaho Center

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

5307

$ 207,503.70

Bike Lanes

Birch Lane between the Mason Creek Trail and Franklin

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

1266

$ 49,500.60

Bike Lanes

Cherry Lane from Midland to the midpoint between Midland and Ten Lane

1

1

2

3

2

9

Low

Flamingo Avenue between the proposed Elijah Drain Trail and Midland Boulevard

2

2

2

1

3

10

Med

Bike Lanes

Franklin Boulevard between Birch and 3rd Avenue North

3

3

2

1

3

12

Med

5365

$ 209,771.50

Bike Lanes

Garrity Boulevard from Avenue North to I-84

16th

3

3

1

1

3

11

Med

6019

$ 235,342.90

Bike Lanes

Holly Street, East Sheridan Avenue, Fern Street, East Bird Avenue, Holly Street between Roosevelt Avenue and Constitution Way

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

7197

$ 281,402.70

Idaho Center Boulevard/Can Ada Road between Franklin Road and East University Way

2

3

3

3

3

14

High

Idaho Center Boulevard/Can Ada Road between Franklin Road and I-84

2

3

3

3

3

14

High

Iowa Avenue between Middleton Road and Midland Boulevard

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

Facilty Type Weight Facility Type Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes

Bike Lanes

Bike Lanes

Bike Lanes

Bike Lanes

Length (ft)

Alignment Value

and

Table 9: Bike Lanes

Cost

Street or Alignment

6445 1021

1536

1318

4004

3855

3031 5286

$ 251,999.50 $ 39,921.10 $ 60,057.60

$ 51,533.80

$ 156,556.40

$ 150,730.50

$ 118,512.10 $ 206,682.60

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 55


Consistency with Local Plans

Implementation Opportunities

Function Efficiency

Total Score

Priority *,**

2

2

3

2

3

12

Med

Bike Lanes

Kings Road between the Indian Creek Trail and Amity Road

2

2

2

1

3

10

Med

Bike Lanes

Lone Star Road and 7th Avenue South between Middleton Road and 1st Street South

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

Mcmillan Robinson

to

1

2

1

1

2

7

Low

Midland Boulevard between Flamingo Avenue and Sunny Lane

3

2

2

1

3

11

Med

Smith Avenue from Midway Road to Midland Boulevard

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

Star Road between West Ustick Road to West McMillan Road

2

2

2

0

3

9

Low

Victory Road between South Sugar Avenue and the intersection of the proposed Mason Drain Trail.

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

Wal Mart/ Sams' Club road from Franklin Road to E. Gate Boulevard

2

2

2

2

1

9

Low

1119

$ 43,752.90

West Ustick Road between 11th Avenue North to Star Road

2

2

2

1

3

10

Med

1049

$ 41,015.90

1

1

2

2

2

8

Low

2

2

1

1

2

8

Low

Colorado Avenue, Diamond Street, Amity Road between Holly Street and Happy Valley Road

3

3

2

3

3

14

High

Birch Lanes between Madison and the Mason Creek Trail

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

1385

Dooley Lane between Midland Boulevard and Sunnyridge Road

2

2

3

1

3

11

Med

8080

$ 315,928.00

Grays Lane between Victory Road and Amity Road

2

2

3

1

3

11

Med

5318

$ 207,933.80

Bike Lanes

Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes

Bike Lanes

Bike Lanes

Future Bike Lanes Future Bike Lanes Future Bike Lanes

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

from

CanAda

Cherry Lane from the midpoint between Midland and Ten Lane to Northside Northside between Cherry Lane and 4th Street N

Length (ft)

Community Connections

and

Alignment Value Karcher Road between Middleton and Existing bike lane: Midland between Karcher and Laster

Facilty Type

6664 2197

1371 5164

5949 10531 5269

Cost $ 260,562.40 $ 85,902.70 $ 53,606.10

$ 201,912.40 $ 232,605.90 $ 411,762.10 $ 206,017.90 $ 206,799.90

5289

3987

$ 155,891.70

9118

$ 356,513.80

1381

$ 53,937.10

$ 54,153.50

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 56


Function Efficiency

3

1

3

13

High

1786

$ 69,832.60

Iowa Avenue between Midway Road and Middleton Road

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

5365

$ 209,771.50

Lake Lowell Avenue from Middleton Road to 12th Avenue South

3

3

2

1

3

12

Med

1058

$ 41,367.80

Middleton Road between Moss Lane and Greenhurst Road

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

2366

$ 92,510.60

Powerline from Dakota to Elija Drain Path

2

2

1

2

3

10

Med

666

$ 26,040.60

Dooley Lane between Midland Boulevard and Sunnyridge Road

2

2

3

1

3

11

Med

8080

$ 315,928.00

Shoulder Bikeway

Birch Lane (south side) between Franklin and the Grimes Creek Trail

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

946

$ 74,235.20

Shoulder Bikeway

Birch Lane between Northside and Madison

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

2648

$ 207,795.78

Shoulder Bikeway

Locust Lane between Sunnyridge Road to Happy Valley Road

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

1382

$ 108,449.31

Shoulder Bikeway

Midland between Greenhurst

2

2

3

1

3

11

Med

2629

$ 206,304.80

Shoulder Bikeway

Midland Boulevard between Laster Lane and the Sugar Factory Road alignment

2

2

2

1

2

9

Low

5360

$ 420,613.81

Shoulder Bikeway

Ruth Lane between 12th Avenue South and Sunnyridge Road

2

2

3

2

2

11

Med

2643

$ 207,403.41

Shoulder Bikeway

Sunnyridge Road between Greenhurst Road and Ruth Lane

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

8166

$ 640,808.28

Shoulder Bikeway: Future Bike Lane

Victory from Grays to Happy Valley

3

3

2

2

3

13

High

2641

$ 103,263.10

164562

$7,370,421.37

Bike Lane Project Totals

Iowa

and

Length (ft)

Implementation Opportunities

3

Priority *,**

Consistency with Local Plans

3

Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking: Future Bike Lane

Total Score

Community Connections

and

Alignment Value Holly Street between Constitution Way and East Greenhurst Road

Facilty Type

Cost

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 57


Bike Lane Scoring: scale of 1 to 3  1: option is neutral  2: option is positive  3: best solution to satisfy criteria 

Criteria: Alignment Value‐ is the project key to the overall success of the network and connect to local or regional destinations?  Community Connections ‐ are the bike lanes located connect to schools, transit stops, parks, or off‐street trails?  Consistency with Local Plans ‐ does the alignment meet the objectives of other plans and connect to existing and planned projects?  Function and Efficiency ‐ does the route minimize out‐of‐direction travel (transportation routes)?  Implementation Opportunities ‐ are there opportunities to leverage costs, materials and design services with another project (e.g. Safe Routes to  School projects, required as part of a development application, etc.)? 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 58


Community Connections

Consistency with Local Plans

Implementation Opportunities

Function Efficiency

Total Score

Priority *,**

Length (ft)

Weight

Alignment Value

Share Lane Marking Routes

and

Table 10: Shared Lane Markings

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

19039

$ 97,098.90

3

3

1

1

3

11

Med

4154

$ 21,185.40

3

3

3

2

3

14

HIgh

760

$ 3,876.00

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

3335

$ 17,008.50

3

3

2

1

3

12

Med

7385

$ 37,663.50

2

3

3

3

1

12

Med

1351

$ 6,890.10

3

3

3

3

2

14

High

1165

$ 5,941.50

3

3

3

3

2

14

High

4123

$ 21,027.30

2

2

2

1

2

9

Low

3200

$ 16,320.00

2

3

3

1

3

12

Med

3982

$ 20,308.20

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

8524

$ 43,472.40

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

5281

$ 26,933.10

2

3

2

1

2

10

Low

8586

$ 43,788.60

2

3

2

1

2

10

Low

5210

$ 26,571.00

3

3

2

2

3

13

High

3186

$ 16,248.60

2

2

2

1

2

9

Low

2799

$ 14,274.90

2

3

3

1

3

12

Med

8675

$ 44,242.50

2

2

2

2

2

10

Low

3031

$ 15,458.10

93786

$ 462,850.50

Cost

Street or Alignment

11th Avenue North from Ustick Road to Stampede Drive; Stampede Drive to Garrity Boulevard 16th Avenue North from the Railroad overpass to Garrity Boulevard 1st Street South between 17th Avenue South to 15th Avenue South 1st Street South between Phyllis Canal Trail and 7th Avenue South 6th Street North from 14th Avenue North to 4th Avenue North; 4th Avenue North from 6th Street North to Franklin Road Badger Drive between Kings and Railroad Birch Lane (north side) from Franklin to Grimes Creek Trail alignment Birch Lane between Grimes Creek Trail alignment and 11th Avenue North Cassia Street between Karcher and West Flamingo Avenue Davis Street between Midland Boulevard and Canyon Street Greenhurst Road between Midland and Sunnyridge Iowa Avenue from Midland Boulevard to 12th Avenue South Linden Street from Madison Road to the proposed Ten Mile Creek Trail; Madison Road to Karcher Road; Karcher Road to Rails-to-Trails path. Moss Lane from Midway Road to Middleton Road Orchard Avenue between Midland Boulevard and Caldwell Boulevard Powerline Road connecting East Sherman Avenue:; East Sherman Ave from Powerline Road to Chicago Street Roosevelt Avenue between the Orr Drain Trail and Canyon Street Sherman Avenue between Holly and Powerline

Shared Lane Marking Project Totals

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 59


Shared Lane Marking Scoring: scale of 1 to 3  1: option is neutral  2: option is positive  3: best solution to satisfy criteria 

Criteria: Alignment Value‐ is the project key to the overall success of the network and connect to local or regional destinations?  Community Connections ‐ do the shared lane markings located connect to schools, transit stops, parks, or off‐street trails?  Consistency with Local Plans ‐ does the alignment meet the objectives of other plans and connect to existing and planned projects?  Function and Efficiency ‐ does the route minimize out‐of‐direction travel (transportation routes)? Implementation Opportunities ‐ are there opportunities to leverage costs, materials and design services with another project (e.g. Safe Routes to  School projects, required as part of a development application, etc.)? 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 60


Community Connections

Consistency with Local Plans

Implementation Opportunities

Function Efficiency

Total Score

Priority

Weight

1

1

1

1

1

10th Avenue South from Front Street to 4th Street South

3

3

2

2

3

13

High

1496

$ 26,125.60

13th Avenue South from Front Street to Roosevelt, connecting to Nectarine Street to Dewey

2

3

3

1

3

12

Med

7129

$ 124,498.26

14th Avenue North from East Railroad Road to 7th Street North; 7th Street North to 12th Avenue North; 12th Avenue North to Garrity Boulevard

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

6065

$ 105,916.95

18th Avenue South from 1st Street South to 8th Street South; 8th Street South to Roosevelt Avenue, connecting to Elder Street; Elder Street to East Hawaii Avenue; East Hawaii Avenue to South Juniper Street, turning south on Juniper Street to Greenhurst Road. Constitution Way from 12th Avenue South to South Juniper Street

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

14204

$ 248,053.49

1st Street South from 7th Avenue South to 8th Avenue South, turning northeast to Front Street; Front Street to 14th Avenue South, turning southwest to 1st Street South, turning southeast to 15th Avenue South, turning northeast to Front Street, turning southeast going under the 16th Avenue South overpass to 17th Avenue South, turning northeast to 1st Street South; 1st Street South from 17th Avenue South to 22nd Avenue South

3

3

3

1

1

11

Med

6794

$ 118,647.95

22nd Avenue South from 1st Street South to 4th Street South, turning up 4th Street South to 20th Avenue South; 20th Avenue South to Roosevelt Avenue, connecting to Almond Street; Almond Street to Amity Road

2

3

3

1

2

11

Med

7157

$ 124,987.25

4th Street North from 11th Avenue North to 17th Avenue North; 17th Avenue North from 4th Street North to Railroad Road

2

3

3

1

2

11

Med

3417

$ 59,673.25

4th Street South from 3rd Avenue South to 22nd South

2

3

3

1

3

12

Med

7169

$ 125,196.81

8th Street South from 7th Avenue South to 10th Avenue South; 10th Avenue South from 8th Street South to Roosevelt Avenue

3

3

3

1

2

12

Med

4481

$ 78,254.55

Blakeslee Drive from Greenhurst Road to South Powerline Road; Nevada Avenue from South Powerline Road to South Harbour Springs Street, South Harbour Springs Street

2

3

2

1

2

10

Low

6895

$ 120,411.77

Length (ft)

Bicycle Boulevard Routes

and

Alignment Value

Table 11: Bicycle Boulevards

Cost

Street or Alignment

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 61


Community Connections

Consistency with Local Plans

Implementation Opportunities

Function Efficiency

Total Score

Priority

2

2

1

3

10

Low

1312

$ 22,912.29

Camelot Drive between Midland Boulevard and the proposed Elijah Drain Trail

2

3

3

1

2

11

Med

1772

$ 30,945.56

Canyon Street from Greenhurst Road to irrigation facility; Bayhill Drive from irrigation facility to Dooley Lane

1

3

3

1

2

10

Low

2969

$ 51,849.54

Canyon Street from Lone Star Road to the Wilson Drain Trail

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

7229

$ 126,244.63

Discovery Place from East Iowa Avenue to East Montana Avenue; west on East Montana Avenue to East Pennsylvania Avenue; East Pennsylvania Avenue to accessway to the Rails-to-Trail pathway near East Ohio Avenue to the south and East Maryland Avenue to the north

3

3

3

1

2

12

Med

3277

$ 57,228.34

East Commanche Street from Southside Boulevard to Seminole Drive to Rails-toTrails via Arapahoe Ct. and Klamath Ct.

3

3

3

1

2

12

Med

3277

$ 53,648.29

East Dewey Avenue from South State Street to Almond Street

3

3

3

1

3

13

High

3277

$ 105,253.34

East Oklahoma Avenue from Southside Boulevard to South Avondale Avenue; South Avondale Avenue to South Royal Meadow Drive, continuing on to East Greenhurst Road

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

3277

$ 102,197.20

East Railroad Street from 11th Avenue North to North Kings Road

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

3277

$ 165,642.59

Maryland Avenue between Midland Boulevard and Horton Street; Valley Drive between Horton Street and 12th Avenue South

2

3

2

1

3

11

Med

3277

$ 94,390.95

Meyer Avenue from Sherman Avenue to 3rd Street South; 3rd Street South from Meyer Avenue to 22nd Avenue South.

3

3

3

2

3

14

High

3277

$ 36,114.80

Roosevelt Avenue from 11th Street South to 8th Street South

3

3

2

1

3

12

Med

3277

$ 26,806.68

Stanford Street between Iowa Avenue and Greenhurst Road

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

3277

$ 43,624.16

Stillwater Way from Lone Star Road to Blaine Avenue; Blaine Avenue to 9th Avenue South; 9th Avenue South to 11th Street

3

3

3

1

2

12

Med

3277

$ 94,408.42

Length (ft)

and

Alignment Value 2

Bicycle Boulevard Routes to East Kara Anne Avenue, on East Kara Anne Avenue onto South Chicago Street to the accessway to the Rails-to-Trail pathway Boundary Street between Blaine Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue

Cost

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 62


Community Connections

Consistency with Local Plans

Implementation Opportunities

Function Efficiency

Total Score

Priority

2

2

2

1

3

10

Low

3277

$ 138,329.46

Summer Breeze Street from Smith Avenue, west to Pleasant Hill Drive; to Lake Pointe Court; to Walden Ponds Street to Neilscott Drive; to Dew Mist Avenue to Tiaga Avenue; to Lone Star Road. Facility branch from Pleasant Hill Drive on West Crown Pointe Avenue to Sagehen Way; to Smith Avenue

2

2

2

1

1

8

Low

6383

$ 111,470.39

Sunny Lane from Midland Boulevard to Stanford Street; Stanford Street from Smith Avenue and High Street; Smith Avenue between Stanford Street to Canyon Street; High Street between Stanford Street and Sunset Street. Canyon Street from 3rd Street South to High Street; Sunset Street from High Street to Lone Star Road

2

2

2

1

2

9

Med

11522

$ 201,216.02

York Avenue from Powerline Road

3

3

3

3

3

15

High

671

$ 11,718.10

149,211

$ 2,605,766.65

Wilson

Ponds

to

Bicycle Boulevard Project Totals

Length (ft)

and

Alignment Value

Sugar Factory Road between Midland Boulevard and Madison Road

Bicycle Boulevard Routes South; 11th Street South to Roosevelt Avenue; connecting to Ivy Street; Ivy Street to Dewey Avenue

Cost

Bicycle Boulevard Scoring: scale of 1 to 3  1: option is neutral  2: option is positive  3: best solution to satisfy criteria 

Criteria: Alignment Value‐ is the project key to the overall success of the network and connect to local or regional destinations?  Community Connections ‐ do the bicycle boulevards  connect to schools, transit stops, parks, or off‐street trails?  Consistency with Local Plans ‐ does the alignment meet the objectives of other plans and connect to existing and planned projects?  Function and Efficiency ‐ does the route minimize out‐of‐direction travel (transportation routes)? Implementation  Opportunities  ‐ are  there  opportunities  to  leverage  costs,  materials  and  design  services  with  another  project  (e.g.  Safe  Routes to School projects, required as part of a development application, etc.)? 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 63


Appendix C: Priority Projects Introduction The Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is a tool that allows Nampa to focus and prioritize implementation efforts where they will provide the greatest community benefit. The following pages provide project description sheets for five projects identified by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Steering Committee. These projects represent the first stage of the Plan’s implementation. Specific recommendations were based on field visits, high resolution aerial photos, and discussions with local planning staff and system users. Each map depicts the recommended walkway/bikeway under focus and details a planning level assessment of current conditions, implementation actions and costs. Planning level evaluations can assist the City when seeking funding sources for projects. The five projects are:     

11th Avenue from 1st Street South to 1st Street North access improvements Front Street from 15th Street South to 17th Street South bicycle boulevard connections 18th Avenue South from 1st Street South to Roosevelt Avenue Wilson Drain Pathway signage plan South Chestnut Street Bicycle Boulevard: Amity Avenue Crossing

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 64


11th Avenue from 1st Street South to 1st Street North Description Eleventh Avenue is a major north/south Nampa connector and one of the few roadways that traverse the railroad tracks in the downtown area. The 11th Avenue and 1st Street South intersection ranks as the highest crash location for motorists and bicycle/pedestrian crashes in the City of Nampa. The 11th Avenue project consists of four components: access to the 11th Avenue underpass walkway, bicycle and pedestrian route wayfinding on 11th Avenue between 1st Street South and 1st Street North, the configuration of the underpass walkway, and safety and security in the project area. The 11th Avenue project would complement the bicycle boulevard planned on Front Street and provide a off-street option for bicyclists to travel between north and south Nampa on 11th Avenue. Improvements would include new curb cuts, a comprehensive wayfinding system, bicycle gutters, improved lighting, and public art elements. Opportunities exist to establish this route as part of the entry way to downtown from North Nampa, until a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian bridge can be constructed to connect 14th Avenue North with 14th Avenue South.

Existing Conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Underpass walkway The underpass walkway is 6.5 feet wide and begins at the 11th Avenue and 1st Street South intersection, ending about 128â&#x20AC;&#x2122; north of the railroad crossing structure. The walkway is only on the east side of 11th Avenue.

Approach to the 11th Avenue underpass walkway from the 1st Street South (northeast corner) Eleventh Avenue underpass walkway, looking north from the Front Street access stairwell

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 65


UP

Fu t

icy cle

Fu tu Bo re ul Bic ev yc ar le d

B

RR

ur eB

Av en

11 th

B

ue

No rth

1s t No Stre rth et

Bo

ul

ev

ar d G F C

H

D

Fr on tS tre et

Crosswalk, pavers or colored concrete Regulatory sign Wayfinding signage Regulatory and wayfinding sign

A

Re-establish sidewalk segement

B

Install lighting to IES standards • Sidewalks on both sides of 11th Avenue South

C

Install curb ramps to meet ADA standards

D

Install lighting to IES standards • Front Street the width of 11th Avenue South

E

Eleventh Avenue Stairwell • Add gateway feature to stairwell at Front Street • Install bicycle gutters in the staircase •Install security mirrors on both corners of stairwell at the underpass walkway •Install lighting in stairwell to meet IES standards

F

Eleventh Avenue Underpass Pathway •Install lighting to IES standards •Install public art mural on underpass walkway wall

G

Remove or renovate stairwell structure

H

Work with adjacent businesses to install murals

11

th

Av en ue S

ou th

A

LEGEND

RR

B

UP

C

B

E C

Figure 1. 11th Avenue between 1st Street South and 1st Street North City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: DM/NF Date: April 2011

I

0

37.5

75

150 Feet


Existing Conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Front Street

Front Street from the staircase to the 11th Avenue underpass walkway looking northwest.

Staircase to the 11th Avenue underpass walkway from Front Street.

Proposed Improvements Re-establish the 6 foot wide sidewalk segment along 11th Avenue South between the end of pavement in the US Bank parking lot to 1st Street South. Sections of metal fencing may be required at the northeast corner of 1st Street South and 11th Avenue South. See Figure 1 for locations.

Eleventh Avenue sidewalk has been removed at mid-point between 1st Street South and Front Street. Photo is taken from Front Street, looking toward 1st Street South.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 67


Install lighting along the 11th Avenue sidewalks between 1st Street South and Front Street (both sides), to Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) standards to identify a face up to 20 yards away. IES lighting recommendations are: 

Up to 4 foot candles, with illumination coming from multiple angles to minimize shadowing, thereby increasing facial identification opportunities.

Install LED lighting (LED preferred, Metal Halide at a minimum) with full cut-off light fixtures to provide excellent color rendition and reduce light trespass.

Uniform lighting coverage to prevent dark or shadowed areas. Eleventh Avenue sidewalk (west side) is 12’ feet wide, from Front Street to 1st Street South. Photo is taken from Front Street, looking toward 1st Street South. This section of sidewalk had no pedestrian scaled illumination.

Install curb ramps to ADA standards on: 

Sidewalks on the west and east sides of 11th Avenue South at Front Street.

The sidewalk at the stairwell opening to the 11th Avenue underpass walkway.

The sidewalk on the north side of Front Street, directly across from where the sidewalk on the west side of 11th Avenue South meets Front Street.

Install curb ramps at the entrance to saircase from Front Street to the 11th Avenue underpass walkway

Install lighting along Front Street, between the 11th Avenue west sidewalk and east sidewalk, to IES standards (as noted improvement B above).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 68


Eleventh Avenue Stairwell: 

Add a gateway feature to the stairwell on Front Street and at the pathway approaches from 1st Street North to clearly identify the route.

Install bicycle gutters in the staircase to the 11th Avenue underpass walkway from Front Street.

Install security mirrors on both corners of the stairwell where the stairwell meets the 11th Avenue underpass walkway. The security mirrors will allow pathway users to “see around corners” in this isolated area.

Install regulatory signage at the entrance to the underpass walkway to require bicyclists to yield to pedestrians (e.g., bicyclists must dismount their bicycles when pedestrians are present on the walkway).

Install lighting in the stairwell to IES Standards (as noted improvement B).

Add a gateway feature to the staircase to identify how the staircase fits into the urban pathway system. Install wayfinding signage a map at the gateway.

An example of a bicycle gutter installed in a staircase.

Install lighting in the stairwell to IES standards. Current lighting is limited to street level only.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 69


Eleventh Avenue Underpass Pathway 

Install lighting on the underpass walkway to IES standards (as noted improvement B).

Install regulatory signage at the entrance to the underpass walkway at 11th Avenue South to require bicyclists to yield to pedestrians (e.g., bicyclists must dismount their bicycles when pedestrians are present on the walkway). See location on Figure 1.

Work with local schools and/or artists to develop a mural project on the underpass walkway wall. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) public art strategies include adding faux Install lighting in the 11th Avenue underpass walkway to windows and human features to murals overlooking IES standards. isolated areas to help discourage criminal activity, create a sense of human activity and that the pathway users are being watched. Appling CPTED strategies, the abandoned stairwell shelter structure should be removed or work with local artists and historians to repurpose the structure as a public art piece and/or learning opportunity. The existing condition of the boarded-up structure conveys a lack of ownership and care, which can encourage unwanted behavior in this semi-isolated area.

Abandoned stairwell structure covering a old staicase.

Consider working with adjacent business and local artists to create murals on the buildings facing Front Street that include faux windows (see Figure 3 and Figure 4) to increase the perception that the street is being overlooked and a sense of community pride and ownership.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 70


Install a crosswalk, colored pavement or pavers, from the sidewalk on the east side of 11th Avenue South to the stairwell leading to the 11th Avenue underpass to assist with wayfinding. See location on Figure 1. Install wayfinding signage at the locations shown on Figure 1. Reclassify sidewalks in the project area as multi-use paths, so that bicycling on the sidewalk will be allowed in this limited location in the downtown area Notify law enforcement the sidewalks on 11th Avenue South between 1st Street South and Front Street and on the 11th Avenue underpass walkway are classified as multi-use paths where bicycle riding is allowed.

Potential Issues The re-establishment of the sidewalk on the east side of 11th Avenue South may require negotiations with US Bank to reduce the landscape buffer.

Lead Agency: City of Nampa Planning-Level Cost Opinion $192,000.00, excluding mural cost* $323,750.00, including mural cost*

**Reinforcement costs for Front Street bridge for light poles and wind load requirements not included. underpass for light poles and associated wind load requirements not included. applications

Reinforcement costs for 11th Avenue Above ground locations are possible candidates for solar light

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 71


Figure 2: Mural Examples

BEFORE

AFTER

55 Diamond Court, Massillon, Ohio Mrual Client: City of Massillon, Ohio

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 72


Figure 3: Mural Examples BEFORE

American Hop Museum Toppenish, Washington Mural Client: Toppenish Mural Society & American Hop Museum

AFTER

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 73


Front Street â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15th Street South to 17th Street South Description Front Street between 15th Street South and 17th Street South is a frontage type road under the 16th Avenue underpass. The pavement width ranges from 16.5 feet to 18 feet wide in the corridor. The length of the bicycle boulevard project is approximately .15 miles long. The road is under the jurisdiction and is maintained by the City of Nampa, Public Works Department. The area underneath the underpass is City property.

Front Street, looking west from the east side of the 16th Avenue overpass

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 74


rth Av en

ue

No

E

A

16 th

A F

E

15 th

St re et

So ut h

E

A

C

B

A D E

F

16

th

Av en

ue

So

ut

h

Fr on tS tre et

1s tS tre et S

A A

ou th

LEGEND

B

Install lighting to IES standards in the underpass corridor

C

Clean up storage areas

D

Install public art mural on underpass wall

E

Work with building owner to install art mural on frontage facing the street

F

Install lighting to IES standards along the Front Street corridor

St re et

Install shared lane marking locations

17 th

A

So ut h

Wayfinding signage

Figure 4. Front Street from 15th Avenue South to 17th Avenue South City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: DM/NF Date: April 2011

I

0

37.5

75

150 Feet


Proposed Improvements Install shared lane markings pavement stencils at locations shown in Figure 4. Since Front Street does not have onstreet parallel parking, per the MUTCD (9C.07), shared lane markings should be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 4 feet from the edge of pavement. 

6 pavement stencils required

Install lighting in the 16th Avenue underpass to Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) standards to identify a face up to 20 yards away. IES lighting recommendations are: 

Up to 4 foot candles, with illumination coming from multiple angles to minimize shadowing, which increases facial identification opportunities.

Install LED lighting (LED preferred, Metal Halide at the minimum) with full cut-off light fixtures to provide excellent color rendition and reduce light trespass.

Uniform lighting coverage to prevent dark or shadowed areas.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 76


Appling Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies, clean up the storage area underneath the underpass. Storage areas along the corridor should be screened or removed. The existing condition of the corridor conveys a lack of ownership and care, which can encourage unwanted behavior in this semiisolated area.

Underpass area is currently used for storage

Work with local schools and/or artists to develop a mural project on the underpass walls (see mural examples at the end of this project page). CPTED public art strategies include adding faux windows and human features to murals overlooking isolated areas to help discourage criminal activity, create a sense of human activity and that the bicycle boulevard users are being watched.

Adding faux windows and human features to this underpass wall will reduce the perception of isolation.

Consider working with adjacent business and local artists to create murals (see Figure 6) on the buildings facing Front Street that include faux windows to increase the perception that the street is being overlooked and a sense of community pride and ownership. Install lighting along the Front Street corridor to IES standards (as noted improvement B, subheading on previous page). Install Bicycle Boulevard wayfinding signage at decision points (see Figure 4 for locations). ď&#x201A;ˇ 2 wayfinding signs required Once the bicycle boulevard on 1st Street South is implemented, an additional wayfinding signs will be needed at the 17th Avenue South and 1st Street South and the 15th Avenue South and 1st Street South intersections.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 77


Install standard customized street name signs that have the bicycle boulevard logo and color at the two locations shown in Figure 4. ď&#x201A;ˇ

2 street name signs installed

Potential Issues Must work with Public Works maintenance division to ensure regular street sweeping to keep the pavement clear of debris.

Lead Agency: City of Nampa Planning-Level Cost Opinion $133,000.00, excluding mural cost* $185,500.00, including mural cost*

**Clean-up costs not included

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 78


Figure 5: Mural Examples

Steubenville, Ohio

Alburquerque, New Mexico

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 79


18th Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1st Street South to Roosevelt Avenue Description Eighteenth Avenue is a low-volume, low speed residential street with on-street parking. The roadway width varies from 38 feet to 40 feet (as measured from curb-to-curb), and has no striping to delineate travel lanes. The length of the bicycle boulevard project is approximately .56 miles long. There are nine intersections within the project boundaries (see Figure 6). Three intersections have two-way stop signs, controlling the traffic movements on 18th Avenue. A fourth intersection is at the junction of 18th Avenue and Roosevelt where one stop sign controls the traffic movements on 18th Avenue only. The road is under the jurisdiction and is maintained by the City of Nampa, Public Works Department.

Eighteenth Avenue South, looking south from 1st Street South

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 80


ut h So Av en ue th 18

A

1s tS tre et S

A So

ut h

A Av en ue

Fu t

2n d

ur eB

16

th

icy cle

A Bo

ul

A

ev

ar d

3r d

A

St re et

A 4t h

So ut h

ut So ue

So ut h

20

St re et

Av en

A

A

So ut h

th

5t h

St re et

So ut h

h

A

A

St re et

6t h

A A 7t h

A A

St re et

So ut h

LEGEND St re et

Customized street name sign

So ut h

Wayfinding signage Customized street name and wayfinding sign

A Elder Street

Stop sign

A

Remove stop sign

Roosevelt Avenue

A

Install shared lane marking pavement stencils

Elder Street is a future bicycle boulevard

Figure 6. 18th Avenue South Bicycle Boulevard City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: DM/NF Date: April 2011

I

0

112.5

225

450 Feet

ou th


Proposed Improvements Install shared lane markings pavement stencils immediately after each intersection (see Figure 6 for locations). Since 18th Avenue has on-street parallel parking, per the MUTCD (9C.07), shared lane markings should be “placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 feet from the face of curb.” 

18 pavement stencils required

Install Bicycle Boulevard wayfinding signage at decision points (see Figure 6 for locations).  8 Wayfinding signs required Once the bicycle boulevard on 4th Street South is implemented, an additional wayfinding signs will be needed at the 18th Avenue South and 4th Street South intersection. Upon completion of additional bicycle routes, wayfinding signs with “distance and riding time to destination” information can replace signs at major decision points, such as intersections at Roosevelt Avenue and Elder Street and 18th Avenue South and 1st Street South.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 82


Replace the standard street name signs along the bicycle boulevard corridor with customized street name signs that have the bicycle boulevard logo and color (see Figure 6 for locations) ď&#x201A;ˇ 8 street name signs replaced

Turn the stop signs on 2nd Street South, 3rd Street South, 7th Street South intersections to stop traffic to favor through bicycle movement on 18th Avenue South (see Figure 6 for locations). Intersections on 18th Avenue South at 1st Street, 4th Street, 5th Street, 6th Street and 8th Street may require a future traffic study to determine if stop signs are needed for vehicular traffic crossing 18th Avenue South. Bicycle and pedestrian counts at one or more selected intersections could assist Public Works in determing the amount of cross traffic. Educational campaign to notify motorists that the stop sign direction has been changed at the locations noted.

Potential Issues There are deep drainage dips on the south sides of the 5th Street South and 6th Street South intersections. Bicyclists traveling at higher speeds may find these dips hazardous. Monitoring the condition of these dips may be warranted and retrofitting for bicyclists safety may be needed.

Lead Agency: City of Nampa Planning-Level Cost Opinion

$16,100.00

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 83


Wilson Pathway Signage – Middleton Road to Powerline Road Description The Wilson Pathway is a multi-use pathway adjacent to the Wilson Drain waterway. The developed segments of the Wilson Pathway total just over three miles, with several gap closure projects planned to extend the path to approximately 5.25 miles from South Middleton Road to the Stoddard Trail (near Locust Lane and Southside Boulevard). The existing wayfinding signage consists of a series of pavement marker discs along the developed path segments and directional arrows along the on-street segment of the pathway (Iowa and 12th Avenue South). The mile marker discs are present at .20 mile increments along the path. The “W” in each disc indicates the Wilson Drain Pathway. It would not be apparent to the average trail user what the letter and numbers inside of the discs represented, as there is no signage with a legend along the pathway. The directional arrows only mark the path route from south to north.

Mile marker disc at Wilson Drain Pathway and Iowa Avenue

Directional marker at 12th Avenue South and IowaAvenue.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 84


Lone Star

Middleton

Midland

Roosevelt

Lake Lowell

LEGEND Wayfinding sign Regulatory and wayfinding sign Identity Pavement Marking Legend

Iowa

Proposed Priority Gap Closure

Figure 7. Wilson Drain Pathway Signage, Middleton to Midland City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: SKM Date: May 2011

I

0

0.1

0.2

0.4 Miles


12th Avenue South

Lake Lowell

Stanford

Midland

Iowa

Sunnyridge

Greenhurst

LEGEND Wayfinding sign Regulatory and informational sign Identity Pavement Marking

Dooley

Proposed Priority Gap Closure

Figure 8. Wilson Drain Pathway Signage, Midland to Sunnyridge City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: SKM Date: May 2011

I

0

0.1

0.2

0.4 Miles


Sunnyridge

Greenhurst

Powerline

Skyview High School

LEGEND

Wilson Ponds

Wayfinding sign Regulatory and wayfinding sign Identity Pavement Marking Proposed Priority Gap Closure

Figure 9. Wilson Drain Pathway Signage, Sunnyridge to Powerline City of Nampa Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Data obtained from City of Nampa Author: SKM Date: May 2011

I

0

0.1

0.2

0.4 Miles


Proposed Improvements Install regulatory and informational signage at each trailhead (see locations on Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). This signage should include a map of the pathway network, distance information from trailhead to trailhead and a legend for the mile marker discs. 27 regulatory and informational signs required

A sample regulatory and informational sign that is customized with color, a logo for the path, a legend for the mile marker discs, and a trail map. Additional destinations could be added, along with other bicycle and pedestrian facilities as they are implemented.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 88


Install trail wayfinding signage at decision points (see locations on Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). Wayfinding signs should include distance information to the next decision point or destination, and walking and biking times to the next decision point or destination. 86 wayfinding signs required

Directional signage should be placed at decision points. The sign colors, logo and overall theme should be integrated with all other signage on the path. Good wayfinding systems reinforce the identity of the trail and help users orient themselves.

Install identity pavement markings on spur pathways that connect to the main pathway and where indicated on the sidewalk on 12th Avenue South (see locations on Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9) 15 identity pavement markings required

Entrances to the pathway from spur trails reinforce the wayfinding system. As the Nampa pathway system expands and attracts new users, clear pathway markings will become increasingly important for orientation.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 89


Install customized mile marker pavement discs that clearly indicates which trail the user is on. ď&#x201A;ˇ

26 mile marker pavement discs required. Discs placed at .20 mile increments along the pathway.

This mile marker disc uses the colors and logo found on other path signage, reinforcing the wayfinding system. By including a legend showing where mile 0 begins on the trailhead informational signs, users understand where they are on the trail and can use the mile marker symbol information when calling for emergency assistance on the trail.

Future Considerations As new spurs are implemented, pavement identity markers should be installed on the spur, with regulatory and informational signs at the entrance to the main pathway. New wayfinding signs should be installed on the main pathway at the new spur addition.

Lead Agency: City of Nampa Planning-Level Cost Opinion $109,100

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 90


South Chestnut Street Bicycle Boulevard: Amity Avenue Crossing Description South Chestnut Street is a low-volume, low speed residential street with on-street parking allowed on both sides. The roadway is 40 feet and has no striping to delineate travel lanes. The roadway is designated as a bicycle boulevard in the 2011 Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. This bicycle boulevard will connect the Deer Flat Canal Pathway to the downtown bicycle boulevard along 5th Street South via 20th Avenue South. East Amity Avenue is a four-lane collector road that carries cars at a generally higher traffic speed and volume than the surrounding local streets. Approximately 200 feet to the west of the East Amity Avenue/South Chestnut Street intersection is a major curvature in the roadway, creating limited sight distance for motor vehicle drivers headed east on East Amity Avenue. The road is under the jurisdiction and is maintained by the City of Nampa, Public Works Department.

Eighteen Avenue South, looking south from 1st Street South

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 91


Proposed Improvements Install a hybrid beacon (previously known as a High-intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) (Section 2.2 Design Guidelines) to improve the non-motorized crossings of South Chestnut Street @ East Amity Avenue. The hybrid beacon can significantly improve the operation of a bicycle route, particularly along bicycle boulevard corridors. Because of the low traffic volumes on these facilities, intersections with major roadways are often unsignalized, creating difficult and potentially unsafe crossing conditions for bicyclists. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic progression, timing with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety. Description A hybrid beacon consists of a signal-head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street, and pedestrian and/or bicycle signal heads for the minor street. There are no signal indications for motor vehicles on the minor street approaches. Hybrid beacons are used to improve non-motorized crossings of major streets in locations where side-street volumes do not support installation of a conventional traffic signal (or where there are concerns that a conventional signal will encourage additional motor vehicle traffic on the minor street). Hybrid beacons may also be used at mid-block crossing locations. Guidance Hybrid beacons may be installed without meeting traffic signal control warrants if roadway speed and volumes are excessive for comfortable user crossing. ď&#x201A;ˇ

If installed within a signal system, signal engineers should evaluate the need for the hybrid signal to be coordinated with other signals.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk to provide adequate sight distance.

With the installation of the hybrid beacon, an additional advanced flashing warning light should be installed for eastbound traffic on East Amity Avenue that is activated when the hybrid beacon is activated.

W11-15

Push button actuation South Chestnut Street Bicycle Boulevard

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 92


Install shared lane marking pavement stencils through the intersection to highlight the South Chestnut Street bicycle boulevard crossing of East Amity Avenue.

Potential Issues The curve of the roadway limits sightlines for eastbound traffic to less than 200 feet to the intersection at Chestnut. Providing a safe roadway crossing becomes even more important due to this alignment. Because of this limited sight distance a higher cost treatment is recommended for this intersection.

Lead Agency: City of Nampa Planning-Level Cost Opinion $180,000

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 93


Appendix D. Potential Funding Sources Existing and Potential Funding Sources This chapter reviews financing options for implementing the Nampa Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The discussion includes existing and potential federal, state, and local funding sources, and strategies available or recommended for pursuit. Finally, a strategic approach to using funding sources is outlined. The Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Public Transportation published the Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Mobility Funding Guide Version 1 in October 2010. The Guide includes a catalog of funding opportunities for local communities that provide or want to provide transit, bicycle and/or pedestrian services and infrastructure in Idaho. While this document does list opportunities, it should not be considered an exhaustive search of everything that is available. Relevant funding sources identified in the guide are:  Alternatives Analysis (5339)  Bikes Belong Grant Program  CLIF Bar Trail Preservation Grants  Community Development Block Grant  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)  Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (5310)  Highway Safety Grant Program  Idaho Community Foundation  Intercity Non-Urbanized (Rural) Area [5311(f)]  Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (5316)  The Kodak American Greenways Program  New Freedom Program (5317)  Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program (5320)  Recreational Trails Program  Safe Routes to School  Transportation Enhancement The Guide is available for download from here: http://www.itd.idaho.gov/bike_ped/publications.htm.

Federal Funding Sources Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) Federal funding is primarily distributed through a number of different programs established by Congress. The latest act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted in August 2005 as Public Law 109-59. SAFETEA-LU authorized the federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009. SAFETEA-LU legislation expired on September 30, 2009, but at the time of writing had been extended to September 30, 2011. It is expected that Congress will extend the bill into 2011 or reauthorize the legislation. It should therefore be noted that it is not possible to guarantee the continued availability of any listed SAFETEA-LU programs, or to predict their future funding levels or policy Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 94


guidance. Nevertheless, many of these programs have been authorized in some form in repeated federal transportation reauthorization acts, and thus may continue to provide capital for improvements. In Idaho, federal monies are administered through the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections. Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs, and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. There are a number of programs identified within SAFETEA-LU that are applicable to bicycle and pedestrian projects. These programs are discussed below. More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/index.htm

Transportation Enhancements In April of 2008, the Transportation Board decided to suspend solicitation for new TE projects for FY 20112013. Depending on future funding, the program may be reinstated. More information: http://www.itd.idaho.gov/planning/te/index.htm

Safe Routes to School See information contained in the Guide published by ITD. More information: http://itd.idaho.gov/SR2S/index.html

Surface Transportation Program The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides states with flexible funds which may be used for a variety of projects on any Federal-aid Highway including the National Highway System, bridges on any public road, and transit facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are eligible activities under the STP. This covers a wide variety of projects such as on-street facilities, off-road trails, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals, parking, and other ancillary facilities. SAFETEA-LU also specifically clarifies that the modification of sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is an eligible activity. As an exception to the general rule described above, STP-funded bicycle and pedestrian facilities may be located on local and collector roads which are not part of the Federal-aid Highway System. In addition, bicycle-related non-construction projects, such as maps, coordinator positions, and encouragement programs, are eligible for STP monies. More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/stp.htm

Highway Safety Improvement Program See information contained in the Guide published by ITD. More information: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09030/

Recreational Trails Program See information contained in the Guide published by ITD.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 95


Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program The Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program provides federal funding for transit-oriented development, traffic calming, and other projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and trade centers. The program is intended to provide communities with the resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. The TCSP Program funds require a 20 percent match. Because TCSP program is one of many programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU, current funding has only been extended through September 30, 2011, and program officials are not currently accepting applications for 2011. In most years, Congress has identified projects to be selected for funding through the TCSP program. More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/

New Freedom Initiative SAFETEA-LU created a new formula grant program that provides capital and operating costs to provide transportation services and facility improvements that exceed those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Examples of pedestrian/accessibility projects funded in other communities through the New Freedom Initiative include installing Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), enhancing transit stops to improve accessibility, and establishing a mobility coordinator position. Likely eligible improvements include midblock and high-visibility crossing improvements. More information: http://www.hhs.gov/newfreedom/

Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program See information contained in the Guide published by ITD. More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/

Partnership for Sustainable Communities Founded in 2009, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities is a joint project of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The partnership aims to “improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.” The Partnership is based on five Livability Principles, one of which explicitly addresses the need for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (“Provide more transportation choices: Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health”). The Partnership is not a formal agency with a regular annual grant program. Nevertheless, it is an important effort that has already led to some new grant opportunities (including both TIGER I and TIGER II grants). The City of Nampa should track Partnership communications and be prepared to respond proactively to announcements of new grant programs. Initiatives that speak to multiple livability goals (such as partnerships with local transit districts, or with affordable housing groups) are more likely to score well than initiatives that are narrowly limited in scope to bicycle and pedestrian efforts.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 96


More information: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/

Community Development Block Grants The Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program provides money for streetscape revitalization, which may be largely comprised of pedestrian improvements. Federal CDBG grantees may “use Community Development Block Grants funds for activities that include (but are not limited to): acquiring real property; reconstructing or rehabilitating housing and other property; building public facilities and improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, community and senior citizen centers and recreational facilities; paying for planning and administrative expenses, such as costs related to developing a consolidated plan and managing Community Development Block Grants funds; provide public services for youths, seniors, or the disabled; and initiatives such as neighborhood watch programs.” Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan projects that enhance accessibility are the best fit for this funding source. CDBG funds could also be used to write an ADA Transition Plan for the city.

Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides grants for planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including trails. Funds can be used for right-of-way acquisition and construction. The program is administered by the Idaho Parks and Recreation Department as a grant program. Any Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan projects located in future parks could benefit from planning and land acquisition funding through the LWCF. Trail corridor acquisition can be funded with LWCF grants as well, but historically few trails have been proposed compared to parks. More info: http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/aboutus/grants/communityparksamprecreation.aspx

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) is a National Parks Service (NPS) program providing technical assistance via direct NPS staff involvement to establish and restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds and open space. The RTCA program provides only for planning assistance—there are no implementation monies available. Projects are prioritized for assistance based on criteria including conserving significant community resources, fostering cooperation between agencies, serving a large number of users, encouraging public involvement in planning and implementation, and focusing on lasting accomplishments. This program may benefit trail development in Nampa indirectly through technical assistance, particularly for community organizations, but should not be considered a future capital funding source. More info: http://www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/who-we-are.htm

State Funding As the Transportation System Plan notes: “(T)he primary source of transportation funding distributed to the City of Nampa from the State of Idaho comes from the highway distribution account (HDA). Revenues from this account are generated primarily from fuel taxes (gasoline and diesel) and distributions to state and local transportation agencies are based on a formula specified in Idaho Code (Title 40, Chapter 7). HDA funds are often used to fulfill the matching requirement for federally funded projects.”

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 97


Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The STIP is a fully integrated transportation planning process for transportation planning and transportation project selection. The STIP is updated annually and follows this planning cycle closely to ensure that projects are identified, selected, and prioritized. The STIP is developed through a coordinated and cooperative process by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) involving citizens, elected officials, Tribal governments, other state and federal agencies, each of Idaho’s six metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) and other interested stakeholders. The STIP establishes schedules for a variety of projects, including:  Highways and bridges  Bicycle and pedestrian facilities  Highway safety  Congestion mitigation air quality  Railroad crossing safety  Airports  Public transportation  Transportation planning The STIP must be approved by the Federal Highway Administrative (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This generally occurs within 30 days of submittal. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is afforded an opportunity to comment during the approval process. This multi-year and multimodal program identifies the transportation projects that have been through an inclusive and ongoing public involvement process. After the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is federally approved, major changes (cost, adding a new project, etc.) made to the program would result in a required amendment. The STIP update cycle is ongoing. To assist with the process, ITD annually develops a STIP development timeline in November each year. This calendar assists planners, engineers, metropolitan planning organizations, local jurisdictions, and anyone interested in the STIP process to know when deadlines exist during the process. More information: http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/stip/

Local Funding There are several sources of transportation funding available to city and/or county governments. These sources include:

Property Taxes They make up the majority of local transportation dollars. There are no restrictions on their use for roadway and intersection projects. Impact Fees Impact fees are typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. The City of Nampa’s impact fee ordinance (Title 3, Chapter 7 of the City of Nampa Code) limits the use of impact Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 98


fees to “…system improvements that create additional service available to serve new growth and development. (Ord. 3729, 8-20-2007).” A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- or off-site pedestrian improvements encouraging residents to walk, bicycle, or use transit rather than drive. In-lieu parking fees may be used to help construct new or improved pedestrian facilities. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project’s impacts is critical to avoiding a potential lawsuit.

Vehicle Registration Fees Counties can charge additional vehicle registration fees in addition to those levied by the state. By law, funds collected via this method must be used for roadway and intersection projects. Canyon County (and therefore the City of Nampa) does not currently receive any county-specified vehicle registration funds. Street User Fees Nampa could administer a street user fee though residents’ monthly water or other utility bills. The revenue generated by the fee could be used for operations and maintenance of the street system, with priorities established by the Public Works Department. Revenue from this fund could be used to maintain on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including routine sweeping of bicycle lanes and other designated bicycle routes. Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are most often used by cities to construct localized projects such as streets, sidewalks or bikeways. Through the LID process, the costs of local improvements are generally spread out among a group of property owners within a specified area (with the City providing a predetermined match). The cost can be allocated based on property frontage or other methods such as traffic trip generation. Business Improvement Districts Pedestrian improvements can often be included as part of larger efforts aimed at business improvement and retail district beautification. Business Improvement Districts collect levies on businesses in order to fund area-wide improvements that benefit businesses and improve access for customers. These districts may include provisions for pedestrian and bicycle improvements, such as wider sidewalks, landscaping, benches, drinking fountains and ADA compliance. Local Bond Measures Local bond measures, or levies, are usually initiated by voter-approved general obligation bonds for specific projects. Bond measures are typically limited by time based on the debt load of the local government or the project under focus. Funding from bond measures can be used for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Tax Increment Financing/Urban Renewal Funds Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a tool that uses future gains in taxes to finance current improvements that will create those gains. When a public project (e.g., sidewalk improvements) is constructed, surrounding property values generally increase and encourage surrounding development or redevelopment. The increased tax revenues are then dedicated to finance the debt created by the original public improvement project. Tax Increment Financing typically occurs within designated Urban Renewal Areas (URA) that meet certain Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 99


economic criteria and approved by a local governing body. To be eligible for this financing, a project (or a portion of it) must be located within the URA.

Other Local Sources Residents and other community members are excellent resources for garnering support and enthusiasm for a bicycle and pedestrian facility, and the City should work with volunteers to substantially reduce implementation and maintenance costs. Local schools, community groups, or a group of dedicated neighbors may use the project as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties can be formed to help clear the right-of-way for a new trail or maintain existing facilities where needed. A local construction company could donate or discount services. Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time, such as grants and private funds. The City should look to its residents for additional funding ideas to expedite completion of the bicycle and pedestrian system.

Funding Strategy for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Nampa should continue pursuing funding strategies that have been successful in the past, as well as exploring new strategies, including:           

 

Securing funds for large projects through grants Seeking non-local funding sources for capacity-building bicycle and pedestrian projects Submitting stand-alone bicycle/pedestrian projects to future STIP efforts Funding multimodal corridor projects through the STIP and the STP-U program Funding on-street facility installation or upgrades as roadway projects are implemented (through design standards and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommendations) Funding local street upgrades through LIDs Identifying creative funding sources where possible (e.g. utilities projects for bridges) Pursuing statewide Safe Routes to School grants for schools projects Ensuring that private development “pays its way” through City design standards and development code, and by ensuring that bicycle and pedestrian projects continue to be funded through impact fees Ensuring that projects from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan are included in future Capital Improvement Program lists Explore potential state and federal funding sources that have not historically been used for bicycle and pedestrian projects (e.g. the Highway Safety Improvement Program or the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program). Work with appropriate local agencies to ensure that projects identified in this Plan are included in capital project plans for agencies or groups whose goals would be served by said projects Consider developing policy recommendations related to bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure in preparation for future Council discussions to discuss an increase in the local fuel tax or a transportation system maintenance fee. Explore the possibility of collaborating with the stormwater division on a Green Streets Traffic Calming capital projects that would simultaneously meet the goals of this Plan and the goals of the city’s stormwater management program.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 100


Appendix E: Background Data and Plans Background Plans City of Nampa Central Nampa Revitalization Blueprint, August 2004 The objective of the Central Nampa Revitalization Blueprint is to recognize, exploit and enhance the various districts that make up the downtown area. The central area is made up of 104 blocks with the general boundaries of Nampa Boulevard, 16th Avenue, Garrity Boulevard, and 7th Avenue. The four districts are: Civic Campus, Classic Village, Historic Downtown and Transit Village. The Civic Campus District is bordered by Nampa Boulevard on the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor on the north, 4th Avenue on the east and 4th Street South to the south. A key goal for the Civic Campus District is to include pedestrian paths that enhance the site’s character and connect to the larger network of trails, parks, districts and natural areas. Trails are intended to be an amenity for all community businesses. The Classic Village District is bordered by 4th Avenue South on the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor on the north, 10th Avenue South on the east and 4th Street South on the south. The Classic Village District celebrates the automobile and is focused on automobile oriented goods and services and a family friendly activities. The Historic Downtown District is bordered by 10th Avenue South on the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor on the north, 17th Avenue on the east, and 4th Street South on the south. Pedestrians have priority over vehicular traffic in this district. Land use emphasis is placed on social-retail, small business development, arts and culture, office and residential mix on upper floors, transit node connection, and a continuing education and community technology center. Enhancement of, and connectivity to, open spaces and pathways to support a vibrant downtown core is a priority. The Transit Village District is generally bordered by 10th Avenue South on the west, Franklin and Garrity Boulevards on the north, 17th Avenue on the east, and 7th Street South to the south. Walking and biking are key tenets of this district to support a multi-modal transportation network. A wide range of residential unit types is encouraged to limit “sprawl”. In addition to the four districts, four boulevards are identified to become “refined urban boulevards”. These boulevards are: 11th Avenue, 16th Avenue, 2nd Street and 3rd Street. The aim is to enhance the quality and character of these roadways with bicycle facilities, landscaping, pedestrian amenities and other distinctive design elements to encourage businesses to relocate downtown.

City of Nampa Building and Site Design Standards Summary Building and site design standards are only required in specific districts. The Summary indicated that direct contact with the City is required to determine applicability. The Summary classifies pedestrian pathways as walking and bicycle paths and states that pedestrian pathways are to be included in the development sites of one acre or more.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 101


City of Nampa Comprehensive Plan, January 2004 The City of Nampa Comprehensive Plan directs land use within the city boundaries and the Area of City Impact. The Plan reflects community desires, concerns and legislative requirements in a framework that guides city goals and development patterns. Of the fourteen components in the Plan, the following are relevant to the bicycle and pedestrian planning process: Environment Although, seasonal temperature inversions can result in high levels of pollutants during the winter (PM25) and ozone levels in the summer, the overall air quality in Nampa is considered “good”. It is anticipated that as Nampa continues to grow, CO2 emissions from motor vehicles will eventually negatively impact air quality in the region. Identified strategies to proactively mitigate air pollution concerns are programs such as, “Commuteride”, and the development of effective transportation corridors. Flooding is the primary natural hazard event that occurs in Nampa. Generally, development in floodways and floodplains is discouraged. However, the Plan identifies floodways and floodplains as valuable resource areas that can be appropriate for the development of some types of recreational facilities (open space, sports fields and scenic areas). These recreational facilities typically do not interfere with water flow and are not significantly impacted by seasonal flooding. There are 66 public and private railroad intersections in Nampa. At many of these intersections, the railroad tracks intersect the north/south gridded street network at a 45 degree angle. This geometric configuration makes crossing the railroad track dangerous. The Federal Railroad Administration has identified the following three rail/road intersections with the “highest accident prediction values”, based on recorded accidents and the intersection design: Robinson Boulevard, Happy Valley Road, and King’s Corner Crossing at Amity Road.

Schools The Schools section primarily addresses educational attainment, student enrollment, physical activity, capacity and secondary education. However, the following goal, objective and supporting actions are directly related to bicycle and pedestrian planning: Goal: Promote a pro-active and forward looking environment for providing access to and involvement in high quality educational opportunities for all Nampa residents. Objective: Plan for well-located schools which are convenient, easily accessible, safe, a part of cohesive development, and are considered the focal point of the neighborhood. Actions:   

Provide safe access for students from new developments and from existing residential areas. Establish a task force to identify unsafe transportation conditions adjacent to schools and develop an action plan to remedy those conditions. Create and implement a neighborhood school concept which minimizes busing, reduces traffic congestion, and reduces air pollution.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 102


Transportation Nampa’s streets are generally organized in a gridded road network. The grid structure is made up of one-mile sections oriented in a north-south direction. Street classifications are based on width, access points and traffic volumes (see Table 12) The relatively flat terrain and mild climate support bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. Table 12: Nampa Street Classifications Street Type

Typical Way

Right-of- Number of Travel Lanes

Principal or Minor Arterial

80’ to 100’

4 minimum, 5 on arterials

Collectors

60’

2, occasionally 4

Local

37’ paved, 56’ total

2 with on-street parking

Typical ADT 15,000

3,000

An urban design working group provided input in the transportation component. This group noted that improving intra-city access for all modes of transportation should tie into inter-city master plans. Pathways and greenways are briefly addressed, noting that establishing bicycle and pedestrian network is part of the Long Range Parks Plan update. The following goals, objectives and actions offer a more detailed look at Nampa’s alternative transportation mode vision. Goal: Develop a balanced and mixed transportation system in accordance with air quality and environmental concerns that provides for the efficient and safe movement of people and goods. Objective: Coordinate land use planning with transportation planning to ensure that key projects are funded and constructed. Action: Provide street and pedestrian connections between new and existing residential, commercial and employment areas. Goal: Consider pedestrian and bicyclist needs and requirements, as well as vehicular traffic in all land use decisions. Objective 1: Plan and complete a bicycle/pedestrian network to serve the city so bicycles become an integral part of daily life in Nampa, particularly for trips of less than five miles. Actions:      

Adopt Nampa Bikeways Map Connect bikeways to Old Nampa District and downtown Complete Wilson Creek Greenway Expand Indian Creek Greenway Extend trails to Lake Lowell Maintain education and safety programs in association with the police department and bicycle interest groups  Investigate opportunities for bicycle parking  Identify and construct north south bicycle/pedestrian routes Objective 2: Establish and maintain trail links between schools, parks, shopping and neighborhoods. Provide access to natural areas while maintaining the sites natural attributes.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 103


Actions:      

Adopt Nampa Bikeways Map Identify and construct north south bicycle/pedestrian routes Complete Wilson Creek Greenway Expand Indian Creek Greenway Extend trails to Lake Lowell Work with neighborhood associations to determine their transportation needs

Objective 3: Emphasize the establishment of trails and open space corridors. Support the establishment and maintenance of Nampa Greenways, including the preservation of trail greenways and multi-use irrigation corridors. Actions:      

Adopt Nampa Bikeways Map Examine subdivision annexations and zoning ordinances for opportunities to enhance trail and open space corridors Complete Wilson Creek Greenway Expand Indian Creek Greenway Extend trail on Stoddard Branch Extend trails to Lake Lowell

Land Use The neighborhood center concept of the land use component encourages a mix of residential, commercial, office and public uses to serve residents within a two to three square mile area. Central to the concept is that each neighborhood center be pedestrian-oriented with connections to adjacent neighborhood centers and regional pathways. Community Design and Special Areas The Community Design component acknowledges the importance of a greenways network in the open space system. Linear features, such as creeks, canals, drainages are seen as potential locations for trails. The Plan states that trails located in easements “would not interfere with irrigation use”. Citizens have a history of supporting urban open space to improve the quality of life in Nampa. Under the following goal, there are a number of objectives and action items. The one action item (listed below) that relates to bicycle and pedestrian planning, reappears multiple times: Goal: Promote, encourage and facilitate the development and preservation of special need and interest areas that are reflective of historic and physical attributes and contribute to the unique nature of the specific area.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 104


Action:

Expand street furniture, public art and interpretive signage in the designated special areas of the urban center. A second objective and action under the goal listed is: Objective: Improve pedestrian safety and minimize through traffic in neighborhoods. Action:  Support sidewalk improvement  Stripe and enforce crosswalks  Work with neighborhood associations  Prepare traffic calming plan Goal: Enhance Nampa as a livable city, attractive in its setting and dynamic in its urban character, by preserving its history and building a substantial legacy of quality private developments and public improvements. Objective: Protect areas of historical, archaeological, and architectural significance, the City will support the Idaho State Historical Society’s Certified Local Government program by reenergizing the City Historic Preservation Commission’s role of identifying and inventorying areas and sites that should be recognized and preserved. Action:  Prepare walking tour guide and public education Objective: Increase public awareness of historic resources, preservation concerns and the community’s heritage. Action:  Prepare walking tour guide and public education Goal: Balance the diverse uses of Nampa’s greenways by protecting, enhancing and maintaining the natural, hydrological, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic, and recreation qualities of lands along creeks, canals, drains and laterals. Objective: Protect adjacent private properties from the negative impact of public recreation uses. Action:  Establish an adopt-a-trail program  Consider sound/privacy fences Objective: The City of Nampa will retain the primary responsibility for implementing pathways along a greenway network and developing a linear park on appropriate public ownership.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 105


Action:    

Adopt and implement Nampa Bikeways Map Utilize park greenway and bicycle plans to expand network Provide and maintain public access along greenways Assure interconnectivity and protection of greenways through new development permit conditions

City of Nampa Local Improvement District (LID) Program The LID program is a method by which property owners can finance the cost to construct public infrastructure improvements (e.g. sidewalks and curb and gutters, pathways, landscaping, street lights, etc.) through property assessments with a long-term payment plan. The LID programs offered by Nampa are governed by Idaho Statutes (Title 50, Chapter 17). Improvement costs are determined through a city council ordinance, they total assessable costs are divided equally between the parties in the LID. Property owners can pay any or all of the assessed costs within thrity days. Any unpaid amounts are billed at a tenth (1/10) of the principal, plus bond interest, annually for ten years. An LID program can be created by petition or by a resolution of the city council. LID programs created by petition are typically organized by interested parties that petition the city council to create a LID. The petition must be signed by at least 60% of the resident owners or two-thirds of the owners of property subject to assessment. LID programs created by resolution are typically in response to a deficiency or safety issues and are targeted to a specific area. The scheduling of new LIDs that cover sidewalks, curb and gutter, utilities, pavement inspections, roadway maintenance and construction, occurs in conjunction with the Public Works Asset Management program. The Asset Management program divides the City into seven zones. Each year, one zone is addressed, thus each zone receives attention every seven years. For more information on LID programs in the City of Nampa, contact the Public Works Engineering Division. The Engineering Division has a created a Frequently Asked Questions sheet.

Nampa Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, 2001 This report discusses the findings and recommendations to provide park, open space, trails and other recreation facilities in Nampa. In Section 3 – Existing Recreation Resources, it is noted that “The City has the opportunity to develop a major off-street trail system, utilizing irrigation canal right-of-ways and the Rails to Trails corridor. While only segments are completed at this time, eventually when connected, the city will have a very significant trail system.” Section 3.2 covers the Parkland definitions, of which the two most relevant are: 

Linear Parks/Trail Corridors – Linear parks are developed landscaped areas and other lands that follow linear corridors such as abandoned railroad right-of-ways, powerlines, and other elongated features. This type of park usually contains trails, landscaped areas, viewpoints and seating areas. Greenways/Greenbelts – These are linear natural open space areas that link parks and/or other natural features. These types of areas usually follow linear corridors such as streams, creeks and drainage ways.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 106


Section 3 also includes a summary of existing trails in Nampa, shown in Table 13. The recommendations in the Plan include a robust trail system that would ultimately result in over 80 miles of trail.

Table 13: City of Nampa Parks and Recreation Summary of Existing Trails, 2001 Area

Linear Feet

Surface

Grimes Trail

2640

Paved

Indian Creek Greenway Trail

2640

Paved

Rails to Trails

10560

Unpaved

Rails to Trails

3186

Paved

Wilson Greenway Trail

13200

Paved

Lakeview Park

NA

Paved

Wilson Creek Park

NA

Unpaved

TOTAL

6.1 miles

Multi Use Path

Park Trails

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 107


Figure 10: Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 108


City of Nampa Streetscape Plan, July 2009 The Nampa Streetscape Plan sets the street configuration and amenities for the three districts in the downtown area: the historic district, village district and the business district. Each district has two design options, one for the “gateway” and one for typical streets. Additional street designs are presented for events, 16th Avenue, neighborhood streets adjoining the downtown core and other special needs. The street configurations for the Historic, Village and Business Districts are identical. The design difference is found in the finish materials used. Inverted “U” Bike racks are specified for all three Districts; however, there are no dedicated on-street bicycle facilities. The Historic, Village and Business District street specifications are:  80-feet of total right-of-way  21-foot wide sidewalks (both sides)  8-feet of on-street parking (both sides)  Two 11-foot wide travel lanes The Gateway scheme allows for design variation at the entry of each district. A third traffic lane is added to accommodate high vehicular use on Second and Third streets. The Gateway scheme:  Reduces the sidewalk width on both sides to 15 feet  Adds an 11 foot wide center-turn lane Event Streets are designed with an emphasis on the pedestrian realm. These streets are intended to accommodate street fairs, markets, festivals and cultural events. Events streets are located on 10th Avenue; on 12th Avenue between 2nd and Front Streets; and on Front Street between 11th and 14th Avenues. Events streets are configured with:  22-foot wide sidewalk  8-feet of on-street parking (one side)  A 20-foot travel lane for two-way vehicular travel  30-foot wide sidewalk A Parkway Street design scheme is slated for the section of 16th Street in the Historic District. The Parkway Design is intended for a gateway location where vehicular traffic enters over the railroad overpass. Moderate pedestrian use is anticipated. The specifications for this street type are:  6-foot sidewalk (both sides)  4-foot (plus or minus) park strip  8-feet of on-street parking (both sides)  Two 11-foot wide travel lanes  11-foot wide center-turn lane The Neighborhood Streetscape is targeted for streets in the Historic, Village and Business Districts on 4th Street; on 1st, 2nd and 3rd Streets between 16th and 17th Avenues; and on 3rd through 15th Avenues from 4th to 5th Streets. This street type is designed for moderate pedestrian use. The Neighborhood Streetscape has the following geometric model:   

6-foot sidewalk (both sides) 11-foot (plus or minus) park strip 8-feet of on-street parking (both sides)

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 109


 4-foot bike lane (both sides)  Two 11-foot wide travel lanes An Urban Bike Lane treatment is proposed for:  1st St. between 1st Avenue and 10th Avenue  4th Street from 2nd Avenue to 18th Avenue  10th Avenue from Front Street and extending to the south  15th Avenue from Front St. to 2nd St.  16th Street from 1st Street and extending across the overpass to the north  11th Avenue extending from Front Street through the underpass to the north The roadway design is intended for any streetscape type by adding a 4 foot bike lane to the vehicular zone and reducing the sidewalk by 4 feet, on one of both sides of the street. A typical layout is:  17-foot wide sidewalk (both sides)  8-feet of on-street parking (both sides)  4-foot bike lane (both sides)  Two 11-foot wide travel lanes The Nampa Downtown Streetscape Plan can be found on the following page.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 110


Figure 11: Nampa Downtown Streetscape Plan

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 111


Nampa Street/Path Master Plan Map The Nampa Street/Path Master Plan map identifies planned road classifications and geometry, along with existing and planned trail locations, in Nampaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Comprehensive Planning Area. The map lists the total rightof-way available, along with the number of travel lanes intended for each right-of-way. Figure 12: Nampa Street/Path Master Plan

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 112


The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan, January 2003 The Old Nampa District Neighborhood Plan outlines several key proposals to direct renewal and revitalization of the area. Two urban design recommendations are pertinent to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The first set of recommendations is for the improvement of the pedestrian environment. Improvement recommendations include:  Lighting  Curb bulbs to o reduce intersection crossing distances o create room for landscaping, street furniture and small public spaces o reduce the visual width of the street and slow traffic  Pedestrian orientation  Traffic calming on the major arterials and local streets  Improve crosswalks with special treatments  Improve curb cuts to meet current ADA access requirements  Add planting strips and street trees The second set of recommendations is for bicycle facilities. Bike lanes are recommended on the main arterials of:  7th Street South  Yale Street  11th Avenue South  7th Avenue South Other improvements made for the above four streets are for the planting of street trees in the existing planting strips and on private property behind the sidewalk. The Plan emphasized that plantings on private property would be with the cooperation of property owners. Of note was that many of the older trees in the area have been removed or severely pruned back. A self-guided walking tour is recommended as a promotion and marketing tool to promote the pedestrian character of the neighborhood.

North Nampa Revitalization Strategy, April 2008 The North Nampa Revitalization Strategy was a result of growth pressures exerted on the City since 1990. The rapid population increase put the City in a reactive state, rather than a proactive planning state. Not only is North Nampa physically separated from the rest of the city by the Union Pacific Railroad corridor, North Nampa has higher unemployment rates, lower household incomes and declining building quality than the rest of the City. The strengths of the North Nampa area are a gridded street network, mature trees, more parks per acre than any other neighborhood in City of Nampa, Indian Creek, and Lakeview Park. North Nampa’s weaknesses are listed as the number of sub-standard conditions in private rights-of-way and on sidewalks, inadequate street lighting, abrupt transitions between industrial and residential land uses, high crime reputation, low rate of homeownership, high rate of absentee landlords, and an over concentration of low-income housing.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 113


Five of the Plan’s strategic goals are directly related to pedestrian and bicycle issues. Each relevant goal is listed below with accompanying objectives or strategies that support that goal. The first goal is to improve the physical connections between North Nampa and the rest of the community. The objectives associated with this goal are:  Create a walkable community  Build an iconic bridge to downtown  Enhance transit opportunities To create a walkable neighborhood a number of action items are recommended: 

A sidewalk right-of-way program to purchase right-of-way to upgrade sidewalks to meet Universal Design criteria and make Complete Streets  A Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Plan to increase overall safety and neighborhood connections  Extension and integration of an urban trail system to make connections to internal neighborhood destinations and to the City of Nampa at large. The second goal is to construct an iconic architectural bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad, connecting North Nampa to the downtown core. The bridge would be pedestrian-oriented and a critical element to improve the physical connection between the two areas. The third strategic goal is to create a vibrant, livable community. To support this goal distinctive wayfinding signage and the retention and re-establish the street grid is recommended. The fourth goal is to create civic amenities through the mitigation of floodplain issues. An important aspect of this strategy is the creation of a linear parks master plan. The linear parks would connect existing parks and trails, serve as a desireable community amenity and provide flood protection through habitat restoration. Three trail typologies are recommended for the linear park master plan: urban, transitional and neighborhood. The fifth goal is to develop a form-based code to define areas of appropriate use, form, density and diversity. The creation of public space standards is part of the form-based code recommendations. Specifically, the establishment of a streetscape master plan is advocated to define the attributes of walkable streets and to bolster private investment in the area. Attributes of a streetscape master plan should include:    

Consideration many user types, such as pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists Proportion and massing of buildings Attention to specific street types Pedestrian and bicyclist amenities such as awnings, street furniture, lighting, curb bulbs, ramps, trees, bicycle storage and transit shelters

University District Neighborhood Plan, January 2009 The University District Neighborhood Plan was a collaborative effort between residents, city government, educational institutions, and religious organizations. The University District is bounded by E. Roosevelt Avenue on the north, S. Powerline Road on the east, E. Hawaii Avenue on the south and 12th Avenue Road on the west. Part of the vision statement created for the plan reads that “Businesses provide quality goods, food, entertainment, and services largely within walking distance of the University”. The four goals of the plan are

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 114


to increase safety, to instill pride of property (both public and private), to facilitate community and social interaction, and to encourage economic development. A number of the University District Neighborhood Plan’s objectives are grounded in pedestrian and bicycle friendly principals:          

Traffic calming Improved crosswalk markings Pedestrian friendly sidewalks and improved connectivity Bicycle paths Lighting Landscaping features Consistent signage Highlight entryway corridors and intersections with distinctive design features Promote educational programs, such as walk and bike days, to encourage healthy lifestyles Review and alter, as possible and prudent, zoning codes and overlays that maximize the issues noted in the above objectives.

Neighboring City Plans City of Caldwell Pathways and Bike Routes Master Plan, January 2010 The neighboring City of Caldwell has recently proposed the development of 35 miles of multiple use pathways and 92 miles of bicycle routes. A number of these trails and routes would either directly connect to Nampa’s city boundaries, or indirectly connect to Nampa through sections of the unincorporated county to Nampa. Table 14 notes points where Caldwell’s proposed paths or routes essentially end at Nampa’s Comprehensive Plan boundaries. The plan recommends that developers be required to build paths or bike routes or making connections to existing paths by dedicating land for facilities and/or building the system. Development standards set for multiple use paths are:     

Public pathways be dedicated and constructed as a condition of development approval Paths must be constructed to AASHTO standards Recommended width is 8 to 12 feet, 5 feet where available land is constrained Paths must connect to new subdivisions, businesses and other land uses Trail amenities should include signage and interpretive exhibits

Table 14: Caldwell Proposed Paths or Routes Bike routes

Location W. Orchard Avenue, west of Midway Road Moss Street at Midway Road Spruce Street at Madison Road Skyway Drive at Madison Road

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 115


Joplin Road at Madison Road Cirrus Drive at Lakeview Elementary Laster Lane at Midland Boulevard Smith Avenue at Lake Avenue South Florida Avenue at Lone Star Road

Multiple Use Tri-City Corridor (Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way) at Spruce Street Paths (or Trails) Airport Connector multi-use path at Laster Lane

City of Meridian Pathways Master Plan, January 2010 The canal system is the connective thread of the City of Meridian. The Meridian Pathways Master Plan makes the canal system the backbone of the proposed pathway system to connect destinations and accentuate the agrarian history of the city. The canal, rail and roadway systems are common to the City of Meridian, Ada County, the City of Nampa and Canyon County. The City of Meridian Pathways Master Plan shows at least six proposed pathways that intersect or end at the Canyon County border. These pathways could be considered as potential regional connections, if extended into the City of Nampa. The identified pathways are:  Five Mile Creek Pathway at Can Ada Road and W. McMillan Road  Phyllis Canal Pathway near the intersection of Can Ada Road and Ustick Road  Rawson Canal Pathway at County Line Road between E. Victory Road and E. Amity Avenue  Ridenbaugh Canal Pathway at County Line Road just south of Interstate 84  Ten Mile Creek Pathway near the intersection of McDermott Road and Cherry Lane  Treasure Valley Rail-with-Trail at the Canyon/Ada County line One important note: the City of Meridian uses the term pathways to include shared-use paths, multi-use trails, and hiking pedestrian paths.

County Plans Ada County Highway District Roadways to Bikeways Plan, May 2009 The Roadways to Bikeways Plan is a fifty year guiding document for the implementation of a bicycle network that connects all parts of Ada County. The proposed bicycle network will be within a quarter-mile of 95 percent of all Ada County residents. Several of the planned bicycle facilities in Ada County have the potential to create regional facilities if continued into Canyon County and the City of Nampa. The following pathways or bike lanes that could connect to Nampa are: Planned multi-use pathways on the following routes stop at the Canyon County line: 

Boise River Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 116


 Chinden Boulevard Planned bike lanes on the following routes stop a mile short of the Canyon County line:  W. McMillan Road  W. Ustick Road A fifth bike lane is planned on Avalon St. (Kuna Road in Canyon County). Kuna Road is two miles south of E. Lewis Lane just outside of the Nampa Comprehensive Planning Area.

Legislation and Policy Review City of Nampa Nampa City Code The Nampa City Code includes a number of ordinances pertinent to bicycle operation and design. These are described below. Restricted Locations Riding on the sidewalk is permitted under the Idaho Statutes (see “Restricted Locations” under the Idaho Statutes). However, the Police Regulations included in the City Code (section 6-5-3) prohibit the riding of bicycles on sidewalk areas in downtown Nampa, i.e. the area bounded by 10th Avenue South and 15th Avenue South between 4th Street South and Front Street. Riding is also prohibited in the interior area of softball and/or baseball complexes and on all sidewalk, approaches and entrance areas surrounding the Nampa city hall and civic center buildings, the building at the Nampa Recreation Center (section 9-5-2), and the interior area within the Stampede Skatepark. Exceptions to the above include where there are designated parking areas for bicycles. As well, the prohibitions do not apply to the Nampa city police department on duty bicycle patrol. Design Guidance The Planning and Zoning ordinance of the City Code requires that a “bicycle circulation plan” be prepared for sites of one acre or more in the Gateway Business District, Downtown Business Subdistrict, Downtown Village Subdistrict, and Community Business District zones. The Subdivisions ordinance states that “the city may require the placement of bikeways, pathways, or trailways to encourage non-motorized forms of travel and to provide safe, convenient and aesthetic alternative travel routes to common destinations such as schools, parks and shopping centers”. It goes further to say that pathways shall be required, located, and designed per the city master trail plan, the City’s subdivision and construction manuals, or “as required by the city staff or council”. Subdivision street requirements include dedication of the following right-of-ways:    

Local streets with parking on both sides: 56 feet Collector: 80 feet Minor Arterial: 100 feet Section Line, Arterial: 100 feet

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 117


Idaho Transportation Department The Idaho Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995) outlines the policies of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) with regards to pedestrians and bicyclists. It states the mission of the department as providing “a quality transportation system that is safe, reliable, and serves the needs of the travelling public, commerce, and industry”. It also supports “the planning and development of a balanced, multi-modal transportation system”. Consideration in Highway Projects The development and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities is to be assessed on “all federal-aid or state-funded highway projects” and should be “compatible with local pedestrian / bicycle comprehensive plans”. Right-of-Way Accumulation Where a need has been determined and highway rights-of-way are inadequate for bicycle/pedestrian facilities, additional right-of-way may be purchased in fee or by easement. If the facility is not contiguous to the highway right-of-way, the non-contiguous right-of-way must be purchased by another public entity. The matching ratio must also be provided by another agency. Maintenance The ITD does not maintain bicycle facilities unless they are an “integral” part of the roadway surface. Bikeway Type and Design The ITD’s preferred method for providing bicycle facilities is through bike shoulders. These are provided in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards or others set by ITD. Traffic control is provided in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards or others set by ITD. Separate bicycle paths are not financed or constructed by ITD “unless special circumstances make this desirable, as determined by the director”.

State of Idaho Idaho Statutes The Idaho Statutes, in particular Title 49 – Motor Vehicles, Chapter 7 – Pedestrians and Bicycles, relate a number of laws applying to bicycles and other human-powered vehicles. Those relevant to the Nampa Bicycle Master Plan are described below. Behavior Bicyclists are given all the rights and duties (in particular the duty to exercise “due care”) applicable to the driver of any other vehicle. Bicycles can carry only the number of persons they are designed for, although there is provision for adult rider’s to carry a child or to attach a child carrier to their bicycle. Cyclists must also maintain control of their bicycle with at least one hand when carrying an item.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 118


Positioning The Idaho Statutes define a number of rules to position the cyclist safely in the roadway. In general, cyclists are required to ride “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” except when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, and when “reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge”. On one-way roads with two or more lanes, cyclists may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable. Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast, but must be in a single laneway and not “impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic”. Riding two abreast does not impede normal traffic where sufficient width exists and this statute should not prohibit bicyclists from passing riders already riding two abreast. Restricted Locations Except where prohibited by official traffic control devices or local ordinances, the use of bicycles on sidewalks or along crosswalks is permitted under the Idaho Statutes. In fact, in these situations the cyclist is given the same rights and duties of a pedestrian. Bicyclists are required to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian or another bicyclist. Stopping and Turning The following rules have been established in the Idaho code regarding stopping and turning. In general, these encourage fewer complete stops and make for a more continuous cycling experience. Cyclists in Idaho can proceed or turn at a stop sign without coming to a complete stop provided they have slowed to a reasonable speed and yielded the right-of-way. Similarly, cyclists can turn right (or left onto a one-way roadway) without coming to a complete stop at a red traffic control light. The relevant sections of the Idaho Statues are included below. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping. (2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic. When turning, cyclists are to provide “a signal of intention” at least one hundred feet prior to the turn, although “a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle”.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 119


Lights and Reflectors The Idaho Statutes ensure the visibility of cyclists in low-light and dark conditions by requiring lights visible â&#x20AC;&#x153;from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the frontâ&#x20AC;? to be attached to the bicycle or rider and reflectors visible from the rear to be attached to all bicycles operated during these times. Additional lights and reflectors are allowed.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 120


Appendix D. References National and State Guidelines / Best Practices The following is a list of references and sources utilized to develop design guidelines for the Nampa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Many of these documents are available online and are a wealth of information and resources available to the public.

Federal Guidelines  AAHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. www.transportation.org  AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, 2001. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. www.transportation.org  Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, 2002. United States Access Board, Washington, D.C. http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm  Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm  Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), 2007. United States Access Board, Washington, D.C. http://www.access-board.gov/PROWAC/alterations/guide.htm Local Guidelines  Nampa Streetscape Plan, 2009. City of http://www.whynampa.com/assets/docs/streetscape.pdf  Nampa City Code. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=597

Nampa.

Best Practices Documents  FHWA Report HRT-04-100, Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/  FHWA. (2001). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/contents.htm  Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets. 2006. Jennifer Rosales.  Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison of Approaches. Michael King, for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, August 2002 http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikeguide.pdf  Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikepark.pdf  City of Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bike_lane.pdf  The North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, 1994. NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/projects/resources/projects_facilitydesign.html  Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook. 2004. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/bike.htm  Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Handbook. 1999. Florida Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/ped_bike_standards.htm#Florida%20Bike%20Handbook Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 121


  

Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 1995 Oregon Department of Transportation. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml City of Portland (OR) Bicycle Master Plan. 1998. City of Portland (OR) Office of Transportation. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=40414 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2011. National Association of City Transportation Officials.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix | 122

City of Nampa Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan  

A high-quality non-motorized transportation network is the hallmark of desirable communities that are pleasant to live, work, and play in. N...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you