The URL can be used to link to this page

08-28-2018 GI Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Regular Meeting PacketGIAMPO - Policy Board Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:00 pm @ City Hall - Community Meeting Room 100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801 AGENDA 1.Call to Order This is a public meeting subject to the open meetings laws of the State of Nebraska. The requirements for an open meeting are posted on the wall in this room and anyone that wants to find out what those are is welcome to read through them. 2.Roll Call & Introductions 3.Approval of Minutes from the May 22, 2018 Policy Board Meeting 4.Financial Update 5.Long Range Transportation Plan Revisions Update 6.Approval of MPO Targets for NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures 7.Approval of MPO Targets for NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability Performance Measures 8.Approval Recommendation of Final Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 9.Next Meeting 10.Adjournment Special Accommodations: Please notify the City of Grand Island at 308-385-5444 if you require special accommodations to attend this meeting (i.e., interpreter services, large print, reader, hearing assistance). Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 1 / 227 GIAMPO – Policy Board Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Regular Session Item C1 Approval of Minutes from the May 22, 2018 Policy Board Meeting Staff Contact: Jeremy Jensen, Mayor Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 2 / 227 GRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GIAMPO) MINUTES OF POLICY BOARD MEETING Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 4:00 pm Grand Island City Hall – Community Meeting Room 100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801 VOTING MEMBERS ATTENDANCE: Jeremy Jensen, Mayor, City of Grand Island Present Linna Dee Donaldson, City of Grand Island, Council Member Present Julie Hehnke, City of Grand Island, Council Member Absent Mike Paulick, City of Grand Island, Council Member Absent Wes Wahlgren (Kyle Schneweis designee) NDOT District 4 Engineer Present Gary Quandt, Hall County Board Present Doug Lanfear, Hall County Board Present Pat O’Neill, Hall County Planning Commission Chairman Present NON-VOTING MEMBERS ATTENDANCE: Marlan Ferguson, City of Grand Island City Administrator Absent Keith Kurz, City of Grand Island Assistant Public Works Director Absent Allan Zafft, City of Grand Island MPO Program Manager Present Catrina DeLosh, City of Grand Island Public Works Admin Assistant Present VACANT, City of Grand Island Finance Director Absent William Clingman, City of Grand Island Asst. Finance Director Present Jerry Janulewicz, City of Grand Island Attorney Absent John Collins, City of Grand Island Public Works Director Present Tim Golka, City of Grand Island Project Manager Present Chad Nabity, Regional Planning Director Present Joseph Werning, Administrator, FHWA NE Division Absent Mokhtee Ahmad, Administrator, FTA Region VII Absent Wes Wahlgren, NDOT District 4 Engineer Present Justin Luther, Transportation Planner, Realty, Civil Rights FHWA Absent Logan Daniels, FTA Transportation Program Specialist Absent Mark Bechtel, FTA Community Planner Absent Daniel Nguyen, FTA Community Planner Absent Mark Fischer, NDOT Assistant Planning Engineer Absent Mayor Jensen called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. The Nebraska Open Meetings Act was acknowledged and roll call was taken. Mayor Jensen acknowledged the fact that Wes Wahlgren, NDOT District 4 Engineer, was the designee for Kyle Schneweis, Director of the Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT). Approval of minutes from the February 27, 2018 Policy Board Meeting Motion by Quandt to approve the minutes from the February 27, 2018 meeting, seconded by Lanfear. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 3 / 227 2 | Page 2018/5/22 Policy Board Meeting Minutes Approval Recommendation of Final Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program Zafft informed the Policy Board that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes surface transportation projects which are to receive federal funds, as well as surface transportation projects of regional significance in the GIAMPO planning area for Federal Fiscal Years 2019-2023. The plan was developed to be in compliance with regulations contained in the FAST Act, which is the most recent legislation governing the federal transportation program. A public comment period was available from April 10, 2018 to May 11, 2018, with no public comments received. Wahlgren indicated that the 5-Points Intersection Improvements project has to go through the environmental process and a roundabout is one of the alternatives to be evaluated. Zafft will revise the TIP to not show a roundabout in the description of this project. Motion by O’Neill to approve the Final Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program, seconded by Quandt. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted. Approval Recommendation of MPO Self-Certification Zafft notified the Policy Board that as part of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) MPO Self-Certification is necessary to verify to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration that the planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements. Submittal of the MPO Self-Certification must be submitted with the new TIP. Compliance with federal requirements is necessary for the GIAMPO to continue receiving federal transportation funds. Motion by Lanfear to approve the MPO Self-Certification, seconded by Wahlgren. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted. Approval Recommendation of Final Draft Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment No. 4 Zafft stated that the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) requires an amendment due to three (3) projects; Grand Island (US- 30 Bridges) federal-aid amount changed from $2.339M to $3.420M, with the project estimate changing from $2.924M to $4.6418M, Cairo-Grand Island (N-2 Resurfacing) federal-aid amount changed from $3.002M to $7.292M, with the project estimate changing from $3.754M to $9.215M, and US- 281 West, Grand Island (US- 30 Realignment) project estimate amount changed from $29.681N to $30.693M, with no federal- aid. Amendment No. 4 allows for modifications in Chapter 7- Financial Plan and Chapter 9- Recommended Plan of the LRTP, as well as a new section in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4) relating to performance management. A public comment period was available from April 10, 2018 to May 11, 2018, with no public comments received. Motion by O’Neill to approve the Final Draft Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment No. 4, seconded by Quandt. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 4 / 227 3 | Page 2018/5/22 Policy Board Meeting Minutes Approval Recommendation of Final Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program Zafft presented the final draft of the FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), which identifies planning priorities and activities to be carried out within GIMAPO’s metropolitan planning area. The required public comment period was open from April 10, 2018 to April 26, 2018, with no public comments received. Motion by Lanfear to approve the Final Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program, seconded by Quandt. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted. Approval of Memorandum of Agreement for Transportation Planning and Programming Zafft stated the original Memorandum of Agreement was approved by the Policy Board on September 17, 2013 and is now in need of an amendment. The subject agreement describes the roles and responsibilities of NDOT, GIAMPO, and the City of Grand Island for the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The amendment adds the City as the public transportation operator with respective responsibilities, includes a section for Performance Measures, and changes Nebraska Department of Roads to Nebraska Department of Transportation. Motion by Donaldson to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for Transportation Planning and Programming, seconded by Lanfear. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted. MPO Financial Update Zafft provided an update for State Fiscal Year 2018 - Third Quarter (January 1, 2018 – March 31, 2018). Bike/Ped Master Plan Update Nabity updated the Policy Board on the status of the Bike/Ped Master plan, which was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee on May 21, 2018, and will be release for public comment on May 24, 2018. A public open house has been scheduled on May 29, 2018 at the Grand Island Public Library. Previously grant requests made by the City for tail ways have been denied due to the fact the City had no overall plan in place. A special meeting may be held in July in order to meet grant application deadlines. Next Meeting Date The next meeting of the Policy Board will be on August 28, 2018 at 4:00 pm at City Hall. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Jensen adjourned the meeting at 4:37 pm. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 5 / 227 GIAMPO – Policy Board Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Regular Session Item E1 Financial Update Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 6 / 227 Financial Update Unified Planning Work Program State Fiscal Year 2018 – Fourth Quarter (April 30, 2018 to June 30, 2018) Work Completed for Fourth Quarter  Continued work on the GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (i.e. hold BPAC meeting, review draft versions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, conduct public comment period and open house meeting for the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, prepare public comment period summary)  Made the Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program, Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program, and Amendment No. 4 to the Long Range Transportation Plan available for the public comment period and finalized these documents for submittal to NDOT  Prepared the approval recommendation of MPO Targets for NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability Performance Measures  Prepared materials for and/or held Transportation Advisory Committee meetings in April, May, and July and Policy Board meeting in May  Participated and attended transportation planning related meetings such as the Target Setting Coordination on PM3 Meeting and Multi-Jurisdictional Coordination for the Central Plains/Heartland Region Workshop  Updated the GIAMPO stakeholder contact list for the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan public comment period and open house meeting and continued updates to the GIAMPO website Category Total Budget 4th Quarter Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Percent Expenditure Unified Planning Work Program 9,292$ 2,211$ 7,672$ 83% Transportation Improvement Program 10,464$ 1,332$ 8,845$ 85% Public Participation Plan 14,222$ 4,799$ 9,447$ 66% Short Range Studies 7,533$ 373$ 6,660$ 88% Long Range Transportation Plan 19,490$ 7,939$ 18,462$ 95% - Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (Outside Services)80,000$ -$ 67,235$ 84% Transit Planning 29,633$ 1,146$ 26,228$ 89% - Transit Needs Study (Outside Services) 125,000$ -$ 125,000$ 100% Administration 34,129$ 9,801$ 29,368$ 86% Total 329,762$ 27,601$ 298,917$ 91% Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 7 / 227 GIAMPO – Policy Board Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Regular Session Item E2 Long Range Transportation Plan Revisions Update Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 8 / 227 GIAMPO – Policy Board Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Regular Session Item E3 Approval of MPO Targets for NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 9 / 227 1 Policy Board Agenda Report Agenda Item No. E3 August 28, 2018 ISSUE VOTE: MPO Targets for NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures BACKGROUND The current and previous federal transportation bills, FAST Act and MAP-21, respectively, included a series of requirements for Transportation Performance Management (TPM). Since the passage of MAP-21, USDOT has worked through the federal rulemaking process to establish a series of performance measures and corresponding target setting requirements. Generally, the performance measures relate to national goals of safety, infrastructure condition, air quality, and transportation system performance. Final USDOT rules related to TPM established performance measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges on the National Highway System (NHS). There are four performance measures for pavement condition and two performance measures for bridge condition (see attached TPM fact sheets). State DOTs were required to establish performance targets for these measures by May 20, 2018. The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) submitted its performance targets to the Federal Highway Administration on May 21, 2018. MPOs have the option of supporting the statewide targets, or establishing their own regional targets within 180 days of the establishment of state targets. Therefore, all Nebraska MPOs must adopt targets for NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition performance measures by November 17, 2018. After two years there will be a mid-point review, at which point the targets could be adjusted for NDOT and MPOs based on collected data. State DOTs will establish targets every four years. GIAMPO staff recommends the support of the NDOT NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition performance targets (see attached NDOT’s Statewide Performance Measure Targets (PM2)) as the most prudent alternative. The core reasons for not establishing regional targets include the following: The Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS routes in the GIAMPO metropolitan planning area are State NHS routes. Statewide, 57% of pavements of the Interstate System are in Good condition (2017 data). After the completion of the I-80: Platte River - Phillips project, 100% of pavements of the Interstate System in the GIAMPO region should be in Good condition. Statewide, 45% of pavements of the Non-Interstate NHS System are in Good condition (2017 data). After the completion of current projects (Hwy 281: In Grand Island & North and US-30: US-281 West, Grand Island) and future projects (N-2: Cairo Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 10 / 227 2 - Grand Island), over 50% of pavements of the Non-Interstate NHS System should be in Good condition. The State is the owner of the NHS bridges in the GIAMPO region. Statewide, 98.2% of NHS bridges by bridge area are classified as Good or Fair condition (2/21/2018 data). Statewide, 1.9% of NHS bridges by bridge area are classified as structurally deficient and 1.8% of NHS bridges by bridge area are classified as Poor condition (2/21/2018 data). POLICY CONSIDERATIONS/DISCUSSION With supporting the statewide targets, GIAMPO is agreeing to plan and program projects in a manner that contributes towards the accomplishment of the NDOT NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition performance targets. These targets will ultimately be integrated into the GIAMPO Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS None. COMMITTEE ACTION The TAC approved the recommendation to support the state targets as the MPO NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition performance targets for the GIAMPO metropolitan planning area on August 13, 2018. RECOMMENDATION Approve to support state targets as the MPO NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition performance targets for the GIAMPO metropolitan planning area. STAFF CONTACT Allan Zafft Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 11 / 227 Pavement Performance Measures Performance Measures % of Interstate pavements in Good condition % of Interstate pavements in Poor condition % of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Good condition % of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition Target Setting State DOTs: •Must establish targets, regardless of ownership, for the full extent of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS. •Must establish statewide 2-and 4-year targets for the non-Interstate NHS and 4-year targets for the Interstate by May 20, 2018, and report by October 1, 2018. •May adjust targets at the Mid Performance Period Progress Report (October 1, 2020). Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs): •Support the relevant State DOT(s) 4- year target or establish their own by 180 days after the State DOT(s) target is established. Penalty Provisions If FHWA determines the State DOT’s Interstate pavement condition falls below the minimum level for the most recent year, the State DOT must obligate a portion of National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and transfer a portion of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to address Interstate pavement condition. About Condition •Good condition: Suggests no major investment is needed. •Poor condition: Suggests major reconstruction investment is needed. Final Rulemaking The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 5886) a final rule establishing performance measures for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to use in managing pavement and bridge performance on the National Highway System (NHS). The National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program Final Rule addresses requirements established by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and reflects passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The rule is effective May 20, 2017. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 12 / 227 Pavement Performance Measures Visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/to learn about training, guidance, and other implementation-related information. Key Dates May 20, 2017 Final rule effective date. January 1,2018 1st 4-year performance period begins. May 20,2018 State DOT targets must be established. January 1, 2018 State DOTs collect data for Interstate pavements that conform to the final rule (IRI,Rutting, Cracking %, Faulting, and Inventory). Within 180 days of relevant State DOT(s) target establishment MPOs must commit to support state target or establish separate quantifiable target. October 1, 2018 Baseline Performance Period Report for 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs report 4-year targets for Interstate and 2-year and 4-year targets for non-Interstate NHS; etc. April 15, 2019, and each April 15 thereafter State DOTs submit first Interstate data that conform to the final rule. January 1, 2020 State DOTs collect data for non-Interstate NHS pavements that conform to the final rules. October 1,2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year condition/performance; progress toward achieving 2-year targets; etc. June 15, 2021, and each June 15 thereafter State DOTs submit non-Interstate NHS data that conform to the final rule. December 31, 2021 1st 4-year performance period ends. October 1, 2022 Full Performance Period Progress Report for 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs reports 4-year condition/performance; progress toward achieving 4-year targets, etc. Baseline Performance Period Report for 2nd Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year and 4-year targets for Interstate and non-Interstate NHS; baseline condition; etc. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 13 / 227 Bridge Performance Measures Performance Measures % of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in Good condition % of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in Poor condition Condition-Based Performance Measures •Measures are based on deck area. •The classification is based on National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings for item 58 -Deck, 59 -Superstructure, 60 -Substructure, and 62 -Culvert. •Condition is determined by the lowest rating of deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert. If the lowest rating is greater than or equal to 7, the bridge is classified as good; if is less than or equal to 4, the classification is poor. (Bridges rated below 7 but above 4 will be classified as fair; there is no related performance measure.) •Deck area is computed using NBI item 49 -Structure Length, and 52 -Deck Width or 32 -Approach Roadway Width (for some culverts). Target Setting State DOTs: •Must establish targets for all bridges carrying the NHS, which includes on-and off-ramps connected to the NHS within a State, and bridges carrying the NHS that cross a State border, regardless of ownership. •Must establish statewide 2-and 4- year targets by May 20, 2018, and report targets by October 1, 2018, in the Baseline Performance Period Report. •May adjust 4-year targets at the Mid Performance Period Progress Report (October 1, 2020). Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs): •Support the relevant State DOT(s) 4-year target or establish their own by 180 days after the State DOT(s) target is established. Final Rulemaking The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published in the Federal Register (82 FR5886)a final rule establishing performance measures for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to use in managing pavement and bridge performance on the National Highway System (NHS). The National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program Final Rule addresses requirements established by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and reflects passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The rule is effective May 20, 2017. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 14 / 227 Bridge Performance Measures Key Dates May 20, 2017 Final rule effective date. January 1,2018 1st 4-year performance period begins. May 20, 2018 Initial 2-and 4-year targets established. October 1, 2018 Baseline Performance Period Report for the 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year and 4-year targets; etc. Within 180 days of relevant State DOT(s) target establishment MPOs must commit to support State target or establish separate quantifiable target. October 1,2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year condition/performance; progress toward achieving 2-year targets; etc. December 31, 2021 1st 4-year performance period ends. October 1, 2022 Full Performance Period Progress Report for 1st performance period due. State DOTs report 4-year condition/ performance; progress toward achieving 4-year targets; etc. Baseline report due for 2nd performance period due. State DOTs report 2-and 4-year targets; baseline condition, etc. Other Specifics •State DOT targets should be determined from asset management analyses and procedures and reflect investment strategies that work toward achieving a state of good repair over the life cycle of assets at minimum practicable cost. State DOTs may establish additional measures and targets that reflect asset management objectives. •The rule applies to bridges carrying the NHS, including bridges on on-and off-ramps connected to the NHS. •If for 3 consecutive years more than 10.0% of a State DOT’s NHS bridges’ total deck area is classified as Structurally Deficient, the State DOT must obligate and set aside National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds for eligible projects on bridges on the NHS. •Deck area of all border bridges counts toward both States DOTs’totals. Visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/to learn about training, guidance, and other implementation-related information. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 15 / 227 1 NDOT’s Statewide Performance Measure Targets (PM2) The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) recommends the below pavement and bridge condition targets for the state. Pavement and bridge condition performance measures are defined in accordance with the final USDOT rule on Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures, authorized by 23 CFR Part 490.  At least 50% of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.  No more than 5% of pavements of the Interstate System in Poor condition.  At least 40% of the Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) in Good condition.  No more than 10% of the Non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition.  No more than 10% of the total deck area of bridges in the state on the NHS is located on bridges that have been classified as structurally deficient.  At least 95% of bridges on the State system and NHS in Good or Fair condition. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 16 / 227 TargetGood Fair Poor≥ 50 %<95 95‐170 >170≤ 5 %<5Jointed Conc: 5‐15Asphalt: 5‐20>15>20≥ 40 %<0.20 0.20‐0.40 >0.40≤ 10%<0.10 0.10‐0.15 >0.15*Note ‐ Cracking is calculated in accordance with NDOT standards. This will be updated to the Federal standards for 2018 data.SystemTotal (Lane‐Miles) Very Good Good Fair Poor Very PoorSystem Total (Lane‐Miles)% Good % Fair % PoorInterstate 2101.1 46% 49% 4% 1% 0%Interstate 2101.1 57% 43% 0% Non‐Interstate NHS 7478.9 46% 38% 13% 2% 0%Non‐Interstate NHS 7478.9 45% 49% 6% Local NHS 487.4 6% 73% 9% 5% 7%Local NHS 487.4 0% 84% 16%Total 10067.4 44% 42% 11% 2% 1%Total 10067.4 45% 50% 5%`SystemTotal (Lane‐Miles) Very Good Good Fair Poor Very PoorSystem Total (Lane‐Miles)% Good % Fair % PoorState Jurisdiction 120.72 20% 49% 22% 0% 9%State Jurisdiction 120.72 26% 73% 1% Local Jurisdiction 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Local Jurisdiction 0 0% 0% 0%Total 120.72 20% 49% 22% 0% 9%Total 120.72 26% 73% 1%Note: The 9% Very Poor is due to Hwy. 281 (RP 71.98‐78.47) being under construction and/or not rateable7.27.2018NHS Type Highway/Route NumberBegin Reference PostEnd Reference Post LengthThru LanesLane MilesLocation Direction Surface Type NSIIRI Amt (in/mi)Cracking (%)Rut Depth (in)Fault Height (in)MAP-21 Pavement ConditionState Highway NHS002 349.07 354.74 5.67 2 11.34 CAIRO-GRAND ISLAND B CONC 62.51 136 27.5 0.00 0.09FairState Highway NHS002 354.74 356.06 1.35 4 2.7 JCT US281 NORTHWEST A CONC 59.09 177 10 0.00 0.13FairState Highway NHS002 354.74 356.06 1.35 4 2.7 JCT US281 NORTHWEST D CONC 62.7 169 10 0.00 0.08FairState Highway NHS030 312.47 314.09 1.6 4 3.2 GRAND ISLAND A CONC 70.85 118 0 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS030 312.47 314.09 1.6 4 3.2 GRAND ISLAND D CONC 71.84 137 0 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS030 314.09 314.85 0.77 4 1.54 GRAND ISLAND A CONC 94.58 126 0 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS030 314.09 314.85 0.77 4 1.54 GRAND ISLAND D CONC 99.72 148 0 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS030 314.85 316.07 1.24 2 1.24 GRAND ISLAND ONE WAY A COMP 88 193 0 0.15 0.00FairState Highway NHS030 316.07 319.02 2.92 4 5.84 GRAND ISLAND A CONC 89.07 94 12.5 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS030 316.07 319.02 2.92 4 5.84 GRAND ISLAND D CONC 94.62 96 17.5 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS030 319.02 320.23 1.21 2 2.42 CHAPMAN WEST B COMP 84.76 69 6.6 0.10 0.04FairState Highway NHS030R 314.85 316.07 1.22 3 3.66 GRAND ISLAND ONE WAY D COMP 83.2 158 10.6 0.09 0.00FairState Highway NHS034 222.77 226.23 3.39 4 6.78 I80 SOUTH A COMP 88 97 1.5 0.19 0.00FairState Highway NHS034 222.77 226.23 3.39 4 6.78 I80 SOUTH D COMP 88 87 3.4 0.14 0.00GoodState Highway NHS034 226.23 226.74 0.51 4 1.02 I80 INTERCHANGE GRAND ISLAND A CONC 87.48 73 10 0.00 0.03FairState Highway NHS034 226.23 226.74 0.51 4 1.02 I80 INTERCHANGE GRAND ISLAND D CONC 96.65 84 10 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS034 226.74 231.16 4.39 4 8.78 N JCT US281 SOUTH A COMP 92 75 1.5 0.09 0.00GoodState Highway NHS034 226.74 231.16 4.39 4 8.78 N JCT US281 SOUTH D COMP 83.34 54 10.9 0.10 0.06FairState Highway NHS281 67.45 68.86 1.4 4 2.8 JCT US34 NORTH A COMP 92 87 1 0.12 0.05GoodState Highway NHS281 67.45 68.94 1.48 4 2.96 JCT US34 NORTH D COMP 88 94 2.6 0.12 0.03GoodState Highway NHS281 68.86 69.61 0.75 4 1.5 JCT US30 NORTH A COMP 98.6 196 0 0.12 0.02FairState Highway NHS281 68.94 69.55 0.61 4 1.22 JCT US30 NORTH D COMP 99 184 0 0.08 0.00FairState Highway NHS281 69.55 71.40 1.85 4 3.7 OLD POTASH HWY-CAPITAL AVE GRAD CONC 57.82 154 25 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS281 69.61 71.40 1.79 4 3.58 OLD POTASH HWY-CAPITAL AVE GRAA CONC 69.82 109 0 0.00 0.00FairState Highway NHS281 71.40 71.98 0.6 4 1.2 IN GRAND ISLAND & NORTH A CONC 65.74 172 0 0.00 0.01FairState Highway NHS281 71.40 71.98 0.6 4 1.2 IN GRAND ISLAND & NORTH D CONC 57.31 200 20 0.00 0.00PoorState Highway NHS281 71.98 74.21 1.61 2 3.22 GRAND ISLAND NORTH B COMP 0 196 0 0.09 0.00FairState Highway NHS281 74.21 76.23 2.02 4 4.04 GRAND ISLAND NORTH A COMP 0 134 0 0.06 0.00FairState Highway NHS281 74.21 76.23 2.02 4 4.04 GRAND ISLAND NORTH D COMP 0 124 0 0.06 0.00FairInterstate080 310.88 311.69 0.81 4 1.62 PLATTE RIVER-GRAND ISLAND A COMP 75.7 146 0 0.09 0.00FairInterstate080 310.88 311.69 0.81 4 1.62 PLATTE RIVER-GRAND ISLAND D COMP 87.78 123 3.3 0.09 0.00FairInterstate080 311.69 314.10 2.41 4 4.82 GRAND ISLAND-PHILLIPS A COMP 79.8 70 0 0.07 0.00GoodInterstate080 311.69 314.10 2.41 4 4.82 GRAND ISLAND-PHILLIPS D COMP 85.46 56 0 0.05 0.01GoodFaulting (in)Nebraska's "NSI" Rating for Statewide NHSNational Rating System for Statewide NHSNational Rating System for GIAMPO NHSNebraska's "NSI" Rating for GIAMPO NHSInternational Roughness Index (IRI) (in/mi)Pavements on the Interstate System in Poor ConditionCracking Percentage (%) * (Asphalt and Jointed Concrete)Pavements on the non‐Interstatate NHS in Good ConditionRutting (in)Pavements on the non‐Interstatate NHS in Poor ConditionNebraska & GIAMPO National Highway System (NHS) Inventory and Condition2017 DataNational Rating System Standards Nebraska's National Performance Measure Targets (Pavement)MetricRange/RatingPerformance MeasurePavements on the Interstate System in Good ConditionGrand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 17 / 227 5 4 3 2 1 76 75 7473 72 71 70 69 68 318317316315314313312311310 309 308 238237 236 235234233232231 230 229 228 227 226 316 315 321 320 319 318 317 316 315 314313 312 311 310 309 308 307 306 305 304 303 302 370 369 368 356355354353352351350 349 348 347346 Pavement Condition (NRSS) Mile Marker MPO BoundaryPavement Condition Good Fair Poor US HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY 281 SNB and SB of US-281from US-34 to N. of I-80 NB and SB of US-281S. of Capital Ave. to N-2 NB and SB of US-281from S. of I-80 to DoniphanGrand IslandRegular Session - 8/28/2018Page 18 / 227 Summary of Nebraska Bridges by AreaStructurally Bridges Bridge Closed Closed Deficient Good Fair PoorOwners count count % by area % by area % by area % by area % by areatotalarea (sf)per Systemper Systemper Systemper Systemper SystemCounty System11,07017,204,9971440.9%12.0%55.2%37.4%7.4%First Class Cities4453,539,22020.8%5.3%71.5%23.2%5.3%State System3,52525,116,73010.0%3.4%60.4%36.2%3.4%NHS State System1,43715,678,71100.0%2.0%59.5%38.6%1.9%NHS Local System621,108,20100.0%0.4%63.8%35.8%0.4%NHS System1,49916,786,91200.0%1.9%59.8%38.4%1.8%Nebraska15,04045,860,9471470.4%6.8%59.3%35.6%5.0%All bridges in Nebraska are safety inspected every two years by certified bridge inspectors.Good Bridges – when the major bridge components are all in good condition or better.Poor Bridges – when one or more of the major bridge components are in poor condition or worse.Fair Bridges – all other bridgesMajor Bridge Components – Bridge Deck, Superstructure, Substructure data date2/21/2018printed 3/1/2018 at 1:25 PMGrand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 19 / 227 GIAMPO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-7 Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization A Resolution Approving the MPO Targets for NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures WHEREAS, the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO), is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Grand Island Urbanized Area, by the Governor acting through the Nebraska Department of Transportation in cooperation with locally elected officials of the Grand Island Urbanized Area; and WHEREAS, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) required the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to develop rules to establish a system to monitor and manage public transportation assets, to improve safety and increase reliability and performance, and to establish performance measures, and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act reaffirmed this requirement; and WHEREAS, the Pavement and Bridge Condition Final 23 CFR Part 490 became effective May 20, 2017 and establishes targets for the following six performance measures: Performance Measures Pavement  Percentage of Pavements of the Interstate System in Good Condition  Percentage of Pavements of the Interstate System in Poor Condition  Percentage of Pavements of the Non-Interstate NHS in Good Condition  Percentage of Pavements of the Non-Interstate NHS in Poor Condition Bridge  Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Good Condition  Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor Condition WHEREAS, the Nebraska Department of Transportation is to adopt the pavement and bridge condition performance measures by May 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Board may establish pavement and bridge condition targets by agreeing to plan and program projects that contribute toward the accomplishment of the State’s targets, or establish its own targets within 180 days of the State establishing and reporting its pavement and bridge condition targets; and WHEREAS, the GIAMPO will adopt to support the 4-year performance period (CY Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 20 / 227 2018-2021) targets for the Nebraska Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the MPO targets for pavement and bridge condition performance measures has been reviewed and recommended for adoption by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and now require official approval from the MPO Policy Board; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Policy Board of the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization has agreed to support the Nebraska Department of Transportation 4-year performance period (CY 2018-2021) targets for pavement and bridge condition performance measures as identified in Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairperson is hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement on behalf of the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Certification: The foregoing resolution was approved by the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on August 28, 2018. By: Attest: ______________________________ ______________________________ Jeremy Jensen, Mayor / Chairperson John Collins, Public Works Director Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 21 / 227 Exhibit A Nebraska 4-Year Performance Period (CY 2018-2021) Targets for Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures The Nebraska Department of Transportation established the below targets for the National Highway System (NHS) Pavement and Bridge Condition performance measures.  At least 50% of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.  No more than 5% of pavements of the Interstate System in Poor condition.  At least 40% of the Non-Interstate NHS in Good condition.  No more than 10% of the Non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition.  No more than 10% of the total deck area of bridges in the state on the NHS is located on bridges that have been classified as structurally deficient.  At least 95% of bridges on the State system and NHS in Good or Fair condition. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 22 / 227 GIAMPO – Policy Board Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Regular Session Item E4 Approval of MPO Targets for NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability Performance Measures Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 23 / 227 1 Policy Board Agenda Report Agenda Item No. E4 August 28, 2018 ISSUE VOTE: MPO Targets for NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability Performance Measures BACKGROUND The current and previous federal transportation bills, FAST Act and MAP-21, respectively, included a series of requirements for Transportation Performance Management (TPM). Since the passage of MAP-21, USDOT has worked through the federal rulemaking process to establish a series of performance measures and corresponding target setting requirements. Generally, the performance measures relate to national goals of safety, infrastructure condition, air quality, and transportation system performance. Final USDOT rules related to TPM established performance measures to evaluate system performance and freight on the National Highway System (NHS). There are two performance measures for system performance (NHS Travel Time Reliability) and one performance measure for Freight Reliability (see attached TPM fact sheet). State DOTs were required to establish performance targets for these measures by May 20, 2018. The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) submitted its performance targets to the Federal Highway Administration on May 21, 2018. MPOs have the option of supporting the statewide targets, or establishing their own regional targets within 180 days of the establishment of state targets. Therefore, all Nebraska MPOs must adopt targets for NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability performance measures by November 17, 2018. After two years there will be a mid-point review, at which point the targets could be adjusted for NDOT and MPOs based on collected data. State DOTs will establish targets every four years. GIAMPO staff recommends the support of the NDOT NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability performance targets (see attached Nebraska PM3 Performance Measures and Target Setting) as the most prudent alternative. The core reasons to not establishing regional targets include the following: GIAMPO region outperforms the State on all performance measures. Only a very small portion of the GIAMPO system is unreliable with regards to NHS Travel Time Reliability. Truck travel in the region is very reliable with a Freight Reliability value of 1.08. The Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS routes in the GIAMPO metropolitan planning area are State NHS routes. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 24 / 227 2 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS/DISCUSSION With supporting the statewide targets, GIAMPO is agreeing to plan and program projects in a manner that contributes towards the accomplishment of the NDOT NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability performance targets. These targets will ultimately be integrated into the GIAMPO Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS None. COMMITTEE ACTION The TAC approved the recommendation to support the state targets as the MPO NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability performance targets for the GIAMPO metropolitan planning area on July 9, 2018. RECOMMENDATION Approve to support state targets as the MPO NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability performance targets for the GIAMPO metropolitan planning area. STAFF CONTACT Allan Zafft Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 25 / 227 TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has finalized six interrelated performance rulemakings to implement the TPM framework established by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Collectively, the rules address challenges facing the U.S. transportation system, including: •improving safety •maintaining infrastructure condition •reducing traffic congestion •improving efficiency of the system and freight movement •protecting the environment and •reducing delays in project delivery. The rules establish national performance measures; State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) will establish targets for applicable measures. New and existing plans will document the strategies and investments used to achieve the targets; progress toward the targets will be reported through new and existing mechanisms. Learn more at the FHWA TPM web site: (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/ Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 26 / 227 NHS Travel Time Reliability Measures WHAT: Measurement of travel time reliability on the Interstate and non- Interstate National Highway System (NHS). Read the final rule in the Federal Register [82 FR 5970 (January 18, 2017)]. WHO:State DOTs, as well as MPOs with Interstate and/or non-Interstate NHS within their metropolitan planning area. WHY: Through MAP-21, Congress required FHWA to establish measures to assess performance in 12 areas, including performance on the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS. [See 23 CFR 490.507(a)] WHEN:Implementation differs for the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS measures for the first performance period. State DOTs must establish 2-and 4- year targets for the Interstate, but only a 4-year target for the non-Interstate NHS, by May 20, 2018. Those targets will be reported in the State’s baseline performance period report due by October 1, 2018. The State DOTs have the option to adjust 4-year targets in their mid performance period progress report, due October 1, 2020. For the first performance period only, there is no requirement for States to report baseline condition/performance or 2-year targets for the non-Interstate NHS before the mid performance period progress report. This will allow State DOTs to consider more complete data. The process will align for both Interstate and non-Interstate measures with the beginning of the second performance period on January 1, 2022. MPOs must either support the State target or establish their own quantifiable 4- year targets within 180 days of the State target establishment. HOW: Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) is defined as the ratio of the longer travel times (80th percentile) to a “normal” travel time (50th percentile), using data from FHWA’s National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) or equivalent. Data are collected in 15-minute segments during all time periods between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. local time. The measures are the percent of person-miles traveled on the relevant portion of the NHS that are reliable. Person-miles take into account the users of the NHS. Data to reflect the users can include bus, auto, and truck occupancy levels. Note: The FHWA is preparing guidance on how all rules should be implemented. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 27 / 227 Freight Reliability Measure WHAT: Measurement of travel time reliability on the Interstate System (Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index). Read the final rule in the Federal Register [82 FR 5970 (January 18, 2017)]. WHO: State DOTs and MPOs. WHY: Through MAP-21, Congress required FHWA to establish measures to assess performance in 12 areas, including freight movement on the Interstate. The measure considers factors that are unique to this industry, such as the use of the system during all hours of the day and the need to consider more extreme impacts to the system in planning for on-time arrivals. [23 CFR 490.607] WHEN: State DOTs must establish 2-and 4-year targets by May 20, 2018. Those targets will be reported in the State’s baseline performance period report due by October 1, 2018. The State DOTs have the option to adjust 4-year targets in their mid performance period progress report, due October 1, 2020. MPOs must either support the State target or establish their own quantifiable 4- year targets within 180 days of the State target establishment. HOW: Freight movement will be assessed by the TTTR Index. Reporting is divided into five periods: morning peak (6-10 a.m.), midday (10 a.m.-4 p.m.) and afternoon peak (4-8 p.m.) Mondays through Fridays; weekends (6 a.m.-8 p.m.); and overnights for all days (8 p.m.-6 a.m.). The TTTR ratio will be generated by dividing the 95th percentile time by the normal time (50th percentile) for each segment. The TTTR Index will be generated by multiplying each segment’s largest ratio of the five periods by its length, then dividing the sum of all length-weighted segments by the total length of Interstate. State DOTs and MPOs will have the data they need in FHWA’s National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) as data set includes truck travel times for the full Interstate System. State DOTs and MPOs may use an equivalent data set if they prefer. Note: The FHWA is preparing guidance on how all rules should be implemented. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 28 / 227 Nebraska PM3 Performance Measures and Target Setting June 2018 1 Nebraska PM3 Performance Measures and Target Setting Performance measures for system performance and freight (PM3) includes two performance measures for National Highway System (NHS) Travel Time Reliability (Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate That Are Reliable and the Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS That Are Reliable) and one performance measure for Freight Reliability (Freight Reliability on the Interstate). The majority of Nebraska’s highway system performs exceptionally well, with only minor reliability challenges in the State’s largest metropolitan area: the Omaha-Council Bluffs region. At the statewide level, nearly 99 percent of Nebraska’s Interstate system provides for reliable travel, nearly 93 percent of the Non-Interstate NHS provides for reliable travel, and freight reliability is measured at 1.10, which suggests that on average the worst truck travel times are only about 10 percent higher than median truck travel times. Since historic travel time data was not available, internal and external factors were considered throughout the target-setting process. These include population and employment growth, vehicle miles traveled, and projects programmed in the 2018 – 2021 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and MPO Transportation Improvement Programs. The target-setting approach assumes that although increased usage is expected on the system, existing high levels of performance and planned improvements will enable Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) to maintain current performance levels through 2022. As such, NDOT’s highway system performance measure targets are as follows: Table 1 Nebraska 2018 PM3 Targets Performance Measure Target Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate That Are Reliable 98.9% Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Non- Interstate NHS That Are Reliable 92.6% Freight Reliability 1.10 Source: Nebraska Department of Transportation; Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis, 2018. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 29 / 227 Nebraska PM3 Performance Measures and Target Setting June 2018 2 System Performance Measure Results – Grand Island Area MPO The Grand Island Area MPO region outperforms the State on all performance measures. As shown in Figure 1, only a very small portion of the Grand Island Area MPO’s system is unreliable. These include the intersections of US 281 with Airport Rd. and US 281 with US 34. Figure 2 shows that truck travel in the region is very reliable with a Freight Reliability value of 1.08. Figure 1 Maximum Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) Across Time Periods in the Grand Island Area MPO Region Source: National Performance Management Research Data Set; Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis, 2018. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 30 / 227 Nebraska PM3 Performance Measures and Target Setting June 2018 3 Figure 2 Maximum Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Across Time Periods in the Grand Island Area MPO Region Source: National Performance Management Research Data Set; Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis, 2018. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 31 / 227 GIAMPO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-8 Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization A Resolution Approving the MPO Targets for NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability Performance Measures WHEREAS, the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO), is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Grand Island Urbanized Area, by the Governor acting through the Nebraska Department of Transportation in cooperation with locally elected officials of the Grand Island Urbanized Area; and WHEREAS, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) required the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to develop rules to establish a system to monitor and manage public transportation assets, to improve safety and increase reliability and performance, and to establish performance measures, and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act reaffirmed this requirement; and WHEREAS, the System Performance/Freight Reliability/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Final 23 CFR Part 490 became effective May 20, 2017 and establishes targets for the following six performance measures: Performance Measures System Performance (NHS Travel Time Reliability)  Percent of Person-Miles on the Interstate System that are Reliable  Percent of Person-Miles on the Non-Interstate NHS that are Reliable Freight Reliability  Measurement of Travel Time Reliability on the Interstate System Using a Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index CMAQ  Annual Hour of Peak Hour Excessive Delay*  Percent of Non-Single-Occupant Vehicle Travel*  Total Emissions Reduction* * Nebraska exempt from CMAQ measures this performance period WHEREAS, the Nebraska Department of Transportation is to adopt the system performance and freight reliability performance measures by May 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Board may establish system performance and freight reliability targets by agreeing to plan and program projects that contribute toward the accomplishment of the State’s targets, or establish its own targets within 180 days of the State establishing and reporting its system performance and freight reliability targets; and Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 32 / 227 WHEREAS, the GIAMPO will adopt to support the 4-year performance period (CY 2018-2021) targets for the Nebraska Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the MPO targets for system performance and freight reliability performance measures has been reviewed and recommended for adoption by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and now require official approval from the MPO Policy Board; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Policy Board of the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization has agreed to support the Nebraska Department of Transportation 4-year performance period (CY 2018-2021) targets for system performance and freight reliability performance measures as identified in Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairperson is hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement on behalf of the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Certification: The foregoing resolution was approved by the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on August 28, 2018. By: Attest: ______________________________ ______________________________ Jeremy Jensen, Mayor / Chairperson John Collins, Public Works Director Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 33 / 227 Exhibit A Nebraska 4-Year Performance Period (CY 2018-2021) Targets for System Performance and Freight Reliability Performance Measures Performance Measure Target Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate That Are Reliable 98.9% Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Non- Interstate NHS That Are Reliable 92.6% Freight Reliability 1.10 Source: Nebraska Department of Transportation; Cambridge Systematics, Inc. analysis, 2018. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 34 / 227 GIAMPO – Policy Board Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Regular Session Item E5 Approval Recommendation of Final Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 35 / 227 1 Policy Board Agenda Report Agenda Item No. E5 August 28, 2018 ISSUE VOTE: FINAL DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan BACKGROUND In April 2016, GIAMPO adopted the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). It indicated that a pedestrian and bicycle study should be conducted for the Grand Island area, which would identify a walking and biking network. GIAMPO, in coordination with the City of Grand Island, initiated the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in June 2017. RDG Planning and Design was retained by the City to lead the study efforts. In May 2018, RDG Planning and Design prepared a Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. This document provides the following information: Existing conditions evaluations related to walking and biking Estimation of the existing and potential future pedestrian and bicycling demand and the results of the pedestrian and bicycle survey Concepts and locations for support facilities such as trailheads and open space nodes Active Transportation Network (on-street network, off-street trails, and shared use paths) Crossing Barriers and Toolbox of Solutions Pedestrian Applications Phasing and Implementation Program Supporting Programs and Policies The GIAMPO Public Participation Plan specifies there will be a 15-day public comment period before adoption of a GIAMPO report/document by the Policy Board. The Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was made available for an 18-day public comment period from May 24 to June 11, 2018. During this period, a public open house was held on May 29, 2018 to give the public an opportunity to review exhibits and the draft plan. Eleven comments were received during the public comment period. The summary of the public comments and GIAMPO responses are located in Appendix B of the attached Public Comment Period Summary. The public comments did not result in changes to the content of the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. However, RDG Planning and Design made minor revisions to the draft plan in response to GIAMPO staff comments since the public comment period. The final draft plan does not differ significantly from the draft approved by the TAC on May 21, 2018 and made available for public comment. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 36 / 227 2 The Final Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is enclosed in the August 28, 2018 Policy Board meeting packet. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS/DISCUSSION The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is a planning document to guide the Grand Island region’s investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and programs. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS None. COMMITTEE ACTION The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met six times during the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project. At the April 16, 2018 BPAC meeting, RDG Planning and Design made a presentation that provided an overview of the Preliminary Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The BPAC expressed overall support of the draft plan. The TAC approved the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan on May 21, 2018, and an update on the public comment period was provided at the August 13, 2018 TAC meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Final Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. STAFF CONTACT Allan Zafft Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 37 / 227 GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA JULY 2018 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Prepared by RDG Planning & Design, Alta Planning + Design, and Olsson Associates Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 38 / 227 PLANNING TEAM RDG Planning & Design www.RDGUSA.com Omaha, Nebraska Des Moines, Iowa Martin H. Shukert, FAICP Amy Haase, AICP Nick Klimek, AICP Greg Jameson Alta Planning + Design www.altaplanning.com Minneapolis, MN Paul Wojciechowski, AICP, P.E. Kristen O’Toole Olsson Associates www.olssonassociates.com Grand Island, NE Matt Rief, PE Tom Worker-Braddock, PE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEEGRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 39 / 227 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: Active Transportation Environment CHAPTER 2: Markets for Active Transportation CHAPTER 3: The Active Network: Principles and Framework CHAPTER 4: Support Facilities CHAPTER 5: Crossing Barriers CHAPTER 6: On Foot in the Grand Island Area CHAPTER 7: Route Details and Sequencing CHAPTER 8: Support Programs and Policies 4 9 27 41 75 87 99 123 159 TABLE OF CONTENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 40 / 227 444 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION We spend a large amount of our lives in motion – commut- ing to work or school, traveling to the destinations that mark our lives in cities, and generally going about our lives. How we move can affect many things, including our own health and that of our communities. As humans, we have been blessed with the ability to travel effectively under our own power. Many of us can walk or run for great periods of time and cover substantial distances, all the while thinking and taking delight in the things and people around us. We can travel even farther and faster by bicycle, a remarkable vehicle that we can easily lift, travels at half the speed of a contemporary car in city traffic, does not use fossil fuels, produces no emissions, makes almost no noise, can be parked outside the door of our destinations or even inside our homes or offices, and makes us healthier. The introduction of new technologies, like the e-bike with small electric motors that provide pedal assists, can bring bicycling as an efficient form of transportation, within the capability of even more number of people. Our ability and efficiency to transport ourselves is indeed a gift. It is also a gift that makes economic sense. Infrastructure for people on foot or bike costs much less per mile than for motor vehicles. People traveling on-foot or by bike put very little stress on sidewalks, streets, and trails. And human- powered transportation is inherently enjoyable, encourag- ing us to see each other as people and the gardens, houses, streets, yards, schools, and centers of our cities as a delight. So now let’s consider Grand Island, Nebraska’s fourth larg- est city with a population of about 52,000 people and the state’s newest designated metropolitan area. The city has very little topography and a generally well connected street grid. Travel distances to most community destinations are relatively short and many key features have reasonably good trail access. Its major trails, including the Beltline, St. Joe, Shoemaker, and Riverway are very popular with recre- ational users. These factors create a very friendly environ- ment for active transportation – travel by foot and bike. The average cyclist can cover three miles in only 15 to 20 min- utes. Grand Island as a community understands these possibilities and has acted on this understanding by: • Developing and maintaining the foundation of a strong trail system, such as the trail wayfinding signs developed cooperatively by the Central District Health Department, Central Community College, and the City of Grand Island. • Establishing the Walk & Bike Grand Island program and creating a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. • Publishing and updating a trails map that identifies both on- and off-street routes that serve major community features. • Integrating physical wayfinding signage independantly and in collaboration with local health organizations to promote active lifestyles. • Including bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the planning of new community parks and open spaces, including Eagle Scout and Veterans Legacy Parks. Walking and biking are very much parts of life in Grand Is- land, evidenced by routine observations, such as the large number of elementary school students who walk or bike to school along the city’s trails. The Grand Island area’s char- acteristics provide the opportunity to integrate enjoyable, healthy, active transportation into the everyday lives of its citizens. This Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan is dedicated to encouraging its citizens to make healthy, low-impact, and intrinsically pleasant transportation a greater part of their routine lives. While we know that most trips will continue to be made by car, the region’s transportation system should offer choices, including the option to feel safe and comfort- able using the healthy, sustainable, and socially satisfying means of mobility that the bicycle and walking offer. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 41 / 227 5 | INTRODUCTION 55 WHY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION? Goals of this Plan This plan is designed to help the Grand Island metropolitan area achieve the following goals: Goal One: Increase the number of people who use walking and biking for transportation as well as recreation. Grand Island’s existing multi-use trails are well utilized and have a significant transportation function, such as providing access to important destinations like College Park. However, the overwhelming majority of users are recreational cyclists and pedestrians. A measurement of the success of this plan will be significantly increasing the percentage of trips for a vari- ety of purposes. Chapter Two includes estimates of current and future utilization of a bikeway system. Goal Two: Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to key community destinations. An active transportation network should get people comfortably and safely to where they want to go. Therefore, Grand Island’s system should be des- tination-based, providing clear and direct connections to key community features. Goal Three: Removing or improving barriers that discour- age people from walking or biking for transportation and recreation. Grand Island’s basically flat topography brings walking or biking within the physical capabilities of most of the city’s population. But other important barriers can be much more discouraging. These include two railroad main lines, major regional highways like US 281 and US 30, and busy urban streets. Grand Island’s street pattern, where an ordinal and railroad-oriented street grid interact, also cre- ates unusual offset intersections and offsets that people find difficult to cross safely. Creating more comfortable barrier crossings is an important objective of this plan. Goal Four: Improve access to the city’s trail system by pro- viding connecting links from neighborhoods to trails. Grand Island’s trails are the main lines of its bikeway system, and will continue to serve many of its bicycle and pedestrian trips. Good connections to these trails, and implementing cost-effective extensions that improve service to major des- tinations and employment centers can create major benefits and help direct new development. Goal Five: Use walking and bicycling as part of an effort to make the Grand Island area healthier for the community, and for the individual. Trips made by bicycle promote health at two levels: • Community health. Reducing emissions also helps ensure that Grand Island will maintain its status as a healthy environment for its citizens. On a social level, bicycling builds community by enhancing the quality of civic life, helping us interact with each other as people. Places that lead in bicycle transportation also tend to attract people because of their community quality. • Individual health. This is a very important objective which promotes community health through better individual health. Incorporating physical activity into the normal routine of daily life for everyone from kids to seniors makes all of us healthier, reduces overweight and obesity rates, improves wellness, and lowers overall health care costs. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 42 / 227 666 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Goal Six: Increase safety on the road for motorists, bicy- clists, and pedestrians. Improved safety is a critical goal for any transportation improvement, and is fundamental to ef- forts to increase the number of people who walk and bike in the region. Physical safety improvements must also be supported by education, enforcement, and encouragement programs, and its effectiveness measured by evaluation. Goal Seven: Capitalize on the development benefits of a des- tination-based bicycle transportation system. Better active transportation facilities can have a significant and desirable effect on urban design and development patterns. Walk- able and bikeable neighborhoods and projects are highly valued by a new generation of homeowners and investors. The developers of Grand Island’s proposed new hospital and mixed use project are including trails as an important part of their development plan, and new city neighborhoods are enhanced by the Shoemaker Trail and connectivity that it provides. This plan serves as the trail master plan for the Grand Island region. It is a blueprint to guilde the City of Grand Island's investment in trails and support facilities. MEASURES OF SUCCESS: Guiding Criteria for an Effective Transportation Network The design of bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems should be guided by criteria that can be used to evaluate individual components and the effectiveness of the entire network. We elaborate on these criteria in Chapter Three, which are based on the work of the Netherlands’ Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering (C.R.O.W.), one of the world’s leading authorities in the design of bicycle-friendly infrastructure. These same criteria also apply to pedestrian networks. Drawing on C.R.O.W.’s work in its excellent design manual, Sign Up for the Bike, the Grand Island bicycle and pedestrian network should be guided by six basic guiding principles: • Integrity (or, in C.R.O.W.’s term, Coherence): The network should, at all points in its evolution, form a coherent system that links starting points with destinations. The network should be understandable to its users and fulfill a responsibility to convey them continuously on their paths. • Directness: The active network should offer cyclists as direct a route as possible, with minimum detours or misdirections. • Safety: The bikeway network should maximize the safety of using the bicycle for transportation, minimize or improve hazardous conditions and barriers, and in the process improve safety for pedestrians and motorists. • Comfort: Most bicyclists should view the network as being within their capabilities and not imposing unusual mental or physical stress. As the system grows, more types of users will find that it meets their needs comfortably. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 43 / 227 7 | INTRODUCTION 77 • Experience: The active network should offer its users a pleasant and positive experience that capitalizes on the region’s built and natural environments. • Feasibility: The active network should provide a high ratio of benefits to costs and should be viewed as a wise investment of resources. It is capable of being developed in phases and growing over time. An overriding principle of an active transportation network is avoidance of hazards or have unnecessary negative impacts on the overall transportation network. PLAN METHODOLOGY AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT It was extremely important to structure a planning process that maximized both public involvement and our under- standing of the physical structure and community character of the Grand Island area. The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (GIAMPO) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee , representing city and GIAMPO staff, bicycle and walking community members, health interests, the private sector, and other community interests met throughout the planning process, with an initial meeting in August, 2017. Major public involvement events included: • Field reconnaissance and stakeholder groups. These visits included initial field work on bicycle and interest/stakeholder group discussions, helping us become familiar with issues and the overall structure of Grand Island neighborhoods and street system. During this process, we rode most of the city’s candidate streets and compiled an extensive photographic inventory • Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey. This survey, explored the characteristics of Grand Island residents interested in bicycling and measured their level of comfort with different types of facilities. The survey, available in English and Spanish, attracted 352 responses and produced information to help frame the direction of this plan. • Area Workshops. These local sector were a major part of the planning process. The city was divided into three sections: north, south, and west. Each workshop included extensive field work on bicycle during the days, and public meetings in the evening to discuss results and concepts. • Community Workshop. The community workshop was held at the Grand Island Public Library in September 2017 to solicit input from stakeholders on the emerging bicycle network and facility concepts. Participants learned about the project, contributed their ideas, and were invited to review the proposed network and infrastructure types on the project website. • Public Comment Period and Public Open House. A public comment period was held from May 24, 2018 to June 11, 2018 to solicit public input on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The draft plan was available on the project website, and hard copies were available at the Grand Island Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 44 / 227 888 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Public Works Deparment and the Grand Island Public Library. During the public comment period, a public meeting was held at the Grand Island Public Library on May 29, 2018 to invite residents the opportunity to review the recommendations outlined in the draft plan. ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN The GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan presents its analysis and recommendations in the following chapters: 1. Chapter One: Active Transportation Environment. Chapter One examines existing conditions in the city pertinent to walking and bicycling, including determinants of a future bikeway system such as destinations, existing facilities, and opportunities. It includes an atlas of key determinants of the area’s active transportation network. 2. Chapter Two: The Market for Active Transportation. Chapter Two estimates current pedestrian and bicycle demand and the potential future market. It also reviews the Grand Island Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey, which provides extensive information about people interested in urban bicycling and walking in Grand Island and their needs, concerns, and preferences. 3. Chapter Three: The Active Transportation Network: Principles and Structure. Chapter Three uses the analysis of Chapters One and Two to establish over-all principles that guide the proposed Grand Island area network. It • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commitee (BPAC) and GIAMPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The BPAC was a client group that met at regular intervals during the course of plan development. Key milestone presentations were made to the TAC, which also assisted with setting priorities through a ballot process that rated the importance and priority of various network segments. We also held periodic meetings with city staff, including Planning, Public Works, and Parks Departments. also elaborates on the measurement criteria previously presented to help guide the system’s components. Finally, it presents a complete conceptual system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 4. Chapter Four: Support Facilities. Chapter Four investigates needs and establishes concepts and locations for support facilities, including trailheads, open space nodes, linkages to new park facilities, and wayfinding. 5. Chapter Five. Crossing Barriers. Chapter Five locates and classifies various types of physical barriers to active transportation in the city and identifies different types of solutions that can be adapted to these contexts. 6. Chapter Six: On Foot in Grand Island. Chapter Six analyzes pedestrian considerations in Grand Island and proposes a strategic program for improving the pedestrian environment, focusing specifically on the areas around high-density destinations such as schools. 7. Chapter Seven: Route Details and Sequencing. Chapter Six includes a detailed, route-by-route facility program, showing proposed conceptual design solutions for each segment of the system. It discusses criteria for determining the sequence of development and presents a phased implementation program, along with probable costs for different infrastructure types. Finally, it proposes an initial pilot network, based on serving all parts of the city and early feasibility. 8. Chapter Eight: Support Programs. The League of American Bicyclists describes six “E’s” as components of a bicycle- friendly community (BFC) program and judges BFC applications accordingly. These program categories are Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation and Equity. Chapters One through Eight largely address the Engineering component; Chapter Seven recommends initiatives that support these infrastructure investments to achieve bicycle transportation’s full potential as part of Grand Island’s access environment. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 45 / 227 9 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT 1CHAPTER ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT THIS CHAPTER OUTLINES THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN GRAND ISLAND PERTINENT TO WALKING AND BICYCLING. These conditions include determinants of a future bikeway system such as destinations, existing facilities, and opportunities as well as a broader understanding as to how the region has developed and grown from land use and motor vehicle transportation aspects. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 46 / 227 10 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions This section considers factors that can help determine the structure and character of the Grand Island area’s active transportation network. Areas of analysis break into two general areas: Demand – Factors that suggest a need for facilities and can be analyzed together to suggest the structure of the network. These factors include both points of origin such as population density and destinations such as parks, schools and places of employment. Area of analysis include • Current land use • Future land use • Population density • Employment density • Parks and trails • Schools and sidewalks Facilities – These factors analyze aspects of existing infrastructure and their suitability for a future active transportation network. Areas of analysis include • Functional street classification • Trails and bike routes • Average daily traffic • Crash incidence and traffic control • Low traffic streets with continuity • Transit potential • Barriers Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 47 / 227 11 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old Hig h wa y 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Existing Land Use Agriculture Park/Open Space Civic Medical Commercial Commercial Industrial Residential Manufactured Homes Multi-Family Residential Vacant Existing Land Use Land use patterns help determine the structure of an active transportation network. Major determinants include concen- trations of higher density housing, major employers, medical complexes, civic and cultural uses, and commercial concentra- tions. The streets that serve some of these key areas may not be fully compatible with bicycle transportation, but all should accommodate pedestrians and provide secondary accessways for bicyclists. Key land use factors include: • Downtown Grand island, including the core district between Eddy and Sycamore, extended east and west along the US 30 corridor. Fourth Street north of the UP has developed as a significant traditional commercial district with a strong specialization in ethnic Hispanic enterprises. • The dominant US 281/Webb Road commercial corridor, with Diers Avenue and Allen Drive providing parallel local circulation. South Locust, the Five Points cluster are also important commercial centers. • The Faidley corridor north to 10th Street between Broadwell and Webb, including St. Francis Medical Center, adjacent medical office buildings, and the Grand Island Housing Authority’s complex of residential developments. A second major medical and mixed use center is planned for the southwest quadrant of the US 281 and Husker High- way intersection. • Key civic concentrations, including the VA, Fonner Park, Stuhr Museum, the Central Community College campus, public and parochial schools, and parks, ranging from Pier and Stolley Parks to smaller neighborhood open spaces. • Major industrial employment centers generally along the UP and BNSF corridors, including JBS with 3,200 employ- ees. Employees of food processing plants like JBS often use bicycles for travel to work for economic reasons. Source: Regional Planning Commission, 2017 £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Existing Land Use Agriculture Park/Open Space Civic Medical Commercial Commercial Industrial Residential Manufactured Homes Multi-Family Residential Vacant Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 48 / 227 12 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c a m o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old Hig h way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park Rd EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Future Land Use Transitional Agriculture Downtown Commercial Zone General Commercial Zone Highway Commercial M i x e d U s e C o m m e r c i a l Z o n e Manufacturing Mixed Use Manufacturing Zone L o w t o M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l Z o n e M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l t o O ffi c e Z o n e Mobile Home Residential Overlay Zone P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n Z o n e Public Zone £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Future Land Use Transitional Agriculture Downtown Commercial Zone General Commercial Zone Highway Commercial M i x e d U s e C o m m e r c i a l Z o n e Manufacturing Mixed Use Manufacturing Zone L o w t o M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l Z o n e M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l t o O ffi c e Z o n e Mobile Home Residential Overlay Zone P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n Z o n e Public Zone Future Land Use An active transportation network should ultimately be master planned to serve projected growth directions, illustrated by the Future Land Use map on this page. Key directions include: • Contiguous residential growth west to Engleman Road and south of Husker Highway. • Extension of linear commercial development along South Locust toward I-80 and south along US 281 to and south of Husker Highway. • Substantial industrial growth west of the airport to Broadwell and along the US 281 corridor. Source: Grand Island Comprehensive Plan Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 49 / 227 13 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High wa y 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Population Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High Population Density Population density is correlated to active transportation demand. As density increases, more destinations are lo- cated closer to more people, bringing biking and walking within the capability of a larger population. The map uses block group data to show population per square mile. The city displays a smooth concentric gradation, with the highest density found between Oak and Custer from about 20th Street to Fonner Park. A second density ring extends east of Webb and north of Stolley Park, with an island of higher density in the George Park area of north- west Grand Island. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 0-138/sq mi 139-537/sq mi 538-1,203/sq mi 1,204-2,134/sq mi 2,135-3,333/sq mi Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High Population Density Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 50 / 227 14 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Employment Density Employment density is also correlated to active trans- portation demand, identifying concentrated job centers. The map on this page uses census data to illustrate jobs per square mile in the city. The city’s three most concen- trated employment areas are the eastside industrial area with JBS, the city’s largest single employer and some other industries; the downtown core; and the US 281/ Webb Road corridor, combining major industrial and retail employment. This underscores the value of providing a strong bicycle and pedestrian connection to the eastside industrial area. £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High wa y 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High Source: U.S. Census Bureau 0-312/sq mi 313-1,234/sq mi 1,234-2,770/sq mi 2,771-4,922/sq mi 4,923-7,688/sq mi Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St NShady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Employment Density Value Low Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate - High High Employment Density Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 51 / 227 15 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High wa y 30 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails Open Space Cemetery Park Walk Time from Park 5 10 15 Parks and Trails Parks and trails are among the most important destina- tions for an active transportation network. Indeed, trails are uniquely both destinations and means of reaching destinations such as parks and recreation assets. The map at left illustrates the distribution of parks and walk time to neighborhood parks. Ideally, all parks should be served by the active transportation network and bicycle connections are especially important to major parks throughout the city and to neighborhood parks from areas outside of easy walking distance. Of major com- munity parks, Pier, Hall County, and Ashley Parks and the Stuhr Museum grounds are directly served by trails. Stolley Park and George Park have close trail access and Stolley is bordered by the multi-modal Stolley Park Road. Eagle Scout Park has a popular internal trail but is separated from the rest of the trail network. Other parks are typically served by sidewalks and local streets, but not by trails or major bike routes. It is also important to note that many of Grand Island’s school campuses have significant neighborhood recreational facilities. Source: RDG Planning & Design; GIAMPO £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stoll ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails Open Space Cemetery Park Walk Time from Park 5 10 15 £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N Sycam o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stoll ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails Open Space Cemetery Park Walk Time from Park 5 10 15 £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stoll ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails Open Space Cemetery Park Walk Time from Park 5 10 15 Walk Time from Park Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 52 / 227 16 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Schools and Sidewalks Schools are also primary destinations for the Grand Island area’s active transportation network, with el- ementary and junior high students being especially im- portant constituencies. High school students, many of whom drive to school, also present a possible growth market if bicycling is viewed as a contemporary trend. The map at left overlays the city’s sidewalk system and school locations, and indicates that: • Most of school sites have good sidewalk access, although road barriers interrupt this in some at- tendance areas. • Sidewalk access decreases in peripheral or lower density areas, such as Seedling Mile on the ex- treme east side of the study area • A number of schools enjoy good trail access. These include schools west of US 281 along the Shoemaker Trail/Independence Avenue corridor; and Gates and Dodge Elementary Schools along the John Brownell (Beltline) Trail. These facilities are used by students, but face obstacles at busy street crossings. • A current gap is emerging with service to new school facilities developing along the Adams Street corridor north of Stolley Park Road. • Grand Island’s students are willing to walk and bike to school when facilities are available. Source: City of Grand Island; GIAMPO; RDG Planning & Design £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Sidewalk Public School 1 / 2 M i l e B u ff e r Schools and Sidewalks 0 4,000 8,000Feet Sidewalk Schools Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 53 / 227 17 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 54 / 227 18 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Functional Classifications and Existing Facilities Grand Island’s major street network is the framework of the region’s transportation system and provides primary access to many of the city’s key destinations. However, many of the city’s major streets – ex- pressways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and even major collectors have traffic volumes that many prospective bicyclists and even pedes- trians find uncomfortable or them and their families. These same major streets also present potential barriers, as described more specifically in the Barrier Map – intersections that are difficult to cross, may not have traffic controls on secondary streets, or otherwise deter people from crossing them on foot or bike. From a trail perspective, Grand Island has assembled the foundation of an excellent trail network, made up of two systems: The Beltline/Cemetery/St. Joe/Riverway/South Locust Trails link the central and southern parts of the city and serve Pier Park, Suck’s Lake, College Park, Stuhr Museum, Hall County Park, the proposed new medical center and mixed use project at Husker Highway and US 281, and the Walmart Su%er on South Locust on its continuous 12-mile path from Cherry and Sutherland to South Locust and US 34. The Riverway Trail continues east from South Locust to the Hall-Hamilton County Bridge. Extensions to this system are planned to connect to Mormon Island State Recreation Area via South Locust and the Platte River; and the East Lakes Trail along the BNSF and Swift Road. The Westside system made up of the Capital Avenue, Capitol-State Connector, State, and Shoemaker Trails, linking Ahley and Shoemaker Parks, Shoemaker and Engleman Elementary Schools, and Westridge Middle School between Capital and Broadwell and Old Potash Road. Future extensions to this system will connect north along Broadwell to Eagle Scout Park and southeast along Capital and the BNSF elevated mainline to East 4th Street. Source: GIAMPO £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Bl ai neStSOld Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High wa y 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park Rd EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency 0 4,000 8,000Feet National Functional Classification Interstate Freeways/Expressways Other Principal Arterials Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 55 / 227 19 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT Cemetery Trail Eagle Scout Park Trail Hall County Park Trail Su cks L ake T rail This portion iscrushed rock,to behard surface at afuture date. Morman Island Trail inplanning stage forfuture construction. Eagle Scout Trailin planning stagefor future construction. Trail EndsHall - Hamilton Co.Bridge Cedar Hills Park TrailÆP ÆP ÆP ÆP ÆP ÆP ÆP ÆP ÆP ÆP Burlington Trail East Lakes Trail Stuhr Museum Hall County Park Stolley Park Pier Park Island Oasis Water Park Shoemaker Park Locust St SInterstate 80 Stuhr Rd SNorth Rd SBlaine St SWebb Rd NNorth Rd N13th St W US Highway 281 SCapital Ave E Wildwood Dr W Schimmer Dr W State St W Bismark Rd E1st St W Capital Ave W Broadwell Ave NOak St NUS H ighway 30 W Airport Rd W US Highway 30 E 4th St ECuster Ave NSky Park RdHusker Hwy Anna St W US Highway 34 E Edd y St N Webb Rd SOld Potash Hwy W Ch arles S t W Sycamore St NStolley Park Rd E US Highway 34 W St Paul Rd6t h St W Adams St SNorth Front St W Walnut St N College St 4th St W 2nd St W Cherry St S Old H ighway 30 W Airport Rd EUS Highway 281 N Lincoln Ave N 2nd St E Oak St SKennedy DrHancock AveFonner Park Rd E Sta geco ach Rd Sylvan St10th St WIndependence AveStolley Park Rd W Pioneer BlvdBrentwood BlvdEddy St SFaidley Ave W 17th St E Cannon Rd Tech DrPiper St17th St W Sycamore St SBlaine St NO ld Lincol n Hwy W Garland St6th St E 18th S t W Independence Ave.Garland StOak St SStuhr Rd S4th St W Interstate 80North Rd S17th St W18th St W US Highway 281 SStolley Park Rd ESt Paul Rd6th St WIndependence AveStolley Park Rd W Husker HwyUS Highway 34 E Capital Ave E Old Hi ghway 30 W US Highway 281 S10th St W 2n d S t W Airport Rd E Eddy St SFaidley Ave W 6th St E l Morman Island TrailRiverway TrailSt. Joe TrailJo hn B ro wnell / BeltlineShoemaker TrailState Street Trail So. Locust TrailRiverway Trail O n Street O n S tr eet On Stre etArea Trails -------------------- Distance in Miles ON STREET TRAIL STATE STREET TRAIL 6 TH & OAK to 17 TH & OAK 0.65 NORTH RD to LAWRENCE LN 0.80 17 TH & OAK to CUSTER 1.10 CUSTER & STATE to FAIDLEY 1.00 PIER LAKE TRAIL FAIDLEY to CHARLES 1.00 AROUND LAKE 0.46 CHARLES to STOLLEY PARK RD 0.60 STOLLEY PARK RD to SYLVAN 1.10 RIVERWAY TRAIL SYLVAN to FONNER PARK RD 0.50 St. JOE R.R. CROSSING to BLAINE ST 0.50 FONNER PARK RD to VINE 0.50 BLAINE ST to LOCUST ST 1.00 FONNER PARK RD & VINE to BISMARK 0.50 LOCUST ST to STUHR RD 1.00 VINE & BISMARK to ASHTON & OAK 0.30 STUHR RD to TRAIL END 1.80 ASHTON & OAK to 6 TH & OAK 1.00 TOTAL RIVERWAY TRAIL4.30TOTAL PERIMETER DISTANCE 8.25 SUCK’S LAKE TRAIL CROSSLINKS:AROUND LAKE 0.50 6 TH & OAK to 6 TH & EDDY 0.60 6 TH & EDDY to 6 TH & BROADWELL 0.50 JOHN BROWNELL/BELT LINE TRAIL 6 TH & BROADWELL to FAIDLEY & CUSTER 0.70 ST JOE R.R. to BLAINE 0.251.80 BLAINE ST to ARTHUR 0.25CROSSLINKS:ARTHUR to HARRISON 0.32 ASHTON & OAK to EDDY & CHARLES 0.60 HARRISON to ADAMS 0.40 CHARLES & EDDY to CHARLES & BLAINE 1.20 ADAMS to LOCUST 0.501.80 LOCUST ST to OAK ST 0.50CEMETERY TRAIL OAK ST to CHERRY 0.50 AROUND CEMETERY 1.25 TOTAL BELT LINE TRAIL2.72 HALL COUNTY PARK TRAIL ST. JOE TRAIL AROUND PARK 1.00 ADA to STOLLEY PARK RD 0.25 STOLLEY PARK RD to CCC 1.20EAGLE SCOUT TRAIL HWY 34 to ST.JOE R.R. CROSSING 1.46 AROUND LAKE 1.05 TOTAL ST. JOE TRAIL2.91 SHOEMAKER TRAIL CEDAR HILLS PARK TRAIL SHOEMAKER SCHOOL to NORTH RD 1.94 AROUND PARK 0.45 Legend Completed Trails On Street Trails Trail Under Study Crushed Rock, Riverway Trail Park Locations Railroad ParkingÆP While these two trails systems provide both utility and recreation, they are not connected to each other, and linkages to each other and much of central Grand Island depend upon on-street routes. East-west des- ignated “on-street trails” include 17th/State Street, 6th Street, Charles Street, and Stolley Park/Sylvan/Fonner Park, all between Custer/Blaine and Oak/Vine. State is a major collector with average daily traffic (ADT) in the 3,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) range, suitable for experienced riders, That volume rises above 10,000 vpd as the street approaches Webb Road. Stolley Park Road is minor arterial with ADT above 10,000 vpd. This is made somewhat more comfortable by the presence of wide shoulders on this two lane facility. Stolley Park will be converted to a three-lane section with “multi-use shoulders” usable by bicyclists in a project scheduled for 2018. Designated north-south routes include Oak Street/Vine Street from 17th to Fonner Park Road and Custer/Blaine between State and Stolley Park. Oak Street is a low-volume local street with good continuity. The Custer/Blaine route is very important in terms of destinations, but its relatively high ADT, in the 3,000 to 5,000 vpd range along Custer and 5,000 to 10,000 vpd on Blaine are uncomfortable for many cyclists. In addition to serving major destinations, however, this corridor is signifi- cant because it includes a grade separated crossing of US 30, a major east-west barrier. Source: City of Grand Island Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 56 / 227 20 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Average Daily Traffic The previous discussion of street classifications and existing facilities discussed traffic volume related to on- street routes designated in the city’s Trails Map and bike route system. The map at left illustrates average daily traffic (ADT) throughout the street system and helps to identify opportunities for on-street linkages. Different ranges of traffic also are associated with different types on infrastructure treatments for bicycle and pedes- trian facilities: higher levels require a greater degree of separation from motor vehicles for many cyclists and present crossing barriers to pedestrians: 0 to 1,500 vpd: Generally comfortable for most cyclists without extensive infrastructure, relatively comfortable and crossable environment for most pedestrians. 1,500-3,000 vpd: May be uncomfortable for inexperienced cyclists. Shared lane markings and conventional bike lanes as volumes approach 3,000 vpd may be required for greater comfort levels. Pedestrian crosswalks may be required at intersections. 3,000-5,000 vpd: Typical threshold for conventional bike lanes. Require well-defined crosswalks, caution signs, and possible traffic controls at key crossings. 5,000-10,000 vpd: Requires substantial experience and comfort with shared traffic from cyclists. Conventional bike lanes are typically recommended, with protected bike lanes at higher levels. Separation of sidewalks from curbs and well-designed crosswalks with traffic controls and refuge medians at key crossings are highly desirable. Over 10,000 vpd: Protected bike lanes, enhanced side- paths or use of alternative routes for cyclists. Sidewalk separation from curb and well-designed crosswalks with traffic controls and refuge medians at key crossings are highly desirable. £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet T r a ffi c C o u n t s 0 - 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 1 - 3 0 0 0 3001 - 5000 5001 - 10000 10001 - 20857 £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 30 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet T r a ffi c C o u n t s 0 - 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 1 - 3 0 0 0 3001 - 5000 5001 - 10000 10001 - 20857 Source: Nebraska Department of Transportation and City of Grand Island, 2015-16 traffic counts Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 57 / 227 21 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High w ay 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails Bike Accident Pedestrian Accident Traffic Signal Crash Incidence Incidence of pedestrian and bicycle crashes pinpoint spe- cific problems that system planning must strive to address. The map on this page locates crash history between 2010 and 2015, overlaid on the location of traffic signals. Analysis of the map indicates that: • Most crashes recored in these data occur at intersec- tions without signals. • Bicycle crashes appear to cluster along certain cor- ridors including: 2nd Street (US 30), clustering in the vicinity of the public library; Broadwell Avenue, with difficult intersections created by the shifting grid; and Locust Street, especially between Downtown and Bismark Road. • Pedestrian crashes are more distributed around the city, but tend to cluster around Downtown and along the 2nd Street corridor – because these areas have the greatest number of pedestrians. • Bicycle crashes occurred at some difficult trail cross- ings (Capital Avenue west of US 281, the Shoemaker Trail at 13th Street, the Beltline Trail at Locust, St. Joe Trail at US 34), but not at others during this period (St. Joe Trail at Stolley Park, Beltline Trail at Blaine). Source: Nebraska Department of Roads, 2010-2015 £¤34 £¤34£¤30 £¤30£¤30 £¤281 £¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave WNorth Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W OldHighway2W Stol l ey P a rk R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails Bike Accident Pedestrian Accident Traffic Signal Crash Incidence, 2010-2015 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 58 / 227 22 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE d d y S t N S y c am o r e S t N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High wa y 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stolley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 2 0 0 0 f e e t i n L e n g t h L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 1 m i l e i n L e n g t h Opportunity Streets: Low Traffic Streets with Continuity One way of achieving separation of bicyclists and, to some degree, pedestrians from high traffic volumes is identifying streets with low traffic that have continuity – continuous lengths of at least 1/2 mile and more significantly one mile. These “opportunity streets” are components of a secondary street system – corridors that can serve important destina- tions efficiently but are not “major streets” from a classifi- cation point of view. These frequently can be incorporated into a neighborhood greenway” or “bicycle boulevard” network, using wayfinding and low-capital traffic calming devices and signage to assemble an effective network. In Grand Island, these corridors tend to be most prevalent in an east-west direction south of the UP and in a north- south direction north of the UP. In some cases, shorter seg- ments that are offset by short distances can be assembled to create longer crosstown routes. Another opportunity presented by Grand Island’s network is width. Many of the city’s local and collector streets are 36 feet wide – a healthy width for low traffic streets. Streets of this width can accommodate bike lanes with one-sided parking or other shared road methods. Sometimes, bike- or pedestrian-friendly improvements can also slow traffic to desirable speeds in residential neighborhoods. £¤34 £¤34 £¤30 £¤30 £¤30 £¤281 £¤281 £¤281 Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St W Capital Ave W North Rd SStolley Park Rd W Husker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E Old High way 3 0 W OldHighway2W Stol ley Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2 Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program 0 4,000 8,000Feet Trails L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 2 0 0 0 f e e t i n L e n g t h L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 1 m i l e i n L e n g t h Source: Nebraska Department of Transportation; RDG Planning & Design Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 59 / 227 23 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT Opportunity Streets: Transit Coordination of possible transit service and other active transportation improvements offers another potential system opportunity. The Grand Island Area MPO approved the Grand Island Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study in December, 2017. This study proposed both a Fis- cally Constrained Plan and an Illustrative Plan. The Fiscally Constrained Plan proposes continuation with modifications of the existing Demand Response Service; new vanpool service and a rideshare program; and several policy and planning initiatives, including improved branding and marketing, increased transit contract oversight, and planning a tri-city bus service that includes Hastings and Kearney. This reflects transit op- erations for the next five years. The Illustrative Plan proposes a Flexible Route Service concept that could be implemented if and when funding becomes available. The concept establishes two routes that can divert within a certain area by passenger request, then returning to the point of diversion to continue its route. Planning for implementation could begin in Year 4 of the transit program process pending the availability of fund- ing. The map at left displays the possible Flexible Route Concept contained in the Illustrative Plan. While implementation of this program is rela- tively long-term, it represents a clustering of current service requests, potential destinations, and high demand corridors that assist with identi- fication of active transportation routes. Source: Courtesy of GIAMPO, City of Grand Island, Olsson Associates Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 60 / 227 24 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Barriers The presence of physical barriers poses a major challenge to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the Grand Island area. While topography is not an issue for pedestrian and bicycle travel in the city, barriers in the built environment – railroads, major highways, and arterial streets – pose significant obstacles. The most important issues include: US 281. This 4-lane divided highway on the west side of the city is viewed as a major divider that discourages east-west active transportation. This dividing character of the highway is exacerbated by its great right-of-way width, with both the road and adjacent drainageways. State and Capital both include multi-use sidepaths that must cross US 281, a significant physical and psychological barrier. Source: RDG Planning & Design Major Highway Barrier Other Street Crossing Barrier Difficult Arterial Crossing Difficult Trail Intersection Other Difficult Street Crossings Railroad Mainline Barrier Other Railroad Barrier RR Underpasses without bike/ ped accommodations Possible grade crossing closings Areas blocking street continuity Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 61 / 227 25 1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT Union Pacific Mainline. The triple-track UP carries over 100 trains daily, and presents a barrier that is both per- ceptual and physical. Two grade separated underpasses (Sycamore and Eddy) are inaccessible to bicycles and have undesirable accommodations for pedestrians. The grade crossing at Broadwell Avenue has been a chronic traffic bottleneck and may be replaced by a future grade separation at the potential cost of the one or two most accessible grade crossings of the mainline, at Lincoln and/or Walnut. Whole far less busy than the mainline, the UP south branch to the power plant separates some south side neighborhoods from the St. Joe Trail. On the other hand, the elevated east side BNSF mainline is rela- tively permeable, with four easily accessible crossings between 4th Street and Capital Avenue. Other arterial streets, including trail crossings. While more easily negotiated than US 281, busy arterial streets present significant challenges. Of special note are Broadwell Avenue, where the joint between the section line and rotated street grids create difficult intersections that break east-west street continuity; and trail crossings that include the John Brownell Trail at Blaine and Locust, and the St. Joe Trail at Stolley Park Road. Breaks in street continuity. Development and land use patterns or major projects create areas that interrupt the street grid. Examples are Fonner Park and the VA cam- pus; lack of development east of Locust between Stolley Park Road and US 34; and southwest Grand Island. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 62 / 227 26 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 63 / 227 2727 2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS 2CHAPTER MARKETS FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION THIS CHAPTER INVESTIGATES THE MARKET FOR BICYCLING IN THE GRAND ISLAND REGION – THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS AND THE PREFERENCES OF THAT POTENTIAL MARKET. It draws heavily on new and recent census information, national trends, and the 352 citizens who responded to the Grand Island Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 64 / 227 2828 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Before building a major shopping center or apartment proj- ect, a developer usually commissions a market analysis, de- signed to determine whether enough people will shop or live there to support the effort and to define the features that will appeal to customers. Similarly, an active transportation master plan should also evaluate the size and character of the potential market. This helps assess the impact of a bicy- cle and pedestrian transportation program on factors such as motor vehicle traffic and emissions. It also helps us under- stand what t e existing and potential bicycling community wants of the program, in turn increasing the chances that active modes can reach their potential for the Grand Island area. This market study uses two major instruments: • Estimates of existing and future pedestrian and bicycling demand: Using a demand model developed by Alta Planning & Design that is clear, straightforward, and easy to track for future measurement. • The results of the Grand Island Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Survey: This survey was completed by 352 people, a very satisfactory participation rate for a community of this size, and provides valuable information about the region’s potential active transportation community. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE DEMAND Tables 2.2a and 2.2b use the Alta model to estimate exist- ing and potential pedestrian and bicycle demand. Primary sources of information include the 2012-2016 average com- putations of the American Community Survey (ACS), devel- oped by the Bureau of the Census, and 2010 Census data. The model makes certain assumptions about transportation choices of populations such as K-12 and college students. The sources of these assumptions are included in the table. Based on this model, Grand Island has an estimated 11,350 daily pedestrian trips and about 3,900 daily bicycle trips for all purposes (including recreational activity) in 2016. Bicy- cling has a 0.7 % commuter mode share. This is about the same as Omaha’s current bicycle mode share. Table 2.1 com- pares the Grand Island’s bicycle mode share with that of a diverse nationwide sample of cities. 2030 Midpoint and 2040 PotentIal Demand Tables 2.2a and 2.2b provide both projections of trips made by pedestrians and bicyclists at 50 % and 100 % completion of the proposed basic system, based on a 20 year imple- mentation schedule between now and 2040. At the 2030 midpoint, enough infrastructure should be in place to have a significant impact on transportation choices. Realistically, this level corresponds to completion of Phase 1 of the Basic System illustrated in Chapter 7. This midpoint model paints a picture of what Grand Island’s transportation could be 12 years from now with gradual implementation of an im- proved pedestrian and bicycle system. Given current fiscal constraints and allocation of existing funds, this assumes a relatively slow start in program implementation, accelerat- ing as new funds become available. The Basic System mid- point assumes that: Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 65 / 227 2929 2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS • The city will grow at an average annual rate of 1.22 % during the next 20 years, the city’s average annual growth rate since 1960. • Walk-to-work commuters increase from about 1.12% to 2.25% of all workers. • Transit’s share of the modal mix increases from 0% to a 4%, assuming implementation of the Illustrative Plan’s proposed Flexible Route concept in the 2017 Olsson transit study. It is important to note that any projection of transit use is highly speculative, as most existing service has been highly targeted to seniors. • Bicycle commuting, encouraged by new infrastructure, could increase to about 2% by 2030. • 15 % of K-8 students could walk to school, about 40% over the current level. This is still far lower than the 60 % of students who walked to school 30 years ago. Applying these changes increases daily pedestrian trips from about 11,350 in 2016 to about 23,250 in 2030, doubling over the twelve year period. Bicycle trips could increase from about 3,900 to about 8,250 daily trips. These changes could have an overall impact on the overall picture in Grand Island. This model assumes that by 2030, about 8% of com- muting trips will eventually be made by “active transporta- tion” modes – transit, foot, and bicycle. The 2040 projections suggest that active modes (including transit) may claim up to a 15 % mode share by 2040 and that 2% of Grand Island’s residents will cycle to work. The num- ber of students walking to school will increase to 20 %, still far below levels experienced twenty years ago. These as- sumptions result in an increase of weekday pedestrian trips from 11,350 today to about 35,200; and an increase in week- day bicycle trips from about 3,900 to about 14,750. These projections do not include technological changes that make bicycling more attractive to more people. For example, the introduction of e-bikes to the area, which use a small electric motor to assist pedal-driven bicycles, may broaden the appeal of bicycling for transportation and will certainly increase the number of people with the physical capability to ride by requiring less physical exertion. On-street in- frastructure is particularly well-suited to accommo- dating these increasingly popular vehicles. Table 2.1: Comparative Cities’ Mode Share City Total Number of Workers Walk %Bike % Grand Island 25,985 1.12 0.70 Omaha 204,463 2.84 0.98 Kearney 17,260 3.93 2.05 Cedar Rapids 65,912 2.95 1.76 Bellevue, WA 62,816 4.62 0.52 Bethesda, MD 31,273 6.18 2.00 Burlington, VT 22,102 20.31 4.98 Cedar Falls, IA 20,434 11.80 0.71 Des Moines, IA 100,648 2.75 0.43 Duluth, MN 41,863 5.15 0.82 Edina, MN 22,799 1.95 0.96 Evanston, IL 35,618 11.64 3.01 Fargo, ND 62,074 4.44 1.08 Fitchburg, WI 13,166 1.63 0.90 Gresham, OR 46,692 2.31 0.46 Hopkins, MN 9,595 2.53 0.67 Lee’s Summit, MO 46,219 0.52 0.02 Lincoln, NE 138,108 3.13 1.54 Montclair, NJ*18,486 4.02 0.34 Shorewood, WI 7,575 9.19 3.60 Sioux Falls, SD 84,504 2.19 0.52 Wauwatosa, WI 24,799 2.31 0.59 Wheat Ridge, CO 14,724 2.00 0.92 Source: 2012-16 ACS 5 Year Estimates *Source: 2009 ACS 5 Year Estimates Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 66 / 227 3030 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Table 2.2a: Existing and Projected PEDESTRIAN Transportation Trips, 2018-2040 Figure 2.1: Existing and Projected Pedestrian Transportation Trips, 2010-2030Pedestrian Trips in Grand Island 2016 Base 2016 Share (%)2020 2020 Mode Share (%)2030 2030 Mode Share (%)2040 2040 Mode Share (%)Assumptions/Sources Population 50,895 53,424 60,312 68,087 2016: ACS; +1.22% historic annual growth rate since 1960 Total Commuting to Work 25,985 51.05%27,276 51.05%30,793 51.05%34,763 51.05%51.05% of Grand Island population in employed workforce, ACS 2016 Walking to Work (%)1.12%1.5%2.25%3.00% Walking to Work (#)291 409 693 1,043 Work at Home 594 624 704 795 2.29% of Grand Island workers work at home, ACS 2016 Work at Home Pedestrian Trips 149 25% make one ped trip 156 25% make one ped trip 176 25% make one ped trip 199 25% make one ped trip Take Transit to Work (#)178 0.69% take transit 546 2% take transit 1,232 4% take transit 2,086 6% take transit Walk to Transit 89 50% walk to transit 273 50% walk to transit 616 50% walk to transit 1,043 50% walk to transit School Population (K-8)7,787 15.3%8,174 15.3%9,228 15.3%10,417 15.3%K-8 students = 15.3% of GI population, ACS 2016 School (K-8) Pedestrian Trips 857 11% walk to school 899 11% walk to school 1,384 15% walk to school 2,083 20% walk to school Safe Routes to School National Partnership, 2009. 13% of children walk OR bike to school School Population (9-12)2,138 2,244 4.2%2,534 4.2%2,860 4.2%9-12 students = 4.2% of GI population, ACS 2016 School (9-12) Pedestrian Trips 118 5.5% walk to school 135 6.0% walk to school 203 8% walk to school 286 10% walk to school College 1,730 1,816 2,050 2,314 College Students=3.4% of GI population, ACS 2016 College Pedestrian Trips 19 1.12%27 1.5%46 2.25%69 3.0%Same ratio as walk to work Total Pedestrian Commuters 1,522 1,899 3,118 4,723 Total Pedestrian Commuter Trips (Commuters x2) 3,044 3,798 6,235 9,447 2 trips for each commuter Other Trips Ratio (commuter to non-commuter trips) 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, via Alta Planning & Design Other Pedestrian Trips 8,310 10,368 17,022 25,790 Commuter Trips x Other Trips Ratio Total Daily Pedestrian Trips 11,354 14,165 23,258 35,236 Commuter Trips + Other Trips Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 67 / 227 3131 2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS Table 2.2b: Existing And Projected BICYCLE Transportation Trips, 2010-2040 Pedestrian Trips in Grand Island 2016Base 2016 Share (%)2020 2020 Mode Share (%)2030 2030 Mode Share (%)2040 2040 Mode Share (%)Assumptions/Sources Population 50,895 53,424 60,312 68,087 2016: ACS; +1.22% historic annual growth rate since 1960 Total Commuting to Work 25,985 51.05%27,276 51.05%30,793 51.05%34,763 51.05%51.05% of Grand Island population in employed workforce, ACS 2016 Bike to Work (%)0.7%0.8%1.2%2.0% Bike to Work (#)182 218 370 695 Work at Home 594 624 704 795 2.29% of Grand Island workers work at home, ACS 2016 Work at Home Bike Trips 149 5% make one bike trip 31 5% make one bike trip 35 5% make one bike trip 199 5% make one bike trip Take Transit to Work (#)178 0.69% take transit 546 2% take transit 1,232 4% take transit 2,086 6% take transit Bike to Transit 0 0% bike to transit 27 5% bike to transit 62 5% bike to transit 104 5% bike to transit School Population (K-8)7,787 15.3%8,174 15.3%9,228 15.3%10,417 15.3%K-8 students = 15.3% of GI population, ACS 2016 School (K-8) Bike Trips 156 2% bike to school 327 4% bike to school 554 6% bike to school 833 8% bike to school Safe Routes to School National Partnership, 2009. 13% of children walk OR bike to school School Population (9-12)2,138 4.2%2,244 4.2%2,534 4.2%2,860 4.2%9-12 students = 4.2% of GI population, ACS 2016 School (9-12) Bike Trips 21 1% bike to school 34 1.5% bike to school 63 2.5% bike to school 100 3.5% bike to school College 1,730 1,816 2,051 2,315 College Students=3.4% of GI population, ACS 2016 College Bike Trips 12 1.12%15 1.5%25 2.25%46 3.0%Same ratio as bike to work Total Bike Commuters 520 652 1,108 1,978 Total Bike Commuter Trips (Commuters x2) 1,039 1,304 2,216 3,956 2 trips for each commuter Other Trips Ratio (commuter to non-commuter trips) 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, via Alta Planning & Design Other Bike Trips 2,837 3,559 6,049 10,800 Commuter Trips x Other Trips Ratio Total Daily Bike Trips 3,876 4,863 8,265 14,756 Commuter Trips + Other Trips Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 68 / 227 3232 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN • Survey respondents represent all parts of the region. This suggests that residents in all parts of the region are interested in active transportation and that a complete system will find an audience across all of the Grand Island area. An almost even number live north and south of the railroad corridor, with the plurality of responses coming from the northwest sector. Figure 2.3 illustrates the distribution of responses. • Destinations are distributed in almost exactly the same percentages as residences. This suggests both destinations in all parts of the region, supporting the concept of a citywide network; and the likelihood of relatively short trips, also supporting an active transportation framework. (Figure 2.4) CYCLISTS’ RESPONSES • Responses were relatively evenly split between regular and infrequent riders. Only about 40% of respondents reported being “regular” riders, riding at least once or twice a week or more; 17% more reported riding occasionally, and about 42% were at best infrequent cyclists. The fact that this type of sample were motivated to complete an extensive survey on pedestrian and bicycle transportation suggests an interesting opportunity for growth and relatively high interest outside a traditional bicycling community. (Figure 2.5) • Exercise and recreation-related purposes are by far the most frequent reasons mentioned for bicycling. Regular exercise is by far the most popular reason for bicycling, followed by other recreational purposes (trips to parks or recreation facilities and family outings). “Utilitarian” bicycling is still relatively uncommon in Grand Island, although about 15% of respondents (51 of 348) report commuting as a purpose for their riding. (Figure 2.6) • The largest group of respondents are cyclists most interested in improved infrastructure. The largest single group, about 39 %, were interested in cycling and Figure 2.3: Place of Residence of Participants Figure 2.4: Common Destination of Participants GRAND ISLAND BIKE/PED SURVEY The estimates discussed above help quantify the size of a potential active transportation market and also help to assess some of the basic economic and health benefits achieved by reaching this market. With realistic mode projections, the Grand Island area could reach 49,992 daytime active transporta- tion trips by 2040. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey helps define the preferences and opinions of these prospective cyclists and pedestrians, and provides important guidance for designing the net- work. Who are Grand Island’s Active Transportation Users? While the survey is not a scientific sample, the number and diversity of responses suggested that it represents citizens with interest in active transportation. The first questions explored the characteris- tics of these responses, and found that: 40.3%47.4% 8.4%6.7% 21.0%21.6% 27.4%23.7% 2.9%0.6% Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 69 / 227 3333 2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS Figure 2.5: Frequency of Bicycling Figure 2.7: Self-Characterization of Participants Figure 2.6: Purposes of Cycling Trips comfortable on low-traffic streets, but showed concerns for safety and see a real need for new facilities to expand ridership and improve safety. The next largest single group, 22%, view themselves primarily as trail users and would like to see additional trails, augmented by interested non-riders. Just over 17% fall into the “committed urban cyclist” category – people comfortable with mixed traffic but support better infrastructure to expand participation. Very small groups were at the edge of the interest spectrum – only about 1.3% responded to being comfortable in every situation and seeing no reason for infrastructure development, and 8.5% reported that they were likely to ride under any circumstances. (Figure 2.7) PEDESTRIAN RESPONSES • A majority of survey respondents walk regularly for a variety of purposes. Roughly 57% of participants reported walking at least once or twice a week. Only about 20% report themselves as “infrequent” or non-walkers. (Figure 2.8) • Exercise and recreation-related purposes are by far the most frequent reasons mentioned for walking. Purposes of pedestrian trips are very similar to those of bicycling trips. About 85% of respondents report walking for exercise, and the next largest purpose categories (trips to parks or recreation facilities, family outings, and social visits) also involve recreational or leisure purposes. A much smaller group walks for utilitarian purposes such as commuting, shopping, and community destinations. Not unexpectedly, these groups are smaller than those of people who bike for similar purposes. (Figure 2.9) 0%0%5%5%10%10%15%15%20%20%25%25%30%30%35%35% 17.3%17.3% 14.3 %14.3 % 10.3%10.3% 17.8%17.8% 26.6%26.6% 13.7%13.7% NeverNever Very Infrequently a few times a year Very Infrequently a few times a year Infrequently every few months Infrequently every few months Occasionally once or twice a month Occasionally once or twice a month Regularly once or twice a week Regularly once or twice a week Frequently several times a week Frequently several times a week COMMITTED AND FEARLESS: I am a committed bicyclist who rides in mixed traffic on every street. I don’t believe that any significant further action on bicycle facilities is necessary. COMMITTED URBAN CYCLIST: I am a committed bicyclist who rides in mixed traffic on most streets, but believes that new facilities like bike lanes, bike routes, and trails are needed to improve Grand Island’s biking environment for me and encourage other people to ride more often. INTERESTED AND CONCERNED: I am interested in bicycling and use low-traffic streets, but am concerned about the safety of riding in mixed automobile traffic. More trails and bike lanes and routes would increase the amount of trips that I make by bicycle. RECREATIONAL TRAIL USER: I am a recreational or occasional bicyclist and ride primarily on trails. I would like to see more trails, but am unlikely to ride on city streets even with bike lanes INTERESTED NON-RIDER: I do not ride a bicycle now, but might be interested if Grand Island developed facilities that met my needs better or made me feel safer. NON-RIDER UNLIKELY TO RIDE: I do not ride a bicycle, and am unlikely ever to do so. 1.3% 17.4% 38.6% 22.4% 11.7% 8.5% Regular ExerciseRegular Exercise CommutingCommuting ShoppingShopping Routine ErrandsRoutine Errands Social VisitsSocial Visits Family OutingsFamily Outings Bicycle TouringBicycle Touring OtherOther Do not Ride a BikeDo not Ride a Bike Going to Meetings/ Conducting Business Going to Meetings/ Conducting Business Trips to Library or Similar Places Trips to Library or Similar Places Trips to Parks/ Recreational Facilities Trips to Parks/ Recreational Facilities 06 0 120 180 240 300 225225 5151 66 2323 118118 2727 44 5454 104104 5757 99 5454 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 70 / 227 3434 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN DESTINATIONS An active transportation network should get people where they want to go. The survey listed a number of different community destinations or destination types, and asked re- spondents to rank them based on the importance of good bicycle and pedestrian access to them. Figure 2.10 describes the results, indicating the number of participants who con- sidered good access important or very important. These in turn suggest the places that the network should serve. Top priority destinations include the city’s trails, schools, parks, neighborhood parks, schools, and the library. Retail and commuter destinations group at much lower impor- tance levels, again reinforcing the preponderance of bicy- cling for fitness and recreational uses in the Grand Island area. GRAND ISLAND STREETS Much of the survey was designed to assess the comfort of current and prospective bicyclists with different types of bicycle environments. The survey asked participants to re- spond to a gallery of photographs of Grand Island streets and infrastructure installations from other parts of the coun- try. Through their responses, participants assessed: • Whether the setting is comfortable for most or all cyclists. • Whether the setting is comfortable for the respondent, but not necessarily for less capable cyclists. The displays in Figure 2.11 group images of various Grand Island streets on the basis of their combined favorability ratings. Groupings are based on the % of respondents who considered the facility comfortable for both other users and themselves. and show the following results: • The most comfortable (over 85 % favorable) settings include either completely separated paths, both along roads and on exclusive right-of-way, or quiet 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% 2.9%2.9% 9.7%9.7% 8.8%8.8% 21.1%21.1% 31.4%31.4% 26.1%26.1% NeverNever Very Infrequently a few times a year Very Infrequently a few times a year Infrequently every few months Infrequently every few months Occasionally once or twice a month Occasionally once or twice a month Regularly once or twice a week Regularly once or twice a week Frequently several times a week Frequently several times a week Regular ExerciseRegular Exercise CommutingCommuting ShoppingShopping Routine ErrandsRoutine Errands Social VisitsSocial Visits Family OutingsFamily Outings OtherOther Do Not WalkDo Not Walk Going to Meetings/ Conducting Business Going to Meetings/ Conducting Business Trips to Library or Similar Places Trips to Library or Similar Places Trips to Parks/ Recreational Facilities Trips to Parks/ Recreational Facilities 06 0 120 180 240 300 360 290290 2828 3838 3232 109109 1717 1919 7171 108108 1212 1414 Figure 2.8: Frequency of Walking Figure 2.9: Purposes of Walking Trips Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 71 / 227 76.0 86.2 88.3 86.2 61.6 64.0 41.5 32.4 38.7 30.5 42.6 71.5 71.9 75.7 70.0 67.8 72.8 79.3 42.9 76.7 18.0 17.8 3535 2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS Figure 2.10: Importance of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Community Destinations Table displays % of respondents reporting destinations as “important” or “very important” for pedestrian and bicycle access. neighborhood streets such as Oak Street and Stagecoach Drive. This indicates a reasonable level of user comfort with quiet streets. given the fact that relatively few of the respondents characterize themselves as fully comfortable in mixed traffic. • The next highest-rated groups (50-85 % favorable) include some relatively busy streets, including Custer Avenue, 13th Street, and Fonner Park Road. This indicates at least some comfort level with key candidate streets for a network that could be strengthened by some infrastructure improvement. • Most people are uncomfortable with major arterial streets, two-lane corridors with significant traffic, and several major pedestrian crossings, including trail crossings of major streets. Another level of interpretation is the difference between settings rated as “comfortable for me” rather than “com- fortable for most people” by a substantially larger number of people. These suggest situations that experienced riders find satisfactory for themselves, but not suitable for less ca- pable cyclists. One determining factor was the perceived or indicated amount of traffic for a particular situation. More experienced bicyclists were more comfortable dealing with- higher traffic volumes than less experienced riders. INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACHES Figure 2.12 displays a series of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure approaches in use around the country. These are grouped by the percentage of respondents rating each image as “comfortable for most or all users” – a higher standard of comfort than used to evaluate Grand Island streets in Figure 2.11. This different, stricter measure is directed toward the goal of expanding the role of active modes in the overall transportation framework, rather than simply providing existing bicyclists and pedestrians with better or more comfortable facilities (a valid goal in itself, to be sure). High Schools Middle Schools Elem Schools Central CC Downtown Conestoga Mall South Locust 281 Corridor Other Shopping St. Francis Area Platte Valley Ind Pk Other Industrial Public Library Stolley Park Pier Park Eagle Scout Park Ryder Park LE Ray Park Island Oasis Neighborhood Parks Event Center Trails Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 72 / 227 3636 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 1st St 4th St E Stolley Park Broadwell State & 281 Custer 3rd St 13th St Fonner Park Faidley Oklahoma and Locust State Trail west of 281 South Locust S Locust/WalmartUS 281 Stuhr Rd 12th St Oak Capital Trail Stagecoach Beltline Trail State-Capital ConnectorGrand Island Ave Ped Ped Ped Figure 2.11: User Comfort of Various Grand Island Contexts % of participants reporting the facility is comfortable for most users and for themselves 30% and less 30-50% 50-70% 70-85% 85% and over Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 73 / 227 3737 2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS Figure 2.12: User Comfort of Various Infrastructure Solutions % of participants reporting the facility is comfortable for most users 30% and less 30-50% 50-70% 70-85% 85% and over The results of FIgures 2.11 and 2.12 suggest that: • The highest level of comfort is associated with physically separated facilities – trails on exclusive right-of-way or on-street facilities that have a physical buffer or barrier between the bicycle/pedestrian environment and motor vehicle travel lanes. • Views of enhancements to local and neighborhood streets are divided, with about half of respondents viewing them as comfortable for most users – a lower percentage than physically separated facilities. However, many of these respondents viewed these facilities as “comfortable” for themselves. • Higher visibility facilities (physical separation, vertical bollards, green paint) appear to make some difference in people’s perception of comfort for most users. • Painted conventional bike lanes or shared lane markings on busy streets are not seen as comfortable for most users. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 74 / 227 3838 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 2.13: Effectiveness of Various BICYCLE Actions Buffered bike lanes More trails Widened sidewalks/ sidepaths on major streets Bike safety programs for kids Better pedestrian and intersection control of major streets More safe routes to schools projects More bike parking Bike lanes Designated on-street bike routes to key destinations Strong advocacy organization More special and community events Challenges and promotions for bicycle commuters More information about clubs, events, programs Bike/ped-friendly project design Wayfinding signage Better pavement markings at intersections Better sidewalk ramps Countdown crossing signals Bicyclists May Use Full Lane signage Shared lane markings Motorist education Better law enforcement Improved bicycle safety education Bike share program Showers at workplaces Very Effective or Effective Over 70% Very Effective or Effective 50% - 70% Very Effective or Effective Less than 50% IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS ACTIONS Responses to a list of possible actions to improve Grand Island’s bicycle and pedestrian environment indicated a strong priority for infrastructure programs. Figure 2.13 tabu- lates the responses to this list. Initiatives that ranked high- est included protected bike lanes, more trails, and sidepaths. Highly rated pedestrian initiatives focused on improved pe- destrian and intersection controls at major streets and safe routes to schools projects. Bike education programs direct- ed to children were also considered highly effective. A variety of other actions were viewed as effective by a ma- jority of respondents, notably including wayfinding, bike lanes (presumably on streets with comfortable traffic vol- umes), events and promotional programs, and a designat- ed on-street network. From a pedestrian perspective, bet- ter pavement markings at intersections and sidewalk ramps were viewed as effective programs. Less effective actions included shared road signage, shared lane markings, bike share programs, and bicycle safety edu- cation for motorists and riders. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 75 / 227 3939 2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 76 / 227 4040 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 77 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 4141 3CHAPTER THE ACTIVE NETWORK PRINCIPLES AND FRAMEWORK THIS CHAPTER PRESENTS THE PERFORMANCE PRINCIPLES AND FRAMEWORK OF GRAND ISLAND’S PROPOSED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. These principles, derived from the analysis of existing conditions and opportunities, the community engagement process, and market preferences generate the overall system concept. The chapter describes the framework of the system and its individual components. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 78 / 227 4242 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN An effective network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is based largely on the characteristics of both the individual community and the nature and preferences of its users. But its design and operation should also be guided by specif- ic principles and performance measurements. Some of the world’s best work in identifying design principles was done by the Netherlands Centre for Research and Contract Stan- dardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering. This plan adapts the Netherlands concepts to the contexts of medium-sized American cities like Grand Island, identifying six guiding principles for an effective active transportation network: • Integrity. The ability of a system to link starting points continuously to destinations, and to be easily and clearly understood by users. • Directness. The capacity to provide direct routes with minimum misdirection or unnecessary distance. • Safety. The ability to minimize hazards and improve safety for users of all transportation modes. • Comfort. Consistency with the capacities of users and avoidance of mental or physical stress. • Experience. The quality of offering users a pleasant and positive experience. • Feasibility. The ability to maximize benefits and minimize costs, including financial cost, inconvenience, and potential political opposition. These six principles express the general attributes of a good system, but must have specific criteria and even measure- ments that both guide the system’s design and evaluate how well it works. Figures 3.1 through 3.6 present criteria for each of the six guiding principles, and design guides and methods to man- age performance. Each table includes: • The performance factors relevant to each guiding principle. For example, the INTEGRITY principle addresses the ability of users to understand the system and use it to get to their destinations. Examples of performance factors that help satisfy this principle include clear wayfinding and directional information and continuity, ensuring that users do not confront dead- ends as they move along the route. • The measurements that can be used to evaluate the success of the system and its ultimate design. For example, we can measure the effectiveness of a wayfinding system by its ability to guide users intuitively without either creating too many signs. • The performance criteria that establish the design objectives and guidelines for each of these factors. For example, a wayfinding system should avoid ambiguities that confuse users and follow graphic standards that are immediately and clearly understood. These attributes help guide network design and evaluation, but they are clearly aspirational – no network in a real place can meet all of these criteria all of the time. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 79 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 4343 Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard Comprehensiveness Number of connected destinations on system Major destination types identified in the survey results and presented in the destinations analysis should all be accessible by the network. 100% of top destination types, 80% of all destinations should be served. New destinations as developed should be developed along the network or served by extensions. Continuity Number of discontinuities along individual routes Users headed on a route to a destination should not be dropped at a terminus without route or directional information.* Even at incremental levels, route endings should make functional sense.* Transitions between facility types should be clear to users and well-defined. Transitions from one type of infrastructure. to another along the same route should avoid leading cyclists of different capabilities into uncomfortable settings.* Infrastructure should be recognizable and its features (pavement markings, design conventions) consistent throughout the system. Wayfinding/directional information Completeness and clarity of signage Economy and efficiency of graphics Complaints from users Signs should keep users informed and oriented at all points. Sign system should avoid ambiguities that cause users to feel lost or require them to carry unnecessary support materials. Signs should be clear, simple, consistent, and readable, and should be consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (MUTCD) Route choice Number of alternative routes of approximately equal distance Ultimate system should provide most users with a minimum of two alternatives of approximately equal distance.* Maximum distance between alternative routes should be about 1/2 mile.* Consistency percentage of typical reported trips accommodated by the ultimate network. Typically, a minimum of 50-70% of most trips to identified destinations should be accommodated by the bikeways network.* Figure 3.1: Development of the INTEGRITY Guiding Principle Integrity issues. When paths diverge, directional information that tells users where each alternative leads is very important to the user’s peace of mind. Where streets are designed to discourage through traffic, users need assurance that a street that looks like a continuous route con- nects to other parts of the network. * Standard applies primarily to bicycle network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 80 / 227 4444 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard Access Coverage Access to all parts of the city The network should provide convenient access to all parts of the city. As a standard, all urban residential areas should be within one-half mile from one of the system’s routes, and should be connected to those routes by a relatively direct local street connection.* Bicycling speed Design and average speed of system The network should permit relatively consistent operation at a steady speed without excessive delays.* System should be able to deliver an average point to point speed between 12 and 15 mph for users, although a portion of routes should permit operation in a 15 to 20 mph range.* (CROW adapted to American measurement) Diversions and misdirections Maximum range of detours or diversions from a straight line between destinations. “Detour ratio:” Ratio of actual versus direct distance between two points. Routes should connect points with a minimum amount of misdirections. Users should perceive that the route is always taking them in the desired direction, without making them reverse themselves or go out of their way to an unreasonable degree. Maximum diversion of a straight line connecting two key points on a route should not exceed 0.25 miles on either side of the line.* (NACTO) Delays Amount of time spent not moving Routes should minimize unnecessary or frustrating delays, including excessive numbers of stop signs, and delays at uncontrolled intersections waiting for gaps in cross traffic.* Routes should maximize use of existing signalized crossings. Intersections Bicycle direction through intersections Bicyclists and pedestrians should have a clear and safe path through intersections. Two-stage crossings are sometimes necessary but should avoid conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians. Figure 3.2: Development of the DIRECTNESS Guiding Principle Directness issues. Right: Broadwell Avenue marks the seam be- tween the ordinal grid oriented to true compass directions and the rotated grid oriented to the Union Pacific. At this location, approaching the Five Points intersection, a break in sidewalk con- tinuity and signage requires pedestrians head- ing for major commercial destinations on the east side of the street to cross Broadwell twice. The back of curb sidewalks along an arterial street can also be uncomfortable for many pe- destrian users. * Standard applies primarily to bicycle network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 81 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 4545 Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard Reduced number of crash incidents Number of incidents Reactions/perceptions of users The network should reduce the rate of crashes over ten year periods. Data collection should be sufficient to trace baseline data and measure the impact of improvements. Appropriate routing: mixing versus separation of traffic Average daily traffic (ADT) criteria for mixed traffic Traffic speed criteria for mixed traffic System design should avoid encounters between bicyclists and incompatible motor traffic streams (high volumes and/ or high speeds). Separation and protection of vulnerable users should increase as incompatibilities increase.* Infrastructure, visibility, signage Pairing of context and infrastructure solutions Mutual visibility and awareness of bicycle and motor vehicles Infrastructure should be designed for utility by at least 80 % of the potential market. The Grand Island Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey indicates that a relatively large number of people are relatively uncomfortable with many streets and prefer higher levels of separation. Infrastructure applications should be matched with appropriate contexts. Warning signage directed to motorists should be sufficient to alert them to the presence of cyclists along the travel route. Surfaces and markings should be clearly visible to all users. Obstructions, such as landscaping, road geometry, and vertical elements, should not block routine visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Trail and pathway geometries should avoid sharp turns and alignments that hide cyclists operating in opposing directions or create crash hazards for pedestrians. Where these conditions are unavoidable, devices such as mirrors and advisory signs should be used to reduce hazards. Door hazards and parking conflicts Number of incidents Parking configurations Location of bicycle tracking guides Component design should track bicycles outside of the door hazard zone.* Back-out hazards of head-in parking should be avoided or mitigated when diagonal parking is used along streets.* Intersection conflicts Location and types of pavement markings Number of intersections or crossings per mile Intersections should provide a clearly defined and visible track through them for cyclists and pedestrians. Sidepaths should generally be used on continuous segments with a minimum number of interruptions. Complaints Number of complaints per facility type Complaints should be recorded by type of infrastructure and location of facility, to set priorities for remedial action. Figure 3.3: Development of the SAFETY Guiding Principle Safety issues. Left: The Capital Trail displays characteristics of a well- designed sidepath – separation from the street, adequate width and good visibility, and infrequent driveway and street interruptions. * Standard applies primarily to bicycle network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 82 / 227 4646 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard Road surface Quality and type of road surface Materials Incidence of longitudinal cracking and expansion joints The network’s components should provide a reasonably smooth surface with a minimum of potholes and areas of paving deterioration.* Roads should be free of hazardous conditions such as settlement and longitudinal cracks and pavement separation.* All routes in the urban system should be hard-surfaced, unless specifically designated for limited use.* Sidewalks in the network should be repaired or designed to minimize tripping hazards or obstructions such as equipment or poles. Hills Number and length of hills and inclines Maximum grades on segments for both long and short distances Grades are generally not an issue in the Grand Island area network. However, if possible, grades on approaches to overpasses and underpasses should not exceed 7 % over a length not exceeding 400 feet in length; or 5 % over the course of a mile.* (AASHTO) Off-road climbing facilities should be provided where slow-moving bike traffic can obstruct motor vehicles and increase motorist conflict.* Traffic stress Average daily traffic (ADT) Average traffic speed Volume of truck traffic Generally, the network should choose paths of lower resistance/incompatibility wherever possible and when the DIRECTNESS guideline can be reasonably met.* The network should avoid mixed traffic situations over 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) without separated facilities, or should use alternative routes where possible.* (NACTO with modifications) Stops that interrupt rhythm and continuity Number of stop signs/ segment Network routes should avoid or redirect frequent stop sign controls. The number of stops between endpoints should not exceed three (1 per quarter mile average) per mile segment. Figure 3.4: Development of the COMFORT Guiding Principle Comfort issues. The high rankings given to trails and protected bicycle facilities indicate that Grand Island area residents are most comfortable with separated trails, quiet streets, and protected bike lanes. * Standard applies primarily to bicycle network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 83 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 4747 Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard Surrounding land use Neighborhood setting Adjacent residential or open space use, including institutional campuses Adjacent street-oriented commercial Surrounding land use should provide the network user with an attractive adjacent urban environment. It is desirable for at least 75 % of the length of the route should pass through residential, open space, or street-oriented (main street) commercial environments. However, this guide is advisory and should not be taken to limit necessary connectivity or service to major employment centers.* Routes should provide access to commercial and personal support services, such as food places, convenience stores, and restrooms. Landscape Location and extent of parks or maintained open space Network should maximize exposure or use right-of-ways along or through public parks and open spaces. Environmental contexts to be maximized include parks, waterways and lakes, and landscaped settings. Social safety Residential development patterns Observability: Presence of windows or visible uses along the route Population density or number of users The network should provide routes with a high degree of observability – street oriented uses, residential frontages, buildings that provide vantage points that provide security to system users. Areas that seem insecure, including industrial precincts, areas with few street-oriented businesses, or areas with little use or visible maintenance should generally be avoided, except where necessary to make connections or serve major destinations like industrial employment centers. Furnishings and design On-trail landscaping, supporting furnishings Network routes should include landscaping, street furnishings, lighting, rest stops, graphics, and other elements that promote the overall experience. These features are particularly important along trails. Figure 3.5: Development of the EXPERIENCE Guiding Principle Experience issues. Grand Island’s distinctive trail and street set- tings (the Cemetery Trail and Grand Island Avenue pictured here)and attractive neighbor- hoods create positive experiences for pedestrian and bicyclists. * Standard applies primarily to bicycle network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 84 / 227 4848 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard Cost effectiveness Route cost Maximum use of low-cost components Population/destination density The network should generate maximum benefit at minimum cost. Where possible, selected routes should favor segments that can be adapted to bicycle use with economical features rather than requiring major capital investments. Initial routes should be located in areas with a high probability of use intensity: substantial population density and/or incidence of destinations. Initial investments should integrate existing assets, extending their reach into other neighborhoods and increasing access to them. Major off-street investments should concentrate on closing gaps in an on-street system.* Phasing and incremental integrity Self-contained value Ability to evolve The network should provide value and integrity at all stages of completion. A first stage should increase access and use in ways that make future phases logical. The network should be incremental, capable of building on an initial foundation in gradual phases. Phases should be affordable, fitting within a modest annual allocation by the city, and complemented by major capital investments incorporating other sources. Neighborhood relationships and friction Parking patterns Development and circulation patterns The network should avoid conflict situations, where a route is likely to encounter intense local opposition. Initial design should avoid impact on potentially controversial areas, such as parking, without neighborhood agreement. Involuntary acquisition of right-of-way should be avoided wherever possible. Detailed planning processes to implement specific routes should include local area or stakeholder participation. Figure 3.6: Development of the FEASIBILITY Guiding Principle Feasibility issues. Taking advantage of opportunities can provide major connectivity advances at relatively low cost. Far right: Use of a pre-existing culvert in Sioux Falls, South Dakota to extend an important trail link under a major arterial street. Right: This creek crossing provides an excellent and relatively inexpensive way to cross the US 281 barrier south of Husker Highway. * Standard applies primarily to bicycle network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 85 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 4949 ATTRIBUTES OF THE NETWORK Based on this development of the six guiding principles pre- sented in the tables, the Grand Island area network design follows the following major attributes: Tailored to User Groups. Planning a bicycle network for Grand Island and the surrounding area requires us to un- derstand the specific market groups for the system. These groups include: • Recreational users, including people traveling to parks and recreational features, especially the trail system, from their homes. It is important to understand that travel to recreational destinations are in fact transportation trips that substitute for trips by car. • Students walking or biking to school. • Residents who are actively interested in walking or biking for transportation, but are discouraged by barriers, including major streets, highways, and railroad crossings. • Workers at major industries like JBS, an employer of over 3,000, who may find bicycle transportation or walking to be an attractive and affordable transportation option. Destination-Based. The Grand Island area network should direct people of all ages to desitnations, whether they are parks, trails, schools, business districts, or the library. Desti- nations identified by the community as important help gen- erate the structure of the network. The proposed network is more than a map of streets and trails. It is in fact part of a transportation system that takes people to specific places. Function Model. Several reasonable models for network planning exist, with choices dependent on the nature of the city. In planning the Grand Island system, we identify a grid of routes designed to help users “read” the system with a minimum of supporting materials, To do this, have adapt- ed a “transit model,” that identifies major destination-based routes that connect points and destinations, almost as if they were bus lines. Incremental Integrity. As shown in Figure 3.6 (Feasibility), incremental integrity – the ability of the network to provide a system of value at each step of completion – is an impor- tant attribute. The first step in completion should be valu- able and increase bicycle access even if nothing else is done. Each subsequent phase of completion follows the same principle of leaving something of clear value and integrity, even if no further phases were developed. Evolution. As part of the concept of incremental integrity, the system is designed to evolve and improve over time. For example, a relatively low-cost project or design element can establish a pattern of use that supports something better in the future. To use a cliché, the perfect should not be the en- emy of the good. Conflict Avoidance. Few important actions are completely without controversy, but successful development of a bi- cycle transportation system in Grand Island can and should avoid unnecessary controversy. On most streets, shared streets and signage can provide satisfactory facilities that focus on the positive and minimize divisive conflicts. Proj- ects should demonstrate the multiple benefits of street ad- aptations. For example, bikeway design can slow motorists and keep unwanted through traffic out of neighborhoods, benefiting both cyclists and neighbors. Use of Existing Facilities. Great existing features like Pier Park, Stolley Park, College Park and Central Community Col- lege, the Stuhr Museum, and others are integral to the active transportation system. Utility easements and drainage cor- ridors like Moore Creek also offer great opportunities. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 86 / 227 5050 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Fill Gaps. In some cases, the most important parts of a net- work involve small projects that make connections rather than long distance components. Often, these short links knit longer street or trail segments together into longer routes or provide access to important destinations. These gaps may include a short trail segment that connects two continuous streets together, or an intersection improvement that bridg- es a barrier. The development of the overall network is stra- tegic, using manageable initiatives to create a comprehen- sive system. Routes of Least Resistance. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Sur- vey showed that much of the city’s potential urban cycling market prefers quiet streets or corridors with some separa- tion from motor traffic. It is not necessary to try to force bi- cycle access on major streets when more comfortable, lower cost options exist. For example, bicycle boulevards – lower volume streets that parallel major arterials – satisfy the com- fort principle successfully. However, some important desti- nations, including major employers and shopping facilities are served by major arterials. Here, complete street guide- lines should include bicycle and pedestrian accommoda- tions in new major street projects. Signage systems can also be instrumental in guiding users efficiently to their destina- tions using comfortable routes made up of different street segments. Barriers. In many cases, reducing the dividing impact of barriers such as major highways and streets, can be the mosty effective way of improving connectivity. Most people involved in this process view US 281 as an especially difficult barrier, even where crossed by multiuse paths. In other cas- es, existing trails cross busy streets, leading to concerns of parents about their children using the trail to get to school. Regional Connectivity. Grand Island’s potential network extends into the surrounding region. This plan’s study area also includes Alda. The Riverway Trail may eventually ex- tend east to the Platte River and long-range plans stretch out to Mormon Island State Recreation Area. Other potential considerations include the eventual routing of the US Bicy- cle Route System through Nebraska, probably following the Lincoln Highway corridor. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 87 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 5151 two major circumferential loops: the John Brownell Beltline, St. Joe/Stuhr/Riverway Trails in the south half of the city; and the Capital, Westside Connector, State, and Shoemaker Trails around the north and west sides of Grand Island. The most recent addition to the system is the Capital Avenue Trail, a high quality sidepath that now extends from Ashley Park to the west side of the city using the State-Capital Connector and Shoemaker Trails. Anticipated near-term connections include an extension of the Beltline to job centers on the east; eastward continuation of the Capital Trail, and a sidepath along North Broadwell to popular but isolated Eagle Scout Park and the Sports Complex. Other priority links include extension of the State-Capital Connector, which will provide access to the US 281 corridor; the first stage of the west circumferential loop with a link from the Stuhr Trail through the new hospital campus and to Cedar Hiils Park and south along Moore Creek; and a north extension of the South Locust Trail to connect with eastside on-street routes. Clear identification and wayfinding information will also integrate these trails into the overall network. These new paths are identified in the Network Map as Priority Trails. Later phase trails complete the outer legs of the two major circumferential loops and extend the system into other growth areas. Phasing concepts are discussed in more detail in Chapter Seven. • Alda/Cornhusker Trails. These are long-term routes that connect Grand Island to Alda and the nearby Cornhusker plant, available to the city as a potential recreation area on the site of the former ammunition testing and storage facility. These paths follow easements and in some cases county roads. • Study Corridors. These corridors include a corridor study for a northeast bypass for US 281 and for eventual widening of US 34 on the south edge of town. A corridor study would identify and evaluate a range of alternative concepts. Multi-modal facilities, specifically a path parallel to the roadway, are not included as part of the basic network but should be incorporated into the corridor ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Figures 3.7, 3.7a, 3.8, and 3.8a present the proposed active transportation network for Grand Island, based on the prin- ciples described previously in this chapter and possibilities for infrastructure development. Figures 3.7 and 3.7a focus on the on-street network, while 3.8 and 3.8a consider the off-street trail and shared use path components. This map shows the ultimate build-out by component type, and in- cludes route designations that are used to describe infra- structure details. The components of the system include: • On-Street Network. These corridors make up the primary on-street route grid. They form the bike and pedestrian arterials that link the parts of the Grand Island area. together. They also complement the trail system and in many ways connect neighborhoods and destinations to the growing regional pathway system. These routes use a variety of facility types, including quiet streets, multi- use shoulders, protected bike lanes, and in some cases sidepaths and short trail connections. Details of these routes are presented in Chapter Seven. Quiet Streets are sometimes referred to as “bicycle boulevards” or “neighborhood greenways” but function as a significant and cost-efficient part of an on-street network. They are typically local or collector streets with relatively low volumes that have good continuity and in many cases parallel higher order streets. They are far more comfortable for most cyclists and pedestrians than the busy corridors they parallel. Relatively minor adaptations, such as pavement markings, special graphics, and wayfinding can make these streets even more comfortable for a broad range of users. Bicycle boulevards are also fundamental to the community pedestrian network, and should ultimately have continuous, barrier-free sidewalk access along at least one side of the street. • Multi-Use Trails. Grand Island’s growing trail system, builds from two connected systems that ultimately can complete Above: Underpass connection from Stuhr Trail west to new hospital site, a part of a priority trail extension to Cedar Hills Park. Above: Stagecoach Drive, part of a southside on-street link between the St Joe and South Locust Trails• On-Street Network. These corridors make up the primary on-street route grid. They form the bike and pedestrian arterials that link the parts of the Grand Island area. together. They also complement the trail system and in many ways connect neighborhoods and destinations to the growing regional pathway system. These routes use a variety of facility types, including quiet streets, multi-use shoulders, protected bike lanes, and in some cases sidepaths and short trail connections. Details of these routes are presented in Chapter Seven. Quiet Streets are sometimes referred to as “bicycle boulevards” or “neighborhood greenways” but function as a significant and cost-efficient part of an on-street network. They are typically local or collector streets with relatively low volumes that have good continuity and in many cases parallel higher order streets. They are far more comfortable for most cyclists and pedestrians than the busy corridors they parallel. Relatively minor adaptations, such as pavement markings, special graphics, and wayfinding can make these streets even more comfortable for a broad range of users. Bicycle boulevards are also fundamental to the community pedestrian network, and should ultimately have continuous, barrier-free sidewalk access along at least one side of the street. • Multi-Use Trails. Grand Island’s growing trail system, builds from two connected systems that ultimately can complete Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 88 / 227 5252 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 6th St L i n c o lnWh e e le r P in e A d am s14th St17th St 4th St 3rd StFaidley Stolley Park State Capital Seedling Mile CusterHancockIndependenceAdamsBellwoodBrookline 15th St 7th St 10th St Koenig Che r r yOak 20th St AshtonGrand IslandSouth LocustSky ParkWhiteBismark North Front Stagecoach US 34 College On-Street Network Existing Trails Base Network Trails/ Sidepaths Ultimate Trails Alda/Cornhusker Pathways Study Corridor Local Connectors Barrier Projects Grand Island City Limits Figure 3.7: Ultimate Grand Island Area Active Transportation Network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 89 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 5353 W. Camp AugustineSouth LocustUS 34 Figure 3.7a: Ultimate Grand Island Area Active Transportation Network: South Extension study and the possible functional design. • Neighborhood Connectors. These are short, primarily on- street routes, usually on low-volume local streets, that connect through routes and neighborhoods. Most require minimal infrastructure investment. Left: Blaine Street underpass of US 30. This is a critical point in a north-south route that connects the Custer corridor with the St. Joe/Stuhr/Riverway trail system. Right: Right-of-way for a future extension of the Westside Connector that now links the Capital and State Trails parallel to US 281 On-Street Network Existing Trails Base Network Trails/ Sidepaths Ultimate Trails Alda/Cornhusker Pathways Study Corridor Local Connectors Barrier Projects Grand Island City Limits Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 90 / 227 5454 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 1 8 3 5 6 7 2 3 4 Shoemaker Extension Westside Connector Cedar Hills Trail South Locust Trail Beltline Extension Capital Trail East Eagle Scout Link Moore Creek Trail Southwest Trail 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 1 Veterans Legacy/Overpass Sky Park Trail Seedling Mile Trail Wood River Trail Riverway Trail Extension Mormon Island (S. Locust) Stagecoach Connector Trail Northwest Trail North Front Path/Overpass L.E. Ray Park Connector Alda/Cornhusker Trail Alda/Husker Highway Trail Alda Paths 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 12 13 11 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 9 8 10 9 11 12 13 10 Capital Tr State Tr Riverway Tr Stuhr TrCemetery Tr St Joe TrS. Locust TrShoemaker TrCapital-State ConnectorBeltlin e Tr Figure 3.8: Ultimate Grand Island Area Active Transportation Network – Trails Priority Trails Later Phase Trails 9 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 91 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 5555 6 6 Riverway Tr Figure 3.8a: Ultimate Grand Island Area Active Transportation Network: South Extension – Trails Above: John Brownell Beltline Trail at Pier Park. Left: Route for future south extension of Capital-State Connector Trail Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 92 / 227 5656 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN MAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH (mi) MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES Shoemaker Trail extension, Old Potash to Moore Creek. Route continues existing trail alignment south to Moore Creek at the half section line between Old Potash and Stolley Park Road .50 Shoemaker ES First stage of link from westside to trail network on south edge of the city, a major priority of westside neighborhood residents. Completion of westside connection (Southwest Trail) may be accelerated, depending on construction of relocated US 30. Westside Connector extension, State to Faidley. Later connection to potential bike/ped overpass over US 281 on North Front alignment 1.00 US 281 commercial and industrial corridor Potentially vital north-south trail spine to major commercial services and future westside residential development. Includes spurs trails to major commercial centers where possible. Cedar Hills Trail, Stuhr Trail to Cedar Hills Park 1.80 Stuhr Museum, new hospital and mixed use campus, Cedar Hills Park South leg of westide connection of Beltline/St Joe/ Stuhr trail system to Shoemaker Trail. Includes existing underpass of US 281. South Locust Trail, Brookline to US 34 0.75 South Locust corridor, Walmart Links most of network to South Locust, with Beltline, Riverway, St. Joe Trails and Pine Street route to create interconnected loops. Continues Pine Street bikeway route to form continuous east side connection to Capital Ave. Requires improved crossing to trail south of US 34. Belt Line Trail extension to JBS plant and Stuhr Road, following city-owned ROW to US 30, and continuing along perimeter of Hall County correctional center property 0.90 JBS and major eastside industrial areas Connects central city neighborhoods to area’s largest single employment concentration, Important potential commuter route for workforce needing transportation choices Capital Trail East, Capital Ave to 20th Street underpass 0.68 Ashley Park, Knickrehm ES Follows Capital Ave and Plum Street. Connects to 17th and 20th Street underpasses of BNSF elevated main line, links east side of tracks to trail network 1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 3.9: Trail Network Components Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 93 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 5757 Figure 3.9: Trail Network ComponentsMAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH (mi) MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES Eagle Scout Trail, existing trail to Capital 0.75 Sports complex, Veterans Legacy site, Eagle Scout Park Sidepath along Broadwell and pathway connection between sports complex and Eagle Scout, links major recreation area to trail network Moore Creek Trail, Faidley to Shoemaker Trail extension 1.50 Existing and future southwest residential areas Connects Faidley corridor and developing southwest areas via North Rd sidepath and Moore Creek drainageway. Major link of westside trail network Southwest Trail, Moore Creek/ Shoemaker Trail connection to Cedar Hills Park. Route uses Stolley Park east to UP mainline crossing, continues south between Chief plant and cemetery and Memorial Park Road alignment to Husker Highway 1.65 Shoemaker ES, southwest development neighborhoods, Cedar Hills Park Completes southwest trail connection from current Shoemaker Trail endpoint to Stuhr Trail and the rest of the mainline trail system. Completes a grand trail loop. May be accelerated with US 30 development, and uses a culvert as an underpass under the new road alignment. Veterans Legacy Trail / Overpass, Capital Ave Trail to Sports Complex 0.80 Veterans Legacy site, Sports Complex, Eagle Scout Park Connects to Custer bikeway and includes future overpass over UP. Incorporated as part of master plan for redevelopment of Veterans Home site Sky Park Trail, St Paul to Sky Park Rd continuing alignment of East 20th Street 2.05 Airport and future industrial area Connects east development areas to network. Extension to possible path along US 281 northeast bypass, to be determined by study corridor plan Seedling Mile Trail, Stuhr Road to US 30 at Shady Bend 2.07 JBS, eastside industrial park, Seedling Mile ES, historic Lincoln Highway Connects a relatively isolated eastside neighborhood to city network and industrial employment, improves sidewalk access in neighborhood. Provides good access route to county road system 7 8 9 1 2 3 Table 3.9: Trail Network Components Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 94 / 227 5858 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Table 3.9: Trail Network Components MAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH (mi) MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES Wood River Trail, South Locust to Fonner Park and Stuhr 1.20 Fonner Park, South Locust corridor Extends Stagecoach on-street route to Fonner Park and Oak St quiet street route, provides a loop with Stolley Park Rd and completes southeast network. Links with S. Locust Trail and Riverway to Hall County Park Riverway Trail Extension, South Locust to Platte River and US 34 3.00 South Locust corridor, confluence of channels that created the “Grand Island” of the Platte Regional extension of the trail network to shouldered highway and paved county roads to the east. Possible trailhead at US 34 Mormon Island (S. Locust) Trail, sidepath along South Locust to Mormon Island State Recreation Area, Camp Augustine Road, and segment along abandoned railbed with new crossing to state recreation area 4.90 Riverway Trail, Mormon Island State Recreation Area, I-80 travel services Regional trail connection south to Platte River corridor and visitor services. Provides new uses for Mormon Island, including trailhead for Grand Island system. Stagecoach Connection Trail, Stagecoach and Blaine to St. Joe Trail .07 Access to main trail system for south tier neighborhoods. Uses sidepath along Blaine between Stagecoach and Pioneer Blvd and a short trail segment with branch rail crossing to St Joe Trail, completing a south crosstown bikeway with the Wood River Trail proposal. Northwest Trail, Capital and Connector Trail to George Park. Route uses north extension of Westside (State-Capital Connector), path around periphery of high school campus, Northview Dr, and local streets. 1.65 off- road Northwest High School, Engelman ES, George Park, northwest neighborhoods Connects northwest neighborhoods to overall city trail system, US 281 corridor, and major northside destinations east of the highway 5 6 7 8 4 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 95 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 5959 9 Table 3.9: Trail Network Components MAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH (mi) MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES North Front Overpass. Grade separated bike/ped crossing over US 281 0.42 Westside Connector Trail, Ryder Park, North Front/4th Street route and business district Strategic opportunity for grade separated overpass over US 281 at a location capable of accommodating ramps. Provides excellent network linkages. L.E. Ray Park Connector. College Park/St. Joe Trail to park. Sidepath along Highway 34 0.55 St. Joe Trail, College Park, L.E. Ray Park Connects park with considerable potential to citywide network. Future study of US 34 widening should include bike/ped configurations. Alda/Cornhusker Trail. Shoemaker extension to Cornhusker Plant site and Alma, via Stolley Park Road and easements 5.75 Cornhusker Plant site, Alma Links Alma to city trails system, provides access for off-road cyclists to Cornhusker Plan Alda/Husker Highway Trail. Stuhr Museum to Alda Village Hall via Husker Highway, S. 60th Rd or joint use with rail siding, Schimmer Dr and Mulberry Street 5.63 Stuhr Museum, Alda Links Alda to Grand Island and trail network Alda Path, Sidewalk to close gaps in continuity of sidewalks along Myrtle, Pine, and Vine Streets 1.0 Alda Town Hall, Post Office, Highway 30 businesses Local access 10 11 12 13 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 96 / 227 6060 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Table 3.10: On-Street Network Components: North-South MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND ROUTE MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH Oak Capital Ave (N) to Fonner Park (S) Knickrehm ES, Lions Park, YMCA, Pier Park, Dodge ES, Beltline TrailFonner Park, Island Oasis Major north-south route with low traffic and attractive neighborhoods. Grade crossing over UP, good continuity with few turns or diversions. Interchange with Pine Route to continue south. Major barrier is crossing of 1st and 2nd Street (US 30) one-way pair Shared route/bicycle boulevard. Upgraded arterial crossings. Wheeler/ Pine Ashley Park/ Capital Ave (N) to Husker Highway/ Walmart (S) Route: Wheeler/17th/ Pine/new connections Ashley Park, VA Hospital, GI Christian HS, Trinity Lutheran School, Five Points (indirect),Downtown, Hall Co. complex, Pier Park, Beltline Trail, Fonner park, Island Oasis, S. Locust Corridor, Walmart and S. Locust Trail Major destination rich, north-south route. Grade crossing over UP, one significant jog but otherwise good continuity from north to south. Connecting existing street segments south of Fonner Park with trail links completes a route to Husker Highway, Walmart, and Riverway Trail, completing a grand peripheral loop. Major barrier is 1st Street (EB US 30) crossing Shared route/bicycle boulevard. Short path segments south of Fonner Park to complete north- south route. Grand Island/ White Capital Ave (N) to North Front (S) Route: Grand Island Ave/9th/ White Ave Veterans Home/Legacy Park site, Capital Trail, GI Catholic HS, Five Points, Housing Authority district, Jefferson ES, Broadwell Park Quiet street route, including divided boulevard, that generally parallels Broadwell Street, providing an active trans alternative. Major barriers are Capital and Faidley crossings. Shared route/bicycle boulevard. Upgraded arterial crossings. Possible path with park development in Grand Island Ave median Custer/ Blaine Capital Ave and Trail (N) to Beltline Trail Route: Custer/ Blaine/1st/ Ingalls/Louise/ Curtis/Gates Pathway Veterans site, Grand Island HS, Walnut MS, Housing Authority complex, St Francis Hospital/Ryder Park/ Gates ES/Beltline and St Joe Trails Major north-south link serving largest secondary school campuses; grade separation at US 30 crossing unites north and south sides. Grade crossing with UP. Major barriers are crossings at Capital, relatively high traffic counts on corridor. Currently a route on GI trail map Protected bike lanes and sidepath along Custer to Ryder Park. Bike lanes or path along Custer segment because of traffic volume; protected bike lanes on US 30 undercrossing; shared route to Gates School; upgrade of narrow path to connect to Beltline Trail 3 3 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 97 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 6161 Table 3.10: On-Street Network Components: North-South MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND ROUTE MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH Hancock Capital Ave (N) to North Front (S) Route: Walkway/ utility corridor/ Hancock/ St Francis campus/Faidley/ Sherman/Ryder Park paths Capital Trail, West Lawn ES, Walnut MS, Newell ES, St Francis Hospital, Ryder Park Quiet street alternative parallel to Webb Road and Custer Street corridors. Path/utility easement from Capital to State, bicycle boulevards, Ryder Park paths to join Custer/Blaine route at Old Potash Independence George Park (N) to Shoemaker Trail Route: Independence/ Mansfield George Park, Engleman ES, Westridge MS, Shoemaker ES, Shoemaker Trail Westside neighborhood route connecting trail to George Park and future paths serving the park from the east. Future extension north possible with reconstruction of Independence Ave Sidepath link along Independence from Mansfield to George Park. Possible southward trail connection to link to proposed Moore’s Creek Trail. Lincoln/ Adams Greenwich/15th (N) to Adams/ Stagecoach (S) Route: Greenwich/ Cotton/Lincoln/ Koenig/Adams Jefferson ES, Public Library, Wasmer ES, Vocational campus, Beltline Trail, Barr MS, New ES Central north-south route that serves major bike/ped destinations, including library. Major school concentrations and significant traffic along Adams south of Beltline Trail. Current surface crossing of UP mainline, but may be threatened as part of proposed Broadwell grade separation. Grade separation for ped/bike travel will be necessary between Broadwell and downtown crossings. Major barriers include 2nd Street (US 30) crossing and traffic loads south of Beltline Trail. Shared route/bicycle boulevard north of Beltline Trail. Sidepath along Adams from Beltline to Stolley Park Rd. Pedestrian modification needed across 2nd St at library. Future Broadwell grade separation could require abandonment of other grade crossings, leaving virtually no ped/bike access between Downtown and Broadwell. A ped/bike accessible overpass should be included in Broadwell development plans. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 98 / 227 6262 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND ROUTE MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH 4th/St Paul Capital (NE) to Webb and North Front (SW) Route: St Paul/ White/ 4th St/ North Front Lincoln ES, Downtown, 4th St corridor, Ryder Park L-shaped route from northeast to southwest part of city. St Paul segment parallels east side elevated BNSF. Continuation serves 4th Street international district. A future Broadwell Ave overpass at UP enables a direct path connection between 4th and North Front. Multi-use shoulders on St Paul and wider parts of 4th and North Front; shared lanes elsewhere. Possible path connection between 4th and North Front should be integrated into a Broadwell grade separation. 20/College St Paul (E) to Webb and Capital (W) Route: 20th/ VA Hospital/ College/Rue de College East side, Nickerehm ES, VA Hospital, Five Points area, Grand Island HS, West Lawn MS, Webb Rd commercial Crosstown route for north side of city, uses 20th Street underpass under BNSF mainline. Requires path to link 20th and College segments along south edge of VA Hospital campus. Designed to provide an active option to high school students. Major barrier is Broadwell crossing. Shared route/bicycle boulevard. Path through VA campus between Wheeler and Broadwell. Use of alternative facilities on busier segments of College around high school 17th/State 18-St Paul (E) to Mansfield at Engleman School (via State St Trail) Route: 18th/ Plum/17th/State/ State St Trail Five Points, GI Christian School, Grand Island HS fields, Conestoga Mall, Highway 281 retail, Engleman ES Long crosstown route when on-street segments are combined with State Trail on west side. Uses 17th Street grade separation at BNSF. Barriers include moderate ADT on State, gap in trail coverage and crossing at 281 intersection, navigation through Five Points area. Shared route/bicycle boulevard east of Broadwell; possible bike lanes to Webb; trail connection between Webb and State St Trailhead west of 281. 14th/15th Oak (E) to Hancock (W) Route: 14th/ Greenwich/15th/ 16th Trinity Lutheran School, Westridge MS, Conestoga Mall Crosstown route through central north side. Major barrier is Broadwell crossing. Continuity to Hancock includes path on south edge of Westridge MS campus Shared route/bicycle boulevard. Path through Westridge campus from Custer to Hancock. Central east-west route through the north side 3 3 3 Table 3.11: On-Street Network Components: East-West Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 99 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 6363 MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND ROUTE MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH 10th St St Paul (E) to Kennedy (W) Route: 10th St Howard ES, Housing Authority complex, St Francis, Central Catholic campus, Newell ES Major east-west route providing a comfortable norgth access to medical center and housing authority facilities than parallel Faidley route. Relatively high ADT on eastern end of corridor, moderating to west. Major but solvable barrier is Broadwell crossing. Route would be even more effective with connection to Webb, but such a corridor is not available. Striped parking shoulder preferable east of Broadwell. Short path segment on hospital site anticipated in Hancock route would provide a direct connection to center of medical campus. Faidley/6th Plum (E) to Shoemaker Trail (W) Route: 6th/ Faidley Jefferson ES, Housing Authority complex, St Francis, Crosstown route with excellent continuity, including the arguably easiest of Highway 281 surface crossings. Most direct service to key traffic generators, including medical offices and facilities and multifamily concentrations. ADT on Faidley west of Broadwell will be uncomfortable for less experienced cyclists. Shared route/bicycle boulevard on 6th.Sidepath west of Broadwell. Trail alignment along drainageway between Ridgewood and North Road, returning to Faidley on-street through residential area 3rd Street Oak (E) to Blaine (W) Route: 3rd Street Downtown, YMCA, Pioneer Park, Public Library, Memorial Park Direct crosstown route, includes CBD main street district. Use grade separated crossing under Highway 30 viaduct Multiuse shoulder wherever feasible. Shared lane in other areas 3 3 3 Table 3.11: On-Street Network Components: East-West Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 100 / 227 6464 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND ROUTE MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH Koenig Cherry and Bismark (E) to Ingalls/Gates School (W) Route: Cherry/ Ashton/Koenig/ Oak Schuff Park, Beltline Trail, Pier Park, Wasmer ES, Buechler Park, Gates ES, Augustine Park Central crosstown route with excellent neighborhood character. Major barriers are Locust/Walnut crossing and Blaine Street. Shared route/ bicycle boulevard, with intersection enhancements at arterial crossings. Stolley Park Fonner Park (E) to St. Joe Trail (W) Route: Stolley Park Rd/ Cemetery Trail Fonner Park, Barr MS, Stolley Park ES, Stolley Park, Grand Island Cemetery, Cemetery Trail, St. Joe Trail, Direct crosstown route serving one of city’s signature parks and education district. Stolley Park Road is being reconfigured in 2018 with three travel lanes and multi- use shoulders, open to bicycle traffic Multiuse shoulders accommodating bikes to St. Joe Trail Stagecoach South Locust (E) to St Joe Trail (W) Route: Stagecoach Dr/ Blaine/Pioneer Blvd South Locust corridor, St Joe Trail Attractive connector route with possibility of link to St. Joe Trail. South Locust ped/ bike crossing and connections present issues for connectivity. Continuity to St Joe Trail requires crossing of UP branch Shared route/ bicycle boulevard on Stagecoach, sidepath on Blaine, shared route on Pioneer with short path and new railroad crossing to complete link to St Joe Trail. Table 3.11: On-Street Network Components: East-West Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 101 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 6565 INFRASTRUCTURE TYPES Table 3.12 summarizes the infrastructure types applicable to local street contexts and Figure 3.13 applies them to the to the proposed metro area network. These specific facility types are divided into off-street and on-street categories as follows: Off-Street • Multi-use Trails • Sidepaths On-Street • Shared Lanes • Bicycle Boulevards (or quiet streets) • Multiuse Shoulders • Advisory Bike Lanes • Protected Bike Lanes Multi-Use Trails The Grand Island area bike and pedestrian network will con- tinue to make extensive use of multi-use trails on separated rights-of-way. These trails display the highest level of user comfort in the survey. They are key recreational resources and, with strategic extensions, can expand their local and re- gional transportation functions. In urban settings, trails are paved, although more rural settings such as the linkages to Alda and the Riverway Trail east of Locust may utilize granu- lar stone. Trails should comply with American Association of Street and Highway Transporta tion Officials (AASHTO) standards and Uniform Federal Ac cessibility Standards and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. Based on AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012), the appropriate paved width for multi-use trail is dependent on the context, volume, and mix of users. The minimum paved width for a two-directional trail is 10 feet. Trails that experience a high use and/or a wider variety user groups may warrant greater width from 10 to 14 feet. Eight-foot widths are acceptable in circumstances such as areas with very limited right-of-way. A two-foot minimum graded shoulder (3-5 feet is more desirable) with a maxi- mum 6:1 cross-slop should be provided as a recovery zone adja cent to trails. Grade crossings of arterial streets can present significant challenges for trails. Techniques for ad- dressing these potential barriers are addressed in Chapter Five. Grand Island’s multi-use trails include the Beltline and St. Joe Trails (both rail to trail conversions), State-Capital Con- nector and Riverway Trails (along utility easements and/or drainage corridors), the Stuhr Trail, on the edge of a civic fa- cility, and the Eagle Scout Trail in a public park. Future pro- posed multi-use trails include the Westside Connector ex- tension, Moore Creek, and Beltline extension. Sidepaths Sidepaths (sometimes referred to as widened sidewalks) are typically two-way paths located adjacent to roadways and are separated from the stream of traffic by curbs. The sidepath accommodates pedestrians well and responds to potential cyclists who are uncomfortable riding in mixed Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 102 / 227 6666 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN traffic. In new projects, the added cost of these facilities is relatively small, since sidewalks are already required in most urban street projects. Sidepath widths are similar to those of multi-use trails. The actual riding or walking surface should be separated from the back of the curb by landscaping or a contrasting pavement material. Research indicates that, to maximize safety, separation of the sidepath from a roadway should increase as road speeds increase Challenges to sidepath safety include driveway and street intersections, including visibility, motorist awareness, ambiguities about who has the right of way, and cars that block the path. As a result, experienced cyclists usually prefer on-road facilities to roadside facilities. Yet, sidepaths, despite their shortcomings, are used frequently and remain popular with many users. Conventional multi-use sidepaths should ideally be used in corridors with few driveway or street interruptions, and should not exclude use of on-road facilities when bike lanes and shoulders are feasible. They work best along arterial streets that have long stretches of relatively uninterrupted frontage. Sidepath crossings should be clearly defined by high visibility crosswalks and advisory signage to make motorists aware of the presence of the path. Examples of sidepaths in the current Grand Island system in- clude the Capital Avenue Trail. The proposed future system includes sidepaths along Faidley Avenue west of Broadwell and a link along North Broadwell to Eagle Scout Park. Marked and Signed Shared Routes Shared, low-volume streets make up a large part of the proposed Grand Island active network. On these streets, bicycles and motor vehicles operate within the same area. These streets should also have continuous sidewalks in good repair with barrier-free access on at least one side. These streets will typically have average Top: Capital Avenue Trail. Above: Clayton Road sidepath in St. Louis County, Missouri. Note the highly visible crosswalk using high visibility markings and use of the trail crossing stack sign on intersecting streets. Sidepath sections. Sidepath width and construc- tion standards are similar to those for multi-use trails. Top: Intersection crossing with high vis- ibility crosswalks. Typically a 6-foot separation from the curb will provide reasonable visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Above: Two-way sidepath along an arterial, a typical accommodation on contemporary streets. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 103 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 6767 daily traffic below 3,000 vehicles per day (preferably below 1,500 vehicles per day) and require relatively small infrastructure investment. Methods of identifying these routes include shared lane markings (sometimes called “sharrows),” often placed in the center of a travel lane between motor vehicle tire tracks to reduce wear and direct bicyclists away from the door zone of parked cars; wayfinding and/or bike route identification signs, identified as sign D11-1 by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the nationwide standard for roadway signage and markings); and motorist advisories such as the Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign, MUTCD sign R4-11). In Grand Island, these local streets have a curb-to-curb width of 31 to 32 feet and usually (but not always) permit parking on both sides of the street. Because curbside parking on residential streets is not fully utilized, these streets at low volumes generally provide comfortable bicycling environments for most users. Bicycle Boulevards (Quiet Streets) Bicycle boulevards,sometimes called “quiet streets” or “neighborhood greenways” are something of a misnomer, because they are shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and mo- tor vehicles. They are low-volume, low-speed streets, modi- fied to create greater comfort for both pedestrians and bi- cyclists, using treatments such as special signage, pavement markings (like shared lane markings), traffic calming devices such as bump-outs, and intersection modifications. Cross- ings of bicycle boulevards and major streets require special attention. Bicycle boulevards should have reasonable stop priority to provide continuity for bicyclists but not so much to become through routes for motor vehicles. The ideal bi- cycle boulevard provides both direct routing and good con- tinuity; has traffic speeds at or below 25 mph, and average daily traffic below 3,000 vehicle per day. In Grand Island, bicycle boulevards are typically but not always on two-lane streets with width of or under 34 feet. Marked routes. Left: Typical shared lane marking for a Grand Island street; Above: Shared lane marking installed. Composite of possible bicycle boulevard treatments. (Alta Planning and Design illustration) 31 feet Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 104 / 227 6868 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Bicycle boulevards in Topeka, KS. Topeka, which like Grand Island has an excellent secondary street system that lends itself to the bicycle boulevard concept. Topeka’s facilities use shared lane markings and special street signs to mark the routes.The overall network has significantly increased bicycle travel in the city. Top: Typical section of a corridor with multi-use shoulders and 2-sided parking. Above: St Paul Avenue, a potential candidate street for multi-use shoulders or striped parking shoulders. The Grand Island street grid is particularly adaptable to the bicycle boulevard concept. The Grand Island street network has an excellent grid of streets, many of which are largely residential in character, that could be favorable to the bicy- cle boulevard concept. It is important to note that in Grand Island, bicycle boulevard adaptation should not affect nor- mal local street operation, including parking. Parking and Multi-use Shoulders A number of strategic streets in Grand Island have moder- ate daily traffic with a width of 37 feet and over. In most cas- es, these streets usually permit parking on at least one side. Some are also wide enough to accommodate conventional bike lanes providing exclusive space for bicycle travel ad- jacent to motor vehicle travel lanes. However, the exclusive bike lane concept has generally not received strong support in Grand Island. In order to provide comfortable and safe accommodations for all users of these streets, the active network provides for two different types of shoulders: striped parking shoulders and multi-use shoulders. Striped parking shoulders apply to relatively wide, two- or three lanes streets with parking on both sides of the street and inadequate width for bicycle travel outside of shared travel lanes. On low-volume local streets with on-street parking, striped parking shoulders appear to manage traf- fic speeds through residential areas, help bicyclists properly 12 feet12 feet22-24 feetGrand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 105 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 6969 Ralph Rogers Ave in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. An example of a multi-use shoulder that accommodates but is not restricted to bicycle travel Advisory Bike Lanes track away from car doors, and keep parked cars from en- croaching into travel lanes. Typical minimum width for local streets with parking shoulders on both sides and two trav- el lanes is 40 feet with 12-foot travel lanes. It is important to note the potential safety hazards of cyclists potentially weaving in and out of a parking lane and, as in other on- street settings, the need for cyclists to stay away from the "door zone" of adjacent parked cars. These hazards are re- duced by using the Bicycle May Use Full Lane sign (MUTCD R4-11) and providing shared lane markings. Multi-use shoulders provide a striped territory outside of travel lanes large enough to accommodate bicycle travel. Minimum width of a multi-use shoulder that prohibits park- ing is five feet; minimum width of a shoulder that also ac- commodates parking is 12 feet. Thus, typical width of a two- lane roadway with multi-use shoulders and no parking is 34 feet; with one-sided parking 42 feet; and with two-sided parking 48 feet. The reconstruction project for Stolley Park Road, to be implemented in 2018, will develop a three-lane facility with 5-foot paved shoulders, identified as multi-use shoulders. This will provide comfortable territory for expe- rienced adult riders on an arterial street and will not per- mit parking. However, the shoulders do provide a place for breakdowns and contingencies. Advisory Bike Lanes Advisory bike lanes are a type of shared roadway that clarify operating positions for bicyclists and motorists to minimize conflicts and increase comfort. Similar in appearance to bike Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 106 / 227 7070 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN lanes, advisory bike lanes are distinct in that they are tempo- rarily shared with motor vehicles during turning, approach- ing, and passing. This experimental treatment is most ap- propriate where traffic volumes are low to moderate (500 to 3,000 vehicles per day) and where there is insufficient room for bike lanes or multi-use shoulders. These may have wider applications in the Grand Island system, but for the purpos- es of this plan, are proposed in limited situations, including the continuation of Sycamore Street through Island Oasis on the Pine Street bikeway. They may also be used on paved rural roads with light traffic. Protected Bike Lanes Protected bike lanes are on-street facilities that provide a separation or buffer space between bicycle lanes and travel lanes. The Grand Island survey summarized in Chapter Two found that existing and prospective bicyclists significantly preferred the separated facilities over conventional bike lanes. Protected bike lanes may be provide either one-way direc- tional movement or two-way movement. Two-way protect- ed lanes are most effective along street segments with few driveway interruptions. Desirable minimum width for two- way facilities is ten feet, although 8 feet is acceptable in very limited conditions. (NACTO, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Two-way protected bike lanes in Lincoln, Nebraska (with curb) and Seattle, Washington (painted buffer with flexible bollards) 2014) On-street bike lane buffers and barriers are covered in the MUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices, including flexible delineators (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channeling device, see the section on islands (section 3I.01). However, the use of raised buffers is not anticipated in the Grand Island plan. In Nebraska protected bike lanes have been used in two projects – the two-way N Street Bikeway in Lincoln (NE), developed to very high design standards; and the Leaven- worth/St. Mary’s Bikeway in Omaha (NE), one-way lanes on a one-way pair defined by white lines. Adequate street width is necessary to provide proper buffering. The Grand Island concept proposes a two-way protected bike lane along a segment of Custer Street with no required on-street parking and few interruptions; and along connection be- tween Custer Street and Blaine Street under Highway 30. Both applications are illustrated more fully in Chapter Seven. These facilities both involve a reallocation of existing street width rather than new, separated construction, and as such are part of an existing street maintenance program. How- ever, their use as bicycle travel lanes is likely to require addi- tional street maintenance in staff and budget to keep them in good repair and free of debris. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 107 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 7171 FACILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION EXAMPLES IN NETWORK Multi-use trails Separated trails on exclusive right-of-way. Some segments may be sidepaths adjacent to roadways. Extensions of Westside Connector Trail, Moore Creek Trail, Beltline Trail east extension Sidepath Paths separated from but generally parallel to roadways and on public right-of-way Capital Trail extension, segments of Custer Street bikeway, Adams Shared and Marked Roadways Low-volume, low-speed streets identified by signage, wayfinding, shared use lane pavement markings, but no major infrastructure changes. Often used to connect network to specific destinations. Arthur Street between Beltline Trail and Stolley Park; Ingalls/Curtis Street from Blaine St to Beltline Trail Bicycle boulevards Low-volume, two-lane mixed traffic streets or groups of streets with direct continuity. May use special identification and wayfinding signage, traffic calming devices, controlled major intersections, continuous sidewalks. In Grand Island, typically but not always on 2-lane streets with width below 34 feet. Pine Street, Oak Street, 14th/15th Street, Koenig Street, Lincoln Street. Major part of Grand Island network. Striped parking shoulder Area within a two- or three-lane street channel explicitly defined (usually by a white painted line) from travel lanes for parking. Bicycles are intended to operate in travel lanes. Used in conjunction with Bicycle May Use Full Lane sign and, optionally, shared lane markings. College Street, North Front Street Multi-use shoulders Area within a two- or three-lane street channel explicitly defined (usually by a white painted line) from travel lanes, with adequate space to accommodate bicycle travel. May be used for parking with adequate width. Minimum shoulder width with parking is 12 feet (14 feet desirable), 5 feet without parking. Stolley Park Road, parts of Custer Avenue and 3rd Street. Advisory bike lanes Shared roadway that clarify operating positions for bicyclists within shared travel lanes, typically used on segments that need definition of territory for bikes but are not wide enough for conventional bike lanes or multi-use shoulders. Low-volume park roads, Sycamore Street through Island Oasis, very low-volume county roads Protected bike lanes Roadways with specific one- or two-way lanes for exclusive use by bicycles, separated by a buffer from moving travel lanes. Separation is accomplished by painted buffers often with vertical definition or a raised curb. US 30 underpass connecting Blaine and Custer, segments of Custer Street Table 3.12: Summary of Infrastructure Types in Grand Island Network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 108 / 227 7272 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Shared Marked Roadway Bicycle Boulevard Multiuse Shoulders Striped Parking Lane Protected Bike Lanes Advisory Bike Lanes Shouldered Highways Existing Trails Proposed Trails Gravel Roads/Proposed Trail Future Local Connections Study Corridor Intersection Enhancements Grand Island City Limits Figure 3.13: Infrastructure Types Applied to Network: North Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 109 / 227 3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE 7373 Figure 3.13: Infrastructure Types Applied to Network: South Shared Marked Roadway Bicycle Boulevard Multiuse Shoulders Striped Parking Lane Protected Bike Lanes Advisory Bike Lanes Shouldered Highways Existing Trails Proposed Trails Gravel Roads/Proposed Trail Future Local Connections Study Corridor Intersection Enhancements Grand Island City Limits Intersection Enhancements Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 110 / 227 7474 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 111 / 227 75 4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES 7575 4CHAPTER SUPPORT FACILITIES THIS CHAPTER PRESENTS OPTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR SUPPORT FACILITIES including trailheads, nodes and points of special interest that can enhance the experience of using metropolitan area trails and active transportation facilities. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 112 / 227 767676 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN SUPPORT FACILITIES The planning of bicycle and pedestrian networks begins with definition of routes, which in the proposed Grand Island system will consist of a combination of multi-use paths on right-of-ways both separated from and adja- cent to streets, a variety of on-street bicycle routes that share the space between curb lines with motor vehicles; and sidewalks for pedestrian use. Much of the network passes through the city, and private or public establish- ments provide support features for users, typically food, drink, bathrooms, and support or shelter in emergencies. However, parts of the proposed Grand Island network pass through areas that are relatively remote or lack public places or businesses that routinely serve support functions. Well-placed support facilities can fill these needs and in- crease the comfort level of people using the trail and active transportation network. But support along the route is not the only key function that support facilities provide. The destination rated as “very important” or “important” by the greatest number of respondents to this plan’s preference survey, with 88%, was the trail system itself, followed by schools, parks, and the public library. In many cases, people drive to trails for recreational walking, running, or biking. Transportation to a recreational destination is still a transportation trip, and an objective of a network is to reduce the number of these trips made by car. Yet, many people will continue to drive to trails and parks, and these transition points require a level of support as well. Finally, support facilities enhance the experience of using an active transportation network. They can help orient us- ers and provide milestones and events along a trail. This chapter identifies criteria, locations, and features of support facilities related to the current state of the network plan. Types of Trailheads and Open Space Nodes Based on both function and facilities, the Grand Island network may have three levels of support facilities. We can refer to these as major trailheads, minor trailheads, and nodes. Major trailheads provide essential access to the shared use path system and include information and amenities for trail user comfort. Trailheads that serve local and regional populations that arrive by car, bike, or transit (if flex route service is implemented in Grand Island) may have a variety of features. Minor trailheads provide strategic points of access to the shared use path system. They typically serve local users. Trailhead on Prairie Spirit Trail in Kansas includes information kiosk, restrooms, benches, and parking Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 113 / 227 77 4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES 7777 While major trailheads are likely to be accessed by car and are transfer points from car to bike or pedestrian travel, users are more likely to walk or bike to minor trailheads. In addition to marking entrances to the system, minor trailheads should provide users with information and some amenities, but have a much more limited facility program than major trailheads. Nodes are generally focused to people already using a trail, and may point out points of interest or limited amenities to be used along the way. They also might provide useful features that can address contingencies or improve the experience. Location Criteria and Features Because of their different functions, each of the three sup- port facility types has different location criteria and menus of features. Major Trailheads In the Grand Island area, major trailheads will function largely as interchanges, where people arrive by car and become pedestrians or bicyclists. They will also tend to use these entry points for recreational purposes. Criteria for sites include: • Direct adjacency to a major trail. A location that will require some level of on-street cycling or walking will not be a successful major trailhead. • Good access and visibility from a principal street, road, and bicycle and pedestrian routes. With urban trails, clear access routes are more important than with rural trails. • Possible location at or near the ends of major trails. This tends to place major trailheads on the periphery of the city. • From a practical point of view, sites that provide adequate space to accommodate the facility program without requiring land acquisition. Examples are parks, school sites, and other public lands. • Reasonable access to major community facilities, including retailers and food service. • Presence of existing features or facilities that serve multiple uses, such as substantial parking areas. Facilities for a major trailhead may include: • Motor vehicle parking, including accessible parking spaces. • Bicycle parking, such as a sufficient number of inverted U’s or hitching post designs. Guidelines for bike park- ing will be provided later in the plan. • Wayfinding kiosks and signage, with orientation and interpretive information. • Drinking water fountains. • Screened portable toilets if facilities are not provided elsewhere on site. • Shelters, benches, tables, trash receptacles, and similar site furniture. • Emergency telephone. • Scenic viewpoints or overlooks if relevant to the site. • Interpretive information if applicable • Fix-it station, installations that have secured tire pumps and tools for light repairs. One such facility is installed along the Stuhr Trail. Many of these features are included in parks, and a trail- head location and trail extension that can use existing facil- ity clusters is very desirable. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 114 / 227 787878 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Minor Trailheads Minor trailheads will be primary points of entrance by local users. Thus, location criteria and the facilites menu will adjust accordingly. Criteria for minor trailhead sites include: • As with major trailheads, direct adjacency to a major trail. A location that will require some level of on-street cycling or walking should be avoided. • Location in a park (including a neighborhood park), school site, or other public space. Other potential loca- tions include the intersection of a trail and a principal on-street route. • Availability of at least a few parking spaces (desirable but not mandatory). • Reasonable spacing to permit access and exiting from the trail. Given the city’s size and configuration, a reasonable spacing of minor trailheads would be about two miles apart. • Nearby commercial convenience services are desirable. Facilities for a minor trailhead may include: • A small parking area if available in an adjacent use. • Bicycle parking for a small number of bicycles, such as two inverted U’s, hitching posts, or other space ef- ficient designs. • Wayfinding signage, with orientation and interpretive information. • Bench and trash receptacle. • Interpretive information if applicable • Fix-it station, installations that have secured tire pumps and tools for light repairs. Nodes Nodes are points along the trail, generally placed for the comfort and convenience of trail users, or to emphasize a special destination or feature. As a result, they need not be placed at street intersections or other access points. How- ever, spacing along trails becomes a much more important factor than it is for trailheads. Possible locations for nodes include: • Sites of special interest, such as historic sites, locally important destinations, or scenic or environmentally important features. • Changes in trail direction or places where special guid- ance to the user is required. • Junctions between trails or between trails and a major on-street route. • Shade trees, green spaces, or other locations that can add quality to the trail experience. Nodes should be placed to ensure a typical distance of one mile between support services or guidance. Trailheads and publicly available convenience services can fill the same function as a node and may have an effect on their loca- tion. Facilities for a node may include: • Bicycle parking. • Wayfinding and interpretive signage or kiosks. • Bench and trash receptacle. • Fix-it stations at two to three mile intervals. Proposed Locations Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 on the following page presents po- tential trailhead and node locations, based on the current development of the Grand Island regional network. These locations are divided into locations on existing trails that could be implemented if funds are available; and facilities that require future trail development. Figure 4.4 illustrates possible locations for various types of nodes. Trailhead possibilities. From top: Illustration of a major trail- head with parking, screened or structured restrooms or portable toilets, shelter, and parking; por- table toilet and shelter on Iowa’s High Trestle Trail; minor trailhead with bench, receptacle, and infor- mation kiosk. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 115 / 227 79 4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES 7979 LOCATION TRAIL CURRENT SITE RESOURCES AND NEEDS OTHER COMMENTS EXISTING POTENTIAL Eagle Scout Park/Sports Com- plex, North Broadwell Ave Eagle Scout Trail Parking, restrooms, shelter Already receives substantial use by pedestrians. For full utiliza- tion, requires connection to Capital Trail via proposed Broadwell sidepath. Future development would add wayfinding and inter- pretive information. Shoemaker Elementary School, Sweetwood Drive Shoemaker Trail Parking, playground area, shelter Future development would add short path connection to main trail, benches, receptacles, wayfinding graphics, landscape. Hall County Park, Schimmer Drive between US 281 and North Rd Riverway Trail Parking, full camping facilities including restrooms, picnic shelters, playground Already serves major trail loop. Future development may include dedicated parking area for trail users if necessary, wayfinding and information graphics. Pier Park Beltline Trail Parking, full urban park facilities Major in-city park at the eastern end of the city’s most popu- lar trail. Requires additional wayfinding and park information graphics. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Veterans Legacy Park Eagle Scout and Capital Trails New development Legacy Park concepts incorporate Eagle Scout Park and include a trail bridge over BNSF mainline. A new full-service trail- head may be incorporated into the eventual plan, replacing or complementing the existing Eagle Scout facility. Such a trailhead may be development along the Capital Avenue trail frontage to serve in-city needs. Wood River/Fonner Park; ap- proximate location near Stolley Park Rd and Stuhr Rd Proposed Wood River Trail New development Potential east peripheral trailhead with good regional access from Highway 34. Integrated into Fonner Park and potentially part of a loop around the periphery of the facility. Takes advan- tage of abundant existing parking. Capital Avenue and Sky Park Rd Proposed Capital Trail extension New development Provides a northeast point of entry to the future trail network. Mormon Island State Recreation Area Proposed Mormon Island Trail Full SRA services include restrooms, parking, camping and associated fa- cilities, and wide array of commercial visitor services Requires extension of trail along South Locust from Riverway Trail and east-west connection to the existing SRA. Routing of east-west connection requires careful environmental study. Riverway East, Nebraska Highway 2 Proposed Riverway Trail New development Endpoint if current mountain bike quality surface is upgraded to pavement. Provides excellent access to Highway 2 and Interstate 80 if corridor can be acquired. Table 4.1: Possible Major Trailhead Locations Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 116 / 227 808080 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN LOCATION TRAIL CURRENT SITE RESOURCES AND NEEDS OTHER COMMENTS EXISTING POTENTIAL Gates School, Curtis and Anna Street Beltline, Cemetery, and St. Joe Trails Parking, playground, with substantial open area on south of site Strategic site at intersection of several trails and a major part of the on-street system. Requires upgrade of a narrow paved path leading to Beltline Trail to full trail standards. Additional facilities include shelter, benches and receptacles, bike parking, wayfind- ing and information graphics. College Park, south edge of park- ing lots bordering trail and front- ing along Husker Highway St. Joe Trail Parking, full Central Community Col- lege facilities Requires shelter, limited bike parking, seating, receptacles. Stra- tegic location near Husker Highway trail crossing. South Locust, adjacent to Walmart parking or south drive- way South Locust Trail Parking in adjacent commercial lot. Requires other facilities Important point along a future South Locust connection north of US 34 and south to Mormon Island. Could be incorporated into pad site plans and would benefit from future commercial development. Sterling Estates, Norseman Avenue Shoemaker and St Joe Trail New neighborhood park under devel- opment includes full array of features with connection to trail Excellent opportunity for northwest gateway to trail system. Will require additional wayfinding and park information graphics. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Cedar Hills Park, Avon and Hamp- ton Ave Proposed Shoemaker ex- tension and Moore’s Creek Trail Parking, shelter and existing trail loop With extension of trails, will provide southwest access to the rest of the system. George Park, Independence and Norseman A Proposed George Park con- nector Parking, shelter, full city park fea- tures, including 8-foot path between Macron and Independence Ave Paving of alley east of Macron and developing path to Sterling Estates Park will connect major northwest park to the trail net- work. Wayfinding and information graphics should be incorpo- rated into trailhead. 20th Street Tunnel/Knickrehm School; edge of school site at 20th and Plum Proposed Capital Trail ex- tension along drainageway School parking available. New devel- opment Valuable entry point for east side users to the extended Capital Trail via the edge of the school site. Requires extension of Capi- tal Vaenue Trail, eventually to Ashley Park. Seedling Mile School, Seedling Mile Rd and Main Proposed Seedling Mile Trail School parking lot and play areas. Opportunity for shelter and other support facilities between west park- ing lot and playground Local entrance to trail system to the Shady Bend neighborhood. Opportunity for Lincoln Highway interpretation. North Front fields, east of US 281 Proposed ped/bike bridge over US 281 New development Strategic location with enough room for ramps for a full grade separated crossing and moderate ramps. Minor trailhead would be appropriate at eastern landing or proposed bridge. Table 4.2: Possible Minor Trailhead Locations Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 117 / 227 81 4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES 8181 Table 4.3: Possible Node Locations LOCATION TRAIL COMMENTS EXISTING POTENTIAL Sutherland and Cherry Beltline Trail Existing east terminus of trail. With proposed Beltline extension, will be a significant node, first on east side of railroad Suck’s Lake Park Beltline Trail Major scenic feature on trail with adjacent parking. Functions as a minor trailhead Blaine Cross Beltline Trail Node will enhance visibility at important arterial crossing St Joe/Beltline Crossing Beltline, St Joe, Cemetery Trails Major junction in trail netwok, requiring wayfinding information and placemaking effort Stolley Park Crossing St Joe Trail Intersection of trail and on-street bikeway. Connection to major city park on the bikeway network but off trail Stuhr Museum site along US 281 St Joe/Stuhr Trail Existing Fix-It installation, upgraded to node Blaine Crossing Riverway Trail Node at major street crossing marks connection to lake neighborhoods south of US 34 Locust Crossing Riverway Trail West of trail crossing under South Locust Ashley Park Capital Trail Major park with parking facilities at east end of current Capital Trail. Functions as a minor trailhead but requires a crossing of Broadwell to the west and Capital to continue east Capital Ave Crossing Capital Trail Marks existing trail crossing of major arterial, increases visibility of trail users Westside Connector Westside (State-Capital) Con- nector, Capital Trail Major wayfinding point and west end of Capital corridor State Street Westside Connector, State St Trail Major trail junction, ultimately a four point trail intersection with southward connector extension Engleman School, Mansfield Drive south of Cannon Rd State St and Shoemaker Trails Major westside trail intersection and school site, with change of direction and intersection with on- street route Westridge Middle School, south edge of school site Shoemaker Trail Major community site, possible intersection with future local collector street west of middle school campus FUTURE POTENTIAL Westside Connector north of 13th Connector Trail extended Westside Connector on North Front alignment Connector Trail extended, North Front overpass Marks access to proposed ped/bike overpass to North Front and Ryder Park Shoemaker Trail extended at half- section south of Old Potash Shoemaker Trail extension Change in direction, juction with potential Cornhusker Plant Trail Shoemaker/Stolley Park Sidepath near North Rd Shoemaker Trail extension Interval node ahead of North Rd intersection Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 118 / 227 828282 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 4.4: Possible Support Facility Sites: North With existing network With full network Major Trailheads Minor Trailheads Nodes Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 119 / 227 83 4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES 8383 Figure 4.5: Possible Support Facility Sites: South With existing network With full network Major Trailheads Minor Trailheads Nodes Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 120 / 227 848484 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN POINTS OF INTEREST The proposed network plan was designed to serve ma- jor destinations and points of interest in the community through trails, on-street principal routes, and shorter connectors. Thus, the active transportation network serves schools at all levels, most parks, the library, many substan- tial commercial areas, major employment destinations, and even cemeteries with the help of Grand Island’s Cemetery Trail. The network also is designed to extend to new growth areas and currently planned park and open space projects. Thus, future projects serve areas identified for new devel- opment in the future land use plans and identifies proposed collector streets through these areas, which should be de- signed to accommodate all modes comfortably. Major park initiatives identified by the city’s park department include: • Veterans Legacy Park, now in the planning stage. • Sterling Estates Park, in the final stages of develop- ment. • A new neighborhood park south of 13th Street and west of US 281 • Eventual recreational reuse of parts of the Cornhusker Plan, west of the city. These facilities are also incorporated into the network. However, one area of concern not fully considered are historically and/or architecturally significant points of interest. The National Register of Historic Places provides an excellent inventory of these resources, some of which are distinctive. The network, or at least its wayfinding system to be developed later in this planning process and part of the supporting facilities program described in this paper, should direct users to these features, all of which help tell the story of the Grand Island region. Table 4.5 lists the study area’s National Register list- ings, if and how they are served by the network, and what steps should be taken to provide better access. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 121 / 227 85 4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES 8585 PROPERTY ADDRESS RELATIONSHIP TO NETWORK POSSIBLE STEPS TO CONNECT Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church 512 E 12th One block north of Beltline extension; one block east of Oak Street route Wayfinding signage from both approaches via Plum Street from trail and East 3rd Street from Oak Liederkranz 401 W 1st 3 blocks north of Koenig on Cedar, 2 blocks south of 3rd Street on Walnut Wayfinding signage using Walnut connector route Cathedral of the Nativity 204 W Cedar 1/2 block north of Koenig on Cedar Wayfinding signage Carnegie Library 321 W 2nd St 1 block south of 3rd on Walnut; on Walnut Con- nector Wayfinding signage; on network Hall County Courthouse 1st and Locust On Pine St bikeway route Directly on network Burlington Depot 603 Plum At end of 6th Street Route Extension of route from Oak to Plum Nine Bridges Bridge Near Mormon Island Trail On extended network Shady Bend Gas Station US 30 and Shady Bend Road On extended Seedling Mile path On extended network Seedling Mile of Lincoln Highway Seedling Mile west of Stuhr Road Near Seedling Mile Path Wayfinding signage on route crossing US 30 at signalized Stuhr Road intersection Hotel Yancey 123 N. Locust 2 blocks south of 3rd Wayfinding signage via Locust Grand Island Post Office 203 W 2nd 1 block south of 3rd Wayfinding signage via Locust Hamilton-Donald House 820 W 2nd 1 block south of 3rd Wayfinding signage via Clark Bartenbach House 720 W Division 1 block north of Koenig Wayfinding signage via Cleyburn and Division Roeser-Gartner House 721 W Koenig On Koenig route On network Glade-Donald House 1004 W Division 1 block north of Koenig Wayfinding signage via Greenwich Hargis House 1109 W 2nd On Lincoln route On network, requires treatment of Lincoln Ave intersection Walnut School (GI High School)500 N Elm On 6th Street route On network Lee Huff Apartments 213 S. Walnut On Koenig route On network Heinrich Giese House 2226 S. Blaine 1,000 feet north of Pioneer Blvd route and Stol- ley Park route Wayfinding signage or sidewalk use Table 4.5: National Register Properties in Grand Island Metropolitan Area Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 122 / 227 868686 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 123 / 227 8787 5 | CROSSING BARRIERS 5CHAPTER CROSSING BARRIERS THIS CHAPTER ADDRESSES VARIOUS PHYSICAL BARRIERS TO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IN THE REGION. It presents a toolkit of solutions that can be adapted to the specific contexts found in the Grand Island metropolitan area with a specific focus on intersections. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 124 / 227 8888 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Barrier crossing is an extremely important issue in the de- velopment of Grand Island’s trail system and overall active transportation network. Key barriers, in general order of relative importance, include: • US 281. This four-lane divided highway is viewed by most participants as the most important barrier in the study area by virtue of its traffic volume and expanse (about 90 feet between edge of pavement and about 220 feet between edges of drainage ditches). The distance of crossing is a formidable barrier to non- motorized users. • Union Pacific Mainline. The UP, America’s highest vol- ume freight railroad mainline, is about 130 feet wide at various grade crossings. Existing grade separations at Sycamore and Eddy are inhospitable to active users. • Arterial and major collector street crossings. Highway 30 (1st/2nd Streets), US 34, Webb Road, and Capital Avenue are significant crossing barriers. Broadwell Avenue is a high volume arterial that presents special challenges as the seam between the city’s two grids – the traditional orthogonal surveyor’s grid and the ro- tated railroad grid. Existing trails face significant cross- ing problems at Capital, State, Stolley Park, Blaine, and US 34 at College Park. • Other railroads. The BNSF mainline, on the north- ern and eastern edges of the city, is elevated along the eastern edge and is relatively permeable, with a number of grade separated crossings and a pedestrian tunnel at 20th Street. Lightly used branches, such as the remaining portion of the UP’s line to Hastings, are less hazards than barriers that interrupt street continu- ity and access to parallel trails. These general barriers, combined with field inspection and analysis of several factors, including average daily traffic, width of corridors, observation of signal cycles, and other factors, led to a preliminary list of barrier points that should be addressed as part of the development of details in the next phase of this planning process. In a November, 2017 workshop, members of the GIAMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) were asked to rate the relative impor- tance of crossing these barriers to the integrity of the over- all network on a 1 (most important) to 5 (least important) scale. These barrier sites, in relative order of importance score and relative priority rank (priority rank follows), are: 1. Capital Ave and US 281 (1.71) (1) 2. 2nd and Lincoln (1.86) (4) 3. State and US 281 (1.93) (6) Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 125 / 227 8989 5 | CROSSING BARRIERS 4. St. Joe Trail and Stolley Park Road (1.93) (2) 5. Capital Ave and Broadwell (2.00) (11) 6. Future US 281 overpass at North Front (2.21) (8) 7. Beltline Trail and Blaine (2.29) (5) 8. Oak and Highway 30 (2.43) (9) 9. 4th/Broadwell (2.64) (7) 10. Koenig crossing Locust and Walnut (2.71) (3) 11. Beltline Trail and Locust (2.93) (10) Additional significant barriers to future development emerged during the planning process, but were not listed in the priority evaluation. Figure 5.1 lists individual barriers and the specific issues they present. Figure 5.2 identifies the location of these bar- riers and places them into overall categories. Figure 5.3 de- scribes a toolbox of intersection and barrier improvements, including the types of intersection problems that they can address. Subsequent illustrations show more detailed consideration of various potential solutions. Application of these to specific locations in the Grand Island area will be determined by further engineering evaluation, including a traffic study where relevant, and detailed plans that will be reviewed and approved by a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer. BARRIER POINT ISSUE Capital Avenue and US 281 Sidepath continuity across major arterial highway that acts as a bar- rier to pedestrians and bicyclists 2nd Avenue and Lincoln Pedestrian crossing of highway at Public Library and intersecting street with grade crossing of UP, with a history of pedestrian crashes State Street and US 281 Sidepath continuity across major barrier highway St Joe Trail and Stolley Park Road Trail crossing of major arterial, to be modified for 3-lane section with multi-use shoulders Capital Avenue and Broadwell Arterial intersection with sidepaths on three legs US 281 Overpass All ped/bike crossings of US 281 are at grade Beltline Trail and Blaine Street Trail crossing of major 2-lane arterial, heavy school traffic Oak Street and Highway 30 Marked but unsignalized pedestrian crossing of US 30, a one-way highway pair with relatively high-speed traffic 4th Street and Broadwell Avenue Offset intersection with arterial, breaks continuity to the west Koenig at Walnut and Locust Street Crossing of two diverging major streets in confusing setting; Walnut presents more difficult crossing problem Beltline Trail and Locust Street Confusing crossing and difficulty in reading trail track St Joe Crossing of Husker High- way Major trail crossing of highway UP Crossings at Oak, Pine, Wal- nut, and Lincoln Streets UP Crossing for Shoemaker Trail extension between Old 30 and North Road Railroad mainline grade crossings Figure 5.1: Barrier Points in the Grand Island Metropolitan Area Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 126 / 227 9090 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Major Highway or Expressway Other Barrier Streets Mainline Railroad Branch Line Railroad Arterial Street Crossing Other Major Street Crossings Trail Crossing of Major Street Existing Grade Separations Future Grade Separation Opportunities Existing Bike/Ped Accessible Railroad Grade Crossings Inaccessible Grade Separations Areas with Low Street Connectivity Figure 5.2: Barrier Locations and Categories Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 127 / 227 9191 5 | CROSSING BARRIERS Figure 5.3: Intersection Safety Enhancement Techniques TECHNIQUE DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL APPLICATION Grade separation Overpass or underpass that separates bike/ped traffic from crossing arterials Crossings of major arterials Pedestrian refuge median Island in middle of a two-way street, allowing pedestrians and bicyclists to address crossing traffic in one direction at a time from a protected place. Trail crossings of arterials and major col- lectors where turning movements are not necessary High visibility crosswalks Well-defined crosswalks, using durable reflective materials and typically using Conti- nental or Zebra/Ladder crosswalk markings Arterial street crossings with significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic Beacons: HAWKS (High Intensi- ty Activated Crosswalk Beacon) and flashing beacons. Pedestrian actuated signals. HAWK signals often used at midblock and for trail crossings and include flashing yellow and solid red stop sequence. Flashing beacons typically located at intersections and use flashing lights but no red signal. In January, 2018, one such beacon, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB’s) were tem- porarily removed from MUTCD approval because of patent issue, but have received interim conditional approval as of March, 2018. Trail crossings, other unsignalized crossings of major streets Protected Intersection New intersection design providing a protected, high visibility corner location for bicyclists and pedestrians. Crossings of major arterials or the intersec- tion of primary barriers Legend Most Desirable Engineering Judgement (EJ) Not Recommended (X) Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 128 / 227 9292 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Neckdowns Context:• “Bicycle boulevards” – relatively low volume streets with good continuity Technique:• Curb extensions that reduce the curb to curb width at an intersection to 22- to 24-feet Benefits:• Reduces average traffic speed• Reduces distance of pedestrian crossing• Provides some protection for parked cars• May provide opportunities for neighborhood plantings and beautification Problems/Issues:• Intended result of slowing traffic speeds could cause motorists to divert to other streets with good continuity• Potential difficulty with truck turns• Stewardship of planted areas Figure 5.4: Intersection Concepts: Neckdowns Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 129 / 227 9393 5 | CROSSING BARRIERS Intersection Pavement Markings Context:• Crossings of major intersecting streets by on-street active network routes Technique:• High visibility crosswalks with pavement markings using various methods to define a bicycle track across an intersection• May be used in combination with rapid rectangular flashing beacons or hybrid signals Benefits:• Increases visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists• Notifies motorists on intersecting major streets of presence of a significant number of active users Problems/Issues:• Requirement for ongoing maintenance• Possible initial motorist confusion about unfamiliar markings Figure 5.5: Intersection Concepts: Pavement Markings Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 130 / 227 9494 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Bike Box Context:• Locations (often signalized intersections) where bike routes intersect or other locations that involve a significant number of left-turning movements for bicyclists otherwise traveling in a bike facility or “as far to the right as practicable” Technique:• Painted area behind the stop bar defined for use by bicyclists Benefits:• Reduces incidence of bicyclists turning left across traffic from the right-hand side of a road• Reduces incidence of crashes at intersections Problems/Issues:• Motorist compliance and education• May restrict motorist visibility of approaching traffic on intersecting street, requiring expansion of vi- sion clearance zone Figure 5.6: Intersection Concepts: Bike Boxes Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 131 / 227 9595 5 | CROSSING BARRIERS Pedestrian Refuge Median Context:• Trail crossings of major streets• Bike/ped crossings of major streets where left-turns are not required Technique:• Refuge median in a two-way turn lane. Alternative is removal of parking from crossing area and diverging lanes slightly to provide space for the median• High visibility crosswalks and pavement markings• Used in conjunction with yellow caution signs.• May include flashing beacons or HAWK protection Benefits:• Increases visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists• Notifies motorists on intersecting major streets of presence of a significant number of active users Problems/Issues:• Slows traffic flow, which is an effect but not a problem from a pedestrian safety point of view• Possible rear-end crashes caused by inattentive motorists in common with other traffic controls • Installation cost• Should not be used when obstructing a necessary left turn Figure 5.7: Intersection Concepts: Pedestrian Refuge Median Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 132 / 227 9696 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Reduced Curb Radius Context:• Urban street intersections along bicycle and pedestrian routes Technique:• Reduce curb radius at intersections. Most appropriate at locations with few vehicles that require long radius turns such as local street intersections or intersections of local and collector streets Benefits:• Requires drivers of right turning vehicles to slow as they make turns, increasing safety for users of sidepaths• Reduces incidence of “right-hook” crashes Problems/Issues:• Large vehicles may not be able to make turns without encroaching on curbs• Potential for pedestrian crashes or conflicts if pedestrians are too close to corner• Requires truck turn evaluation when used at major street locations Reduced curb radius. The two tier mountable curb provides the benefits of a small curb radius but still provides the larger radius necessary for safe pas- sage of trucks and other large vehicles. Figure 5.8: Intersection Concepts: Reduced Curb Radius Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 133 / 227 9797 5 | CROSSING BARRIERS Top: Protected intersection in Salt Lake City. Above: Conecpt for an arterial crossing with bike lanes and paths in Wauwatosa, WI Protected Intersections Context:• Intersections of streets with sidepaths or trails with major arterials and wide highways Technique:• New intersection design in frequent use in Europe and beginning to be implemented in US, providing a visible, protected space for pedestrians and bicycles to cross wide and busy intersections. Protected space is separated from turning traffic by an island• Requires a two-stage crossing for bicyclists turning left to an intersecting trail or major street Benefits:• Increases visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists• Reduces the perceptual width of large intersections• Provides high visibility for vulnerable users, placing them in a setting where they are both protected and in a preferred position entering an intersection Problems/Issues:• Expensive installation cost• Relatively infrequent use in current American practice• May require the removal of a right turn lane, leading to longer vehicle queues• May be difficult for fire trucks and other large vehicles to navigate around without adequate radii• Requires a learning curve for all users Figure 5.9: Protected Intersections Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 134 / 227 9898 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Mainline Railroad Crossings Context:• Major pedestrian and bicycle grade crossings of railroad mainlines Technique:• Special pedestrian crossing gates with escape gate for people with disabilities who may be trapped behind the gate• Improved warning signage and signalization• Clear pedestrian/bicycle track defined across railroad• Quiet zone treatment with medians• Railings or fencing to channel pedestrian access Benefits:• Reduced opportunity for encroaching on tracks when trains are apprpoaching• Reduced probability of pedestrian/bicyclist and train crashes• Improved sense of safety crossing tracks Problems/Issues:• High installation cost requires railroad participation Figure 5.10: Mainline Railroad Crossings Photo: Orange County Register Photo: Orange County Register Photo: California Public Utilities Commission Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 135 / 227 999999 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA 6CHAPTER ON-FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA THIS CHAPTER ADDRESSES PEDESTRIAN ISSUES IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA. Often, pedestrians and bicyclists have similar interests and many projects and policies are beneficial to both groups. But pedestrians have specialized needs as well. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 136 / 227 100100 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Almost all of us walk outside for a purpose during the course of most days, and recreational walking almost always rises to the top of the list of recreational activities. Grand Island, like most cities, has a large capital investment in its pedes- trian infrastructure: mainly sidewalks but also trails in Grand Island. But all too often, pedestrian facilities don’t always re- ceive the attention they deserve. But incorporating walking paths (sidewalks, paths, and multi-use trails) into new devel- opment and areas of existing development are essential to maintaining a safe, convenient active environment. While the earlier chapters of this plan may appear to focus on bicycle transportation, most of its concepts and criteria also apply to pedestrians. For example: • The performance criteria that open Chapter Three – in- tegrity, directness, safety, comfort, experience, and fea- sibility– apply equally to people on bikes and on foot. • The active network, incorporating street routes and trails, provides a framework that applies to both active modes. • Pedestrians and bicyclists will both use the support fa- cilities discussed in Chapter Four. • Barriers for bicyclists also present barriers for pedestri- ans and the solutions and practices presented in Chap- ter Five bridge these obstacles for both groups. Recent research and surveys indicate that households of all ages increasingly value “walkability” and the form of the de- velopment that walkability encourages. In a truly walkable community, neighborhood commercial services, schools, and other activity centers are relatively accessible to hous- ing. Walkable communities encourage pleasant, unplanned social interaction and expand transportation options. Decisions regarding vehicular travel also affect a commu- nity’s walkability. A good transportation network uses spe- cial design techniques to ensure that street traffic is consis- tent with pedestrian safety, which is important when linking neighborhoods to commercial and civic destinations around the community. This chapter provides analysis and recommendations that reflect good current practice but are adapted to conditions in the Grand Island area. It places a special emphasis on the traditionally most important pedestrian trip – the walk to school. The goals of this part of the plan are to: • Ensure that most areas and key activity centers are comfortably accessible by a network of pedestrian fa- cilities. • Create good linkages between residential neighbor- hoods and walking distance destinations. • Reduce barriers that discourage walking and create ob- stacles to people with or without disabilities. The specific issue areas discussed here include: • Sidewalk zones and widths • Sidewalk infill and improvements • Pedestrian access to commercial areas • ADA compliance • Sidewalk Coverage Near Schools Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 137 / 227 101101101 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA SIDEWALK ZONES AND WIDTHS Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the pedestrian network, providing an area for pedestrians separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to in- creased numbers of people walking, improved safety, comfort, and places for people to socialize (See Figure 6.1 for sidewalk zone ex- amples). Current standards for Grand Island sidewalks are found at http://www.grand-island.com/your-government/public-works/ infrastructure-specifications-and-standard-plans. Typical Application and Features • Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of urban commer- cial streets, and should provide continuity on at least one side of the street (preferably both sides) in residential areas of ur- ban density, generally above 2 units per acre. • When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, locations near schools, parks, public buildings, and other areas with high con- centrations of pedestrians should be the highest priority. If Grand Island implements the flexible route service from the Il- lustrative Plan of the Regional Transit Study, the sidewalk sys- tem should also serve timepoints. • It is important to provide adequate width along a sidewalk cor- ridor. An unencumbered pedestrian through zone width of five feet enables two pedestrians (including wheelchair users) to walk side-by-side, or to pass each other comfortably. It is par- ticularly important to avoid obstructions in this zone such as poles, utility boxes, and other obstacles. • In high demand areas such as Downtown Grand Island and ar- eas immediately adjacent to schools or sports facilities, side- walks should be wide enough to accommodate the high vol- umes and different walking speeds of pedestrians. • The sidewalk setback zone (sometimes referred to as a “fur- nishing” zone or tree lawn) provides opportunities for street trees and also provides a place for storing plowed snow that maintains pedestrian access. Figure 6.1: Sidewalk Zone Examples The furnishing (or side- walk setback) zone buffers pedestrians from the adjacent road- way, and is also the area where elements such as street trees, signal poles, signs, and other street furniture are properly located. It also provides a place to store plowed snow. The pedestrian through zone is the area intended for pe- destrian travel. This zone should be entirely free of permanent and temporary objects or obstructions. Wide through zones are needed in downtown or in areas of high pedestrian flow. The frontage zone al- lows pedestrians a more comfortable “shy” distance from building fronts. In commercial areas, it provides op- portunities for window shopping, outdoor din- ing, sign placement, planters, or chairs. The curbside lane can act as a flexi- ble space to buffer the sidewalk from moving traffic and may be used as a multi-use shoulder for parking and bikes, depend- ing on width. Curb extensions may occupy this space where appropri- ate. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 138 / 227 102102 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN SIDEWALK INFILL AND IMPROVEMENT This section focuses on opportunities to upgrade short seg- ments of missing sidewalk or existing sidewalks that were constructed in Grand Island with sub-standard widths. The majority of streets in Grand Island have sidewalks on both sides. However, some residential, commercial, and in- dustrial areas have missing segments along an otherwise continuous corridor. Some of these areas have sidewalk on only one side of the street, making access to both sides dif- ficult. Figure 6.2 illustrates a method of addressing these gaps. In Grand Island, as elsewhere in Nebraska, special assess- ments on adjacent property are the most common mecha- nisms for funding sidewalk infill programs. This frequently leads to opposition from property owners who don’t per- ceive sidewalks as a benefit to them. Communities have been able to find other ways of funding sidewalk improve- ments, including state and federal grant programs such as Safe Routes to Schools or Safety grants, Food and Bever- age Tax funding for standalone projects, gas tax funds for eligible sidewalks constructed with street projects, private sector funding of trails and sidewalks within their develop- ments, and general funding through the Capital Improve- ment Program (CIP) when appropriate. Funding for projects should be guided by adoption of a Ma- jor Pedestrian System, analogous to the Major Street Sys- tem. This plan establishes the framework for such a system that includes: • Sidewalks and trails that comprise the Active Network presented in Chapter Three. • A web of sidewalks within a quarter mile of elementary school sites. • Areas that have an especially high density of pedestrian use because of their character or concentration of land uses. Examples include Downtown Grand Island or the concentration of visitor services along Allen Drive. Opportunities to Widen Sidewalks Typical Application and Features Although some sidewalks in Grand Island have planted buf- fers and wide sidewalks, other existing sidewalks are too narrow for comfortable pedestrian travel and are attached to the curb (Figure 6.3). When located along high speed and high traffic volume roadways, these conditions may deter people from walking for routine trips. They are also some- times too narrow to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and may create safety hazards for people who inadvertently walk off the sidewalk. These sidewalks Figure 6.2: Gap Filling Opportunity Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 139 / 227 103103103 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA are also often used by parked cars, completely blocking pe- destrian access. The techniques illustrated in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 are potential solutions for narrow sidewalks. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL DESTINATIONS Connections to Mall Entrances and Internal Circulation Sidewalk coverage on the west side of Grand Island is often inconsistent. Although some areas have sidewalks adjacent to commercial developments, such as shopping malls, pathways from adjacent streets and commercial development entrances are often disconnected or completely absent Figure 6.3: Narrow Back of Curb Sidewalk Figure 6.4: Outward Widening Pedestrian connections are needed from existing sidewalks to mall entrances. Pedestrian access should create safe, shared use paths or sidewalks that extend from sidewalks on public streets to commercial area entrances. Examples of accessible routes from other communities often use landscaping or artistic features across parking lots. In commercial areas that already have pedestrian connections from adjacent sidewalks across parking lots to the entrance, pedestrian crossings should be appropriately marked. This practice alerts motorists to the presence of pedestrians. These criteria should be integrated into site plan review for new major commercial development. Major Street Crossings Major streets in these commercial areas, such as 13th Street, US 281, Webb Road, Faidley Avenue, and State Street Widening the sidewalk outward creates addition- al space for a buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk, making a more comfortable facility for people walking. Relocating utilities and other sidewalk obstructions outside of the sidewalk area increases the capacity and usefulness of the side- walk. Widening the sidewalk inward into the right-of- way creates more space for a sidewalk. The exist- ing sidewalk can be cut to create space for land- scaping and utility poles. Figure 6.5: Inward Widening Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 140 / 227 104104 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN frequently feature wide pedestrian crossing distances without marked crosswalks. A variety of potential solutions were discussed previously in Chapter Five. A range of other tools can improve pedestrian crossings at signalized locations. Specific treatments may include adjusting signal phase walk-time, pedestrian countdown signals, and prohibition of right turns on red for motor vehicles. Busier intersections on wider streets may include pedestrian refuge islands, where slower pedestrians can safely stop and wait for another signal. Applications to improve pedestrian crossings at major street crossings will be determined by further engineering evaluation, including a traffic study where relevant, and detailed plans that will be reviewed and approved by a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer. Conestoga Mall includes sidewalk to the main entrance. Marked crossings need improvement as do pedestrian connections to other entrances (Credit: Google Maps). Wide corner radii create long pedestrian crossing distances. Intersections lack marked crosswalks or other crossing features such as pedestrian refuge islands (Credit: Google Maps). From top: Safe and attractive paths from public sidewalk to front door also help to define areas within parking lots (Engelwood, CO and Des Moines, IA); sidewalk development along South Locust dramatically improved the street’s business environment ADA COMPLIANCE The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted on July 26, 1990, provides comprehensive civil rights protections to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government services, access to public accommo- dations, transportation, and telecommunications. Title II of the ADA prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against persons with disabilities by re- quiring them to make all programs, services, and activities accessible to persons with disabilities. Title II requires that a public entity must evaluate its services, programs, policies, and practices to determine whether they are in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA. The City is responsible for providing ADA-compliant curb ramps. The City also maintains an inventory of curb ramps that are not ADA compliant. The City has a curb ramp tran- sition program with a goal to provide ADA compliant curb ramps at every street intersection in the city. Property owners are responsible for maintaining sidewalks adjacent to their property. The City does not investigate sidewalk compliance unless the City receives a complaint. Data do not currently exist regarding mileage of sidewalks that are non-ADA compliant. In 2016, Grand Island voters rejected a Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 141 / 227 105105105 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA proposal to increase sales tax by a half-cent, part of which would have created a dedicated ADA funding source. The City of Grand Island should continue scheduling ADA im- provements in conjunction with all street resurfacing or re- construction projects as well as corridor-based “spot” im- provements. Pursuing other opportunities to create dedi- cated funding streams would stabilize the City’s ability to upgrade priority areas that are not ADA compliant. The City should develop a more complete understanding of sidewalk compliance issues. A focused study should show the total mileage of non-compliant sidewalk as well as non- compliant sidewalk in priority areas, such as streets that make up the active network. ACCESS TO SCHOOLS Walking to elementary and middle school has long been a traditional part of growing up in America. Yet, it has gone into decline over the last 50 years. In 1969, 48% of all chil- dren between ages 5 and 14 walked or biked to school. In 2009, that number had dropped to 13%. A variety of trends led to this decline, including greater use of school transpor- tation in urban districts, decentralization of the population, and perception of traffic-related hazards. About a third of parents in a 2005 survey by the Centers for Disease Control cited concern over traffic as the principal obstacle to their children walking or cycling to school. This, of course, cre- ates a repetitive cycle: when parents are convinced that it is unsafe for their kids to walk to school, they drive them which in turn makes the problem worse. Some communi- ties programs like Walking School Buses, in which volunteer parents lead a “busload” of kids walking to school together, have been effective in many places. Other reasons exist for the decline in the number of students walking or riding to school. In Grand island (and other cit- ies), many students are not required to attend their neigh- borhood school, and many choose to commute across town. This creates problems with projecting school traf- fic, although longer distance school commutes are feasible by bicycle. Nevertheless, many students do walk and bike to school in the city, especially where trails directly serve school sites. Examples are Gates School and the three west- side schools directly along the Shoemaker Trail. It is probably impossible to restore the walking and biking to school levels of the past, but some efforts can help. The city of Grand Island has been working with the school district to address transportation issues and provide safe routes to schools. Progress has been made despite staff constraints, and these efforts should continue. From an infrastructure point of view, parents must feel com- fortable in letting their children walk or ride, and a portion (although not all) of that comfort is derived from the pres- ence of safe routes. As a general standard, areas within 1/4 mile of a school site should have a web of continuous side- walk to serve the school. This should provide continuity on at least one side of the street to minimize the number of times children must cross. Figures 6.6 through 6.20 analyze sidewalk coverage within 1/4 mile of each elementary and middle school in the Grand Island public school system and suggest potential options for increasing local area coverage. The national Safe Routes to Schools Guide (www.guide.saf- eroutesinfo.org) identifies an elementary school walking boundary of 1/2 to 1-mile, but notes that states and localities may establish different standards. For purposes of evaluat- ing a realistic walking boundary for a continuous system of sidewalk in Grand Island, this study reduces that “walk zone” by 50%. Further engineering study may be required to re- fine these potential options. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 142 / 227 106106 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.6: Engleman Elementary School A more in-depth planning and visioning process should be con- ducted to identify which side(s) of the street to locate sidewalk infill. Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 143 / 227 107107107 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA Figure 6.7: Shoemaker Elementary School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 144 / 227 108108 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.8: Gates Elementary School The sidewalk network near the school is nearly complete. Intersection improvements, such as curb extensions and marked crosswalks, should be considered to alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians. This is true for the other schools in Grand Island. Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 145 / 227 109109109 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA Figure 6.9: Stolley Park Elementary School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 146 / 227 110110 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.10: Howard Elementary School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 147 / 227 111111111 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA Figure 6.11: Starr Elementary School and Barr Middle School A more in-depth planning and visioning process should be con- ducted to identify which side(s) of the street to locate sidewalk infill. Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 148 / 227 112112 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.12: Lincoln Elementary School Several instances where the side- walk abruptly terminates. Improved crossings should be considered as a transition to the sidewalk on the other side of the street. If conditions do not allow a safe marked crossing, then the sidewalk should be extended to the next marked crossing or intersection. Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 149 / 227 113113113 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA Figure 6.13: Jefferson Elementary School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 150 / 227 114114 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.14: Wasmer Elementary School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 151 / 227 115115115 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA Figure 6.15: Dodge Elementary School The sidewalk network near the school is nearly complete. Intersection improvements, such as curb extensions and marked crosswalks, should be considered to alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians. This is true for the other schools in Grand Island. Crossing improvements should be considered where the trail crosses the roadway. Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 152 / 227 116116 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.16: Newell Elementary School and Walnut Middle School This area features good sidewalk connectivity within 0.25 mi of Walnut Middle School and Newell Elementary School. However, some sidewalks are narrow and attached to the back of curbs. This approach is acceptable in certain contexts, but a four foot lawn buffer should be considered. Intersection improvements, such as curb extensions and marked crosswalks, should be considered to alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians. This is true for the other schools in Grand Island. Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 153 / 227 117117117 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA Figure 6.17: West Lawn Elementary School This area features good sidewalk connectivity within 0.25 mi of West Lawn Elementary School. However, the existing sidewalk design is narrow and attached to the back of curbs. This approach is acceptable in certain contexts, but a four foot lawn buffer should be considered. Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 154 / 227 118118 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.18: Knickrehem Elementary School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 155 / 227 119119119 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA Figure 6.19: Seedling Mile Elementary School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 156 / 227 120120 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 6.20: West Ridge Middle School Fill sidewalk gap Consider a shared street or pedestrian lane Additional definition of sidewalks across driveways 1/4 mile from school Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 157 / 227 121121121 6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA PRIORITY CRITERIA Completing a long-term pedestrian development program is only accomplished through an incremental process that requires setting priorities and evaluating new conditions along the way. Evaluative criteria apply questions such as the following to specific sidewalk projects when they are considered. • Does the sidewalk connect important resources, such as schools to neighborhoods? • Does the sidewalk provide continuity and integrity to the surrounding vicinity and overall system? • Does the sidewalk create a safer path for pedestrians? • Does the sidewalk generate community support or consensus? • What is the sidewalk’s potential to transform the image of the area? • Does the sidewalk respond to a specific need for improved trail facilities? • Does the sidewalk incorporate and leverage outside funding sources, such as state grants or charitable contributions? • Is the engineering and cost feasible to construct? • Does the sidewalk yield economic development opportunities? The key to successful implementation will be to establish priorities based on the specific benefits of the project. Considering priorities for Grand Island’s system begins with identifying individual destinations and the quarter-mile area surrounding the destination. These target areas help estab- lish a system of priorities that connect residents to amenities in the community. • Schools. Access, circulation, and safety to schools is a critical to ensuring mobility choices. Increased access reduces traffic congestion. • Shopping Centers. Providing convenience to major shopping centers. • Community Destinations. These include the Public Library, hospitals and medical facility concentrations, and recreation and community centers. • Employment Centers. Providing convenience between homes and places of employment will encourage people to travel to work by alternative means. • Neighborhoods. Connecting residents to businesses and work places, providing convenient trips by sidewalk. • Parks and Trails. Completing this plan will connect users to the city’s parks and open spaces. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 158 / 227 122122 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 159 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 123 7CHAPTER ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING THIS CHAPTER CONSIDERS EACH OF THE POTENTIAL ROUTES IN THE PROPOSED GRAND ISLAND AREA NETWORK IN DETAIL AND ALSO PRESENTS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TRAIL SYSTEM. It provides guidance on the proposed concept for each significant segment of each route. Finally, it presents methods for staging the system over time. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 160 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 124 This chapter divides the network grid into north-south and east-west components. Each route displays a strip map illustrating each street or pathway segment, key destinations along the way, and intersecting routes. These maps are divided into keyed segments, corresponding to key dividing points, milestones, or changes in infrastructure treatment. The number key for each segment corresponds to a row in the accompanying table. The tables display: • The endpoints and length of each segment. • The nature of the existing facility. Information also includes number of lanes and approximate width of the street channel, aerial photography, and field measurements. • Sidewalk coverage. Streets included in the active network should provide sidewalk continuity on at least one side. • Recommended infrastructure. This presents the recommended infrastructure treatment and other ideas for adapting a segment for safer and more comfortable bicycle and pedestrian use. On-street treatments like marked routes and bicycle boulevards typically use pavement markings and signage. In some cases, path or trail segments fill gaps in continuity. All recommendations are preliminary and may change with detailed design. Projects should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer when funding becomes available and may require additional engineering evaluation, including traffic studies where relevant. • Planning level opinions of probable costs. While these are not based on detailed design, they give an idea of relative costs for planning purposes. Cost factors used for these estimates are shown in Table 7.1. These costs do not include right-of-way, contingencies, design and engineering fees, major drainage structures, or extraordinary grading expenses. These recommendations should be refined further as individual projects are implemented. However, they provide a starting point for the more detailed design process, and provide guidance in determining priorities and costs of various improvements. The chapter continues with a phasing and capital implementation program that includes: • Criteria for determining priorities. • An initial network that serves all parts of the city with strategic routes and path segments. This program includes statements of probable cost, based on current (2018) construction costs. The basic network is divided into two phases to be developed as resources are available. The first phase of the basic network would be developed over a ten year period, with the second phase completed during an additional ten years. • An ultimate network, which may be realized within an additional ten years, again given availability of resources. These schedules may be accelerated and subsequent opportunities, such as imminent development, may move some projects forward. ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 161 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 125 On-Street Network Existing TrailsNew Priority Trails/Sidepaths Later Trails Alda/CornhuskerPathways Study Corridor INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE COST/MILE TYPICAL FEATURES Marked and signed route $17,000 Signage, shared lane markings Bicycle boulevard $60,000 Signage, shared lane markings, routine intersection enhancements such as crosswalks, stop control modifications, occasional traffic calming features Multi-use shoulders $60,000 Signage, single white line dividing shoulder from travel lane Bicycle boulevard with multi-use shoulders. $80,000 Bicycle boulevards that also include multi-use shoulders or advisory bike lanes, appropriate on wider streets Conventional bike lanes $102,000 Lanes defined by white lines in both directions on a street Protected bike lanes $64,000 one-way$115,200 two way Painted bike lanes with cross-hatched buffer area between bike lane and travel lane. Sidepath $316,800 10 foot paved roadside shared use path without major earthwork or modifications Trails (or shared use paths) Type 1: $396,000 Type 2: $448,800 Type 3: $554,400 10-foot paved path on right-of-way separate from roadways. Range reflects various levels of construction complexity. Higher cost reflects more complicated construction, such as additional grading and sitework. Trails (gravel)$200,000 Gravel on separated right-of-way or parallel to a roadway Intersections or Barriers (Generic cost points) Type A: Major Intersection Construction $350,000 Major projects such as protected intersections. If used in the Grand Island system, these would typically address bicycle/pedestrian facilities on one side of the street only to accommodate a sidepath or single-sided shared use path Type B: Arterial Crossing $200,000 Major intersections but requiring less capital work than protected intersections. May include improved signalization, improved crosswalks, bumpouts, minor construction Type C: Median with HAWK $150,000 Crossing refuge median with hybrid beacon Type D: Median with flashing beacon $75,000 Crossing refuge median with flashing warning beacons in place of positive red stop signal Type E: Enhanced $50,000 High visibility crosswalks, minor construction but normally without signalization Table 7.1: Probable cost factors by facility type NOTE: Cost factors are planning level estimates based on regional experience, do not include right-of-way, contingencies, design and engineering fees, major drainage structures, or extraordinary grading expenses. 6th StLi n c o l nWh e e le r Pi n e A d am s14th St17th St 4th St 3rd StFaidley Stolley Park State Capital CusterHancockIndependenceAdamsBellwoodBrookline 15th St 7th St 10th St Koenig Che r ryOak 20th St AshtonGrand IslandSouth LocustSky ParkWhiteBismark North Front Stagecoach US 34 College Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 162 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 126 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Oak, Capital to 4th 1.25 2-lane local street/36 feet Both sides with some 1/2 block gaps Bicycle boulevard, with possible striped parking shoulders $75,000 2 Oak, 4th to 3rd 0.20 2-lane local street/48 feet Both sides. No walkway definition across UPRR Multi-use shoulders $12,000 3 Oak, 3rd to Koenig 0.43 2-lane local, 36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard, enhanced bike/ped intersection at 1st and 2nd $25,800 4 Oak, Koenig to Fonner Park Rd 0,87 2-lane local, 36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard, with possible striped parking shoulders. Mark intersection jogs at Bismark and Oklahoma $52,200 5 Fonner Park, Oak to Sycamore 0.12 2-lane minor arterial, 45 feet Both sides Sidepath segment $30,000 Total 2.87 $195,000 12 3OAK BICYCLE BOULEVARD NORTH-SOUTH North 4 5 2 3 1 O ak Oak Fonner Park B e l t l i n e T r a i l CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 163 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 127 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Wheeler, Capital to 17th 0.55 2-lane major collector/30 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Short sidepath connection on south side of Capital to Broadwell intersection $33,000 2 17th, Wheeler to Pine 0.13 2-lane major collector/30 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $7,800 3 Pine, 17th to 4th 0.90 2-lane local/36 feet; 50 feet south of 8th Both sides with frequent interruptions Bicycle boulevard. Multi-use shoulders south of 8th Street $72,000 4 Pine, 4th to 1st 0.35 2-lane local/50 feet Both sides.Multi-use shoulders. Defined pedestrian path with paint across UPRR $28,000 5 Pine, 1st to Fonner Park 1.10 2-lane local/30-36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard; enhanced pedestrian crossing at 1st; .07 mile sidepath on Fonner Park between Pine and Sycamore $66,000 6 Sycamore, Fonner Park to Hedde 0.25 2-lane local/24 feet No sidewalks Advisory bike lanes through Island Oasis $15,000 7 Park site, Hedde to Stolley Park 0.38 Fonner Park campus NA Multi-use path $150,480 8 Bellwood/Brookline, Stolley Park to Locust 0.46 Bellwood: 2-lane local/36 feet Brookline: 2-lane, unpaved No sidewalks Shared road; Brookline block should be considered for hard- surfacing. $7,820 9 Locust, Brookline to Hwy 34 0.75 5-lane arterial Both sides Upgrade east side sidewalk to sidepath; modification of US 34 intersection for path crossing $237,600 Total 4.87 $617,700 PINE BICYCLE BOULEVARD NORTH-SOUTH North 1 Pine Wheeler Pine SycamoreLocust Bellwood 2 1 7 t h 3 4 56 789 CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 164 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 128 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Greenwich/ Lincoln, 15th to 4th 0.88 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard, route uses 13th to connect Lincoln and Greenwich $52,800 2 Lincoln, 4th to Koenig 0.50 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides with interruptions between 4th and UP Bicycle boulevard, defined path across railroad with painted multi-use shoulder; connection along Koenig to Adams $40,000 3 Adams, Koenig to Brownell Trail 0.41 2-lane collector, 36 feet Both sides with some gaps north of Anna; one side south of Anna Bicycle boulevard. Multi-use shoulders without parking between Anna and Beltline Trail $32,800 4 Adams, Beltline to Stolley Park 0.66 2-lane collector, 24 feet No parking Sidepath $209,088 5 Cottonwood, Stolley Park to Stagecoach 0.50 2-lane local/28 feet widening to divided residential boulevard/50 feet with median Both sides Bicycle boulevard $30,000 Total 2.95 $364,688 12 3LINCOLN/ADAMS BIKEWAY NORTH-SOUTH North 45 23 1 L incoln K o e n i gBe l t l i n e T r a i l Cottonwood Adams CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 165 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 129 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Grand Island, Capital to 13th 0.55 Divided local residential boulevard/70 feet with 30 foot median Both sides Bicycle boulevard, connects to White Ave via 13th $33,000 2 White, 13th to 9th 0.30 2-lane local/35 feet No sidewalks Bicycle boulevard, sidewalk completion on one side of street; enhanced crosswalk at 10th $18,000 3 White, 9th to North Front 0.54 2-lane local/36 feet Intermittent on both sides. Bicycle boulevard, sidewalk completion on one side of street; enhanced crosswalk at Faidley $32,400 Total 1.39 $83,400 GRAND ISLAND/ WHITE BICYCLE BOULEVARD NORTH-SOUTH North 13th9thNorth FrontFaidleyGrand Island Ave White Ave CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 166 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 130 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Custer, Capital to State 0.50 2-lane major collector, 42-44 feet Both sides Two-way protected bike lane on east side, with parking on west side. Two stage crossing at State $57,600 2 Custer, State to 13th 0.77 2-lane major collector/44 feet Both sides Sidepath on west side. Two stage crossing to east side at 13th $243,936 3 Custer, 13th to Faidley 0.50 2-lane major collector/45 feet Both sides Two-way protected bike lane on east side, with parking on west side. Two stage crossing at State $57,600 4 Custer, Faidley to Old Potash 0.50 2-lane major collector/45 feet One side north of George, no sidewalks south Multi-use shoulders. Multi-use trail alternative on east edge of Ryder Park. Sidewalk completion on one side. $30,000 5 Blaine, Old Potash to 1st Street 0.30 2-lane arterial, 45 feet to 2nd St, narrowing to 36 feet south of 2nd One side (east)Two-way protected bike lane west side from Old Potash to 2nd, transitioning to sidepath on west side between 2nd and 1st $34,560 6 1st/Ingalls/Louis, Blaine to Curtis 0.34 2 lane local streets, 36-40 feet Both sides Shared marked routes $5,780 7 Curtis, Louise to Anna 0.13 2 lane local, 36 feet One-side (east) continuity Shared marked route adjacent to Gates Elementary $2,210 8 Walkway, Anna to John Brownell Trail 0.13 Walkway parallel to Curtis NA Upgrade to multi-use trail standard $51,480 Total 3.17 $483,166 CUSTER BIKEWAY NORTH-SOUTH North BlaineCurtis 1234 56 7 8 State13thFaidleyOld PotashCuster AveIngalls CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 167 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 131 8-10 6 43 8 24 3 8 Possible protected bike lane at Custer and College. The buffered lane is on the east side of the street, and is used on blocks where on- street parking should be unnecessary because of adjacent parking lots, open fields, or houses oriented to intersecting residential streets rather than Custer. Houses oriented to Custer south of State may require on-street parking at their front door. Here, the bikeway shifts to a two-way off- street sidepath at the high school. The illus- tration shows how the crossing is made in two stages to the high school sidepath. This is reversed at 13th Street. Custer and College Custer and State Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 168 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 132 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Easement, Capital to State 0.50 Walkway and utility easement Two segments north and south of West Lawn Elementary School Multi-use trail, partially on edge of elementary school. Enhanced crosswalk at State $224,400 2 Hancock, State to 10th 0.75 2-lane collector/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $45,000 3 St Francis campus and ring drive, 10th to Faidley 0.25 NA No sidewalks Multi-use trail on line of Hancock Ave, providing pedestrian accommodation to offices along ring drive. Uses proposed Faidley sidepath to Sherman $99,000 4 Sherman, Faidley to N. Front/Ryder Park 0.27 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Shared marked route $4,590 5 Ryder Park paths and Old Potash to Custer 0.40 Park path Existing paths Upgrade path to multi-use trail, continue as sidepath along Old Potash to Custer. Connects with Custer Ave bikeway $158,400 Total 2.17 $531,390 HANCOCK BIKEWAY NORTH-SOUTH North 123 4 5 State10thN. FrontFaidleyOld PotashHancock CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 169 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 133 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Independence, Highway 2 to George Park 1.20 2-lane rural section collector/25 feet No sidewalks, except east side south of Norseman Sidepath with eventual reconstruction of Independence Ave. May be incorporated into future street project $380,160 2 Independence, George Park to Mansfield 0.23 2-lane collector/36 feet One-side (east) sidewalk Sidepath on west side, with pedestrian crossing of Independence at park $72,864 3 Engelman School campus 0.25 NA One side around campus periphery Multi-use trail connection to Shoemaker Trail with three options: sidepath parallel to Manchester and Mansfield; straight alignment along edge of school property to existing trail at Shanna St; continuation of Independence alignment south and east to current trail turn south of Engelman building. $99,000 4 Shoemaker Trail 0.84 Existing trail NA Existing trail 0 Total 2.52 $552,024 INDEPENDENCE BIKEWAY NORTH-SOUTH North 1 2 34 Independence Mansfield CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 170 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 134 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 St. Paul, Capital to 4th 1.0 2-lane minor arterial, 44 feet Both sides from 11th to 5th, poor coverage elsewhere Striped parking shoulder; continuous one-side walkway between 4th and 5th and 11th and 20th. Connects with 4th Street route $60,000 2 4th, St. Paul to Pine 0.77 2-lane minor arterial/50 feet Both sides with some interruptions on industrial use sites Multi-use shoulders $46,200 3 4th, Pine to Cedar 0.25 2-lane minor arterial/50-53 feet Both sides, some at downtown scale Marked shared route, with painted parking lane on south side (EB). Diagonal parking retained on north side $4,250 4 4th, Cedar to Eddy 0.20 2-lane minor arterial/50 feet Both sides, one block interruption on south side Multi-use shoulders $12,000 5 4th, Eddy to Broadwell 0.55 2-lane minor arterial, 38 feet Both sides with some interruptions Striped parking shoulders $33,000 6 4th-Broadwell to North Front-Broadwell 0.09 3-lane minor arterial, 40 feet One side (west)Enhanced crossing at 4th Street, sidepath along Broadwell to North Front. Ultimate solution will be grade separation of Broadwell over UPRR. Design should accommodate bike/ ped connection under the structure to link 4th and North Front. $28,512 ST. PAUL/4TH BIKEWAY NORTH-SOUTH/EAST-WEST North 1 2 4t h St. Paul Rd CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 171 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 135 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 7 North Front, Broadwell to Webb 1.0 2-lane major collector, 41 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders $60,000 8 North Front alignment west of Webb 0.20 NA NA Future trail to proposed ped/bike overpass over Highway 281. $79,200 Total 4.06 $323,162 ST. PAUL/4TH BIKEWAY EAST-WEST North 4th P i n e Wa l n u tBroadwellCuster North Front 2 3 4 5687 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 172 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 136 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Rue de College/College Ave, Webb to Custer 0.75 2-lane collector/36-38 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders, with connection to Capital Sidepath $45,000 2 College, Custer to Broadwell 0.50 2-lane local/41 feet from Custer to Lafayette, 36 feet Lafayette to Broadwell Both sides Striped parking shoulders, with enhanced pedestrian crossing at Broadwell $30,000 3 VA campus, Broadwell to Wheeler 0.25 NA NA Multi-use path adjacent to VA south parking lots $112,200 4 20th, Wheeler to BNSF 0.43 2-lane local/32 feet Both sides Shared, marked route. Connects to path and tunnel under BNSF main line $25,800 5 Walkway and ped tunnel under BNSF 0.14 NA Existing path Widen path to 6 foot minimum, maintain existing tunnel width $55,440 6 20th, BNSF to St Paul 0.27 2-lane local/32 feet Both sides Shared, marked route $16,200 Total 2.34 $284,640 COLLEGE/20TH BICYCLE BOULEAVRD EAST-WEST North P i n e Oa kBroadwellCusterRue de CollegeCollege 2 3 4 5 6 1 CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 173 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 137 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 State, Hwy 281 to Webb 0.25 5-lane major collector/62 feet Both sides Extend existing half-block sidepath east of 281 to Webb, Connects to State Trail on west side of highway. Enhanced multi-modal crossing at State and 281 $79,200 2 State, Webb to Custer 0.54 2-lane major collector/40-42 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard with striped parking shoulders $32,400 3 State, Custer to Broadwell 0.50 2-lane major collector/34-36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Enhanced pedestrian crossing at Five Points intersection $30,000 4 State, Broadwell to 17th 0.43 2-lane collector/50-62 feet. Wide portion has north side diagonal parking Both sides Bicycle boulevard with striped parking shoulders $25,800 5 17th, State intersection to Plum 0.50 2-lane major collector to Sycamore, local to Plum/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Connection via Plum to 18th Street underpass at BNSF main line $40,000 6 18th, Plum to St Paul 0.27 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $4,590 Total 2.49 $211,990 STATE/17TH BIKEWAY EAST-WEST North P i n eBroadwellCusterWebbState 18th 17th2 3 4 5 6 1 CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 174 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 138 15TH STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD EAST-WEST North 4 321 16th SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 16th, Webb to Hancock 0.28 2-lane local/34 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Connects to main Conestoga Mall entrance $16,800 2 Walnut Middle School campus, Hancock to Custer 0.31 NA NA Multi-use path on periphery of site, south of main parking lot $122,760 3 15th, Custer to Broadwell 0.50 2-lane local, 36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Enhanced ped crossing at Broadwell with short sidepath to negotiate offset intersection $61,680 4 15th, Broadwell to Oak 0.80 2-lane local/34 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Use Oak and Pine to connect to 17th St. Enhanced crosswalk at Eddy $48,000 Total 2.00 $249,240 15th HancockBroadwellOa k CusterCONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 175 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 139 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 10th, Kennedy to Custer 0.40 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders. Jog at Custer will use protected bike lane to connect two legs of 10th St $32,000 2 10th, Custer to Broadwell 0.50 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders. Enhanced crossing at Broadwell with curbs cut into Adams Street cul-de-sac from Broadwell crossing and into 10th Street eastbound $90,000 3 15th, Broadwell to St. Paul 1.20 2-lane major collector/ 36 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders. Street passes under BNSF viaduct. Traffic calming treatment in vicinity of Howard Elementary School $72,000 Total 2.10 $194,000 10TH STREET BIKEWAY EAST-WEST North 1 2 3 10th 10th 10thKennedyCusterBroadwell S t P a u l CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 176 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 140 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Faidley, Shoemaker Trail to North Rd 0.54 2-lane major collector/40 feet Both sides Multi-use shoulders. Enhanced crossing at North Rd $32,400 2 Drainage corridor parallel to Faidley, North to Ridgewood 0.50 NA NA Multi-use trail on east and south side of drainage $224,400 3 Faidley, Ridgewood to Highway 281 0.50 3-lane major collector, 40 feet, widening to 5-lane at 281 intersection Both sides Sidepath on north side with enhanced crossing at Highway 281. Connection with proposed Westside Collector Trail $158,400 4 Faidley, Highway 281 to Sherman 0.37 3-lane major collector, 40-42 feet Both sides Sidepath on north side with enhanced crossing of Webb Road $117,216 FAIDLEY/6TH BIKEWAY (WEST) EAST-WEST North 21 3 4 FaidleyShoemaker TrailShermanFai d l e y Faidley sidepath concept. In this segment, new sidepath is located adjacent to the existing back of curb sidewalk, using the existing facil- ity as a buffer from the travel lanes. High vis- ibility crosswalks are used to mark street and major driveway interruptions. CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 177 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 141 FAIDLEY/6TH BIKEWAY (WEST) EAST-WEST North SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 5 Faidley,Sherman to Custer 0.17 3-lane major collector/ 40 feet Both sides Sidepath on north side. Improve crossing visibility at St. Francis entrance drive and Custer $53,856 6 Faidley, Custer to Broadwell 0.66 3-lane major collector,/40 feet Both sides. Some discontinuity at corners on south side Sidepath on north side. Move path away from drop-off areas $209,088 7 6th, Broadwell to Plum 1.25 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides; discontinuities and poor sections east of Walnut Bicycle boulevard with gap closing and replacement of dirt or deteriorating sections. Terminus at historic Burlington depot. $75,000 Total 3.99 $870,360 5 6 7 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 178 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 142 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 3rd, Blaine to Broadwell 0.60 2-lane local/36 feet, 50 feet between Garfield and Blaine Both sides with substantial breaks on both sides Multi-use shoulders between Blaine and Garfield; striped parking shoulders Garfield to Blaine $36,000 2 3rd, Broadwell to Lincoln 0.40 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides with some gaps Striped parking shoulders $24,000 3 3rd, Lincoln to Elm 0.30 2-lane urban collector/ 50 feet Both sides Multi-use shoulders $18,000 4 3rd, Elm to Sycamore 0.40 2-lane urban local/ 50 feet with diagonal parking on south side Both sides No bike-related improvements on 3rd. Transition on shared route on Elm to south alley paralleling 3rd. Provide markings to define alley as a bikeway, taking advantage of existing raised and enhanced midblock ped crossings at alleys. Incorporate yellow diamond bike/ped signage on cross streets, add midblock crossing treatment at Cedar and Walnut. Transition back to 3rd Street on Sycamore. Possible conversion of west side on-street parking lane adjacent to public parking lot to short, two way protected bike lane. $100,000 3RD STREET BIKEWAY EAST-WEST North 2 1 3 4 5 3rd CusterBroadwellLin co ln Elm Sycamo reOak CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 179 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 143 SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 5 3rd, Sycamore to Oak 0.13 2-lane urban local/50 feet, diagonal parking on south side immediately east of Sycamore Both sides Multi-use shoulders. Possible path extension to Plum and proposed Beltline Trail extension. However this requires crossing of 1st and 2nd dealing with relatively high speed traffic. $7,800 Total 1.83 $185,800 3RD STREET BIKEWAY EAST-WEST North Multi-purpose shoulder concept plan. Width of 3rd Street changes at Lincoln Street as illustrated at right. East of Lincoln, shoulder is wide enough to accommodate both bikes and parked cars. Typical street width be- tween white lines should be limited to 24 feet maxi- mum. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 180 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 144 KOENIG BICYCLE BOULEVARD EAST-WEST North SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 Koenig, Ingalls to Blaine 0.13 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $7,800 2 Koenig, Blaine to Walnut 1.43 2-lane major collector/36 feet Both sides with some gaps Bicycle boulevard $85,800 3 Koenig, Walnut to Locust 0.07 2-lane major collector/36 feet Both sides Enhanced crossings of both Walnut and Locust. Crossing of multi-lane Walnut presents greatest difficulty because of width and traffic volume. Traffic control should be studied $70,000 4 Koenig, Locust to Oak 0.28 2-lane major collector/30-32 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Route turns south along Oak Bicycle Boulevard to Ashton $22,400 5 Ashton/Memorial Drive, Oak to Cherry 0.40 2-lane local/34 feet on Ashton, transitioning to divided residential boulevard, 51 to 125 feet with wide median Both sides Bicycle boulevard $32,000 6 Cherry, Ashton to Bismark 0.26 2-lane major collector/36 feet One side (west), Striped parking shoulders $15,600 7 Bismark Connection, Cherry to Pine 0.73 2-lane major collector/44 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders $58,400 Total 3.30 $292,000 4 5 6 7 3 2 1 PineAd am s Che r r y Bismark Ashton/ Memorial Koenig CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 181 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 145 21STOLLEY PARK BIKEWAY EAST-WEST North SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 St Joe Trail crossing NA In 2018, 3-lane minor arterial/50 feet Trail crossing Enhanced crossing. Consideration should be given to pedestrian refuge median, high visibility crosswalk, advance warning, and possible HAWK Included in barriers 2 Stolley Park Rd, Trail to Locust 1.50 In 2018, 3-lane minor arterial/45 feet with multi- use shoulders Both sides Multi-use shoulders provide adequate bike accommodations. Enhanced crossing at Arthur Street into Stolley Park Included in 2018 project 3 Arthur, Beltline Trail to Stolley Park 0.33 2-lane local/39 feet Both sides but lacking on Del Mar to Stolley Park block Shared and marked roadway with completion of sidewalk on southern block. Enhanced pedestrian crossing to link trail to park $5,610 4 Stolley Park, Locust to Wood River 1.0 3-lane minor collector, narrowing east of Kingswood/36-24 feet Sidewalks only on first block east of Locust Sidepath on Fonner Park side, addressing lack of sidewalks $316,800 Total 2.83 $322,410ArthurSt Joe TrailBrownell Beltlin e Trail3 4 CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 182 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 146 STAGECOACH BICYCLE BOULEVARD EAST-WEST North SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK CONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST 1 St. Joe Trail to Pioneer Blvd 0.07 NA NA Trail connection to local street from regional trail, requiring a crossing of a low-use railroad branch line $31,416 2 Pioneer Blvd, Wicklow Drive to Blaine 0.23 2-lane local/30 feet One side Shared and marked roadway $3,910 3 Blaine, Pioneer to Stagecoach 0.25 2-lane major collector/24 feet rural section Sidewalk only on Evangelical Free Church frontage Sidepath; enhanced crossing at Blain and Pioneer intersection $79,200 4 Stagecoach Rd, Blaine to Riverside 1.15 Local with varying sections: 2-lane/36 feet to divided 2-lane/50 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $69,000 5 Stagecoach Rd, Riverside to Locust 0.25 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard; Enhanced crossing at Locust $15,000 Total 1.95 $198,526 Pioneer Stagecoach BlaineLocustSt. Joe Trail1 2 3 4 5 CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 183 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 147 Table 7.2: Probable Costs for Proposed TrailsPRIORITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION The proposed Grand Island area bikeways network will be implemented in phases, and will almost certainly evolve over time. However, this plan establishes both an initial phase that guides activity during the next ten years, and a concept for how the network emerges more comprehensively from that foundation. The sequencing of phases and specific trails and routes proposed here follows these criteria and principles: • Response to demands. In every phase, high priority routes should address existing demand patterns, and serve destinations that are valuable to users and appropriate endpoints for bicycle transportation. The survey results summarized in Chapter 2 provide valuable information on the importance of various destinations. • Route integrity. High priority routes and projects should provide continuity between valid endpoints such as destinations and trails. When developed incrementally, routes should not leave users at loose ends. • Extensions of existing facilities. Projects that make use of and extend the reach of key existing facilities that need attention,. • Gaps. Small projects that fill gaps in current facilities or tie relatively remote neighborhoods to the overall system can be especially useful at early stages n the system’s development. However, two very large projects are proposed in the high priority system in response to community preferences: the Faidley and Custer corridors. • Opportunities. The implementation sequence should take advantage of street projects, resurfacing and street rehabilitation projects, and other infrastructure projects • Safety enhancement. High priority projects should increase safety and reduce user discomfort for people of all ages. • Demographic equity. Projects should provide bicycle and pedestrian access to underserved populations and connect people and households without access to a motor vehicle to destinations important to their lives and livelihood. NAME: LATER PHASE LENGTH (mi) TRAIL TYPE (See Table 7.1) OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Veterans Legacy Trail/Overpass 0.8 1 $1,859,040 (includes RR overpass) Sky Park Trail 2.05 2 $689,040 Seedling Mile Trail 2.07 3 $655,776 Wood River Trail 1.2 Sidepath $665,280 Riverway Trail Extension 3 3 $1,346,400 Mormon Island/(S. Locust) Trail 4.9 Sidepath/Type 2 trail $2,699,120 (includes channel bridge) Stagecoach Connection Trail 0.07 1 Included in route Northwest Trail 1.65 2 $740,520 L.E. Ray Park Connector 0.55 Sidepath $174,240 Alda/Cornhusker Trail 5.75 Gravel $1,150,000 Alda/ Husker Highway Trail 5.63 Gravel $1,126,000 Future Trails Total 27.67 $11,105,416 GRAND TOTAL 37.20 $15,349,480 NAME : PRIORITY LENGTH (mi) TRAIL TYPE (See Table 7.1) OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Shoemaker Trail extension .50 1 $198,000 Westside Connector extension 1.00 2 $448,800 Cedar Hills Trail 1.80 3 $997,920 South Locust Trail 0.75 Sidepath Included in Route Belt Line Trail Extension 0.90 3 $498,960 Capital Trail East 0.68 Sidepath/Type 2 trail $215,424 Eagle Scout Trail 0.75 1 $297,000 Moore Creek Trail 1.50 2 $673,200 Southwest Trail 1.65 3 $914,760 Priority Trails Total 9.53 $4,244,064 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 184 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 148 • Service to key destinations. These include parks, schools, the library, and similar destinations. • Relative ease of development. It is important that the a useful system be established relatively quickly and at comparatively low cost. Routes that require major capital cost or lead to neighborhood controversy should be deferred to later phases, when precedents are established and the network becomes part of Grand Island’s urban landscape. Developability helps determine priorities. The initial system should serve major destinations and provide good connectivity while minimizing large scale projects. Clearly economics and available resources are extremely important and facilities that meet user demands and preferences are frequently relatively expensive because they require a greater degree of separation from motor vehicles. Table 7.1 identifies typical costs per mile for the different types of on-street facilities anticipated for the Grand Island network. The subsequent detailed route tables apply these cost factors to the individual on-street components of the active network. Tables 7.2 and 7.3 display opinions of probable cost the other two key components of the network: trails and barrier removal projects. Table 7.3 should not be taken to prescribe a specific solution but rather is designed to establish an optimal budget for project types that could substantially reduce the impact of these barrier conditions. NAME ASSOCIATED ROUTE BARRIER TYPE (See Table 7.1) OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Capital-281 Capital Trail A $350,000 State-281 State St Trail A $350,000 Faidley-281 Faidley B $200,000 North Rd/RR Moore Creek Trail E $50,000 Westside Trail-State State St Trail D $75,000 Stuhr-Cedar Hills 281 Underpass Stuhr/Cedar Hills Tr Included in route cost St Joe Tr/Stolley Park St Joe Trail C $150,000 Beltline/Blaine Beltline Trail D $75,000 Stuhr Tr/Husker Stuhr Trail C $150,000 Capital/Webb Capital Trail C $150,000 Capital Tr east of Webb Capital Trail C $150,000 Capital/Broadwell Capital Trail/Pine D $100,000 20-Broadwell 20th/College D $100,000 15-Broadwell 15th Bike Blvd D $100,000 10-Broadwell 10th Bike Blvd D $100,000 Koenig-Locust/Walnut Koenig Bike Blvd D $200,000 Lincoln-2nd Lincoln/Adams C $200,000 Beltline/Locust Beltline Trail E $50,000 1st Pine Pine Bike Blvd C $150,000 North Front 281 Overpass Network bridge $1,500,000 Lincoln RR Overpass Lincoln/Adams bridge $1,500,000 Stagecoach/Locust Stagecoach/Locust D $75,000 Highway 34/Locust S. Locust/Pine B $200,000 Table 7.3: Probable Budgets for Barrier Removal Projects Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 185 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 149 SEQUENCING The Sequencing illustrates these guiding criteria to identify a basic network that would provide a high level of service to the community even if no further progress is made. The sequence design divided into a basic network, which must stand alone even if no further progress is made; and an ultimate network that provides comprehensive coverage of the city and rural parts of the metropolitan area. The basic system is further divided into two implementation phases, which may be viewed as five to seven-year capital programs. This overall Basic Network implemented over 20 years translates into a proposed investment of about $10.3 million, or slightly over $500,000 annually in 2018 dollars over a 20 year period. Clearly implementation depends on availability of funding and some large projects or overall efforts could receive federal and state funds that could advance certain projects. This implementation sequence represents a suggested scenario that may change over time. BASIC SYSTEM: THE STARTING POINT While the City and the user community will help to determine the order of projects within each phase, the system must start to emerge with some specific routes and route segments. This pilot system establishes the foundation of the ultimate network, and should provide maximum impact, link all parts of the city, and serve proven destinations and traffic patterns. Phase One Phase One, encompassing development envisioned for the next ten years, includes the following key elements: • Completion of three major street-related corridors: Faidley, Custer, and the Pine/South Locust corridors. Faidley and Custer both involve separated facilities, including sidepaths and protected bike lanes. The importance of these corridors suggests accelerating their development. • A new midtown east-west route, using 15th Street connecting to the State Street route at both east and !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n n n nn n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n BB B BB B B B Schu ParkMemorial Park L. E.Ray Park EagleScout Park Pioneer Park Lions Park Lincoln Park GraceAbbottPark Ashley Park BroadwellPark Ryder Park Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site) Buechler Park Stolley Park George Park Sothman Park AugustinePark Pier Park Howard School LincolnElementarySchool JeersonElementarySchool CentralCatholicHigh SchoolNewellElementarySchool WalnutMiddleSchool KnickrehmElementarySchool Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool ShoemakerElementarySchool EnglemanElementarySchool Old EnglemanElementarySchool Seedling MileElementarySchool GatesElementarySchool StarrElementarySchool Stolley ParkElementary School CentralCommunityCollege Trinity LutheranSchool And Church NorthwestHigh School DodgeElementarySchool Barr MiddleSchool Grand IslandChristian School WasmerElementarySchool HeartlandLutheranHigh School WestridgeMiddleSchool B B B BB B BB B B B B B B B B B B B B Wh e e l e r P in e Adams17th St 3rd St Faidley Stolley Park State Capital CusterIndependenceBellwood15th St South LocustStagecoach Figure 7.4: Basic Network: Phase 1 Diagram Barrier Projects Existing Trails Proposed Trails Grand Island City Limits Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 186 / 227 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 150 west ends. This fills the void between the Capital Trail and Faidley/6th Street Bikeways. • A new sidepath along Adams, connecting the Beltline Trail to new schools along Adams Street. • A shared use path connection between the State Street Trail and George Park. Phase 1 of the Basic System also extends several important trails designed to fill gaps or create strategic new connections, including • A connection between the Capital Trail and Eagle Scout Park. • An extension of the Capital Trail to the east side of the BNSF tracks using 20th and 18th Street underpasses. • Extension of the Beltline Trail to the JBS plant at Stuhr Road. • Connection of the new hospital/mixed use development’s trail loop to the Stuhr Trail under US 281, using an existing bridge over a drainage swale. Phase 1 of the Basic System envisions addressing seven key barrier points: • The Capital/US 281 intersection. • The Faidley/US 281 intersection. • 15th and Broadwell intersection. • Lincoln Street crossing of 2nd Street at the Library. • Beltline Trail crossing of Blaine Street. • St Joe Trail crossing of Stolley Park Road. • US 281 undercrossing from the Stuhr Trail to the new hospital site. Phase Two Phase 2 expands the on-street transportation improvements of Phase 1, but focuses more heavily on longer distance trails. Its major on-steet components include: • Completion of the Lincoln/Adams bicycle boulevard, completing a north-south quiet street corridor through the residential center of the city. Figure 7.5: Basic Network: Phase 2 Diagram Barrier Projects Existing Trails Proposed Trails !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n n n nn n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n BB B B B B B B Schu ParkMemorial Park L. E.Ray Park EagleScout Park Pioneer Park Lions Park Lincoln Park GraceAbbottPark Ashley Park BroadwellPark Ryder Park Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site) Buechler Park Stolley Park George Park Sothman Park AugustinePark Pier Park Howard School LincolnElementarySchool JeersonElementarySchool CentralCatholicHigh School NewellElementarySchool WalnutMiddleSchool KnickrehmElementarySchool Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool ShoemakerElementarySchool EnglemanElementarySchool Old EnglemanElementarySchool Seedling MileElementarySchool GatesElementarySchool StarrElementarySchool Stolley ParkElementary School CentralCommunityCollege Trinity LutheranSchool And Church NorthwestHigh School DodgeElementarySchool Barr MiddleSchool Grand IslandChristian School WasmerElementarySchool HeartlandLutheranHigh School WestridgeMiddleSchool B B B B B B BB B B B B B B B B B B B B L i n c o ln 4th St10th StHancock Westside ConnectorSouthwest TrailGrand Island City Limits Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 187 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 151 • Enhancing 4th Street through the growing north downtown international district and connecting to the east side of town. • Implementing the 10th Street bicycle boulevard, complementing the busier Faidley corridor and providing an enhanced connection across Broadwell. Phase 2 features significant trail projects, including completing the major loop around the southwestern part of the city. This project will develop in conjunction with or after the relocation of US 30. Major trail components include: • Extension of the Westside Connector from State to Faidley, linking up with that primary east-west bikeway. • The Shoemaker and Moore Creek Trails, connecting the current end of the Shoemaker Trail with Cedar Hills Park, the new hospital, and the Stuhr Trail and rest of the central trail system. Significant barrier improvement projects primarily address intersections and upgrades to existing trail crossings. These include the: • State and US 281 intersection. • Existing State/Capital Connector crossing west of the highway. • Existing Stuhr Trail crossing of US 34 at College Park. • Existing Capital Trail crossing east of Webb Road. • Capital and Broadwell intersection • 10th and Broadwell • Minor enhancements of the Beltline Trail crossing of Locust Street. • 1st and Pine, the unsignalized intersection of the Pine Street crossings. • South Locust crossings at Stagecoach and US 34. Figure 7.6: Completed Basic Network !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n n n nn n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n BB B B B B B B Schu ParkMemorial Park L. E.Ray Park EagleScout Park Pioneer Park Lions Park Lincoln Park GraceAbbottPark Ashley Park BroadwellPark Ryder Park Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site) Buechler Park Stolley Park George Park Sothman Park AugustinePark Pier Park Howard School LincolnElementarySchool JeersonElementarySchool CentralCatholicHigh SchoolNewellElementarySchool WalnutMiddleSchool KnickrehmElementarySchool Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool ShoemakerElementarySchool EnglemanElementarySchool Old EnglemanElementarySchool Seedling MileElementarySchool GatesElementarySchool StarrElementarySchool Stolley ParkElementary School CentralCommunityCollege Trinity LutheranSchool And Church NorthwestHigh School DodgeElementarySchool Barr MiddleSchool Grand IslandChristian School WasmerElementarySchool HeartlandLutheranHigh School WestridgeMiddleSchool B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Grand Island City Limits Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 188 / 227 17th St Husker Hwy State Seedling Mile US 281Independence7th St 10th St KoenigOakGrand IslandSouth LocustSky ParkWhiteNorth Front Stagecoach US 34 College THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 152 Ultimate Network Completion (Phase Three) An ultimate network phase completes the on-street grid with significant east-west routes and expands the trail system into peripheral areas outside the city, including connections to Alda, Mormon Island, and Shady Bend. Major on-street additions include: • North-south routes the include the Oak Street bicycle boulevard, paralleling the earlier Pine Street route and Grand Island/White Avenue parallel to Broadwell. • Completing east-west bike boulevard corridors along 20th/College, 17th/State, 10th, Koenig, and Stagecoach with a southern connection to the St. Joe Trail. • Extending the 4th Street route to North Front, with the connection occurring under a proposed Broadwell grade separation over the Union Pacific • Eventual improvement of north Independence Avenue including a sidepath in a major road construction project. • Extensions of 7th Street and Sky Park Road to the airport and developing industrial areas. A study of a potential US 281 northeast bypass may clarify active transportation opportunities in this sector. • Collector street connections with pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in developing subdivisions. Long distance regional trails in the periphery of the metropolitan area are an important part of this ultimate phase. As a result, several projects are high cost and may be spread out over a longer time. These projects include trails to: • Mormon Island State Recreation Area • Alda and the Cornhusker Plant • Veterans Legacy development, including a potential trail overpass over the BNSF. • Trails in the northwest part of the city, incuding access to Northwest High School and the Independence corridor • Paving of the Riverway Trail to N-2. • Shady Bend area via Seedling Mile Road. Figure 7.7: Ultimate Network Completion (Phase Three): Project Grand Island City Limits Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 189 / 227 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 153 Barrier crossings are an important part of the ultimate phase, Several of these propose crossings are fairly routine, relating to bicycle boulevard crossings of Broadwell and Locust. However, three major projects involve substantial advance planning and financing. These aspirational projects include: • A grade separated pedestrian/bike crossing over US 281 on the alignment of North Front. This increases connectivity between the east and west sides of the city. • A grade separated pedestrian/bike crossing of the UPRR at or around Lincoln Street. This may occur in conjunction with a grade separation project of the Broadwell crossing. Such a project may require elimination of existing grade crossing(s). A pedestrian crossing is essential between Eddy and Broadwell, and the Lincoln site is particularly important for its access to the Public Library and the Adams Street educational corridor. • A possible trail overpass developed as part of the Veterans Legacy project. OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Tables 7.9 through 7.12 on the following pages summarize probable planning level costs for the metropolitan area’s proposed active network. It is clear that the area is unlikely to implement the entire system, even over a long period. For example, trails in the ultimate phase of the program (beyond 10 to 15 years) account for about 40% of the total projected cost. However, these calculations and concepts provide decision-makers with information that can help select specific future projects that most appropriately meet community needs. FUNDING Given the multi-year nature of this active transportation program, identifying and sustaining funding sources is crit- ical. Many projects involving on-street routes could be in- corporated into normal maintenance activities - thus the marginal cost of activities such as painting and maintain- ing multi-use shoulders may be significantly lower than the !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n n n nn n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n B B B BB B B B B B B Memorial Park L. E.Ray Park EagleScout Park Pioneer Park Lions Park Lincoln Park GraceAbbottPark Ashley Park BroadwellPark Ryder Park Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site) Buechler Park Stolley Park George Park Sothman Park AugustinePark Pier Park Howard School LincolnElementarySchool ElementarySchool CentralCatholicHigh SchoolNewellElementarySchool WalnutMiddleSchool KnickrehmElementarySchool Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool ShoemakerElementarySchool EnglemanElementarySchool Old EnglemanElementarySchool Seedling MileElementarySchool GatesElementarySchool StarrElementarySchool Stolley ParkElementary School CentralCommunityCollege Trinity LutheranSchool And Church NorthwestHigh School DodgeElementarySchool Barr MiddleSchool Grand IslandChristian School WasmerElementarySchool HeartlandLutheranHigh School WestridgeMiddleSchool B B B BB B BB B B B B B B B B B B B B Figure 7.8: Complete Ultimate Network Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 190 / 227 ROUTES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ON-STREET NETWORK Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate Oak Bicycle Boulevard $195,000 $195,000 Pine Bicycle Boulevard $617,700 $617,700 Lincoln/Adams Bikeway $364,688 $239,088 $125,600 Grand Island/White Bicycle Boulevard $83,400 $83,400 Custer Bikeway $483,166 $483,166 Hancock Bikeway $531,390 $30,000 $276,990 $224,400 Independence Bikeway $552,024 $171,864 $380,160 St Paul/4th Bikeway $323,162 $62,450 $260,712 College/20th Bicycle Boulevard $284,640 $284,640 State/17th Bikeway $211,990 $156,190 $55,800 15th Street Bicycle Boulevard $249,240 $249,240 10th Street Bikeway $194,000 $122,000 $72,000 Faidley/6th Street Bikeway $870,360 $870,360 3rd Street Bikeway $185,800 $185,800 Koenig Bicycle Boulevard $292,000 $292,000 Stolley Park Road Bikeway $322,410 $5,610 $316,800 Stagecoach Bicycle Bouleavrd $198,526 $15,000 $183,526 TOTAL $5,959,496 $3,024,018 $587,040 $2,348,438 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 154 Table 7.9: Opinion of Probable Cost: On-Street Network by Phasecost factors incorporated here. Bicycle boulevards and routes could be imple- mented through relatively inexpen- sive wayfinding or street signs as well. But some projects involve substantial capital cost. Highest among these are those projects that users like best – those that offer separation from motor vehicles. Many cities set aside a certain annual allocation for alternative transporta- tion projects and the Grand Island met- ropolitan area should also consider this approach. The basic network’s cost of about $10 million would require about $750,000 annually over a fifteen year implementation period. But many fi- nancing programs exist that can fund specific projects and greatly acceler- ate realization of this network. Many of these programs involve Federal trans- portation and recreational funding as- sistance which may be uncertain in the future. The following discussion iden- tifies sources available as of adoption. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT PROGRAMS FAST Act The FAST (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation) Act became law in 2015 and remains at present the prima- ry source of transportation assistance. FAST programs include: • The Surface Transportation Pro- Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 191 / 227 ROUTES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PRIORITY TRAILS Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate Shoemaker Extension $198,000 $198,000 Westside Connector $448,800 $448,800 Cedar Hills $997,920 $498,960 $498,960 South Locust Included in Pine Route Included in Pine Route Beltline Extension $498,960 $498,960 Capital Trail $215,424 $215,424 Eagle Scout $297,000 $297,000 Moore Creek $673,200 $673,200 Southwest $914,760 $914,760 FUTURE TRAILS Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate Veterans Legacy Trail/Overpass $1,859,040 $1,859,040 Sky Park Trail $689,040 $689,040 Seedling Mile Trail $655,776 $655,776 Wood River Trail $665,280 $665,280 Riverway Trail Extension $1,346,400 $1,346,400 Mormon Island/(S. Locust) Trail $2,699,120 $2,699,120 Stagecoach Connection Trail In Stagecoach Route Northwest Trail $740,520 $740,520 L.E. Ray Park Connector $174,240 $174,240 Alda/Cornhusker Trail $1,150,000 $1,150,000 Alda/ Husker Highway Trail $1,126,000 $1,126,000 TOTAL $15,349,480 $1,510,344 $2,733,720 $11,105,416 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 155 Table 7.10: Opinion of Probable Cost: Trails Network by Phase gram (STP). This is the primary source of funding urban road con- struction projects but can also be used for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. STP funds are fre- quently used for facilities like side- paths that are developed in combi- nation with street projects. • Surface Transportation Block Grant for transportation alterna- tives. This program incorporat- ed the pre-existing Transporta- tion Enhancement, Safe Routes to Schools, and National Scenic By- ways Program. In Nebraska, TAP funding, administered by the Ne- braska Department of Transporta- tion, have been the primary source of local trails funding in many cit- ies, and Grand Island has used this program in the past. • Highway Safety Improvement Pro- gram (HSIP). This program funds projects consistent with the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Within the context of this plan, it is most useful for helping to fund specific safety infrastructure im- provement projects. TIGER Discretionary Grants TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) origi- nated as part of the American Recov- ery and Reinvestment Act and has fo- cused on funding for innovative liv- ability, sustainability, and safety proj- Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 192 / 227 BARRIERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate Capital-281 $350,000 $350,000 State-281 $350,000 $350,000 Faidley-281 $200,000 $200,000 North Rd/RR $50,000 $50,000 Westside Trail-State $75,000 $75,000 Stuhr-Cedar Hills 281 Underpass Included in trail St Joe Tr/Stolley Park $150,000 $150,000 Beltline/Blaine $75,000 $75,000 Stuhr Tr/Husker $150,000 $150,000 Capital/Webb $150,000 $150,000 Capital Tr east of Webb $150,000 $150,000 Capital/Broadwell $100,000 $100,000 20-Broadwell $100,000 $100,000 15-Broadwell $100,000 $100,000 10-Broadwell $100,000 $100,000 Koenig-Locust/Walnut $200,000 $200,000 Lincoln-2nd $200,000 $200,000 Beltline/Locust $50,000 $50,000 1st Pine $150,000 $150,000 North Front 281 Overpass $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Lincoln RR Overpass $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Stagecoach/Locust $75,000 $75,000 Highway 34/Locust $200,000 $200,000 Total $5,975,000 $1,075,000 $1,400,000 $3,500,000 Table 7.11: Opinion of Probable Cost: Barrier Projects Network by Phase THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 156 ects. Nebraska has not made extensive use of this program receiving only one grant for Omaha’s Bus Rapid Transit line. An innovative project such as the Custer Bikeway could be a competitive TIGER project. National Recreational Trails Administered by Nebraska Game and Parks, this venerable program was originally established in 1991 and pro- vides funding assistance for recreation- al projects, such as park trails. This con- trasts with TAP funds that must be used for projects with a significant transpor- tation component. LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES Given uncertainties over Federal funds, local funding emerges as the most re- liable option for multi-year programs. Grand Island’s Capital Improvement Program can provide a local match for federal funds. The Food and Beverage Tax is used to help finance trail projects for the Parks Department. The current national administration has proposed a match program that would provide a limited % of federal funding (possibly 20% of project cost) as seed money for local or private funds. An annual allo- cation could be financed through a lo- cal option sales tax, as permitted by LB 840, or general obligation bonds. PRIVATE FINANCING AND PHILAN- THROPY Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 193 / 227 ROUTES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate ON-STREET NETWORK $ 5,959,496 $ 3,024,018 $ 587,040 $ 2,348,438 TRAIL NETWORK $ 15,349,480 $ 1,510,344 $ 2,733,720 $ 11,105,416 BARRIERS $ 5,975,000 $ 1,075,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 3,500,000 TOTAL $27,283,976 $5,609,362 $4,720,760 $16,953,854 7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING 157 Table 7.12: Opinion of Probable Cost: Recap by Phase Private organizations and philanthropic giving can be a sig- nificant source of financing assistance. In some cases, com- munities have raised money for popular trail segments through foundations, avoiding the delays and processes that typically come attached to private grants. An example of this on a large scale is Omaha’s South Omaha Trail. Health- related enterprises such as insurance organizations and hos- pitals have funded active transportation initiatives and are also involved in the organizational phases of the Grand Is- land program. Major industries such as JBS may see the di- rect benefit to them in a project like the Beltline Trail exten- sion. Other significant trail and active projects have been funded by community contributors through fund-raising drives and even naming rights. Foundations can also be a significant source of local support. The Nebraska Trails Foundation (NTF) provides funding for trail projects in both urban and rural settings. The Grand Is- land Community Foundation both administers funds and channels resources into specific fields of interest, includ- ing health, and may be helpful in setting up a specific fund around active transportation implementation. State and na- tional foundations with substantial local interest (such as the Peter Kiewit Foundation and Union Pacific Foundation) also have funded related improvements in the past. DEVELOPMENT FINANCING Active transportation may also be integrated into new de- velopment and redevelopment projects. The implementa- tion phase maps and overall network plan identify future collector street corridors in potential growth areas. Integrat- ing infrastructure to support active transportation, such as adequate width for bike lanes or multi-use shoulders, traf- fic calming features, proposed trail routes, and pedestrian paths and connectivity is extremely helpful and should be part of the financing package for the project. The new hos- pital and mixed use project proposed at US 281 and 34 is in- corporating part of the trail network into its project design. In redevelopment areas, tax increment financing can also be used to finance active transportation facilities that in turn in- crease project quality. SIDEWALK FINANCING Funding for sidewalk improvements or gap filling projects can be very challenging. The typical method of financing, sidewalks uses City Assessment Districts, where sidewalk costs are repaid through special assessments on properties within the district. Various other mechanisms may be con- sidered for maintaining sidewalk continuity on the pedes- trian system. These include: Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 194 / 227 APPROACHES TO SIDEWALK FINANCE SOME APPROACHES TO SIDEWALK FINANCE Ann Arbor, MI. In November of 2011, voters approved a 1/8-% increase to the Street Reconstruction Millage for the purpose of repairing sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Prior to the passage of this millage, property owners were required to repair or replace deficient sidewalks that adjoined their property. Beginning in 2012, the City assumed responsibility for the repair of the sidewalk system, which will be performed through this project over the course of the next five years. Missoula, MT spreads a large percentage of the cost of installing sidewalks to the whole community by using an insurance model. There will be a premium, deductible, co-pay, out of pocket maximum, and city payment cap. The program establishes a deductible of $300. The city co-pays 70 % while the property owner pays 30 %. The maximum out-of-pocket for the homeowner is $2,000 and the city caps out at $15,000. The owner would pay any amount over the city’s cap. The premium is the increment in general taxes necessary to finance the program. Manchester NH provides a 50-50 match to property owners for sidewalk and/or curb construction. If the construction of a sidewalk necessitates the construction of a retaining wall, the homeowner is responsible for the cost and construction of said wall before construction on the sidewalk will commence. The retaining wall is to be constructed such that no part of said wall is within the city’s right of way. THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 158158 • Two common funding approaches to generating revenue for financing sidewalk improvements include (1) special bond issues, (2) dedications of a portion of local sales taxes. • Intersection ramps. The City of Grand Island has an annual program of installing intersection ramps for access by people with disabilities, funded through the Public Works Department’s Capital Improvement Program. • Street Improvement. As major infrastructure projects are completed in city right-of-way or curb-replacement projects are completed, intersections should be brought to current ADA standards. For streets with higher traffic volumes, new standards should provide for sidewalks separated from the curb by a tree lawn or parkway strip. This provides a safer environment, a more attractive street, and a place to plow snow that does not block pedestrian access. • New Subdivisions. Construction of sidewalks should occur in all new subdivisions on both sides of the street as part of the city’s subdivision regulations. Grand Island’s subdivision regulations do require use of pedestrian ways to provide access through long blocks. Pedestrian paths that provide the same level of service as traditional sidewalks should be permitted as a substitute. Pedestrian facilities should be integrated into the development financing structure of the project. MAINTENANCE COSTS Like any transportation improvement, active transportation projects need to be maintained through their life cycle and will have an impact on operating budgets. Paint must re- main visible to continue to function as planned and capital improvements like paths and trails require repairs to con- tinue to serve their users. Maintenance costs may also vary from year to year, depending on factor such as weather and level of use. Table 7.13 presents approximate costs for main- tenance of different types of facilities, based on current ex- perience. They can be used as a guide for allocation of re- sources and do not include staff time. FACILITY TYPE ANNUALIZED COST/MILE TYPICAL MAINTENANCE TASKS Shared use trail $10,000 Sweeping, trash removal, mowing, weed abatement, snow removal, crack seal, sign repair Sidepath $2,500 Sweeping, trash removal, mowing, weed abatement, snow removal, crack seal, sign repair Bike lanes, multi-use shoulders and advisory bike lanes $2,500 Repainting, debris removal/sweeping, snow removal, signage replacement Bicycle boulevard and shared routes $1,500 Sign and shared lane marking stencil replacement Table 7.13: Opinion of Probable Cost: Recap by Phase Source: Alta Planning + Design Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 195 / 227 159159 8 | CROSSING BARRIERS 8CHAPTER SUPPORTING PROGRAMS AND POLICIES WHILE PREVIOUS CHAPTERS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE DESIGN AND CHARACTER OF A BIKEWAYS NETWORK, INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE DOES NOT CREATE AN EXCELLENT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. To guide communities, the League of American Bicyclists (LAB), through its Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFC) program, establishes five components of design that are used to determine whether a city should be awarded BFC status – the 6 E’s of Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation and Equity. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 196 / 227 160160 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Walking and bicycling network recommendations advance a vision for expanding active transportation in Grand Island. But supportive education and encouragement programs will help more Grand Island citizens feel comfortable walking and bicycling. These programs are designed to support people of all ages and abilities so that walking and bicycling are normal, safe, and comfortable ways to travel throughout the region. Recommended policy items build on and diversify current policies related to expanding walking and bicycling. Recommended education/encouragement programs and policies listed in the table below, and described in greater detail in this chapter, reflect the needs and values of the community residents who assisted this planning effort. The table shows which of the “Six E’s” of bicycle and pedestrian planning are relevant for each recommendation. The City should coordinate education/encouragement programming implementation with local partners in the Grand Island area. The School District and parent organizations, local bike shops, wellness groups, and others are crucial for helping develop successful programs. Implementation of partnerships and support programs are of course dependent on community support, available funding and City Council action (as required). PROGRAM AND POLICY DESCRIPTIONS Annual Implementation Agenda In partnership with the GIAMPO’s existing bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, other citizen groups, GIAMPO and NDOT representatives, and other partners, Grand Island should develop an annual implementation agenda and budget that identifies specific projects, programs, and targets for executing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The annual agenda and budget should be based upon available staff capacity, funding resources, and similar considerations. Adoption of Best Practice Design Guides Design guidelines are critical to the development of a safe, consistent bicycle network. In order to support local agencies in developing bicycle facilities based on sound planning and engineering principles and best practices from around the country, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) created the Urban Bikeway Design Guide. From Omaha and Seattle to Washington, D.C., over fifty cities have adopted the guide to inform city staff and consultants during project design and development. PROGRAM/POLICY EDUCATION ENCOURAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND PLANNING EQUITY Annual Implementation Agenda X X X X X X Adopt Best Practice Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide X Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations Updates X Youth Bicycle Safety Classes X X X Public Education and Awareness Campaigns X X X X Bike Light Campaign X X X X Project Outreach X X X X X Citywide Wayfinding Program X X X X Crash Monitoring and Evaluation X X Bicycle Master Plan Updates X X X X X X League Cycling Instructor Training X Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 197 / 227 161161 8 | CROSSING BARRIERS The guide expands upon basic facility guidance and standards included in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition (2012) and the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). In 2013, the FHWA signed a memorandum expressing support for the Urban Bikeway Design Guide as a valuable resource to “help communities plan and design safe and convenient facilities” for bicyclists and actively encourages agencies to use the guide to go beyond minimum requirements and design facilities that “foster increased use by bicyclists… of all ages and abilities.” The FHWA has developed a number of new resources in recent years to support bikeway planning and development as well. In 2016, the agency released the Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks Guide to support transportation practitioners by applying national design guidelines to the unique settings found in small towns and rural communities. The guide encourages innovation within the bounds of MUTCD and AASHTO compliance by providing unique engineering solutions and design treatments that address small town and rural needs. Based on their prominence across the country, Grand Island should adopt by resolution the NACTO Bikeway Design Guide and the FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks guide as a supplemental resource to implement the network recommendations included in this plan. Resources NACTO Urban Bike Design Guide: http://nacto.org/ publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Sample Endorsement Letters: Omaha, NE: https://nacto.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/Omaha_Urban-Bikeway-Design-Guide- endorsement-letter_08.04.11.pdf Minneapolis, MN: http://nacto.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/Minneapolis_Urban-Bikeway-Design- Guide-endorsement-letter_08.24.11.pdf Zoning Code and Land Subdivision Regulations Updates Land use patterns have significant impact on how people travel in Grand Island and the surrounding region. Bicycling and walking are disproportionately affected by land use patterns when compared to other travel modes, as travel distances, street connectivity, and other environmental factors can restrict or deter altogether bicycling and walking activity. Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, and other policies create the framework for physical development. They focus on environmental design considerations, including aesthetics and safety, street connectivity, development scale and density, building setbacks, and mixture (or separation) of land uses. As a result, these regulations can change the way individuals relate to the people and places around them by affecting travel distances, streetscape character, presence of sidewalks and bicycling facilities, and even trees and landscaping. An expanding body of scientific research points to the direct link between land use policies like zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations, and active transportation. Zoning regulations can impact the percentage of population making trips on foot or by bicycle instead of car. Zoning regulations and supportive land use policies and infrastructure improvements can increase bicycling trips and the percentage of the population riding bicycles. As the walking and bicycling network grows in Grand Island, it will be important to integrate and codify this value to ensure it is reflected in future developments. Zoning and subdivision regulations should provide: • Medium-to-high densities wherever appropriate • Fine-grained mix of land uses • Short-to medium-length blocks • Street-oriented buildings • Parking requirements that reflect actual demand, typically reducing the space committed to auto parking and require bicycle parking Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 198 / 227 162162 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN • Require street design to be connected to create street network that supports walking, bicycling and transit • Move toward implementation of the Grand Island Transit Study recommendation. • Provide for safe street crossing at locations where pedestrians need to cross, such as bus stops, schools, parks, and other major destinations • Incorporate bicycle facilities into street and building design to provide for access and parking that is convenient and accessible. • Integrate active transportation within the Grand Island City Code would provide clarification for the rights and responsibilities of people who travel in the city by walking, bicycling and driving. The following changes are recommended to the City Code: • Rewrite and reinstate City Code Chapter 6. Bicycles. Rewriting and reinstating Chapter 6. Bicycles to conform to national best practice would provide guidance about these roadway users’ roles and responsibilities within Grand Island. This chapter should also address standards for including bicycle accommodation as standard elements in new development or during reconstruction projects. Furthermore, codifying bicycle parking requirements and other facilities would support Grand Island as the local culture of bicycling develops. • Increase minimum sidewalk widths. (City Code, Chapter 32) Sidewalks in Grand Island are classified as ‘conventional’ sidewalks or ‘curb’ sidewalks. Minimum width for both types of sidewalk are four feet wide. Grand Island should consider increasing minimum widths from four feet to six feet on collector roadways. This increase would more comfortably accommodate all sidewalk users and would allow them to more easily pass others on the sidewalk. Arterial streets are more comfortable for pedestrians when they feature wider sidewalks than streets with lower traffic volumes. Increasing minimum widths to eight or ten feet would increase comfort along busy streets. Grass buffers should be encouraged or required wherever possible to increase space between people using the sidewalk and passing motor traffic. This increases user comfort along the sidewalk. Resources Zoning Regulations for Land Use Policy, Roadmaps to Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: http://www. countyhealthrankings.org/policies/zoning-regulations- land-use-policy Bicycle Parking Zoning Modifications, City of Cambridge, MA http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Planning/ bicycleparkingzoning Youth Bicycle Safety Classes Instilling a love for bicycling in children and young adults can support long-term gains in cultural acceptance of and support for bicycling activity. While many children learn bicycling at a young age, it is not a part of physical education curriculums in most schools in Grand Island and across the country, partially due to the lack of access to resources. Some school districts across the country, however, have begun to incorporate basic bicycling safety and skills into physical education curriculums with great success. Schools often partner with local police departments, non-profits, and certified bicycling instructors to provide bicycles for students and encourage safe riding practices. A partnership between the City and Grand Island Public Schools should explore opportunities to teach basic bicycling skills to young students. National resources are available to avoid the School District starting from scratch to develop bicycle safety related lessons. Resources SHAPE America (Society of Health and Physical Educators) Bicycle Safety Curriculum: http://www.shapeamerica.org/ publications/resources/teachingtools/qualitype/bicycle_ curriculum.cfm Bike parking as art. Top to bottom: inverted U’s at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, enhanced with the school’s mascot; Edsel bike parking lot; bicycle-shaped parking sculptures. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 199 / 227 163163 8 | CROSSING BARRIERS League of American Bicyclists Bicycling Skills 123 Youth and Safe Routes to Schools courses: http://www.bikeleague. org/content/find-take-class Safe Routes to School National Partnership Traffic Safety Training resources: http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/ state/bestpractices/curriculum Nebraska Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School resources: http://dot.nebraska.gov/business-center/ lpa/projects/programs/tap/ Public Education and Awareness Campaigns A broad public outreach and education campaign can help normalize bicycling as an accepted and welcomed way for people to travel in Grand Island through compelling graphics and messages targeted to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Campaign materials can use customized messages to provide safety information for each of these types of roadway users. Common topics for media campaigns include safety and awareness; sharing the road and travel etiquette; light and helmet use; and humanization of bicyclists as fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. These campaigns utilize a variety of media to share their messages, from buses and bus stop shelters to websites, online ads, and social media outlets. Grand Island should develop a public education and awareness campaign to further establish bicycling as a valued mode of travel for all community residents. Partnerships with community leaders are crucial to spreading the word about such campaigns. Resources We’re All Drivers, Bike Cleveland (Cleveland, OH): http:// www.bikecleveland.org/our-work/bike-safety-awareness/ Drive with Care, Bike PGH (Pittsburgh, OH): http://www. bikepgh.org/care/ Every Lane Is a Bike Lane, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA): http:// thesource.metro.net/2013/04/11/every-lane-is-a-bike-lane/ Every Day Is a Bike Day, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA): http:// thesource.metro.net/2014/04/30/l-a-metro-launches- new-bike-ad-campaign-in-time-for-bike-week-l-a- may-12-18/ A Metre Matters and It’s a Two-Way Street, Cycle Safe Communities, Amy Gillett Foundation (Australia): http:// cyclesafe.gofundraise.com.au/cms/home Bike Light Campaign Bicycling at night without proper front and rear bike lights increases crash risk, yet many people bicycling in Grand Island lack the proper lighting to stay safe and visible at night. In order to increase bicycling safety and overcome cost barriers that prohibit many individuals from purchasing bike lights, Grand Island should coordinate with local law enforcement and community partners to create a bike light giveaway campaign. Similar programs across the country combine catchy names like “Get Lit” or “Light Up” to garner public and media attention. The City should consider scheduling the program to coincide with back to school events for elementary, high school, or college students or the end of daylight savings. The campaign’s giveaway focus would eliminate the cost of purchasing new lights for people who may not otherwise purchase them. Resources How to Do a Successful Bike Light Giveaway, League of American Bicyclists: http://www.bikeleague.org/content/ how-do-successful-bike-light-giveaway Get Lit, Community Cycling Center (Portland, OR): http:// www.communitycyclingcenter.org/get-lit/ Pop-Up Bike Light Giveaway, BikePGH (Pittsburgh, PA): http://www.bikepgh.org/2013/09/30/pop-up-bike-light- giveaway/ Encouragement through events large and small. From top: a community street festival celebrat- ing bicycling and healthy living (South Omaha, NE); a group event for the opening of a new bike lane project in Bellevue, NE; the world’s largest group ride, Bike New York’s Five Boroughs Bike Ride, with 32,000 participants. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 200 / 227 164164 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Project Outreach Public meetings held during this planning effort helped vet network recommendations with members of the community. It is crucial that as recommended short- and long-term projects are developed and installed, the City continue and increase outreach efforts to discuss the projects with residents along project corridors. Outreach should be conducted early and often. Outreach materials should discuss how to interact with new street designs and should discuss how to safely drive near people bicycling and walking. Although there is no substitute for door-to-door outreach and continued conversations with residents, online videos, temporary signs, updates through social media, neighborhood meetings, and other outlets, would build awareness and support for new and improved elements of the transportation system. Examples of project outreach via community meetings and online presence are listed in the following ‘Resources’ section. Resources Seattle DOT Bicycle Program Projects (Seattle, WA): http:// www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikeprojects.htm Cincinnati Bicycle Transportation Plan Current Projects (Cincinnati, OH): http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bikes/bike- projects/ Denver City and County Current Projects (Denver, CO): https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/ bicycling-in-denver/infrastructure.html Citywide Wayfinding System While signs and sign clutter should always be minimized, a carefully designed identification and directional graphics system can greatly increase users’ comfort and ease of navi- gating the street and trail system. The graphic system may have individual features, but should generally follow the guidelines of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Types of signs in the system include: • The D11-1c Bike Route Guide Sign, identifying a street or trail as a bike route and describing the route’s end point or a landmark destination along the way. These are sometimes used in conjunction with arrows (M6-1 through M6-7) that indicate changes in direction of the route. These are located periodically along the route to both reassure cyclists and advise motorists. • A version of the D1 family of destination signs (D1-1c, D1-2c, or D1-3c), identifying the direction and distance to specific destinations. Sometimes these signs include a time to destination, based on a standard speed, typically 9 miles per hour). These are typically located at intersections of routes or at a short directional connection to a nearby destination. • On bicycle boulevards, a special street sign can be used to help provide additional notification to motorists and wayfinding information to bicyclists. • Motorist advisory signs. The R4-11 Bicycles May Use Full Lane is usually the preferred sign on shared routes. The graphic system should be modular to provide maximum flexibility and efficiency in fabrication. Signs should also use reflective material for night visibility. The Clearview font is recommended as a standard for text. Installation of a wayfinding system is an inexpensive way to implement a major part of the bike network ahead of ma- jor capital expenditures, especially on streets like shared and marked routes or bicycle boulevards that do not require ex- tensive infrastructure to be operational. Crash Monitoring and Evaluation Crash reports from collisions involving bicyclists can be an invaluable resource for learning about the behavior or motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, as well as roadway conditions and characteristics that may lead to collisions. Regular monitoring and evaluation of crash locations can help to identify high-risk areas and develop solutions to Biking Rules. Excerpts from a street code to pro- mote responsible urban cycling, developed by New York City’s Transportation Alternatives ad- vocacy organization. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 201 / 227 165165 8 | CROSSING BARRIERS minimize crash risk. Using a five-year sample of crash data can help identify trends with regard to crash time, contributing factors, crash type, location, and other key details. The City should routinely conduct a detailed analysis of reported bicycle crashes, including a review of individual crash report narratives, every two years. In addition, an online tool on the City’s website can allow those biking to report concerns about specific areas of the city where they feel unsafe. This approach can help identify a problem before a crash occurs. Resources Denver Bicycle Crash Analysis: Understanding and Reducing Bicycle & Motor Vehicle Crashes (Denver, CO): https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/ Portals/705/documents/denver-bicycle-motor-vehicle- crash-analysis_2016.pdf University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT): http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_us/ Cambridge Bicycle Crash Fact Sheet (Cambridge, MA): https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/ CDD/Transportation/Bike/Bicycle-Safety-Facts_ FINAL_20140609.pdf Master Plan Updates Like all plans, this plan will lose its efficacy and relevance as the bike network grows, physical development occurs, travel patterns change, and community needs and values evolve. Grand Island should plan to revisit the plan every five years for a comprehensive update, at which point implementation progress can be measured, new goals and targets can be established, and bike network and support systems can be evaluated and updated to reflect current conditions and opportunities. Sign concepts for Grand Island. Top: Bicycle boulevard street sign in Topeka, KS. Above: Bismarck, ND trail gateway sign. Right: D11-1c (above) and D1-3c (below) basic wayfinding signs TO College Park TO Conestoga Mall Five Points .3 Eagle Scout Park 1 Webb Rd Retail .7 St. Francis Hosp .3 Historic Depot 1 Gr Is High School .7 TO College Park TO Conestoga Mall Five Points .3 Eagle Scout Park 1 Webb Rd Retail .7 St. Francis Hosp .3 Historic Depot 1 Gr Is High School .7 TO College Park TO Conestoga Mall Five Points .3 Eagle Scout Park 1 Webb Rd Retail .7 St. Francis Hosp .3 Historic Depot 1 Gr Is High School .7 TO College Park TO Conestoga Mall Five Points .3 Eagle Scout Park 1 Webb Rd Retail .7 St. Francis Hosp .3 Historic Depot 1 Gr Is High School .7 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 202 / 227 166166 THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Resources Bicycle Friendly America, League of American Bicy- clists: Nebraska: http://bikeleague.org/bfa/search/map/ Nebraska?bfaq=Nebraska LAB, Smart Cycling: http://bikeleague.org/ridesmart LAB, Become an Instructor: https://www.bikeleague.org/ content/become-instructor League Cycling Instructor Training The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) oversees an educational program called League Cycling Instructor (LCI) training that teaches participants how to train others to become more confident when bicycling in traffic. Participants who successfully complete the training are then certified to teach the League’s “Safe Cycling” courses to adults and children. Other cities, such as Wichita, KS, offer LCI training to interested City staff and community members. No Grand Island residents are currently certified through LAB, but 21 residents are registered throughout Nebraska (including one of the writers of this plan). The City should offer at least one certification class per year to increase the number of City staff and residents who can teach others about safe bicycling. LAB offers resources and coordination to help courses to communities. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 203 / 227 167167 5 | CROSSING BARRIERS Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 204 / 227 June 2018 1 Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Public Comment Period Summary A public comment period on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was held from May 24, 2018 to June 11, 2018. The Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was available on the project website at www.walkbikegi.com. Hard copies of the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan were also available at the Grand Island Public Works Department (City Hall, 100 E. First Street, Grand Island, NE 68801) and the Grand Island Public Library (211 N. Washington Street, Grand, NE 68801). Notification A legal notice was placed in the Grand Island Independent on May 17, 2018. A public notice was shown on the GIAMPO website. Social media post via Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor was placed on May 30, 2018. An email blast was sent to individuals on the GIAMPO stakeholder distribution list. A City of Grand Island public service announcement was distributed and was posted on the City website. The notification tools are in Appendix A. Comments One (1) comment was received via email. The email is in Appendix B. Public Meeting During the public comment period, a public meeting was held for the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan on: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Grand Island Public Library 211 N. Washington Street Grand Island, Nebraska 68801 The public was formatted as an open house and afforded residents and stakeholders the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In total, forty-one (41) people attended the public meeting. The meeting sign-in sheets are in Appendix A. Notification A legal notice was placed in the Grand Island Independent on May 17 and May 22, 2018. A public notice was shown on the GIAMPO website. Social media post via Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor was placed on May 18, May 22, May 25, and May 29, 2018. An email blast was sent Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 205 / 227 June 2018 2 to individuals on the GIAMPO stakeholder distribution list. A City of Grand Island public service announcement was distributed and was posted on the City website. The notification tools are in Appendix A. Meeting Materials Comment cards were provided to participants for submitting written comments. Participants had the opportunity to review the following large, color exhibits:  Public Meeting Welcome  Schedule  System Network Concept  The Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment  The Pedestrian and Bicycle Market  The Network  Facility Types  Support Facilities  Crossing Barriers  Pedestrian Facilities  Support Programs  Phasing Program Three hard copies of Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan were available for participants to review. Comments Four (4) card comments and six (6) verbal comments were received. The comment cards are in Appendix B. The verbal comments are in Appendix B (see summary of the public comments). Summary of Public Comments The summary of the public comments and GIAMPO responses are in Appendix B. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 206 / 227 Appendix A – Notification Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 207 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 208 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 209 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 210 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 211 / 227 Social Media Posts - Facebook, Twitter, or Nextdoor Bike/Ped Master Plan - Final Public Open House Dates Post 5/18/2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan - Public Open House on May 29 from 5 to 7 pm at GI Public Library. The open house is designed to give the public an opportunity to review the recommendations outlined in the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan such as the Bike/Ped Network and a phased implementation program for future projects. See you there! 5/22/2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan - Public Open House on May 29 from 5 to 7 pm at GI Public Library. The open house is designed to give the public an opportunity to review the recommendations outlined in the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan such as the Bike/Ped Network and a phased implementation program for future projects. See you there! 5/25/2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan - Public Open House on Tuesday from 5 to 7 pm at GI Public Library. The open house is designed to give the public an opportunity to review the recommendations outlined in the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan such as the Bike/Ped Network and a phased implementation program for future projects. See you there! The draft plan is also available for review and comment at www.walkbikegi.com until June 11. 5/29/2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan - Public Open House TODAY from 5 to 7 pm at GI Public Library. The open house is designed to give the public an opportunity to review the recommendations outlined in the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan such as the Bike/Ped Network and a phased implementation program for future projects. See you there! The draft plan is also available for review and comment at www.walkbikegi.com until June 11. 5/30/2018 Thanks to all who attended the Public Open House! If you missed it, the draft plan is also available for review and comment at www.walkbikegi.com until June 11. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 212 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 213 / 227 Subject: Date: Save the Date - May 29 - Bike Ped Master Plan Open House Monday, May 21, 2018 5:04:00 PM Bike/Ped Master Plan - Open House Meeting The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO), in coordination with the City of Grand Island, would like to invite you to attend a public open house to review the recommendations outlined in the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Anyone with an interest in the region’s active transportation future is encouraged to attend the Tuesday, May 29 meeting from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Grand Island Public Library, 211 N. Washington St. The open house meeting is designed to give residents an opportunity to review exhibits describing the existing conditions evaluation, survey results of the pedestrian and bicycle survey, concepts and locations for support facilities, bicycle and pedestrian network, and phased implementation program of future bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects. The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will be available for public review from May 24 to June 11, 2018 at www.walkbikegi.com. The input gathered through June 11 will be used to refine the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The final version of this plan is anticipated to be adopted by the GIAMPO Policy Board in July 2018. Questions concerning the open house meeting should be directed to Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager, by phone at 308-389-0273 or email at allanz@grand-island.com. Visit the project website at www.walkbikegi.com to learn more about the project. See you on May 29! From:Allan Zafft Bcc: Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 214 / 227 If you would like to be removed from this mailing list for the GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, please respond to this email with the request to remove. Thank you! Allan Zafft, AICP | MPO Program Manager City of Grand Island | Public Works Department City Hall | 100 East First Street | Box 1968 | Grand Island, NE 68802 allanz@grand-island.com | TEL 308.389.0273 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 215 / 227 From:Wendy Meyer-Schmidt Subject:Community invited to bicycle and pedestrian master plan open house Date:Saturday, May 19, 2018 4:17:23 PM Attachments:image005.png PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT Contact: Wendy Meyer-Schmidt, Public Information Officer Work Phone: 308.385.5444 ext.148 Cell Phone: 308.391.0961 Email: wmeyer@grand-island.com Website: www.grand-island.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/CityofGrandIsland Twitter: www.twitter.com/CityofGI Pages: 1 Release Date: May 19, 2018—Immediate Community invited to bicycle and pedestrian master plan open house Tuesday, May 29,--5 to 7 p.m.—Grand Island Library GRAND ISLAND, Neb.— The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO), in coordination with the City of Grand Island, invites the residents to attend a public open house to review the recommendations outlined in the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Anyone with an interest in the region’s active transportation future is encouraged to stop in between 5 to 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, at the Grand Island Public Library, 211 N. Washington St. The open house meeting is designed to give residents an opportunity to review exhibits describing the existing conditions evaluation, survey results of the pedestrian and bicycle survey, concepts and locations for support facilities, bicycle and pedestrian network, and phased implementation program of future bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects. The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will be available for review at the open house meeting or at the project website, www.walkbikegi.com. From May 24- June 11, the draft plan will also be available for review at the following locations: -Grand Island City Hall—100 E. First St. -Grand Island Public Library—211 N. Washington St. The input gathered through June 11 will be used to refine the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The final version of this plan is anticipated to be adopted by the GIAMPO Policy Board in July 2018. Visit the www.walkbikegi.com to complete the survey and learn more about the project. Information about the draft plan can also be found on the City of Grand Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 216 / 227 Island website at www.grand-island.com/GIAMPO. Residents can contact Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager, for more information at 308-389-0273 or allanz@grand- island.com. Follow the GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan on www.twitter.com/GIPublicWorks and Facebook at www.facebook.com/GI.PublicWorks. ### Wendy Meyer-Schmidt Public Information Officer 100 E. First St., Grand Island, NE 68801 308-385-5444 ext. 148 www.grand-island.com @CityofGI facebook.com/CityofGrandIsland Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 217 / 227 Appendix B – Public Comments Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 218 / 227 From:Joan Jones To:Allan Zafft Subject:Crossing for Hwy 281 Date:Thursday, May 31, 2018 11:11:30 AM I’m so sad I missed the meeting last night! I wanted to find out if there are any plans to cross Hwy 281? There has been several times I would’ve like to walk/run/bike to the west side of the hwy to shop or visit. I think that would be a very good future plan for the trails. There is a crossway on hwy 34 by the college which works out nicely. Joan Jones Joanie Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 219 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 220 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 221 / 227 Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 222 / 227 Public Comment Summary The following provides a summary of the public comments received on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The comments were received through email and comment cards and verbal comments at the public meeting. GIAMPO staff has prepared a response for all comments received. Email Comment: I wanted to find out if there are any plans to cross Hwy 281? There has been several times I would’ve like to walk/run/bike to the west side of the hwy to shop or visit. I think that would be a very good future plan for the trails. There is a crossway on hwy 34 by the college which works out nicely. Response: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides a blueprint to guide the region's investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for the next 20-30 years. In regards to crossing Hwy 281, the master plan recommends addressing key barrier points at Capital, State, and Faidley. The master plan also recommends a grade separated ped/bike crossing over US 281 on the alignment of North Front and a US 281 undercrossing from the Stuhr Trail to the new hospital site. These recommendations are mentioned in Chapter 7 of the master plan. --------------- Comment Cards Comment: Recently moved here from Johnson County, KS. Best trails and cheaper asphalt or crushed rock (like Katy Trail). I think the wide 8' concrete trails are a poor use of construction funds. Will have to look at the Walk Bike website. Need longer loops - ideally about 3.0 miles for a decent workout. But loops as opposed to back even 5-10 miles that I can run multiple times would be fine. Response: The surface of a trail is determined during the design phase based on factors such as budget and maintenance life. Based on the American Association of Street and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012), the appropriate paved width for multi- use trail is dependent on the context, volume, and mix of users. The minimum paved width for a two-directional trail is 10 feet. Trails that experience a high use and/or a wider variety user groups may warrant greater width from 10 to 14 feet. Eight-foot widths may be used in circumstances such as areas with very limited right-of-way. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 223 / 227 Comment acknowledged regarding need longer loops. --------------- Comment: I would like benches on the trails for walking - every 1/2 mile to 3/4 mile apart. Signs on the trails where the connection is. Response: The placement of benches along a trail is dependent on budget. Chapter 4 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies potential locations for major trailheads, minor trailheads, and nodes. Facilities for a major trailhead, minor trailhead, and node may include benches. Comment acknowledged regarding signs at trail connections. Chapter 7 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends support programs and policies such as a Citywide Wayfinding System. A carefully designed identification and directional graphics system can greatly increase users’ comfort and ease of navigating the trail system. --------------- Comment: Seedling mile segment S/B a higher priority. Lots of east residents would like access to city (esp. kids in school area). Response: Comment acknowledged. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan currently recommends the proposed Seedling Mile Trail as a later phase trail. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is a living document and should be revisited as needed to ensure that the system being developed continues to meet the needs and priorities of the Grand Island metropolitan planning area at the time. --------------- Comment: Would like to see lighting on the trails. In the winter it gets dark early and limits the time out. Response: Lighting along trails is typically determined during the design phase based on factors such as budget and feedback from adjacent property owner(s). --------------- Verbal Comments Comment: Put a HAWK signal by the library. Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 224 / 227 Response: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies Lincoln Street crossing of 2nd Street at the library as a proposed barrier removal project. Chapter 5 of the master plan describes a toolbox of intersection safety enhancements such as grade separation, pedestrian refuge median, high visibility crosswalks, beacons (HAWKS), and protected intersection. Application of these to specific locations in the Grand Island area will be determined by further engineering evaluation, including a traffic study where relevant, and detailed plans that will be reviewed and approved by a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer. --------------- Comment: Are there any plans to extend sidewalk west of Shoemaker? Old Potash with the 35/45 mph has lots of heavy traffic. Copper Creek Subdivision has 250 family homes now. What about the safety of these children? Response: Sidewalks would be extended west of Shoemaker Elementary School when Old Potash Hwy is widened between North Road and Engleman Road. The design and construction to widen this section of Old Potash Hwy is contingent on available funding and the needs and priorities of the Grand Island region. Chapter 6 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan analyzes sidewalk coverage within 1/4 mile of each elementary and middle school in the Grand Island public school system and suggest potential options for increasing local area coverage. --------------- Comment: Need shared route/bicycle boulevard! No way to safely bike to Railside (downtown), specifically across the highway. Please make a safe across. Response: Chapter 3 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan presents the proposed active transportation network for Grand Island. This network includes the on-street network that encompass routes to Downtown using a variety of facility types such as shared lanes, bicycle boulevards, or multi-use shoulders. --------------- Comment: Koenig may require barrier protection, as opposed to relying on paint and signs. Too many fast cars. But support making Koenig bikable as a concept. Response: All recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan are preliminary and may change with detailed design. Projects should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 225 / 227 when funding becomes available and may require additional engineering evaluation, including traffic studies where relevant. --------------- Comment: Support railroad overpass. Response: One of the goals in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is removing or improving barriers that discourage people from walking or biking for transportation. For example, the master plan recommends that a ped/bike accessible overpass over the UP railroad tracks should be included in a future Broadwell grade separation project. --------------- Comment: Please mark the trails! Sometimes a trail follows a sidewalk. Then the trail turns and the sidewalk continues. One does not know the trail turns without signal stating that the trail turns here. (Paint works well - just a suggestion) Response: Comment acknowledged. Chapter 7 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends support programs and policies such as a Citywide Wayfinding System. A carefully designed identification and directional graphics system can greatly increase users’ comfort and ease of navigating the trail system. --------------- Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 226 / 227 GIAMPO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-9 Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization A Resolution Approving the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan WHEREAS, the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO), is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Grand Island Urbanized Area, by the Governor acting through the Nebraska Department of Transportation in cooperation with locally elected officials of the Grand Island Urbanized Area; and WHEREAS, GIAMPO has prepared a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to guide the Grand Island region’s investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and programs; and WHEREAS, the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan has involved extensive public participation and outreach efforts; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives contained in the Long Range Transportation Plan “Journey 2040”; and WHEREAS, the Draft of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was made available for public comment for at least a fifteen (15) day period; and WHEREAS, the Draft of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was reviewed and recommendation for adoption by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was made at their May 21, 2018 meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Policy Board of the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization approves and adopts the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairperson is hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement on behalf of the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Certification: The foregoing resolution was approved by the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on August 28, 2018. By: Attest: ______________________________ ______________________________ Jeremy Jensen, Mayor / Chairperson John Collins, Public Works Director Grand Island Regular Session - 8/28/2018 Page 227 / 227