The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 07/07/2011 �C`i7'Y�� i�.�E.'. �� Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. July 07, 2011 6:00 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IIL ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING-BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF 70HN G. CARROLL,CHAIR KATHY MCCLUNG,CD DIRECTOR MARCIA SANDS,VICE CHAIR SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP BILL BATES MIKE BASINGER, SENIOR PLANNER,AICP RusTiN HaLL STEVEN NEILL 70E MANN DEANNA GRIFFITH,CFM JOE STOY WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 7, 2011 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent � old business ❑ new business �public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) —Public Hearing PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On June 23, 2011 Planning Commission was briefed on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP). BACKGROUND: The Draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP)will be an element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expanding on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. This element must be consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. As an element of the Ciry of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, this chapter includes background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 1 l.l), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 113). Section 11.4, contains the city-wide bike and pedestrian facility map, recommended improvements, and potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter will guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it will detail priorities and standards for development. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed BPMP was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 17, 2011. SEPA REVIEW: Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA—RCW 4321C) an Environmental Checklist was required for the BPMP. Under SEPA, the BPMP is considered a "non-project actions" defined as actions involving decisions on policies,plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the physical development of the bike and pedestrian facilities. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the BPMP. A Determination of Non-significance (DNS)was issued for the BPMP on June 17, 2011 consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Bike and Pedestrian Master Pro,�ram (Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments) 1of2 The Planning Commission finds the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) text amendments to be consistent with Section 17.80.140 (H) of the Spokane T�alley Municipal Code (SVMC). The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval of Chapter 11- Bike and Pedestrian Element and accompanying appendices as amendments to the comprehensive plan. I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings in the staff�epo�t and �ecommends app�oval of Chapte� 11- Bike and Pedestr�ian Element and accompanying appendices to the City Council as amendments to the Comp�ehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Findings Revised Public Hearing Draft (Chapter 11 —Bike and Pedestrian Element) Revised Staff Report—Incorporating PC requested changes 2of2 COMMUN[TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P[.a�v�v[�vc D[v[s[o�v �`*'�'Z'Q�r�� STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE � �i PLANNING COMMISSION �'��.11ey BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PROGRAM(BPMP) STAFF REPORT DATE:July 7, 2011 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 7, 2011, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The Draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) will be an element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expanding on the Transportation Element to focus on non- motorized transportation. This element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. As an element of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,this chapter includes background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 11.1), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 11.3). Section 11.4, contains the city-wide bike and pedestrian facility map, recommended improvements, and potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter will guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it will detail priorities and standards for development. The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provide for the inclusion of non-motorized transportation elements in comprehensive plans. Bike and pedestrian planning is sometimes included in the land use, transportation or recreation elements. Using a separate element to address opportunities and constraints specific to these non-motorized forms of transportation allows the City of Spokane Valley to focus on improvements that enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments to the comprehensive plan do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. After a thorough review of the completed environmental checklist, the lead agency has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley,Washington. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley,WA APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. STAFF PLANNER: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENTS: Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Element Appendices Maps I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: Not Applicable Determination of Completeness: Not Applicable Issuance of Determination of IVon-Significance (DIVS): June 17, 2011 End of Appeal Period for DNS: July 01, 2011 Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 17, 2011 Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: June 17, 2011 PUBLIC PROCESS: This Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) was created over a year and a half period with participation from a diverse group of citizens, residents and interested parties.A contact database was created to ensure interested parties were notified throughout development of the plan. Over 900 contacts were included within five months of initiation. The first in a series of BPMP workshops was held on June 16, 2010. A diverse group voiced opinions and concerns on bicycling and walking in the City. Through an interactive exercise, the participants identified destinations, obstacles, and preferred routes for bike and pedestrian facilities.An on-line survey was made available through the City's web page. Over 350 responses were received from the online survey, indicating a significant level of interest. The short, non- statistical survey gathered additional insight into the biking and walking experience in Spokane Valley and into desired routes and destinations. From the gathered data, a preliminary connection assessment and potential route recommendations were developed. Details of existing rights-of-way,pavement width,driveway approaches and traffic counts were gathered. A second community workshop was held on September 19, 2010 to present preliminary bike and pedestrian routes and connections based on the information gathered at the first workshop and through the on-line survey. The Spokane Regional Health District presented information on health impacts associated with alternative modes of transportation. By prioritizing potential projects,participants helped create a vision of a comprehensive bike and pedestrian network. The workshops were publicized online, at schools, bike shops and community facilities throughout the City. In addition, staff prepared newsletters and maintained a BPMP page on the City of Spokane Valley website. Quarterly updates were presented to the City Council as part of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant(EECBG) status reports. StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 CONSULTANT: A portion of money from the City's EECBG funded an engineering consultant to review the proposed routes for safety, cost and prioritizations. This engineering assessment provides technical guidance to help ensure that proposed bike and pedestrian facilities, such as bike lanes on arterials or shared use paths in neighborhoods,are safe, functional, and appropriate for the set route. Desired routes were refined based on technical input from the consultant. Classifications for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities were reviewed based on the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and industry standards. Comprehensive Plan text, maps and exhibits were prepared. Priorities and preliminary implementation schedules were included. Additional workshops were held to gather input on the draft BPMP document. Finally,the BPMP was presented to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals were received. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17�GENERAL PROVISIONS� OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140(H) of the SVMC provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Staff Response: Promoting walking and bicycling can help ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. Walking and bicycling can help to promote interaction between neighbors, strengthen connection to the community, provide `eyes-on-the-street' security, and support local retail activity. Communities that provide facilities for walking and biking have proven to be prosperous ("Economic Development and Smart Growth°, International Economic Development Council). Cities around the nation with the most positive economic growth and solid resources from tourism, general retail and other sources are towns where all people can come and feel comfortable to bike and walk. StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Staff Response: The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are not in conflict with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act) and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the plan itself. 3. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific. This approval criterion does not apply. 4. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments will not result in changes to specific properties. 5. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: Currently, the Comprehensive Plan addresses multimodal transportation in a general fashion in the Transportation Element. The Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan will expand on the Transportation Element with a detailed focus on non-motorized transportation. This element will address opportunities and constraints specific to non-motorized forms of transportation allowing the City to focus improvements that enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. Section 17.80.140(H) of the SVMC provides the following factors that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. The factors are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The effect of the physical environment; Staff Response: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The implementation of the bike and pedestrian program should provide more opportunities for biking and walking reducing vehicle trips resulting in fewer emissions to the air and less noise. At the time of development, new impervious surfaces may be developed creating the need for stormwater treatment. Some of the City's existing stormwater swales have excess capacity that could be used to treat newly developed impervious surfaces from bike lanes. Most of the recommended bike lanes are on existing arterials and collectors that merely require a reconfiguration of the road striping. 2. The effect on open space,streams, rivers,and lakes; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. Future projects associated with the BPMP would likely not affect open space, streams,rivers,and lakes. 3. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 4. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation,and schools; Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The Parks and Recreation Plan provide an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan,which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. The BPMP will provide a comprehensive, balanced and equitable bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. 5. The benefit to the neighborhood, City,and region; Staff Response: The BPMP will increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the connectivity, safety, convenience and attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network in the City of Spokane Valley. 6. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and do not address land quantity or land use designations. 7. The current and projected population density in the area; and Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. The proposed amendments do not demand population analysis; however, population projections and capacity numbers were updated through this amendment process. 8. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Anal,� The Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expands on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. Also referred to as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program, this element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. Conclusion(s): The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments are consistent with the approval criteria and factors contained in the SVMC. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comments to date. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: The City is required under RCW.70A.106 to send comprehensive plan amendments to Department of Commerce (DOC) for review 60-days prior to adoption. The DOC will be notified prior to June 24, 2011. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) and applicable approval criteria and factors recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Chapter 11, Bike and Pedestrian Element to further focus on non-motorized transportation. V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140) when recommending changes to the Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Findings: Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Section 17.80.140 (H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. Plannin,g Commission Findin,gs and Factors(Section 17.180.140H of the SVMCZ Findinas a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by promoting walking and bicycling to ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhancing the livability and economic vitality of our community. b. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth ManagementAct). c. The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. This approval criterion does not apply. d. The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not correct mapping errors. This approval criterion does not apply. e. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not affect open space,streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not impact adjacent land uses orsurrounding neighborhoods d. The adequacy of community facilities is determined on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. The BPMP will provide a comprehensive, balanced and eauitable bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. e. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and do not address land quantity or land use designations. StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 f. The BPMP will increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the connectivity, safety, convenience and attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network. g. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. h. The proposed amendments do not demand population analysis. i. The Bike and Pedestrian Element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission finds the 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments to be consistent with Section 17.80.140(H)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). 1 move the Planning Commission adopt the .findings in the sta�'f report and recommend approval to the Citv Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan text to include Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Element. StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 7 of 7 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 11- BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT 11.0 Introduction 11.0.1 Why Plan for Bicycling and Walking? Bicycling in urban areas has grown dramatically in the last decade due to factors such as healthier lifestyles, rising fuel costs and a desire to lessen impacts on the environment. By creating safe places to ride, the development of new facility types such as bike lanes, bike boulevards, and shared use paths have enabled more people to use bike transportation. In addition, as the importance of a healthy lifestyle has grown, the desire to incorporate exercise through walking has also grown. As a basic form of mobility, virtually all trips—regardless of mode—start and end with walking. The City of Spokane Valley has the essential elements to create a great place to bike and walk. Most streets connect, congestion is minimal, the terrain is flat, and weather is suitable many months of the year. For these reasons, biking and walking is a great way to get around the City. Where there are close links between home and destinations (such as school, work, and shops) walking and cycling can be the preferred and efficient way to move from place to place. Promoting walking and bicycling can help ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. They help to promote interaction between neighbors, strengthen connection to the community, provide `eyes-on-the-streeY security, and support local retail activity. By comparison, streets and places where people are not present often feel uncomfortable and barren. In addition, communities that provide facilities for walking and biking have proven to be prosperous ("Economic Development and Smart Growth", International Economic Development Council). Cities around the nation with the most positive economic growth and solid resources from tourism, general retail and other sources are towns where all people can come and feel comfortable. 11.0.2 Overview As an element of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, this chapter is organized to present background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 11.1), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 11.3). Section 11.4, contains the city-wide bike and pedestrian facility map, recommended improvements, and potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter will guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it will detail priorities and standards for development. 11.0.3 Vision Statements To increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the connectivity, safety, convenience and attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network in the City of Spokane Valley. To identify and prioritize facility recommendations based on thorough data collection and analysis, community visioning, regional collaboration, engineering assessment and preliminary cost estimates. 11.0.4 Process Several steps were involved in creating the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. a. Data Collection A comprehensive field inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities was conducted, identifying constraints and opportunities for improvements. The City coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions as well as bike, pedestrian and health advocates, property owners Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and other stakeholders. This step included a thorough review of the existing adopted Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, including a review of the bike facility map, goals and policies related to bike and walking activity, as well as a review of recently approved similar plans in the region. Accident data and funding sources for potential future projects were also gathered. A sidewalk inventory completed by students at Washington State University (WSU)was added to the City GIS system. b. Public Outreach This Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) was created over a year and a half period with participation from a diverse group of citizens, residents and interested parties. A contact database was created to ensure interested parties were notified throughout the development of the plan. Over 900 contacts were included within five months of initiation. The first in a series of BPMP workshops was held on June 16, 2010. A diverse group voiced opinions and concerns on bicycling and walking in the City. Through an interactive exercise, the participants identified destinations, obstacles, and preferred routes for bike and pedestrian facilities. An on-line survey was made available through the City's web page. Over 350 responses were received from the online survey, indicating a significant level of interest. The short, non-statistical survey gathered additional insight into the biking and walking experience in Spokane Valley and into desired routes and destinations. c. Connectivity Assessment and Route Recommendations From the gathered data, a preliminary connection assessment and potential route recommendations were developed. Details of existing rights-of-way, pavement width, driveway approaches and traffic counts were gathered. d. Continued Public Outreach A second community workshop was held on September 19, 2010 to present preliminary bike and pedestrian routes and connections based on the information gathered at the first workshop and through the on-line survey. The Spokane Regional Health District presented information on health impacts associated with alternative modes of transportation. By prioritizing potential projects, participants helped create a vision of a comprehensive bike and pedestrian network. The workshops were publicized online, at schools, bike shops and community facilities throughout the City. In addition, staff prepared newsletters and maintained a BPMP page on the City of Spokane Valley website. Quarterly updates were presented to the City Council as part of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) status reports. e. Safety Analysis and Prioritization of Improvements A portion of money from the City's EECBG funded an engineering consultant to review the proposed routes for safety, cost and prioritizations. This engineering assessment provides technical guidance to help ensure that proposed bike and pedestrian facilities, such as bike lanes on arterials or shared use paths in neighborhoods, are safe, functional, and appropriate for the set route. f. Plan Refinement, Review and Adoption Desired routes were refined based on technical input from the consultant. Classifications for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities were reviewed based on the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and industry standards. Comprehensive Plan text, maps and exhibits were prepared. Priorities and preliminary implementation schedules were included. Additional workshops were held to gather input on the draft BPMP document. Finally, the BPMP was presented to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.0.5 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Technical Advisory Group Developing the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program resulted in partnerships and collaboration between the City, adjoining jurisdictions and many other interested agencies and individuals. Representatives from many of these groups served on the Bike and Pedestrian Technical Advisory Group (BPTAG). The BPTAG met several times to review and make recommendations on potential routes, facilities and implementation strategies. 11.0.6 Partnerships Preparation of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program has involved a wide range of people and agencies. Partnerships and collaboration contributes to the quality and integrity of the program. Maintaining these partnerships will contribute toward successful implementation and realization of shared goals. a. Spokane Regional Health District The Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) serves as the area's public health leader and partner in protecting and improving the health of the community. The Health DistricYs Physical Activity program works with community coalitions, elected officials, citizen groups and other organizations to encourage policies that make it easier for people to be physically active. An analysis of existing social, economic and health statistics of the residents of the City of Spokane Valley was prepared (Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile). The role of SRHD was to bring awareness of the positive health impact bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can have on a community. b. School Districts and Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School is a national program aimed at enabling community leaders, schools and parents across the country to improve safety and encourage more children to be active by safely walking and bicycling to school. In the process, work associated with Safe Routes to School contributes to reducing traffic congestion, improving physical health, and making communities more livable overall. The SRHD along with the City, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Central Valley School District, East Valley School District, and West Valley School District worked diligently through the 2010/2011 school year to prepare walking audits of all elementary and middle schools. Walking audits are detailed surveys of streets and sidewalks within a one-mile radius surrounding a school using the Safe Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students (site: WSDOT and WTSC 2010). Results of the audits are used to prepare preferred walking routes for students and to identify and prioritize street and sidewalk safety projects. Continued coordinated efforts between school districts, SRHD and the City will aid in the successful implementation of safe routes for pedestrians of all ages. c. Bicycle Alliance of Washington The Bicycle Alliance of Washington is a non-profit organization advocating for bicyclists and bike-friendly communities throughout Washington. The Alliance works toward increasing the percentage of all types of bicycle riders and increasing funding available for inclusive, non-motorized transportation facilities. The Alliance works closely with Safe Routes to School programs and serves as a clearinghouse for bicycle education and advocacy. d. Washington State University In 2007, Washington State University, Interdisciplinary Design Institute created a pedestrian model by mapping pedestrian networks throughout Spokane Transit Authority's service area, identifying barriers such as the absence of sidewalks and curb ramps, and non-ADA compliant variations in the surface condition, height, width, and slope of pedestrian facilities. The data has been used to identify existing routes and to determine sidewalk infill priorities. By partnering with the City, data developed through the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program will be used to update the WSU pedestrian network model. In Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan turn, the model will be useful in prioritizing pedestrian improvements in an effort to increase safety throughout the City. e. Spokane Regional Transportation Council The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) is the local metropolitan planning organization encouraging coordination and collaboration between planning and transportation departments throughout the region. SRTC maintains the Transportation Improvement Program, a three-year list of state and federally-funded transportation projects, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan in Spokane County, a document addressing transportation needs for the next 20 years. SRTC recognizes that walking and bicycling are simple and efficient modes of travel that can increase public transit ridership. Coordination between the City and SRTC will create opportunities to implement effective non-motorized projects and programs. 11.1 Planninq Context The Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expands on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. Also referred to as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program, this element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. 11.1.1 GMA The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provide for the inclusion of non-motorized transportation elements in comprehensive plans. Bike and pedestrian planning is sometimes included in the land use, transportation or recreation elements. Using a separate element to address opportunities and constraints specific to these non-motorized forms of transportation allows the City of Spokane Valley to focus on improvements that enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. Several items relative to non-motorized transportation planning are found in the RCW and the WAC: a. Coordination Similar to freeways and arterials, a bicycle and pedestrian network extends through one jurisdiction to another. The comprehensive plans of each county or city must be coordinated with, and consistent with, those of adjacent counties or cities (RCW 36.70A.100). b. Concurrency A jurisdiction is responsible for setting level of service standards based on the urban or rural character of the area and consistent with the land use plan and policies. Multimodal level of service methodologies and standards should consider the needs of travelers using the four major modes of travel: automobile, public transit, cycling and walking. The desired community character, available funding and traveler expectations should be considered when adopting levels of service for transportation facilities (WAC 365-196-840). c. Climate Change The State of Washington legislature recognized that it is in the public's interest to reduce the state's dependence on foreign sources of carbon fuels that do not promote energy independence or the economic strength of the state. The legislature therefore encourages the development of policies, practices and methodologies that may assist counties and cities in addressing challenges associated with transportation-related alternatives (RCW 2008 c 289). Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.1.2 County-Wide Planning Policies County Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) provide a policy framework for the County and its respective cities. Specifically items 10 and 16 under Policy Topic 5—Transportation, state: 10. Each jurisdiction should coordinate its housing and transportation strategies to support existing, or develop new, public multimodal transportation systems. 16. Each jurisdiction shall address energy consumption/conservation by: a. Designing transportation improvements for alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; b. Locating and adopting design standards for new development to support pedestrian or non-motorized travel; c. Providing regulatory and financial incentives to promote efforts of the public and private sector to conserve energy; and d. Reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled and number of vehicle trips. As described in Section 11.0.6 above, the SRTC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Spokane region. SRTC maintains the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), a 20-year strategy to meet the transportation needs of the region. MTP goals related to non-motorized transportation include: • Establishing a bicycle and pedestrian program that will increase the mode-share of people walking and bicycling as a means of transportation over the next 20 years; • Eliminating barriers that discourage or prohibit pedestrian or bicycle access; • Identifying the needs and gaps in the regional bicycle and pedestrian system; and • Encouraging connections between residential areas and adjacent land uses to enhance awareness and cooperation between all roadway users. The MTP facilitated the creation of three complementary products: the Spokane Regional Bike Plan (adopted in 2008); the Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan (adopted in 2009) and the SmartRoutes program. All of these were collaborative efforts with SRTC, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Active Transportation Technical Committee (including representatives from the City of Spokane Valley and other cities and towns) and a citizen-based steering committee. Each of these documents encourages jurisdictions to tailor the regional plans to their own needs and to use them for guidance to develop appropriate bicycle and pedestrian projects that traverse jurisdictional lines. 11.2 Existinq Settinq 11.2.1 Comprehensive Plan The City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies to guide development within the City. All elements within the Comprehensive Plan must be internally consistent. Goals found within other elements encourage the development and implementation of a bike and pedestrian system within the City. The following are from the Land Use, Transportation, Natural Environment and the parks and Recreation elements: Land Use -Goal LUG-7 Provide a balanced transportation network that accommodates public transportation, high occupancy vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and integrated parking. Transportation -Goal TG-9 Enhance community livability and transportation by encouraging a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment -Goal NEG-20 Support regional efforts to improve air quality. Parks and Recreation -Goal PRG-4 Based upon budgetary resources, promote, develop, operate and maintain a comprehensive trail/bicycle system within Spokane Valley that provides non-motorized travel (walking, bicycling, skating, and horseback riding)to meet city residents recreation, fitness and commuting needs. 11.2.2 Current Activity a. Citizen Input To ensure the bike and pedestrian system reflects the community's desires, an extensive outreach component was built into the process. As described in the previous section, this process included workshops and an on-line survey. The results showed that a majority of respondents walk or bicycle for exercise/health, enjoyment, or to commute to work/school. When asked what prevents a person from biking or walking, an overwhelming 70% of the respondents said it was due to the lack of facilities. The results showed the community's desire to see improved bike and pedestrian facilities in or around the following six routes: 1. Sprague Avenue 2. Pines Road 3. 32�d Ave/ Dishman Mica � ` 4. Argonne/ Mullan corridor 5. Valleyway Avenue (as a bike boulevard) , 6. Sullivan Road Many mentioned the need for more north/south connections to the Centennial trail. The preferred facilities were bike lanes and shared use paths. The graphs below illustrate the respondenYs views. A full summary of the survey and community input results can be found in Appendix 2 to this Chapter. _ Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Why do you Bike or Walk? 94% 89% 93% 58% 57% 43% 34% 25% .,� '� : �P;---- � - �7 G`ye ¢�� 0�5 �as o°� �y� a�� `cec �+�� J� Qea`' �ca �5r '��a o� O o Q. �t�� \.s\ �po\ o`E ,`Y.o �e � � y� z �� a��'� �.coe� J,�e° �C°� ooc ��to�� <'�� What prevents you from Biking or Walking �o.4�ro 55% 44% 29.0% 28% 26% 16% 13% 17% � � �' � 5% j �h �,5 A �� e ot t ,�� .�,� t.5 e,t a°��\ Qa�`� J�\\ e��G e�'cm,` `�`�,\o ��a a� �� r � �, �,�4 ,`�,'� � �e a� �Q r ��o� �� ,�� a�a oi`�,�5 G\\��5 Q��a ��e� `��.� �, �yJ�`�� Qa �oa �o� �� `� pt` �`y�a� � ` G Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Destinations 2s�ro 21% 21% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% ��m� �a� G�5 ��e �ac`1 y��o'� ooa a�5 �GG Qo�S �� G�� a�� GP ��a G�� ,� a\p� �O� Q �or ��a J a\�� -l� G�� .p �`�� oQ�a J �r � F Difficult Roadways for Cyclists 24�ro ��ro 16% � 10% I 5% 6% 0 2% 3% 3% � 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% PQ�\��aP��Q�,��a�e�o�a��iQma�G i�ara��,�`�e¢,�`�o�e�`yy`o�` Qa`�Q\��`��J\``�a��i�J�\,e�y�a\��a� �r � O` Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan What Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities do you prefer? Bicycle Boulevards^ 23% � Bike Lanes � 34% i �� Signed Shared Roadways Shared Use 16% ' Paths 27% What would you like to see implemented? a��ro 66% 55% 47% 46% 37% 33% 27% � � � � �.. P �. � QarS G��`o� ��55 �� aQ5 `G�,S ��o �\,�5 Jye �aJ P�at �,`io� �G\�� \�o \�G�� cea �`° r i �� ao �`°��,ca Q�'p � �a�'� ot ��Q�m \ot �` c a� �� i� �� a b. Health Data As part of the initial community workshops, the SRHD prepared information correlating active lifestyles, including bicycle and pedestrian commutes, to improved health. Obesity can be defined as a person with a body mass index of 30 or greater. Obesity-related illnesses include heart disease and strokes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, diabetes and some forms of cancer. Less than 'h of all adults and children are getting the recommended levels of moderate physical activity. In the City of Spokane Valley, SRHD Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan data also shows that only 52.7 percent of the City's population met the recommended physical activity level. Their data also show that from 2004 to 2008, 26.8 percent of the population was obese and an additional 37.7 percent was overweight. Lack of physical activity increases health risks, resulting in increased costs for medical care, worker compensation and lost productivity. SRHD estimates this cost as $141.8 million per year or approximately $1,967 per person in Spokane Valley (site: The College of Health and Human Performance). Obesity and lack of activity contribute to chronic diseases including cancer, heart and respiratory disease. The top five causes of death in Spokane Valley are shown below: Table 11.1 Top Five Causes of Death,Spokane Valley 2004-2008 Cause of Death Rate per 100,000 Rank Cancer 184.0 1 Diseases of the Heart 159.7 2 Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 50.5 3 Cerebrovascular Diseases—Stroke � 48.2 4 Injuries 45.8 5 Literature reviews have shown that urban design and land use policies creating opportunities for physical activity within communities have been effective and are considered best practices for increasing a community's health and reducing obesity. The relationship between the presence of sidewalks and the amount of physical activity are illustrated below: Preserrce �f Sidewalks Encourages 11Walking�° GJ 1 �� -_� � `�- � .�r...�.' �,, 15 � .q �, 1 D b � � - J U � Cr a 0 �L7 ?� �� dL? 5[} �� 7t� 9!} 9(7 100 Per��Ptt�f rou�e r�;it�i a sidewalk Source: Rodriguez D,et al., 151-173 Approximately 65 percent of Spokane County's carbon monoxide emissions are from vehicle sources. Reducing vehicle trips by accommodating and encouraging active transportation positively impacts health by improving air quality. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 10 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan SRHD also considers socio-economic factors as they relate to health. A link exists between education, poverty, and mobility choices. In Spokane Valley, between 2004 and 2008, 37.4 percent of the population had less than a high school diploma or GED. The amount of education a person achieves influences their ability to earn a certain standard of living. Between 2004 and 2008, 43.9 percent of the City's population was at or below the 200 percent federal poverty level. This equates to a family of four earning $3,400 per month or less. The poorest fifth of Americans spend 42 percent of their annual household budget on automobile ownership (site: Surface Transportation Policy Project). That is more than twice the national average. A substantial percentage of the population either cannot afford automobile transportation, or affording it is a financial hardship. For these people, in addition to the young in age and the older population, getting around by other alternatives such as walking, bicycling or transit is a necessity. c. Collision Data The Washington State Department of Transportation maintains records of pedestrian and bicycle collision data. Between 2007 and 2009, there was one fatality and eight serious or disabling injuries in Spokane Valley associated with pedestrian and bicycle collisions. An additional 76 reported events resulted in possible injuries. The majority of the collisions occurred on major arterials including Argonne, Pines and Sullivan Roads. It is estimated that many bicycle and pedestrian collisions have happened but have not been reported. 11.2.3 Existing Bicycle System Though developed as a compilation of rural townships over time, the City of Spokane Valley has a strong grid pattern of streets. The placement of principal and minor arterials, collectors and local access streets overlaid on the relatively flat topography provides an excellent base for non- motorized transportation. a. Types of Bicycle Users There are many types of bicyclists with varying skills and levels of comfort in terms of riding in traffic. While bicyclists can be loosely categorized as experienced adult, casual adult and child cyclists, there are many levels of cycling competency and just as many opinions as to what makes an ideal bike route. Some experienced cyclists ride on busy arterial streets regardless of bicycle facilities. Some cyclists will ride on busy roads only if bike lanes are provided. Some will use the lanes only if parallel residential roads are unavailable. Children are at times encouraged to use sidewalks if available. b. Existing Bicycle Facilities A combination of striped bike lanes, posted bike routes and separated bike facilities are found throughout the City. In addition, other streets act as informal routes, favored by bicycle commuters as safe and convenient alternatives to bike ways with heavy automobile traffic. The following different types of bicycle facilities, as defined by the AASHTO (American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials) are found throughout Spokane Valley: i. Shared Use Path: Facilities on separated right-of-way and with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Minimum width is six feet; optimal width is ten feet. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. • The Centennial Trail is an example of a shared use path in the City. With connections through adjacent jurisdictions, it is an important regional recreational and commuting facility. Other shared use paths exist along the south side of Appleway Avenue from Sprague Avenue to the eastern City Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 11 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan boundary and on Sullivan Road, from Centennial Trail to just south of Trent Road. ii. Bike Lanes: A portion of a roadway designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. The required width of a bike lane on a given street varies based on several factors, such as existence of a gutter and curb. Parking and traffic volume must be considered as well. AASHTO and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) guidelines recommend that for a street without gutter or curb, the minimum width of the bike lane should be four feet. If the street includes curb and gutter, the minimum width should be five feet. In situations where parking is permitted without any striping or stalls, ASSHTO guidelines recommend an 11-foot bike lane width. Bicycle lanes improve conditions for cyclists of all abilities within a given corridor and encourage increased bicycle use by providing a greater degree of comfort and perceived safety for less skilled cyclists. • Striped bicycle lanes are located along several arterials, including 32�d Avenue, portions of Broadway, Evergreen Road, Mission Road, Sprague Avenue and 16th Avenue. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and Indiana Avenue from Mirabeau to Evergreen Road are also improved with bike lanes. iii. Signed Shared Roadway: Signed lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. Minimum width is 14 feet. Signed shared roadways indicate to cyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes compared to alternate routes. • In the City of Spokane Valley, signed shared roadways exist on 4th Avenue from University to Conklin, and on Trent from Flora to the eastern city boundary. iv. Shared Roadway: Lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. No signing is involved. • All public streets in the City of Spokane Valley can be defined as shared roadways. Existing bike facilities in the City of Spokane Valley are shown in Map 11.1. Other bicycle facilities found throughout the City include bicycle parking facilities at some commercial, public and office facilities and bicycle racks on transit vehicles. c. System Deficiencies Barriers surrounding both recreation and commuting bicycle activity throughout the City include crossing Interstate 90, railroad tracks, and the river. Currently, only Principal Arterials cross these barriers, which do provide a safe and comfortable option for bicyclists. The limited space for bike facilities on these arterials plus the traffic volume hinders the safety and comfort for many riders. This impacts those trying to access commercial and employment centers in the north part of the City as well as those trying to access the Centennial Trail. Other factors impacting bicycle activity include impaired sight distances, limited street connectivity, cyclist and motorist behaviors, lack of way-finding signs, and maintenance issues. 11.2.5 Existing Pedestrian System a. Types of Pedestrians For trips of a certain length, walking is the simplest, most affordable way to get around. Spokane Valley, with relatively flat terrain and a predominately grid street pattern, has great opportunities for pedestrians of all kinds. People choose to walk for many of reasons including recreation and necessity. Pedestrians include children, seniors, people without cars and people with disabilities. Those with higher levels of transportation choice, i.e. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 12 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan those specifically able to afford cars and of driving age, make use of autos for most trips. This situation is not so much a reflection of popular transportation preferences but of the many auto-dominated land use and transportation decisions that created present day Spokane Valley. All citizens, including those driving cars as well as seniors, youth and people with disabilities, need safety, connectivity and accessibility. b. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk inventories were performed by City staff as part of the analyses conducted for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program and the American with Disabilities Act transition plan. Also, in association with the Safe Routes to School program, volunteers from all elementary and middle schools in the City conducted walking audits to determine potential routes to their schools and to identify missing sidewalk segments, potential pedestrian conflicts and existing safe haven areas for students. The existing pedestrian system in Spokane Valley includes sidewalks, shared use paths, wide shoulders on rural roads and residential streets. Generally, sidewalks exist on most of the existing principal, minor and collector arterials and range in width from three to six feet. In addition, most streets surrounding elementary, middle and high school facilities are improved with sidewalks. Several shared-use paths, intended for all types of non- motorized transportation, are located throughout the City (see section on existing bicycle facilities above). Map 11.3 shows locations of existing sidewalk facilities. Other infrastructure associated with pedestrian activity includes curb ramps, intersection markings, cross walks with and without associated signals, benches and shelters for transit facilities, and street trees. c. System Deficiencies: For the most part, sidewalks on arterials are constructed adjacent to the curb and lanes where cars are traveling in excess of 30 and 40 miles per hour, impacting pedestrian comfort and safety. In addition, while current development standards require separated sidewalks, there are portions where sidewalks were not built with initial street construction. Other factors making walking difficult include crosswalk issues on high-volume streets, obstructions such as power poles and utility boxes in the sidewalk, outdated or non-existent curb ramps, poor lighting, limited facilities at transit stops, and maintenance issues. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 13 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.3 Goals and Policies Spokane Valley is intended to become a bicycle and pedestrian friendly City, where bicycling and walking are encouraged and promoted as safe and convenient forms of transportation and recreation. Goals help guide actions towards fulfilling this vision. Policies are more specific statements relating to implementing measures that will achieve the goals. As with many cities, Spokane Valley will have limited funds with which to pursue its bike and pedestrian goals. The City will have to use its resources in a focused and prioritized manner to have a positive impact on non-motorized transportation infrastructure. It will be imperative that Spokane Valley make strategic investments of the limited resources available and where possible, leverage resources in cooperation with other governmental and private agencies. The following goals and policies are consistent with the goals and policies of other chapters of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, with the Countywide Planning Policies and the Growth Management Act. Network and Facilities Goal 8� Policies Goal BP-1 Provide a comprehensive, balanced and equitable bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. Policies BP-1.1 Increase the number of bike lanes, shared use paths and sidewalks throughout the City. BP-1.2 Ensure bicycle parking facilities are provided at commercial and public facilities as well as places of employment. BP-1.3 Work with Spokane Transit Authority to develop safe, comfortable and secure pedestrian amenities and bicycle parking facilities at transit stops as well as bike racks on transit vehicles. BP-1.4 Construct sidewalks, bicycle facilities and shared use paths as part of development where applicable. BP-1.5 Encourage trees, planting strips, bollards and other treatments with new streets, parking lots and other pedestrian activity zones to create an effective safety and visual buffer between the sidewalk and the street. BP-1.6 Coordinate on regional non-motorized efforts in partnership with adjoining jurisdictions and with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. BP-1.7 Cooperatively pursue joint funding applications for implementation that will expand the regional bikeway network. BP-1.8 Maintain pedestrian, bicycle and, when needed, emergency response access rights when street closure or vacation requests are processed. BP-1-9 Use technological advances as available to update and maintain the bicycle and pedestrian network, including but not limited to bar-code scanning technology at wayfinding stations, alternative paving options, etc. Safety and Accessibility Goal and Policies Goal BP-2 Reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian injuries through development of safe and accessible routes for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 14 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Policies BP-2.1 Ensure bicycle and pedestrian facilities meet recognized design standards for safety and accessibility. BP-2.2 Ensure that bicycle routes and shared use paths are properly signed, marked and lit to address personal safety. BP-2.3 Promote safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings of major arterials, railroads, I-90 and the Spokane River through use of innovative treatments where appropriate. BP-2.4 Increase enforcement of pedestrian and bicycle safety rules on City streets and bikeways BP-2.5 Consider potential future regulations to encourage including bicycle helmet use. Promotion and Education Goal and Policies Goal BP-3 Implement comprehensive education and encouragement programs targeted at all populations in the City. Policies BP-3.1 Continue coordinating with the Spokane Regional Health District, the Safe Routes to Schools program, the Sherriff Department, SCOPE and other entities concerned with bicycle and pedestrian safety to create education programs focused on safe bicycle riding, walking and motorist activity. BP-3.2 Continue to work with existing programs such as the Commute Trip Reduction and the Safe Routes to School programs to promote bicycling and walking to work, school, shopping and recreational activities. BP-3.3 Provide current and easily accessible information about the bicycle network, bicycle programs and bicycle parking. Implementation, Funding and Maintenance Goal and Policies Goal BP- 4 Seek funding from all available sources to implement and maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as ongoing education and enforcement. Policies BP-4.1 Maintain a prioritized and phased implementation plan that takes into consideration the scope, cost and benefits of a facility, the available funding opportunities, and the availability of staff. BP-4.2 Include facilities as described in this Bike and Pedestrian Element as part of the annual transportation improvement program (TIP)where feasible. BP-4.3 Review and monitor opportunities for multi-modal grant funding as they become available. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 15 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.4 Bike and Pedestrian Master Proqram 11.4.1 Engineering Improvements a. Overall Bicycle and Pedestrian Network The City of Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Program is based on field data, citizen input and engineering analysis of constraints and opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It should be noted that this is a master program, not a detailed feasibility analysis. As such, exact routing and designations could be modified during the course of more detailed studies of specific projects. The recommended bikeway network is shown in Map 11.2 and recommended pedestrian network is shown in Map 11.4. Map 11.5 shows the recommended travel ways for the schools that participated in the safe routes to school exercise. b. Possible Engineering Solutions The specific types of bike and pedestrian treatments that are applied to roads vary depending on factors such as existing right-of-way, traffic counts, traffic speeds, roadway cross section, number of approaches or driveways on the street, topography, etc. A summary of bicycle treatments are described below. More specific design guidelines including the complete toolbox and typical cross section layouts are found in Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines. i. Bicycle Boulevards — Bicycle boulevards are roadways with low speeds and low volumes optimized for bicycling. The treatments recommended for bicycle boulevards improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes, while discouraging through movements by vehicles. Bicycle boulevard treatments are ideal on two-lane roadways where traffic volume is less than 3,000 vehicles per day (although less than 1,500 vehicles per day is preferred) and posted speeds of 25 miles per hour or less. See Appendix 3 for specific bicycle boulevard treatments and cross sections. ii. Bicycle Lanes - Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway (typically on the right side of the roadway) to be used by bicyclists only. A bike lane is typically located between the right most traffic lane and the curb or on street parking area. A bicycle lane should be considered on roadways with traffic volumes greater than 3,000 vehicles per day or posted speeds greater than 25 miles per hour. Appendix 3 includes � a variety of bicycle lane treatments from a standard bike lane to buffered bike lanes and climbing lanes. The appendix also includes cross sections showing how bike lanes could be applied to existing City roadways. iii. Cycle Tracks - A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk, and is intended to provide improved comfort and safety for the bicyclist as compared to an on-street bike lane. The cycle track can be separated from vehicle traffic using a variety of treatments (curbs, planter strips, on-street parking, pavement markings, or other options). In addition, the cycle track should be clearly defined from sidewalks (grade separated, pavement markings, or an alternate clear indication) to prevent bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. A cycle track requires a wider cross section than a typical bike lane but should be considered on roadways where bicyclists may not feel comfortable biking directly adjacent to vehicle traffic. iv. Bicycle Intersection Treatments - Intersection treatments improve the safety of bicyclists through an intersection (typically a signalized intersection). Depending on the characteristics of the cross streets (traffic and bicycle volumes, traffic and bicycle speeds, type of bicycle facility, number of vehicles and/or bikes turning, visibility, surrounding land use, and other factors) a range of treatments may be applicable. Appendix 3 provides specific intersection treatment guidelines and criteria. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 16 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan v. Mid-Block Crossing Treatments - Mid-block crossings can be dangerous for bicyclists because drivers are not typically expecting a crossing at a non-intersection location. The need for a mid-block crossing may arise if two bicycle facilities are off-set or if a trail intersects a roadway at mid-block. In these situations, mid-block crossing treatments can be applied to improve the safety. vi. Wayfinding - Wayfinding is meant to be used by bicyclists while en route to communicate directions, distance and sometimes expected travel time to a particular destination. Wayfinding is typically accomplished through the use of signs supplemented at times with pavement markings. Wayfinding should be applied to all types of bicycle facilities. vii. Prioritization Criteria — Bicycle Network The overall bicycle and pedestrian networks will be implemented over time. The criteria contained in Table 11.4.1 has been used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement bicycle facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. Table 11.4.1 Bicycle Facility Prioritization Criteria Criteria Reasoning Points Available Mobility and Access(Total of 20 Points) Estimated volume of existing or potential bicycle Projects that serve the most number of 0-5 users people should receive priority. Completes a missing segment of a bicycle path Projects that provide a continuous bicycle 0-5 network are desirable. Provides access to major destinations(shopping, Getting people where they want to go is 0-5 schools,transit,trails, etc.) important. Connects existing routes/eliminates gaps and/or Projects that provide a continuous bike barriers(i.e. I-90,the Spokane River, railroad 0—5 network are desirable. tracks) Safety(Total of 20 Points) Projects that reduce or eliminate an Corrects or improves specific issue areas 0- 10 existing hazard should have priority. Routes with higher vehicular traffic have Improves routes with higher vehicular traffic greater potential safety conflicts that 0-5 should be reduced. Provides an alternative route to a higher volume Routes with lower vehicular volumes and 0-5 and/or higher speed facility speeds have less safety conflicts. Ability to Implement(Total of 10 Points) Project has all or partial funding,or is likely to be Identified funding facilitates quicker 0-5 funded implementation. Route has design and environmental reviews Projects further along in the design and 0-5 initiated review phase can be implemented sooner. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 17 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Maximum Possible Score: 50 Points viii. Prioritization Criteria — Pedestrian Network The criteria contained in Table 11.4.2 was used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement pedestrian facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. Table 11.4.2 Pedestrian Facility Prioritization Criteria Criteria Reasoning Points Available Project Setting(Total of 20 Points) Projects that enable direct access to transit Located within Y4-mile of a transit route increase the availability and use of alternative 0-5 modes of transportation. Connects residential neighborhoods to activity centers Getting people where they want to go is 0-5 important. Completes a missing segment of a pedestrian path Projects that provide a continuous pedestrian 0-5 network are desirable. Estimated volume of existing or potential pedestrian traffic Projects that will serve a higher pedestrian 0-5 population are advantageous. Safety(Total of 15 Points) Part of an identified"Safe Route to School" Improving safety for children is top priority. 0-5 Projects that reduce or eliminate an existing Eliminates or improves an existing barrier hazard and/or that provide a shorter path of 0-5 travel should have priority. Since many destinations are most easily accessed by arterials, increasing pedestrian Increases safety on a classified road safety on these direct paths is important. In 0-5 addition, many pedestrian/vehicle collision incidents occur on these routes where vehicle speed and volume are highest. Ability to Implement(Total of 15 Points) Project has all or partial funding,or is likely to be funded Identified funding facilitates quicker 0-5 implementation. Route has design and environmental reviews initiated Projects further along in the design and review 0-5 phase can be implemented sooner. Projects that demonstrate collaboration and Project involves multiple sponsors cooperation with multiple interest groups build 0-5 community and entitlement. Maximum Possible Score: 50 Points ix. Network Improvements Facility improvements, summarized in Tables 11.4.3 and 11.4.4 below, are categorized as short-term and long-term projects based on need and ease of implementation. Placement of a project within the tables is not meant to guarantee that projects will be completed in a sequential order. Exact timing of improvements will vary depending on Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 18 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan factors such as funding and coordination with other private and public development projects. Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Existing Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements Short Term Projects East—West Routes Valleyway Avenue Flora Road Park Road - Bike boulevard Alki Avenue Barker Road Flora Road - Bike boulevard 12`h Avenue Sullivan Road University Road - Bike boulevard 13`h Avenue University Road Woodruff Road - Bike boulevard 24m�25�n Avenue Sullivan Road University Road - Bike boulevard Sprague Avenue University Road Sullivan Road - Bike lanes Mission Avenue Pines Road Sullivan Road - Bike lanes Mission Avenue Flora Road East City Limits - Bike lanes North Greenacres Centennial Trail East City Limits - Shared Use Path Design partially funded Path Millwood Path Fancher Road Mirabeau _ Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Parkway Design funded Sprague Appleway Path University Road Avenue/ - Shared Use Path Tschirley Road North—South Routes Progress Road 24`h Avenue Mission Avenue - Bike boulevard Blake Road Highway 27 Valleyway _ Bike boulevard Avenue a Pierce Road 32nd Avenue 4`h Avenue - Bike boulevard b 4`h Avenue Pierce Road Skipworth Road - Bike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of connected route. c Skipworth Road 4`h Avenue Appleway Path - Bike boulevard Long Road Appleway Montgomery _ Bike boulevard Avenue Avenue a Marguerite Road Mission Avenue Harrington _ Bike boulevard Avenue b Hutchinson Road Harrington Riverside _ Bike boulevard Avenue Avenue "a, b,c,d"indicates portions of c Harrington Avenue Marguerite Hutchinson _ Bike boulevard connected route. Road Road d Riverside Avenue Hutchinson Argonne Road - Bike boulevard Road University Road 32"d Avenue Mission Avenue - Bike lanes Park Road Sprague Rutter Avenue - Bike lanes Avenue Evergreen Road 8`h Avenue 32nd Avenue - Bike lanes Flora Road Mission Avenue Appleway Path - Bike lanes Long Term Projects East—West Routes a Indiana Avenue East City Limits Arc Street - Bike boulevard b Tschirley Street Indiana Avenue Baldwin _ Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of Avenue connected route. c Baldwin Avenue Arc Street Flora Road - Bike boulevard a 4`h Avenue Park Road Carnahan Road - Bike boulevard b Carnahan Road 4`h Avenue 5`h Avenue - Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of connected route. c 5�h Avenue Carnahan Road Wm t City _ Bike boulevard 16`h Avenue Sullivan Road Rotchford Drive - Bike boulevard Boone Avenue University Road Pines Road - Bike boulevard Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 19 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Existing Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements a 3rd Avenue Flora Road Tschirley Road - Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of b 3rd Lane/4`h Avenue Tschirley Road Barker Road - Bike boulevard connected route. 3��n�38�n Avenue Bowdish Road Pines Road - Bike boulevard Mission Avenue Fancher Road Vista Road - Bike boulevard Liberty Avenue Vista Road Park Road - Bike boulevard Railroad Avenue Stanley Road Fancher Road - Bike boulevard a Knox Avenue Vista Road Sargent Road - Bike boulevard b Sargent Road Knox Avenue Montgomery _ Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of Avenue connected route. c Montgomery Avenue Sargent Road Argonne Road - Bike boulevard 4`h Avenue Dishman Mica University Road - Bike lane Road Sprague Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits - Bike lane a Wellesley Avenue West City Evergreen _ Bike lane "a, b,c°indicates portions of Limits Road connected route. b Wellesley Avenue Progress Road Flora Road - Bike lane 8`n Avenue West City Park Road - Bike lane Limits 3rd Avenue Wm tsCity Fancher Road - Bike lane One-way westbound Broadway Avenue Fancher Road West City _ Bike lane Limits Montgomery Avenue Argonne Road Woodruff Road - Bike lanes Montgomery Avenue University Road Wilber Road - Bike lanes Marguerite � Mission Avenue Road Willow Road - Bike lanes Broadway Avenue Flora Road East City Limits - Bike lanes Euclid Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits - Bike lanes 32nd Avenue Highway 27 Road reen _ Bike lanes Mansfield Avenue Pines Road Houk Road - Bike lanes Indiana Avenue Sullivan Road Boone Avenue - Bike lanes Trent Path Park Road East City Limits - Shared Use Path Along south side of roadway, requires 2 bridges Sprague Path Appleway West City _ Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Avenue Limits North—South Routes Rotchford 16`h Avenue 4�h Avenue - Bike boulevard Drive Park Road Liberty Avenue Rutter Avenue - Bike boulevard Vista Road Mission Avenue Liberty Avenue - Bike boulevard Conklin Sprague Avenue Broadway _ Bike boulevard Road Avenue Locust Road Valleyway Avenue Mission Avenue - Bike boulevard a Farr Road Valleyway Avenue 8`h Avenue - Bike boulevard b 8`h Avenue Farr Road Woodruff Road - Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of Woodruff �n ,n connected route. � Road $ Avenue 16 Avenue - Bike boulevard RoadeY Railroad Avenue Aven�ueay - Bike boulevard University University "a, b,c°indicates portions of a Road Mission Avenue Pedestrian- - Bike boulevard connected route. Bicycle Bridge Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 20 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Existing Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements b University University Pedestrian- Montgomery _ gike boulevard Road Bicycle Bridge Avenue � University Montgomery Avenue Trent Avenue - Bike boulevard Road Mamer Mirabeau Road-Nora Mission Avenue Parkway _ Bike boulevard Avenue Pedestrian- Bicycle Bridge Thierman g�h Avenue Appleway _ Bike boulevard Street Avenue Park Road 8`h Avenue South City _ Bike boulevard Limits Flora Road Appleway Path 3rd Avenue - Bike boulevard Riverway Montgomery Avenue Centennial Trail _ gike boulevard Avenue Connection Roadher Rutter Avenue 3rd Avenue - Bike lane Carnahan g�n Avenue 14`h Avenue - Bike lane Possible climbing lane only Road Bowdish Dishman Mica Road Mission Avenue - Bike lanes Road Barker Road 8`h Avenue Boone Avenue - Bike lanes Barker Road Spokane River Trent Avenue - Bike lanes RoD�Onald 16`h Avenue Mission Avenue - Bike lanes Flora Road Wellesley Avenue Euclid Avenue - Bike lanes Evergreen Trent Avenue North City _ Bike lanes Road Limits Evergreen Mansfield Road Indiana Avenue Avenue - Bike lanes Extension Pines Road Mirabeau Parkway Trent Avenue - Bike lanes Dishman Appleway Avenue South City _ Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Mica Path Limits Sullivan Path Centennial Trail Wellesley _ Shared Use Path Avenue Flora Path Mission Avenue Centennial Trail - Shared Use Path Long Road Crossing over I-90 Pedestrian-bicycle Bridge bridge Mirabeau Pedestrian-bicycle Parkway Crossing over I-90 - bridge Bridge University Crossing over I-90 Pedestrian-bicycle Road Bridge bridge Table 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements Short Term Projects East—West Routes Wellesley McDonald Evergreen Both sides Wellesley Sullivan Isenhart North side South side sidewalk exists Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 21 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements Wellesley Sunnyvale City Boundary North side South side sidewalk exists Buckeye Park Vista One or both Schools in area sides Montgomery +/-Dartmouth Carlisle Both sides Montgomery East of Carlisle Pines Crosses railroad Indiana Pines +/-McDonald Both sides Indiana Mirabeau +/-Adams North side South side sidewalk exists Broadway Havana Fancher North side South side sidewalk exists Broadway Fancher Heacock South Side North side sidewalk exists Broadway +/-Moore Conklin South Side North side sidewalk exists Broadway +/-Conklin Flora North side South side sidewalk exists Broadway Flora Long Both sides 12`hAve Bowdish Union Both sides 16`"Ave Sullivan Rotchford North side South side sidewalk exists 32"dAve SR-27 Best East of Evergreen,sidewalk already exists on north side of street 44`h Ave City limit Woodruff 44`h Ave Bowdish Sands North side Complete gaps in sidewalk on north side of street North—South Routes Havana 8`hAve North of railroad Complete sidewalk on City side of street tracks Fancher +/-Cataldo Boone Gap in front of school Fancher Sharp Rutter Mostly missing on west side of street Bowdish 16`h Ave 24`h Ave To provide safe access to middle school Perrine Main Sprague One or both To connect to library sides Adams 4`h Ave 24`h Ave Gaps on one or both sides; 3 schools on segment Sullivan City limit Wellesley School connection Sullivan 4`h Ave 16`h Ave West side East side sidewalk exists Conklin Broadway Sprague Both sides Long Mission Boone Future school and new park site Long Term Projects East—West Routes Trent McDonald Barker One or both Could be replaced by Shared Use Path(see sides Bicycle network) Mission Fancher Vista Both sides Mission Willow Pierce Both sides Connects to Valley Mission Park Mission Bowdish +/-Union Both sides Connects Valley Mission Park to commercial area on Pines Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 22 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements 24`"Ave University Wilbur Both sides Two schools 24`h Ave Union Pines South side School 24`h Ave Pines Evergreen One side Nice residential through street;would need treatment to solve difficult crossing at SR-27 24`"Ave Adams Sullivan North side Complete existing gaps;school North—South Routes Park Sprague +/-Desmet One or both Access to park area and school sides Park Sharp Dalton Both sides Access to schools; need safe railroad crossing Vista Dalton I-90 Both sides School; railroad crossing Vista Mission Broadway Both sides Farr Broadway Sprague One or both Connects school sides Farr Appleway 8`"Ave Both sides Bowdish 8`h Ave Dishman-Mica Both sides Portions included as short-term project Evergreen 16`"Ave 32ntlAve Both sides Evergreen Forker Trent Both sides x. Ancillary Facilities Ancillary facilities add to the safety and comfort of using walking and bicycling as modes of transportation. Ancillary facilities can include bicycle parking, showers and lockers, transit features and bicycle and pedestrian maps. Crosswalk design can aid in increasing visibility through the use of specific striping patterns and lights. The City of Spokane Valley will use the following methods to address ancillary features: Bicycle Parking: • Program: Continue to require bicycle racks with new development. Consider incentives to address lack of facilities at existing developments when proposed tenant improvements or expansions do not necessarily generate a requirement for new spaces. Consider developing standards for the size of bicycle parking spaces, clearance, aisles, signs, anchoring, non-interference with pedestrian circulation, and weather protection. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Overall increase of bicycle parking spaces throughout the City. • Responsible: Community Development Department Shower and Locker Facilities: • Program: Coordinate with Spokane Valley Commute Trip Reduction program to encourage shower and locker facilities as tenant benefits and to encourage employers to consider partnering with nearby gym facilities for use of existing shower facilities. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Suggestions included on the City's BPMP web page. • Responsible: Community Development Department, Commute Trip Reduction program Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 23 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Transit Features: • Program: Continue as an active partner with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Spokane Transit Authority to encourage the accommodation of bike lockers and bikes on transit vehicles. • Timeframe: Immediate and ongoing. • Metric: Increased bike racks on transit vehicles. • Responsible: Community Development Department Pedestrian Features: • Program: Ensure that pedestrian crossing facilities, including crosswalks and signage, alert both motorists and pedestrians to the presence of the facility. Enforce minimum design standards for sidewalk width and work with developers and utilities to remove existing hazards such as light poles, utility boxes, etc., from the sidewalk. Combine existing driveway cuts when possible and limit the installation of new driveways. Where appropriate, constrain roadway width with bulb-outs and tighter right turns at intersections to slow vehicles as they approach areas with high pedestrian volumes. Provide sidewalks or pedestrian paths between neighborhoods and commercial or public destinations where appropriate. Encourage clearly identified safe walking paths between public sidewalks and commercial buildings. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Reduced number of pedestrian/vehicle accidents; increased number of pedestrian trips. • Responsible: Public Works, Community Development Department 11.4.2 Education and Encouragement Unfortunately, too many bicyclists in the United States lack the basic skills or knowledge to safely ride a bicycle in traffic. Many people are, quite simply, afraid of bicycling on streets. Bicycle education programs are designed to increase bicycle safety by improving the ability to ride with traffic as well as heighten motorist awareness. The difficulties faced in helping people develop this skill and knowledge stems from the wide range of age groups that require this training and the necessity to tailor the programs to each one. Bicycle education programs should be directed at children bicyclists, adult bicyclists and motorists. The City of Spokane Valley will use the following methods to address education and encouragement: Child Education and Encouragement: • Program: In conjunction with the Health District, school districts and other interested organizations, encourage development of bicycle education programs for several age groups, or, use existing programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. Programs could be incorporated into existing summer parks programming and existing school programming. Programs could include bicycle helmet safety information, maintenance and repair, safe riding habits, bicycle rides, etc. More specifically, students in grades K-3 could be taught basic pedestrian skills, stranger danger, crossing residential streets, using pedestrian push buttons, taking a school bus, etc. Older students in Grades 4 to 5 could learn bike safety and handling skills, including bike operation on streets with supervised bike rides on neighborhood streets. Later, in Grades 7-9, students could learn basic mobility skills of how to get around town including using transit for utilitarian and recreational trips (e.g., how to read a bus schedule, execute a transfer, take rapid transit), and more on safe bicycling practices. In tenth grade, many students take driver's education. The driver's education curriculum could include focused instruction on how Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 24 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan motorists should interact with pedestrians and bicyclists, how to predict their movements, pass safely, learn when different modes have the right-of-way, etc. • Timeframe: Initial implementation: one year. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Curriculum developed; bicycle event(s) held; utilization of existing programs. • Responsible: Joint effort between Community Development, the Parks Department, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Safe Routes to School program, school districts and interested organizations such as bike clubs, etc. Adult Education and Encouragement: • Program: Together with the Health District, Sherriff's Department and interested organizations, develop adult pedestrian and bicycle program(s) which could include a public awareness campaign focused on responsible road behavior. The campaign could be directed to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike and should make use of public service space from newspapers, television, radio, bus advertising, posters and flyers mailed in utility bills. In addition, promote community events such as Bike to Work Week, charity bike rides, costume rides, bike fairs and bicycle rodeos. Include bicycle safety checks and safety information. Incorporate "share the road" signs where appropriate on City streets and include "sharing the road" or other safety campaign information on the City's webpage. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: one year. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Information developed and posted on-line; bicycle event(s) held. • Responsible: Joint effort between the City, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Sherriff's Department and interested organizations such as bike clubs, etc. 11.4.3 Enforcement While laws that address bicyclists' behavior and safety are in place, they are sometimes not fully enforced. Effective enforcement leads to a safer environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. The following methods will address enforcement of this Bike and Pedestrian Master Program: Law Enforcement: • Program: Work with the Sherriff's Department to develop a policy to include the City's intent to enforce existing laws affecting pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist responsibilities, including parking in bike lanes but especially those relating to drunken driving, careless driving, speeding and failing to yield. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One to two years. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: City policy developed and adopted. • Responsible: Joint effort between the City and law enforcement. School Crossings: • Program: Continue assisting school districts to develop their Safe Routes to School programs to ensure safe crossing activity at school sites. Engage SCOPE as an additional presence where needed. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One to two years. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Template for enforcement piece of Safe Routes to School plan developed and shared. Method for coordinating with SCOPE identified. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 25 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Responsible: Joint effort between the City, the school districts, the Safe Routes to School program and interested organizations such as bike clubs, etc. Facility Upkeep: • Program: Continue existing program of regular maintenance of street and sidewalk facilities. Ensure that asphalt pavement overlays are flush with the concrete gutter and that utility covers are flush with the pavement. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One to two years. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Facility upkeep. • Responsible: Public Works Departments. 11.4.4 Implementation and Fundinq Various portions of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Program will be able to be implemented immediately (such as paint applied when a road is resurfaced, continuing existing requirements, coordination with other agencies, etc.). Other portions will require further study, possible neighborhood input and detailed engineering design. Table 11.4.5 summarizes potential steps involved with implementation: Table 11.4.5 BPMP Implementation Summary Program or possible Implementation Step(s) Lead Department Improvement Further studies to determine exact facility Community Development; Public Works improvements to be implemented Neighborhood input Community Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements Engineering design work Public Works Funding source identification Community Development; Public Works Environmental review Community Development; Public Works Application of requirements with development Community Development; Project Developers Ancillary Facilities Coordination with other agencies Community Development Education and Program research and development Community Development; Parks Department Encouragement Programs Coordination with other agencies in developing Community Development programs Enforcement Programs Funding Source identification Community Development; Public Works As referenced in Table 11.4.5 above, funding is required for implementing many portions of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Table 11.4.6 summarizes potential funding sources. More detailed descriptions of these sources, including match requirements and application timing, are contained in Appendix 4. Review of several funding programs reveals that while each grant announcement details specific criteria for funding, certain common threads are present. When applying for funding, the following criteria should be addressed: a. Partnership Funding is limited. Therefore, grant sources encourage and support cooperative regional projects and planning efforts that integrate housing, transportation, environmental impact and Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 26 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan economic development. Projects that pull together public and private entities and multiple stakeholders are favored. b. Risk Reduction Crash data quantifies dangerous stretches of pedestrian and bicycle commute routes. Increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists encourages the larger community to consider these alternative modes of transportation. Projects designed to address a clear and demonstrated safety hazard are therefore encouraged. c. Location Bike and pedestrian facilities that link residential areas with schools, recreation facilities, and shopping areas result in a large benefit to a community. Encouraging alternative transportation to daily activities reduces car commutes and pollution. Well located projects also consider and provide for multi-generational users. d. Broad Project Scope Developing and encouraging use of an overall bike and pedestrian system is an on-going effort. Implementing a successful bike and pedestrian master program includes identification of facility improvements, provisions for education, encouragement and enforcement, and program follow-up that provides for evaluation and adjustments over time. Table 11.4.6 BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description Federal Funding Sources Enacted in August 2005; possible revisions 2011-2012 Authorizes Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety,and transit Programs within SAFETEA-LU relative to bicycle and pedestrian improvements: • Highway Safety Improvement Program Federal Transportation Administered through WSDOT—may be invitational. Funds can be used for improvements Funding : to address fatal and serious collisions. Eligible projects may include pedestrian facilities, traffic signal improvements,and signage. Safe,Accountable, Flexible, Efficient • STP-Transportation Enhancements Transportation Equity Act— Project selection through SRTC;grant funds administered through WSDOT. Funds can be a Legacy for Users used for projects which enhance the surface transportation experience and includes (SAFETEA-LU) provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities,safety and education programs and conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails. • Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program (A new federal Project selection through SRTC. ;grant funds administered through WSDOT Funds can be transportation authorization used for projects that reduce congestion and improve air quality,such as sidewalk infill, bill will replace SAFETEA- transit improvements,and bicycle facilities. LU in the near future. This new bill will likely change • Recreational Trails Program the funding programs Administered through Washington's Recreation and Conservation Office and may be used described here.) for maintenance and restoration of existing trails,development of trailside facilities, construction of new trails and acquisition of property for trails. • Safe Routes to School Administered through WSDOT. Funds can be used to improve walking routes to schools. • New Freedom Initiative Administered through WSDOT or STA. Funds can be used to enhance access to transit stops such as construction of sidewalks, ramps,and bus shelters. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 27 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.6 BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description • Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (5316) Administered through STA. The program was established to address transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Could be used to install bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities near low-income housing or high density employment centers. • Surface Transportation Program (STP) Project selection through SRTC;grant funds administered through WSDOT. May be used on any federally classified arterial including bridge projects and transit capital projects. Eligible transportation related projects include streets,sidewalks,and recreational facilities Priority given to activities that benefit low-and moderate-income persons, prevent or eliminate slums Community Development or blight,and address community development needs Block Grants(CDBG) Administered annually through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; administered locally through Spokane County's Community Services, Housing and Community Development Department Spokane Valley typically receives around$300,000 per year River Trails and National Parks Service program Conservation Assistance Provides planning assistance to establish and restore greenways, rivers,trails,watersheds and open Program(RTCA) space Provides funding for planning,acquiring and constructing outdoor recreation areas and facilities Land and Water including trails, restrooms, parking areas and open spaces Conseroation Fund(LWCF) Administered by the state's Recreation and Conservation Office Transportation, Community Funds projects that improve transportation efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, reduce the need and System Preservation for costly infrastructure improvements,and ensure efficient access to jobs. Past funding included Program(TCSP) bicycle and pedestrian pathways,sidewalks,streetscapes,corridor improvements, pedestrian overpasses,and school safety projects Energy Efficiency and Funds projects that improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions in Conservation Block Grants their communities (EECBG) Funds highway, bridge, public transportation, passenger and freight rail projects TIGER II Discretionary Geared towards large scale,job creating projects Administered through USDOT Funds the planning and design of TIGER II Discretionary improvements TIGER II Planning Emphasizes livable,sustainable communities Administered through USDOT and HUD State Funding Sources Funds sidewalk projects on federally classified routes that improve pedestrian safety,access, TIB Urban Sidewalk connectivity,and address system continuity Program Administered through the Transportation Improvement Board Washington Wildlife and Funds a range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including building regional trails Recreation Program- Recreation Administered through the state's Recreation and Conservation Office. Focused on reducing collisions Traffic Safety Grants Funds can be used for implementation of traffic safety strategies, public education campaigns,and equipment and materials Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission office Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 28 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.6 BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description To address collisions resulting in fatalities and serious injuries Pedestrian and Bicycle Can be used for bicycle lanes, sidewalks,joint use paths,safe routes to transit,educational efforts Safety Grants Administered through the WSDOT's Highways and Local Programs office Provides up to$500 per school for training,equipment and supplies for school zone crossing guards Mini Grants for Schools Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Provides up to$7500 per school zone for the installation of school zone flashing beacons at Flashing Lights for Schools elementary schools Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission To encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicle trips Trip Reduction Provides up to$100,000 per year for reducing vehicle trips Performance Program Administered through the WSDOT Local Funding Sources Annually receives 0.42%of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax attributable Trails and Path Fund Funds are restricted for constructing new trails and paths throughout the City The City typically receives$8,000 annually for this fund Annual capital Real Estate Excise Tax(REET)funds have been used as match for leveraging other state and improvement projects, federal funds. parks projects, Simple projects(painting,sweeping,vegetation removal)can be accomplished with scheduled public maintenance projects works projects and maintenance activities Builds on continued partnering and community involvement Non-profit organizations, Works well for smaller pieces of overall projects Land Trusts, Businesses Good fit when applying for and leveraging federal or state funds Other Funding Sources Provides for bike paths,rail trails,bike parks, big-city cycling initiatives,and innovative, high-profile bicycling projects serving as national models Bikes Belong Program Maximum award is$10,000 Administered by The Conservation Fund Provides funds for planning and design of greenways, including unpaved trail development American Greenways Maximum award is$2,500; most awards range from$500 to$1,500 Program Administered by The Conservation Fund Foundations typically either donate funds and support to other organization,or provide a source of Foundations funding for their own charitable purposes Further research available at Foundation Center website Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 29 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.4.5 Monitorinq and Modifications Monitoring the effectiveness of the overall BPMP will be accomplished as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan review and update. Modifications to the Bicycle Map, the Pedestrian Map, the project implementation tables and other programs described in this Chapter can be accomplished as needed to achieve established goals. The City's web page will be updated with notices of projects that are in the planning, design, build or maintenance phase. Education and enforcement activities will be highlighted on the web page. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 30 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan SPOKANE VALLEY: AT THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Helen Dewey,Spokane Regional Health District September,2010 Spokane Valley Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 White 92% Non-White(AI/AN, Hispanic, 8% API,etc.) AI/AN=American Indian/Alaska Native AP1=Asian Pacific Islander Data Source: Office of Financial Management,Washington State Spokane Valley Population by Age Group, 2008 . , . � . <1-19 years of age 25,025 26.9% 20-29 years of age � 12,911 13.6% � 30-39 years of age 11,545 12.2% 40-49 years of age � 13,733 14.5% � 50-59 years of age 13,108 13.8% 60-69 years of age 8,908 9.4% 70+years of age 9,277 9.8% Total � 94,957 100% � Data Source: Office of Financial Management,Washington State Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Life Expectancy for those born in 2008 ioa 78.0 78.3 79.6 80 = � � 60 � m w � .� v 40 a zo I a A Spokane Valley A Spokane County a Washington State Data Source: Population Data,Office of Financial Management,Washington State Department of Health Top 5 Causes of Death, 2004-2008 �- �� Malignant neoplasms 184.0 1 186.0 1 179.0 1 Diseases of the heart 159.7 2 160.4 2 169.0 2 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 50.5 3 52.1 3 44.0 4 Cerebrovasculardiseases 48.2 4 47.0 5 45.2 3 Injuries 45.8 5 51.5 4 39.6 6 Rates are age-adjusted Data Source: Death Certificates,Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics Mortality from Injuries Breakdown 11 111 11 111 11 111 Falls 15.91 1 1535 2 10.08 3 Accidental poisoning and 13.4 2 19.01 1 11.21 2 exposure to noxious substances Transport Injuries 9.68 3 10.14 3 11.79 1 Rates are age-adjusted Data Source: Death Certificates,Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Top 5 Causes of Hospitalizations, 2005-2009 � . �� Diseases of the circulatory system 1,556.2 1 1,697.7 1 1,656.0 1 Diseases of the digestive system 1,0143 2 1,076.0 2 1,081.2 2 Diseases of the respiratory system 1,005.8 3 1,067.9 4 984.2 3 Injury and poisoning 941.1 4 1,070.2 3 959.1 4 Diseases of the musculoskeletal g13.5 5 933.8 5 7713 5 system and connective tissue Rates are age-adjusted *Excludes childbirth,complications of pregnancy,and conditions originating in the perinatal period Data Source: Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System(CHAR Overweight and Obesity, 2004-2008 � 45 38.4 37.7 ��Spokane Valley 35.5 36 Z N Spokane County � I I r 26.8 30 25.4 _ ' I � U L � a 15 � I 0 Not Overweight/Obese Overweight Obese Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Physical Activity, 2005 and 2007 Combined 75 a Spokane Valley H Spokane County 60 52.7 53.6 I 45 c w � w a 30 15 0 Met Recommendations Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Diabetes, 2004 to 2008 12 8.6 ��Spokane Valley N Spokane County 9 7.6 � -- I _ °u' 6 L � a 3 � _�_ - 0 __ _ Diabetes Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Asthma, 2004 to 2008 15 w Spokane Valley 9 9 ►/Spokane County 12 10.2 I 9 - +� c w U L � a 6 — 3 0 Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Fruit and Vegetable Consumption, 2005 and 2007 Combined 30 w Spokane Valley 21.0 Z3 1 �Spokane County 25 zo � _ I � _ °u' 15 w a — 10 5 � 0 - _ _ _ — Met Recommnedations Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Education, 2004-2008 45 37.4 ►�Spokane Valley I 35.4 N Spokane County 34.9 T 33.4 31.6 , j I I ��.z 30 � I _ � � � a 15 I I 0 - <=High School Graduate/GED Some College >=College Graduate Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Poverty Level, 2004-2008 60 �I Spokane Valley A Spokane County 43.9 45 T 41.2 1 I � � _ °u' 30 L a 19.9 20.3 . I � 15 5.0 5.3 I = o _ <=100%FPL <=185%FPL <=200%FPL Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) The poorest fifth of Americans spend 42%of their annual household budget on automobile ownership.That's more than twice the national average.Source:Surface Transportation Policy Project Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Health Care Coverage, 2004-2008 25 w Spokane Valley a Spokane County Z� 16.3 14.2 � �5 I _ � U N a 10 �� 5 0 — No Coverage Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Walking Trips per Sidewalk Availability � 25 � 20 � � 15 � 10 � 5 � a p �: . �L � � 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %of route with sidewalk Data Source:Rodriguez D,et al.,151-173. Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Safe Routes to School • 42% of school children are dropped off in a vehicle at school • 58% stated that lack of sidewalks and bikeways make roadways unsafe for their children to bike/walk to school • Physical activity does improve academic performance! Source: Nonmortorized Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study. University of Minnesota. 2007. Communities surveyed: Marin County, CA; Minneapolis, MN, Sheboygan, WI, Columbia, MO, and Spokane, WA Cost of Physical Inactivity in Spokane Valley • Physical inactivity is costing an estimated $141.8 million per year. • ThaYs in medical care, workers comp, and lost productivity. • ThaYs about$1,967 per person! Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Workshop 1: Bike and Pedestrian Interactive Exercise _ `_,,,� On June 16, at City Hall, the City held the first in a series of workshops for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. At the workshop, a :.a,. ,. "= �� diverse group voiced their opinions and concerns on bicycling and � ,� � � � ��' walking. City staff performed an interactive exercise with the �-�.,,� ��,�� "" participants to identify destinations, obstacles, and preferred routes for - � ! these alternative modes of travel. Specific questions included: � �'—'� 1. Where do you like to bike or walk (destinations like parks or schools, etc)? ' 2. Which areas, roadways, or intersections are difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians? 3. Where would you like to see a new or improved bike and/or pedestrian facility? In addition, a non-statistical survey was launched through the City's website to ask the same questions plus a few more in-depth inquiries. Results of the workshop exercise and the survey are presented in the following graphics. Staff summarized the challenges, opportunities and desired routes obtained from the data in the following Community Connectivity Assessment map. Workshop 2: Route Prioritization Interactive Exercise On September 29, a second community workshop was held. The Spokane Regional Health District presented findings linking l`��y4�� ' ' community health with opportunities for active transportation, �°"�""�"� . ' including biking and walking. An interactive exercise followed. • � � ri - Participants, broken into small working groups of three to four people, :��. �,� �,�t, were first tasked with identifying their top ten issue areas and/or "� - -�` �� `��` . '`� desired bicycling routes. The routes receiving the most "votes" were i , then ranked by each group by matter of importance. The results �' show the communities' desire to see improved bike and pedestrian facilities in or around the following six routes: 1. Sprague Avenue 2. Pines Road 3. 32�d Avenue/ Dishman Mica 4. Argonne/ Mullan corridor 5. Valleyway Avenue (as a "bike boulevard") 6. Sullivan Road Adopted August 2011 Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 1 Appendix 2—Survey and Workshop Results City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix 3: Facilitv Desiqn Guidelines Introduction This appendix is intended to be used as a resource to determine appropriate treatments for bicycle facilities in the City of Spokane Valley. It is organized in two sections: 1. Toolbox. The toolbox describes treatment options and criteria that should be applied to determine whether the treatment is best suited for a particular facility. 2. Cross Sections. The second section illustrates several existing cross sections of roadways in the City recommended as bicycle facilities, and shows how those cross sections could be adjusted to accommodate different bicycle facilities. Toolbox The toolbox provides design guidelines and criteria for six general types of bicycle treatments: • Bicycle Boulevards (Table 1) • Bicycle Lanes (Table 2) • Cycle Tracks (Table 3) � • Bicycle Intersection Treatments (Table 4) • Mid-Block Crossing Treatments (Table 5) • Wayfinding (Table 6) ' • Shared Use Bike Paths (Table 7) These treatments are not exclusive of one another, and are generally used in combination. For example, a bicycle boulevard or bicycle lane should also include wayfinding and intersection treatments. Resources: The following resources are referenced in the toolbox developed for the City of Spokane Valley Bike Master Plan and can be accessed for additional information: • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Website: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ • Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design. Prepared by Alta Planning and Design, IBPI, and Portland State University. July 2009. • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bike Guide, 1999 (a draft 2010 update is currently under review and waiting adoption) • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 • National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. 2006 • Minneapolis Bicycle Facility Manual. May 2010. • Safety Effects of Marked vs Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncrontrolled Locations. November 2000. Zegeer, Charles, et al. All photos used in this toolbox are supplied by DKS Associates unless otherwise noted. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 1: Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle Boulevards Description�: Roadways with low speed and low volume that have been optimized for cycling.The treatments recommended for bicycle boulevards improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes,while discouraging through movements by vehicles. Criteria: • Streets where traffic volumes less than 3,000 per day,although less than 1,500 is preferred • Streets where the posted traffic speed is 25 mph or less • Two lane roadways(centerline is optional) Tvpical Applications a. Shared Lane Markings(or"Sharrows") Shared lane markings are used to indicate that a facility is intended for shared bicycle and vehicle use.The markings raise awareness of the presence of bicyclist on a facility to motor vehicle drivers,and also indicate the proper location for bicyclists in the lane(for example,the sharrows should be placed with adequate space for bicyclist to avoid being doored by on-street parking). �i�:. r �, � �y.w� � - � 3' .�� I .�� ,� ... F R r —. �. ! , � ,- .:�_ �. '` , r,-d�.-a'... ' y ,� � � � � �,.�. � . , � . Estimated Cost Range:$100 to$250 per marking depending on materials b. Traffic Calming Traffic calming techniques are used to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on roadways.Techniques may include:speed bumps, traffic islands(pictured on the left and right respectively),curb extensions, lower speed limit,painted or patterned pavement � ;'f � ry� �� 'y+ �``r�. : � �'� � •^ s �`, � �� ;n � � � �� y+/ , . °��'� �r'�_ ,�� ,�'��a�'r�— ��.�� __ .� , .�_ Estimated Cost Range:$2,000(speed bump on roadway approximately 24 feet wide)to$15,000 plus landscaping for traffic islands ' Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design. Published by IBPI,Alta Planning and Design,and Portland State University.July 2009. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Boulevards c. Traffic Reduction/Diverters Traffic reduction is used to maintain or reduce motor vehicle volumes on designated bicycle boulevards.Typical applications include restricted entry at intersections to bicyclists only by means of diverters, barriers,or signed/marked restrictions.(Also see diverters in the intersection treatments table). � • � � � ,."fi ,� � � ' - i s- ` -- -- ----� ��_ '� _ ea e: I i� � _ � . , � , - . ' �`� ' I . �y L � �� — .:r - ��- _� — +i� �' . : �i&�"� �¢ "� ��'� s-�e' v' . � + �� _ . , . �;; �� ; i�� °y t� '. i ��' �, ' + - - , - ,��r- .�-�;� �� `� - � �, �..t;�, � ti. � �.. � 3� r w� a. �{~� ��=i7 ...F� ;1-. ,,� 4,* .�.� s r - - �� rr�K �= F� Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$20,000(depends on design and materials) d. Prioritized Bicycle Movement Prioritizing the bicycle movement can be accomplished by turning stop signs and allowing the through bicycle movement to proceed without stopping,and instead stopping motor vehicles on the approaches to the bike boulevard. ■ � � ■ Source: Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design,page 22. Estimated Cost Range:$200 to$1,500 per intersection (depending whether an engineering study is required) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 2: Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Lanes Description: Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway(typically on the right side of the roadway)to be used by bicyclists only.A bike lane is typically located between the right most traffic lane and the curb or on street parking area. Criteria: • Streets where traffic volumes are more than 3,000 per day • Streets where the posted traffic speed is 25 mph or greater • On streets with higher speeds, high truck volumes, higher traffic volumes,or high parking turnover, bike lane treatments that offer additional separation between bicycles and vehicles should be considered. Tvpcial Applications-Bike Lane Tvpes a. Standard Bike Lane Recommended bike lane width is 5 feet,although 6 feet is preferred.2 A standard bike lane is placed to the right of vehicular traffic in the same direction. From left to right,the pictures below show a bike lane offset from the curb,a bike lane adjacent to on-street parking,and a bike lane adjacent to the curb. - .� � � ��. .s � � - ,� :i � _ "i�, .; - � _� � - � �7 •� �� t_ * � Estimated Cost Range:4,000 to$6,000 per mile 2 National Association of City Transportation Officials. http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/bike-lanes/ Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes b. Climbing Lane Climbing lanes can be used on bike facilities with uphill grades.The climbing lane provides separation between bicyclists and vehicles for uphill roadway sections that are otherwise designated as shared roadways. On uphill sections in particular,the speed differential between bicyclists and motor vehicles increases,which increases the safety risk.There are no standard criteria for when to install a bicycle climbing lane. Some cities recommend climbing lanes on bicycle facilities with grades as low as 1.5%depending on the roadway characteristics and potential conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists,while others might not install a climbing lane unless a facility exceeds a 5%grade.The characteristics of the facility should be considered along with vehicle speeds,volumes, and bicycle volumes. By providing an uphill bicycle lane,separation is maintained between the two modes and safety is improved. In the downhill direction a bicyclist can likely travel at the speed of traffic,so a shared lane is adequate for the downhill bicyclist. In the picture below the right lane is traveling uphill with a bike climbing lane,and left lane is traveling downhill with a shared bicycle/vehicle lane. � -- �P y � �` - - . � ° � � "1�� f . �' - - � 0 �-. n �. Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6,000 per mile(the cost may increase if existing pavement marking removal is required) c. Buffered Bike Lane A buffered bike lane provides additional separation between the bike lane and vehicle travel lane(or in some cases between the bike lane and on-street parking). Depending on the existing lane widths,creating a buffered bike lane either reduces the width of a vehicle travel lane or removes a vehicle travel lane.A buffered zone between the bike lane and vehicle travel lane is recommended when traffic speeds are above 35 mph. Another alternative is to place the buffered zone between the bicycle lane and on-street parking,which is better suited for locations with high parking turnover rates. �� _ � '� � �i� i' �'�� - � �If � , � �* t c��i �,. �7.� .a o �� . . � � � �� ..�� .s' ��. . .•a� tr:.. . . 1.�4,��.�L� Estimated Cost Range: $5,000 to$10,000 per mile Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes d. Left Side Bike Lane A left side bike lane can be used on one-way streets or on median divided two way streets.This treatment should be considered if there are heavy transit activities,deliveries,or parking turnover on the right side of the street. Y M 'K`,�i � �.: � —�. �-� s� - • `� � � Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6,000 per mile(same as a typical bike lane) e. Paved Shoulder This treatment is typically used in rural areas on roadways with higher speeds. On roadways with over 2,000 ADT and speeds that exceed 35 mph the paved shoulder should be at least 4 feet wide,or 5 feet from the face of guardrail. If the roadway speed exceeds 50 mph or there is a high percentage of heavy vehicles,the paved shoulder should be 8 feet wide.As long as the paved shoulder meets the width requirements based on roadway speed,the shoulder may be signed as a bike facility. t � �! . - . �� .:�.�. _. .ti: � � Estimated Cost Range:Varies depending on the existing roadway conditions. Tvpical Applications—Bike Lanes at Intersections f. Right Turn Restrictions or Warnings To improve the safety of bicyclists using bike lanes,right turns across the bike lane by vehicles could either be restricted or warning signs used to raise awareness of the bike lane and potential conflict with bicyclists. � .f`�..;n�`�;,'�� E � � N� ��. � TURN � � �, � ; ' � � � fJ N R E D �� _ �'� EJfCEPTB9GY�CLES YlEL4 TO � 'BIKES �'.�"� rs� `4 �t. �r- Estimated Cost Range:$75 to$200 per sign(plus installation) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes g. Transitioning a Through Bike Lane Transitioning a through bike lane to the left side of a vehicle right turn lane prior to an intersection reduces the potential for right hook collisions by correctly positioning both the bicyclist and vehicle at the intersection.A"Begin right turn lane, yield to bicycle"sign should be placed at the beginning of the transition zone. One option to increase visibility of the transition zone is to use colored pavement marking through the transition area(shown in image on right). Note—this treatment is NOT recommended for intersections with double right turn vehicle lanes. �` - `�. �� i°:S� ,- �I��I �� _ i,P � � �� .�• 'i�r I� a ' �. ___�. .- � � �1 ° .' r � .:��; � ��-�1� � � ' � ,y_�,� . �-�� , . - �: � _ , _ � ; .� � _ , .�I - � �; o� r �`r �- .-. Source of image on right: NACTO website(http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/)Estimated Cost Range:$500 to$4,000 per intersection approach(depending whether green pavement markings are chosen) h. Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane With a combined bike lane/turn lane,the bike lane drops prior to the intersection and the right most lane becomes a shared right turn vehicle lane and through bicycle lane. _:: ..: ,..,�,�:.= + � � ��, � � � `�, �, ,� � :: � �,. � = �� = Source: NACTO(http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/combined-bike-laneturn-lane/) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes i. Colored Bike Lane Coloring a bike lane as it approaches an intersection draws attention to the correct and expected location of bicyclists.The treatment is ideal for intersections with high bicycle and vehicle volumes,or at locations where the position of the bicycle lane changed from the previous block.The FHWA has issued an Interim Approval for the use of green coloring in bike lanes. Citing multiple experiments that demonstrated positive operational effects for both bicycle riders and other road users,with no notable negative effects,this approval allows states to apply for approval to use coloring in bike lanes and bike lane extensions,and States may request approval for all jurisdictions in that State.This Interim Approval does not make the use of green colored pavement mandatory.3 �_ � � � _ � � , - �� 4 1�,, � � s J � � �'�'.., >,:� I .. �,,, --� � � ��- Estimated Cost Range:$5 to$15 per square foot depending on material. Depending on wear maintenance costs could include reapplying color every 2 to 10 years. _ 3 Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes(IA-14). Federal Highway Administration website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.qov/resources/interim approval/ia14/index.htm.Accessed May 9,2011. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11-Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 3: Cycle Tracks Cycle Tracks Description: A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk,and is intended to provide improved comfort and safety for the bicyclist as compared to an on-street bike lane.The cycle track can be separated from vehicle traffic using a variety of treatments(curbs, planter strips,on-street parking,pavement markings,or other options). In addition the cycle track should be clearly defined from the sidewalk(grade separated,pavement markings,or an alternate clear indication)to prevent bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. Criteria: While the US does not have established standards that define what conditions warrant a cycle track, international documents do provide some guidance. However, in most cases,the criteria are more qualitative than quantitative and each facility should be evaluated independently based on roadway and user characteristics. For one-way cycle tracks • Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds(factors that would make on-street biking feel uncomfortable). International documents suggest a cycle track may be appropriate where traffic speeds are 40 mph or greater4 and total two-way traffic volumes are 9,000 vehicles per day or greater.s • Streets with few driveways(there is no specific number;engineering judgment should be used for each facility in question) • Streets where intersection conflicts can be effectively managed(since cycle tracks are often on the right side of on-street parking,visibility of cyclists approaching intersections can be compromised, parking set backs and other mitigation measures need to be considered at intersections and driveways) For two-way cycle tracks(in addition to the criteria listed above) • Streets with destinations mostly on one side • Streets with less driveways or intersection conflicts on one side • On one-way streets to reduce the out of direction travel for bicyclists • On streets where there is not enough room for a one-way cycle track on each side of the roadway Tvpical Applications—One Wav Cvcle Track 4 Cycling Design Guide. Nottinghamshire County Council. October 2006.Accessed via:http://nacto.orq/wp- contenUuploads/2011/03/Nottinqhamshire-Cvclinq-Desiqn-Guide-2006.pdf. May 9, 2011 �Sustrans Cycling Guidelines and Practical Details.Accessed via: http://nacto.orq/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Sustrans-Cvclinq- Guidelines-and-Practical-Details.pdf. May 9,2011. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks a. Cross Section and Pavement Markings A one-way cycle track should be 5 to 7 feet wide with a minimum 3 foot buffer.The buffer can be a variety of treatments including planters,raised curb,on-street parking,pavement markings, bollards, landscaping,or other treatments. Cycle tracks can be at either roadway level or sidewalk level; however, roadway level is typically preferred to help prevent bicycle and pedestrian conflicts. Bicycle markings should be placed in the cycle track(at the beginning of each block and at periodic intervals if necessary)indicating the facility is intended for bicycle use(and not motor vehicle or pedestrian use). .r • �. `� � t � i , - k 4 �. --� -t�_ �^ � �v �-- '�--__,� . �� - �',,�, ,�-> � ��"'�., ; . �' - y-. � �`c � ^«'= �`s�� • ay� '�� - �� ±r,.�"" � � , � «� � � _ _ -''w, \ _. _ ' _ Source: NACTO I "` t' 4�,Ab��= � � � •: 'p :�� ":� r?:r �� 1t; - -�'r �5. .._ �v�i�,� � _ �.,�,� ,�r�1�� - .s�� S :� � r- , . . � ,��, � �,`� � � �� { `' � '�1�i� ;f � - {,y� �, � ��r' - _ . - �: � � .� � l.� �`.v q '. J'� �.-'�- . .3 � � ! / Estimated Cost Ran e:$100,000 to 1,000,000 er mile cost varies si nificantl de endin on chosen treatments . Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 10 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks b. Driveway and Side Street Treatments Vehicles turning into driveways or side streets across cycle tracks present a unique challenge because drivers may not anticipate a bicyclist approaching since the cycle track is separated from the vehicle lanes.The following treatments can be used to improve the safety of a bicyclist through driveway on a cycle track: • Installing pavement markings through the driveway to draw attention to entering motorists.Yield signs and pavement markings can also be applied. • Restrict parking for 30 feet on each side of the driveway to improve visibility. • Ensure a sight triangle of 20 feet from a minor street to the cycle track,and 10 feet from a driveway to the cycle track. The picture below shows a recommended clear zone and sight triangle for a cycle track at a driveway. From a driveway there should be a horizontal clear zone of 10 feet from the driveway,and for a minor street there should be a horizontal clear zone of 20 feet from the minor street. In addition, if on-street parking is allowed along the cycle track,it should be prohibited within 30 feet of the driveway or minor street. a�rlri�eways antl minor inlersectsons, TUANING GGIUr.yieltl li�nes dntl"V�ieltl td B�ike5" YENICLES� s�ignage should 6e used ta��dentify '�fy Foi maaor ven�des attempnng to cros=_me Ih2 cOnEliCt af2�a and rtlake II CIE31 1 r,yylg Ir�ck iroT Ihe Sit9E'Sh�etl 9�d�iyEwdy. iha�th�cycle vack has priority over v T�oWf �� sheet antl sidewalk fumFShings and�o!ot�e� entenng and exiting�raffic. �� features shaultl accan+modafe a slghitriangle o H��[ol MiirCD F+u.�5 Of 2D fee110 Ihe CyLE@�raCk h9m m�nor Stfee7 s�a� crossings,and 10 Feet irom tlrlveway crossing. i0-20� If configuretl as a ralsed cycle irack,Ihe Crossin$ Fe�� heip should be ralsed,in whEch the sidewalk and cycle vack ainlain iheir elevation ihroagh the cross'ing.Sharp�n- x'�. �,lii�ea on either sitlelfain r63tl th 5�ewdlk level Serv9 as a spaotl hump(or motor venicles. �..' o � o 0 0 0 . .� i. � :=,? �.z. O � � � � � ° 30 Feel Mc,tor venlc�e vaffic crossing tfle tycle hack sHOU�tl be a�nsvalned orchanne6zed io make fums atsharp n ihe cyc�a�rack is parH��ng prateclea parking gies to retlure ttavei speed prrar to�he crossing sfiould be prohlbited near drrveways and riniersechonstoimprovev�slhillty The deS�i�YT�IB n0�p3Pkii1G 3f2d 16 30 fEC1 fr6o112aGlt s��de af ihe crossing Source: NATCO(showing a two-way cycle track at a driveway) Also see picture in the two-way cycle track section Estimated Cost Range:See section a(cost of driveway treatments included in overall length of a cycle track) c. Intersection Treatments At intersections cycle tracks present a unique challenge since the bicyclist may be less visible to drivers due to the cycle track being slightly separated from the roadway. Similar treatments used at driveways can also be applied to intersections such as restricting parking to improve visibility,and warning signs for drivers. In addition the following treatments may be applied to improve the safety of the cycle track for bicyclists: • Cycle track signal phase • Prohibit right turns • Install warning signs for right turning motorists to yield to bicyclists. • Option to bring bicyclists into a wide outside traffic lane just prior to intersection to improve visibility. • Clearly indicate to turning vehicles the intended path,so drivers do not mistakenly enter the cycle track. � � � t Example right turn warning sign for vehicles(also see image in section g) Estimated Cost Range:See section a(cost of intersection treatments included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 11 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks d. Two Stage Left Turns For cyclists who need to turn left at an intersection,a two stage left turn should be provided. Since the cycle track is to the right of the vehicle lanes,a bicyclist wanting to turn left at an intersection needs a way to safety cross the traffic lanes.A two stage left turn bike box allows a cycle track user to do exactly that. Using the green phase the bicyclist proceeds through the intersection with the flow of vehicles, but then pulls into a left turn bike box at the far end of the intersection.The bicyclist then waits in the box until the perpendicular direction of traffic receives a green indication,and then proceeds with traffic. `�='L-4 �..e. _' , � 1 �� /l� � _l �. � � ♦ �i , � �� ' � - �� i .�,1 � �, w � � 1+ - . �' � _- +'6"3_. �u l,n' � _ - �:�' - �,. � � � � � .: � �.-'� +'7"�l� � � Source: NACTO �� `� n 'w w._ '� �� ' xin �� .:. � . ,��r - � �� , r ; �, t�P �'� ' - �`' � �-q F I �' .:A � ��?+�9'�' �I��r~� � . �F� �_ ' ,' sI' � 't,.a � � .�� ,.�� _ � if } � �:; - ��.�< < � _ �. .,� — .� .- ,�� - a.� Pictures of one-way cycle tracks with two-stage left turn boxes. Estimated Cost Range:See section a(cost of two stage left turns included in overall length of a cycle track) Tvpical Applications—Two Wav Cvcle Track _ Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 12 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks e. Cross Section A two way cycle track should be a minimum of 10 to 12 feet wide with a dashed yellow line to indicate proper direction. Velric�le & Slreelcar Traffr'e � -<Plunters �� s'�_� I3��,� i _-_ Ca1Cle �'`�acJC[ �a, �� „ ` - - -- �� ' �' � �� fl' 3' � Sldewalk Tiwo-Way Planter Parking Vehicle& Si�lewalk Cycle Track (Opilonal� Streel Car Traffic Estimated Cost Range:$150,000 to$1,500,000 per mile(cost varies significantly depending on chosen treatments). f. Driveway and Side Street Treatments In addition to the driveway treatments discussed for one-way cycle tracks,a two-way cycle track needs to provide warning indications to motor vehicle drivers(both entering and exiting)to expect bicyclists in the contra flow direction.Yield signs,and markings through the driveways should be used to alert drivers. Prohibiting left turns into driveways across two-way cycle tracks should also be considered. The image below shows a proposed treatment for a two-way cycle track across a driveway. In this image it is assumed that the left turn into the driveway is prohibited. If the left turn movement into the driveway is allowed,a sign to warn drivers of the two-way cycle track traffic should be considered. Whether the vehicle or bicycle has the right of way is dependent on city or state policies. Typically at driveways,motor vehicle drivers are required to stop and yield to bicyclists(and pedestrians). _ —� Srr�arrrrrr '� i'r:hiele Ti•rr,f.�ic I�� - . ��Itrc•lc Tr•rr rc•� .Slr°caerc•a►. R�rrse�rf D'rr'►°ek��rr�. 'rr`,�d,�u,rc�c�I'lrrrc�r�reFrrf ft� - li he��•r:��]lI['['.IIjlf1!'.5' f��'C'I�N �1'BIC�t a'ils'f7Tl7T1 . _ £Jir•NCtirrti �i Bic 1'cic•:11crrJ;r�r�,.r ;;; 1 t r�irrl•!xe Plrac•crl lrt��•c I�►•ivewut' � TI�1'�)FI�'Il LUfF�E'.1' 17�•ir�e�ti•crtis �� 41'I1-I 11i�aiiiiccl Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 13 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks g. Intersection Treatments In addition to intersection treatments discussed for one-way cycle tracks, intersections with two-way cycle tracks present unique challenges due to the contra flow bicycle lane.Treatment options include: • Prohibit right turns on red for right turning vehicles from the side street across the cycle track. • Install bike signals with a leading bicycle and pedestrian phase so bicyclists enter the intersection before vehicles to improve visibility. • Install yield signs for right turning drivers on the main street(with the cycle track) • Install candle sticks or safe hits at the cycle track entrance to discourage vehicles from turning into the cycle track area. The image below shows a proposed intersection for a two-way cycle track. � � NO SCALE "-' -Cun�ll�S'lrc�k f 1pli�m tn Pl�irr-- � Sf°co�td,N�i•rl�hr».rn�l � Lcf�Titrr�Brl c�fJt�i Ri�lr1 Tirrn }ield Sigu � u!�clee!b�Yusr�fiu�r.+ on Mu.crru'm � �! 4 ��'�°tc�l . � ':,�tr�.�et ,�,,: r � 4 O � �1 � J� � a'�.��` _ � I � � � I . 1'1 � : I . � ^ � � � B � � _"�;� r:... Active Static Signals � �'" Si�ns Si�ns Q i��• �� ND &., � �,.. TURN g•• �� N" � �,SGNALI {/p�'�� R3-IIlf1R IiI11-I1� � � � �1 �+Indilicsl� IG1 '�J LED Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 14 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 4: Bicycle Intersection Treatments Bicycle Intersection Treatments Description: Intersection treatments improve the safety of bicyclists through an intersection. Depending on the characteristics of the cross streets (traffic and bicycle volumes,traffic and bicycle speeds,type of bicycle facility, number of vehicles and/or bikes turning,visibility, surrounding land use, and other factors)a range of treatments may be applicable. Criteria: • Locations where a bicycle facility crosses a roadway that may cause bicyclists to feel unsafe without intersection improvements. • Level of treatment depends on cross street traffic volumes,cross section,and traffic speeds. Tvpical Applications a. Bike Boxes Bike boxes provide a designated area at the intersection for bicyclists to get ahead of vehicles during a red traffic signal phase.This improves the visibility of bicyclists and helps prevent right-hook conflicts. Ideal for intersections with high right turning vehicle conflicts,or high bicycle volumes to reduce bicycle signal delay and queues.At intersections where the bicycle box extends across all lanes in the travel direction, left turning bicyclists can position themselves ideally during the red signal phase.This treatment also improves driver compliance at crosswalks,so high pedestrian activity(with high bicycle volumes)is another typical application. — �, , i + ' � �`` I i , � . ,.�.�e��. ��.s.�s yA �� . _--_— ��i�f', �� ..,.<:;�'� ' �► L �► Estimated Cost Range:$5,000 to$6,000(not including annual maintenance). Markings may need to be replaced every 1 to 10 years depending on wear patterns. Replacement costs would be$5,000 to$6,000(same as initial installation). b. Colored/Marked Bike Lane Through the Intersection Bike lanes marked through intersections help guide bicyclists along the intended travel path and alert drivers to the presence of a bicycle lane(and bicyclists).Typical applications include:areas where vehicles may encroach on the bicycle lane such as ramp style exits, across signalized intersections that are wide or complex,across driveways and stop or yield controlled approaches. ;��k.,, �_ T_ „ � �: � � �€� � " � i� � �,�I w ' �� ;:; ,�, �! � r�+ � I �:� � —,: i� � �� kc y�,�� i lu ini i. � o..y�,.�m m inf� �'�� '� �',�.tK,i' .� F+- �wi w in ief i�i rri i�.�...��•r n�iei �, � �� M �� r� �,,� �� U q I �I 1111 i�l I� �M lal ' � � .•��.+. G'''� I�I I�I I�I 1�.1111� #i 1�1 I�!!{il Ilyl INI p aLjf�� di�i �i i��w an .4 � ,,A .L� •� ��I I�i I�I IIII '"'v �.-W„ �k!_�,;.,Y�' ...� �° .�. . . , :��,� . ._ t � !� '. ��. � ,� — �� .,� ,,,,i.i.=�,�;i _ - �`��.-- a �' _._,_. -� Estimated Cost Range:$5 to$15 per square foot depending on material Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 15 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments c. Bike Signals Bike signals may be used for the following purposes: • To reduce conflict at intersections where a bicycle movement conflicts with a major vehicle movement • To improve safety at intersections near schools or parks • To make it legal for bicycles to enter an intersection during an all-pedestrian phase • To employ an advance green phase at intersections for bicyclists that reduce conflict and delay • To allow bicyclists to cross an intersection diagonally at unique locations ��r�,'�r.� , .. � r I �f ) , � l�- L1If1� �--� ��IG�iAL - , � f. .. _ � ��0 �� __—_ �_�•� BIKE — _ � �'" ' � 51GNAL �.; . �-, ,-,-a �.. , � d : � �0, ... . . . T� ,_ Estimated Cost Range:$10,000 to$50,000 per intersection. d. Two Stage Left Turn Queue Boxes In addition to using this treatment along cycle track facilities,the two stage left turn queue box may be appropriate along facilities with bike lanes.A two stage left turn queue box may be used at intersections with high volumes of left turning bicyclists,especially along multi-lane facilities with high traffic speeds and volumes.This treatment can also be used to assist bicyclists across streetcar or rail tracks. �-�-- � � ' �+f�,'�� "' � �} I ��H I . �- .. ��"�_�_ ' '! ii+,.. - ? y P �' `�-' `�� .. � �_ � ,;.n � � �'_ �— - _ � � °'. � _ r � - _ "' _ E= �� ,,.� --�� - Source: NACTO Estimated Cost Range:$5,000 to$6,000 Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 16 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments e. Traffic Reduction/Diverters(also in the Bike Boulevard section) Diverters are often used at intersections along bike boulevards to reduce vehicle volumes on a roadway.The diverters allow bicycle through movements but prohibit vehicle through movements. ._ � � � `� � �: � � ---- - � �� - ' � 1i Ir .��. ,� a�' � � �� _ °'— ONL�` .:f*.S ,� ?• s � '�F�� ' �,-��` �'� . F �.: �. � �� - - ��' W 'x +� _ ti�, `� � �,�� r;' � �- --s-� ,-_•,!-�_-�;� � , Y'". Y r� ,,: rr� k"^ �� ' "°�'� _...y�o � �� '�':�! � ,�� r� `��..,�; a i" -- - - �, � • �� r''��.�� I�'� �1_� ��k. � t��'�'k'�� .� � �� i- �' -,. „ � ' . � �� , j— � � ',:i w�°� �i i + - �s,� : ��r��, ' �,,. � � '� � .� r- - �' � r: `� �` �� -F � � �� f � � i, � `�� _- ,�,�j�' 1 , �A �i-1., �f� � {��i� �, +,4�,,. ,;M" .4; w,,,,t;.'"��p'��`a�'ki LS ,.i' �j� rl r r. -! � �� ^ ^�r F ' ` . � 3 � . ..i �I�' !� �`�'"a"'Y P�'�MF' � 1 �� -- � ._ � , r � ' . �'�'''�� - =}-�---�-� ti (sign stating"DO NOT ENTER,except Bicycles") Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$20,000(depends on design and materials) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11-Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 17 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 5: Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Description: Mid-block crossings can be dangerous bicyclists because drivers are not typically expecting a crossing at a non-intersection location.The need for a mid-block crossing may arise if two bicycle facilities are off-set or if a trail junctions with a roadway mid- block. In these situations,mid-block crossing treatments can be applied to improve the safety of a bicyclist. Criteria: Depending on the characteristics of the facility being crossed,different treatments may apply. Criteria to consider includes:vehicle speed,width of the roadway,vehicle volumes,sight distance,and typical driver compliance in the region. Tvpical Applications a. Bicycle Crossing Markings Bicycle crossing markings can be similar to pedestrian style crossings. However,a bicycle crossing typically has two parallel sets of markings,one for each direction of bicycle travel to help reduce head on bicycle conflicts. Pedestrians can also use the bicycle crossing area. The picture below shows bicycle/pedestrian crossing markings at a signalized intersection. �� ;_ � � y• y� �!�-- � *''' �'�FY � i —I, �'ts�^ 4.--� �� _� �'��`° T'� �:`�� _�_ ,�>. — _,,,iq�,` - � r - --- - �.- _ .`� Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$3,000(depending on width of crossing). Maintenance is not included in the cost. b. Median Refuge Island A median refuge island allows a bicyclist to cross a street in two phases,while waiting in a comfortable space.The treatment is ideal for multilane facilities with two-way traffic where waiting for an acceptable gap in traffic for a single phase crossing would cause undue delay.The desired width for median is 10 feet,although 6 feet is the absolute minimum,and a median should be a minimum of 30 feet long. � r " `�� =- ��—_^y � ---�� -�"r — �x � -�7i� -- - - - � � Estimated Cost Range:$15,000 to$30,000 per 100 feet Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 18 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-Block Crossing Treatments c. Rapid Flashing Beacon A rapid flashing beacon is used in conjunction with a marked crossing. It is typically activated using a push button and indicates that vehicles need to stop and yield to bicyclists or pedestrians using the designated crossing.A flashing beacon is typically placed on a post on the side of the roadway, but can also be installed over a lane.These examples all show pedestrian crossings, however,the warning sign can be modified to show a bicycle or both a bicycle and pedestrian. Based on the NCHRP Report 562 and the studies by Charles Zeeger(see resources listed on the last page)the following criteria applies to installing flashing beacons at unsignalized crossing locations: • When ADT is less than 9,000—activated flashing beacons are recommended if vehicle speeds exceed 40 mph,or if the facility is 4 lanes with speeds of 35 mph. • When ADT is between 9,000 to 12,000—activated flashing beacons are recommended for 3 or more lanes if speeds exceed 35 mph. • When ADT is greater than 12,000—activated flashing beacons are recommended for 3 or more lanes if speeds exceed 30 mph. The pictures below show a few different types of rapid flashing beacon displays.The two on the left use school signs,but could be used for a non-school locations with a pedestrian or bicycle warning sign instead of the school crossing sign. • � � �` #..R ,� r-��t' .� � �� i'�'� �k k .1.,�rls- � � ` � ��. • � :.`f � _y�. �� 7 � ..�GY' � �� •�p � r �'�.,� �� . .. . . ,� �r+.+-s..- r!-- ��' 9_ ; '� "��i'�� — c, _ � , -�" — �.� •a '_"' � ,,_�' �7R .-�I -. � - `�Ik�---- - _ � ` �. � � " � � ` � .. a+r.:, �--�.-"._ Estimated Cost Range:$10,000 to$20,000 per crossing(includes two to three rapid flashing beacon signs,depending whether there is a median) � Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 19 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-Block Crossing Treatments d. Off-Set Intersections At some locations a bike boulevard may continue at an offset across a busier street.One treatment options to safely connect the offset bike boulevard is shown below. In this treatment,a two way cycle track is incorporated on one side of the roadway.The cycle track guides bicyclists to cross at a particular location,which may include activated beacons or a signal depending on the roadway characteristics. Below are two different types of offset intersection crossings.The top image uses a path to the side of the main roadway and the picture on the bottom shows an intersection with center bike lanes connecting the off-set intersections. � � HERE �F� �.T 8ike ,�{� �Push • . � � 8utfan Activated Flashing �' '� Beacons '-`� o.. 8rke i� �t�sh 8ulFon �r I � �' AcGvated � Fiashi�g \ 8eacans � HEA£ FOR �� • � ;� e �: �`' .;�� '�� .p. ,..F= -e t � � � � __ . . " � � � �' .. *,'�� . , '." .,i..r � �.� -__ . . . " �:y�`� ��,_.1 i � � �� - . ' Estimated Cost Range:Varies based on right of way impact$1,000 and up depending on chosen treatment Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 20 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 6: Wayfinding Wayfinding Description: Wayfinding is meant to be used by bicyclist while enroute to communicate directions,distance,and sometimes expected travel time to a particular destination.Wayfinding is typically accomplished through the use of signs, however, pavement markings can supplement the signs.Wayfinding should be applied to all types of bicycle facilities. Criteria: Wayfinding should be used to help bicyclists(and vehicle drivers)identify which facilities are designated as bicycle facilities while enroute.The wayfinding may convey several factors including: • Which roadways are designated as bicycle facilities • Directions to key areas or connections • Expected travel time by bicycle to key areas or connections In particular,wayfinding is necessary at junctions and intersections with other bicycle facilities. Tvpical Applications a. Standard signs to indicate bicycle facilities Part 9 of the MUTCD(2009 Edition)includes"Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities". In this section there are several standard wayfinding signs that can be used along bicycle facilities. Some signs simply indicate the presence of a bicycle facility,while other signs provide additional information such as destinations and distances.The pictures below show a sampling of signs from the MUTCD and their respective sign numbers. � - �� !�`� � �f� �:, • �� I' �� ` � = � � BI�E. L�N E ��., � i � : - � - _ - � � � '�'�-'^ D 1-3c D 11-1 f -. '- '� �� 4 .: D11-ie IL'11-$ �,�4-14 M4-+F h�1f6-� Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 21 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Wayfinding b. Signs with destinations and expected travel times Below are two examples of wayfinding signs unique to different cities.The sign on the left indicates direction, distance,and expected travel time by bicycle.The sign on the right indicates direction and distance. ��:�'� ,.+��. � �� " , , ti 4 , a,�� `` �� i E � � '� ��r� � �- �� r ' � ��;wnrawN t,� �� ; �.� ■ Hnwr� .. • ' . , � � i.z � , ' � s M i C,"", �-'.n�' ,�1 f `�� . � .•.'L�'a4� �. � . . �t ` Estimated Cost Range:$30 to$75 per sign(plus installation) c. Pavement markings Pavement markings can be used to supplement signs. Below is an example of a pavement marking used to indicate the direction of the continued bicycle facility. � � � Sharrows and bicycle lane symbols can also be considered wayfinding treatments in the sense that they help identify a facility as a bicycle facility. � �� - _'. ;z. -. � � >. , , ��"��r�;s.'�"- �—_ – --- �. ,,>,s�.rr_ � �i. _ , � � � � ! :� :�. . .:�:�.s:.�r�� ..=t-:� ..�:�.� , Estimated Cost Range:$50 to$250 per marking depending on size and material(plus installation) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 22 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Wayfinding d. Maps Portable maps indicating bicycle and pedestrian around the City could be provided to assist bicyclists and pedestrians in wayfinding. Maps could be provided at public facilities such as City Hall and libraries as well as bike shops or other interested vendors. In addition,the map should be available electronically through the City's website. Estimated Cost Range:$0 to$5 for a paper map(in some cities a private vendor sponsors the map which could make it free or low cost to the City of Spokane Valley). e. Mobile Applications As technology continues to advance, private industries will likely develop apps that can be used on mobile devices to assist bicyclists navigating around the City of Spokane Valley. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 23 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 7: Shared Use Bike Paths Shared Use Bike Paths Description: Shared use paths are physically separated from the roadway,and are intended to be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, runners,and other non-motorized users.A shared use path should supplement a thorough system of on street facilities in a city,and connect to the on-street system at end points of the trail as well as midpoints depending on the length and location. Criteria: The following characteristics should be used when considering which facilities could serve as appropriate shared use path: • A shared use path should be provided when on-street facilities are not an option and when separate right of way is available(such as a former railroad line). • The number of driveways and crossings should be minimized. According to the Idaho Department of Transportation, if there are more than 8 crossings per mile,an on-street facility should be considered instead. • Where crossings cannot be avoided,special design treatments should be used to treat potential conflicts. Tvpical Applications a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Shared Use Path The following design criteria should be considered: • Minimum paved width of a shared use path is 10 feet,although 12 to 14 feet(or more)is preferred especially if the use is expected to be moderate to heavy(AASHTO). • Two feet of additional clearance should be provided on either side of the path. • An 8 foot path may be appropriate under some circumstances(bicycle and pedestrian use is expected to be consistently low, the alignment allows for safe and frequent passing opportunities,and maintenance vehicles are not expected to drive on the path which would could subject the pavement edges to damage). • Markings to separate bicyclists from pedestrians on a shared use path are not necessary, but a centerline marking to separate two-way traffic is appropriate on pathways with heavy peak or seasonal volumes. • The surface should be asphalt to accommodate all types of bicycles. Below are pictures of a two-way shared use path. On the left,the path runs along an active railroad line on the left and an industrial facility on the right, both separated by a fence. In the photo on the right,the path runs along a neighborhood(left side)and a freeway and light rail line(right side). �'!*� � a , � ��,.�� / t; � �� 4 _4 �t _..'..�1',` �?� ,,1/11 �(,i��, , —. `�- ,f L4 W, � •.� . � -: � � 1. �'A'{ q' � ' : . ,' ^ y*e ' . _� � �� 1 ��ll ,_�_I -_ �T 1�/ l I ��7 - ..3�i°--=. . �.:�� .. � t � ',t(... 4 � d.•`.' . ' . �. . ��`*. _ �. " 3 �.�r �� Estimated Cost Range:$250,000 to $500,000 per mile(includes asphalt surface,signing,striping,wayfinding,drainage,and limited crossings,does not include design costs). Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 24 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Shared Use Bike Paths b. Crossings on Shared Use Paths At locations where the shared use path crosses other roadways or driveways,appropriate indications and warnings need to be provided for both the path user and roadway user to prevent conflict.The design team needs to consider the characteristics of the path and roadway at the crossing and determine whether the path user or the roadway user should have the right of way. In the picture below, path users are required to stop at the roadway crossing. V' 1�.� � � �" .-� _�e i 1 : •� I. � � .. '.� � _ _�.� _ ' ..� � �� I� �_ ' � . "` �,�,�. ' � � - .a��',�•� . 1 �^I ,� �1 � -`� �� . � . . �A �..--. . � _ �=�iii'.:_ ,.'�� ' ` Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 25 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cross Sections The following tables illustrate how to convert roadways with specific paved widths into bicycle boulevards and different types of bicycle lanes. Each cross section identifies which facilities within the City of Spokane Valley meet the cross section requirements and are recommended as bicycle facilities in the Master Plan (see map 11.5). Table 8: Cross Sections— Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle Boulevard Cross Sections 18 to 24 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • 12`h Ave(sections) • Progress Rd(sections) � � Valleyway Ave • 4`h Ave(sections) • Pierce Ave(sections) �$�'��'� • Marguerite Rd(sections) • Railroad Ave(Mission Ave to Stanley Rd) • Stanley Rd(Railroad Ave to Broadway Ave) �';�� • Boone Ave(University Rd to Pines Rd) �k'a�,� • Flora Rd(Maxwell Ave to 400 ft north of Sprague Ave) • Alki Ave(currently less than 18 feet in parts,widening necessary) Design: • No center line markings • Sharrow markings • Depending on the characteristics of the particular roadway, parking could be allowed if traffic volumes are low and there is ample visibility around parked vehicles. Otherwise on-street parking should be prohibited on the paved roadway. • Some roadways may have a gravel shoulder where parking could be permitted. 24 to 36 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • 12`h Ave(sections) t7�t�'or�:Allaw • Valleyway Ave On-S[ree[ • Adams Rd � �-� Parking Qn . Progress Rd(sections) Orie Sirle ; • Mission Ave(Francher Rd to Vista Rd) 18'-28' 8'` • Vista Rd(I-90 to Bridgeport Ave) • Locust Rd(Mission Ave to Valleyway Ave) - _ ,- • Farr Rd(Valleyway Ave to Sprague Ave) • Woodruff Rd(8`h Ave to 16`h Ave) �';,a'•� ` • University Rd(Mission Ave to I-90) ��'r;� � • 38`h Ave(37`h Ave to Pines Rd) � • Mamer Rd(Mission Ave to I-90) • 16`h Ave(Sullivan Rd to Rotchford Dr) i �—� `� • Rotchford Dr(16`h Ave to 4`h Ave) • Conklin Rd(Broadway Ave to Sprague Ave) • Flora Rd(Mission Ave to Maxwell Ave,400 ft north of Sprague Ave to 3rd Ave) • 6`h Ave,4`h Ave(west of Park Ave) Design: • Center line marking optional • Sharrow pavement markings • Option to designate on-street parking on one side of the roadway. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 26 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Boulevard Cross Sections 36 to 46 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • Pierce Ave(sections) • 24`h Ave(sections) '�` �' Blake Rd(sections) k-� i � � ��'' � . Park Rd(north of Rutter Ave and south of 8`h Ave) �� d�_�Q� $� • Farr Rd(Sprage Ave to g`n) • University Rd(railroad tracks to Montgomery Dr) • 37`h Ave(Bowdish Rd to 38`h Ave) � • Conklin Rd(Sprague Ave to 4`h Ave) � P �*p+,F� • Pines Rd(south of 32nd� ��r'� � p !� � Design: • Center line marking optional(depends on roadway Os�-StfeB F Qn-5 tree i cha racte risti cs) Parking Parking Sharrow pavement markings • Parking could be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Table 9: Cross Sections— Bicycle Lanes (No On-Street Parking) Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) 30 to 40 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section:2 lanes (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bike lanes:2 lanes ` ,�r, A, � Roadways: � �1�� '�"til �' • Bowdish Rd(sections) ��-�� q^-�q' �p•-�q° , �•-�� • Evergreen Rd(sections) - • Flora Rd(sections) _ • Barker Rd(sections) �l' 1 � • Wellesley Ave(sections) • Mission Ave(sections) � Broadway Ave(sections) . � • 32nd Ave(sections) ��4 • 44`h Ave • McDonald Rd(sections) 3a'-4D' . 3rd Ave(Francher Rd to west City Limits) • Montgomery Ave(University Rd to Jackson Ave) • 8`n Ave(west of Park Rd)currently less than 30 feet,widening necessary • Carnahan Rd(consider climbing lane only) Design: • 5 to 6 foot bike lanes • For roadways less than 30 feet,widening will be necessary. • Depending on the characteristics of each roadway, a centerline stripe may not be necessary in some cases. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 27 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) 42 to 55 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section:4 lanes(or 3 lanes with TWLTL) (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bike lanes: 3 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: ;� �'. � � . University Rd(sections) � `'-a i'� '`c=r—� � • McDonald Rd(sections) • Fancher Rd(sections) 5'-6', A�,5'-14` . 11'-15' _ 1._0.5'-14' . 5'-5' . MissionAve(sections) • Broadway Ave(sections) __—._ • Montgomery Ave(Argonne Rd to Woodruff Rd) 1�M � . Pines Rd(Pinecroft Wy to Trent Ave) � • Pines Rd(16`h to 32nd Ave) • Park Rd(sections) � • Montgomery Ave(Jackson Ave to Bowdish Rd) - - - -- - ;^� • Evergreen Rd(sections) • Barker Rd(sections) �}�•_�� • Mission Ave(sections) • 32nd Ave(sections) • McDonald Rd(sections) Design: • Convert a 4 lane cross section to 3 lanes including a center two-way left turn lane • Vehicle lanes range from 10.5'to 14' • Bicycle lanes range from 5'to 6' 48 to 54 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section:4 lanes (One-Way Traffic) Cross section with bike lanes: 3 lanes Roadways: � �. �. � • Appleway Blvd(currently striped with bike lanes �oF� �"or� �c`s-� ,� approximately 4 feet wide,6 feet recommended) Approx 13'-15' . APprax 13'-15' . Approx.13'-15' . 3'. 6' Design: ` • Bike lane with 3 foot buffer � • No on-street parking ��. Note: In areas where the cross section is 54 feet,4 vehicle i travel lanes could be maintained at an 11 foot width while � � including the buffered bicycle lane as shown. � � � � �� *�a 39' 45' 48'-54' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 28 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) 54 to 60 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bike lanes: 3 lanes with TWLTL � �, .� � Roadways: �� - • Euclid Ave(Sullivan Rd to Flora Rd) 5'-6',3', 1.2'-14" 14' � 12'-74' 3', 5'E 7 -� Design: �- ----- - - � • A buffer zone next to the bicycle lane would make �'a r�` A � the bicycle lane more comfortable to riders. ' �1 !1 � � ± � L ` -- - � 1'1 ► ! 54'-6a' 68 to 80 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bike lanes: 5 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: � ,+�'< �� _ ►4 • Fancher Rd(sections) � �� '–' � �`�� • University Rd(Sprague to 4`n) ii-7' 19'-13 11'-13' 12'-f4' 11'-13' 17'-13 fi'-i' • Indiana Ave(Sullivan Rd to Desmet) "'T`'�' 'A� # - ' Design: � • This option narrows existing lanes to maintain the � existing cross section while adding bicycle lanes. ' � � ; � _ - - -'-'�- c�'-kSU' Sections for Sprague Sprague-92 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from University Rd to 300'east of Houk Rd Original cross section: 7 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bike lanes: 7 lanes with TWLTL � ,�ia: ,�►. >�C� �. .�+— fe � � � `�k� �� rc"� Y ° y ■ �'� � 6. 11. _11_ 11" 1�' i1. 11. 11' S' 1�1 �r � � -- • - • - - • - � ,' �+�► +� � _ . ._ - • _ - • - - 1'1 92' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 29 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) Sprague-86 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from 300'east of Houk Rd to about 1,100 feet east of Sullivan Rd Original cross section: 7 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bike lanes: see options#1 and#2 below. Note that with option#1 the bike lane narrows to 4.5 feet at intersections and mid-block locations where left turns are allowed.Due to the narrow bike lanes,a maximum of one mid-block left turn median opening is recommended between signalized intersections. Option#1 -7 lanes with raised median(mid-block) r ��. �,: �� A. " -_ _��:�r -a _ �r .� -�-- 6' ii' 1t' 71' $' _ ,I.1_ - �_�.i.. -- �1°-- 6, T T T f�� , �� F2ai5ed ° � � ....� ..ur f�edian � ! � — - - — -- -- - - __ __ 1�� 6' Option#1 -7 lanes with left turn lane(at signalized intersections and mid-block where left turns are allowed): � ��. .�c, ,�i�. � �w � � � ��-� �� I.�� ° � �°�f � 4.5' 11' ii' 11' 11' 14' 11' 11' A.5 11 ` � � - - - - • -- � � � � -- - -- - -- -- - - - -- i'+� 86' Note:a maximum of one mid-block left turn median opening is recommended between signalized intersections. Option#2-Reducing to 5 lanes with buffered bicycle lanes ,,r;, i��.' .�4;, ,�7, � �r!h. 4� �-� � � � � '`:-�L7 -� ��C#:.� �C 6' , �' . 13' �3' 14' � 13' 13' 4' _ 6° ►i1 7 - ,� ! '�►, ;�; ,w - - - \ r •. � � � � ' , _ _ �� 1,� � � � ► , � ,► 86' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 30 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) Sprague-71 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from 1,100 feet east of Sullivan Rd to Appleway Ave Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bike lanes: 5 lanes with median or left turn lane f� y �.. :�'r �' �. � �'=��_J `.�.,,�� y�-� �� 6' 17.5' 11' 14' t'1° fi1.5' 6' �•� � � —. -- - � � ;� ;� �. , � � � � � ;�•' � ' -� � ,' ; ' p `_� 1'1 7� . Sprague-66 Foot One-Way Cross Section: Sprague east of University Road(westbound only) Original cross section: 5 lanes Cross section with bike lanes: Option#1 -5 lanes with buffered bicycle lane i- i �i;, i �: � � �� '�.°� �� °� 11' 9 3 5' 11.7� 11 G' "� 5' 3' 6' .� � � # � f .� �i `�;.. ! �`' `� � � � � � � i �� u■■� �u■� a■► � � !�� . . � 6G' Option#2-4 lanes with buffered bicycle lane �� . � � � � �' � �� fr� �~�1 !s' 14' 1�' 1=� 4. 6. ,� T T T T � � � �� '� ��► �' � � . �! � � � � �� r■� � � �� _ ! 66' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 31 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 10: Cross Sections —Bicycle Lanes with On-Street Parking Bicycle Lanes with On-Street Parking 48 to 56 feet Paved Roadway Width (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) Original cross section: 1 lane each direction with a center TVIILTL and on-street parking on one side '�' �� Cross section with bike lanes: 1 lane each direction with � L�` j y� '�' � � on-street parking (both sides) 8' 6' . 40'-1a' f(3'-1�' 6' 8' Roadways: • Mission Ave(Evergreen Rd to Sullivan Rd) � � � � — � � �X Design: P �f; � I��I � P , • 6 foot bicycle lanes adjacent to 8 feet wide on-street � :�-�;, �, parking allows bicyclist to maneuver around open car - � � ` ~ doors while remaining in the bicycle lane. • If the roadway is widened to 62 feet,a 12 foot center t7n-Street ;i;_�,r,, an-S�reer TWLTL could be maintained with a 10 foot lane in Parking ' Parking ��-�� each direction. 60 to 70 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: varies (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) Cross section with bike lanes: varies •�►• �► .,4 Roadways: � �-�� L� � � – If on-street parking is desired on roadways in the � _ �._ .�� . e' s' 1o.5'-t4' 11'-s4' , 1D.5`-14' . c . �' future,these cross sections could be applied to , ' accommodate both on-street parking and bicycle �, �,g w ;� facilities. � � P �'� Design: � • +��; �� • 6 foot bicycle lanes adjacent to 8 feet wide on-street parking allows bicyclist to maneuver around open car �rt-StneeE' 3��2•� Qn-S[rpeC doors while remaining in the bicycle lane. Park7np �7_-��' ParkinQ • A 2 to 3 foot buffer zone between on-street parking and the bicycle lane could be considered in areas with high parking turnover rates to help prevent dooring 70 to 84 feet Paved Roadway Width accidents(when people open car doors into a bicycle lane causing the bicyclist crash either by hitting the (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) open car door or swerving abruptly). � � • For the 84 foot cross section,a five lane cross section �" k�t�� .-,� + would also fit(four 11 foot lanes,and a center 12 foot - ---- - -- — TWLTL). 9 n tOt3-13� il}..rr13` 10.1"r13' 10.5-13 G , � 1.1 A �' - � �� , � • � — - -- f:� Orr-Srree� :y�•_SF� O�r-5treef Parkrny fi.1.�s,,. Parking Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 32 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11: Cross Section — Shared Use Paths Shared Use Path Cross Sections Original cross section: varies Shared Use Path Cross section with bike lanes: Roadway cross section likely remains the same with the addition of Phy5iCa11y 52�3�ratEd frOn�fDad'rv8y�, a shared use path. {C��ld include a ien�e,Q�other��rrier, � f5 L *'"� Roadways: la�adscaarng strip.�r gr�de separakrQn) � � ''� �_--� ��-' � • Millwood Path �� .��}•_�¢� �� • Trent Path Shared LI��p�!h • Sprague Path Raad�r�ay Var�es V�r;es • Appleway Path • North Greenacres Path • Dishman Mica Path • Sullivan Rd, north of the River • Flora Rd, north of Mission Ave Design: • see toolbox section for design recommendations. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 33 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Funding Source Ideas Public Sector Fundinq Sources Federal: Transportation Highlights of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equitv Act: A Leqacv for Users, or "SAFETEA-LU" bill include: • Six-year funding bill signed into law on August 10, 2005 • Authorizes $244.1 billion in Federal gas-tax revenue and other federal funds for all modes of surface transportation. • Includes highways, bus and rail transit, bicycling, and walking • Pedestrian and bicycle programs can be included in programs eligible for over half the funds • None of the funds are dedicated solely for bicycle or pedestrian facilities or programs Federal: Non-transportation There is a wide range of other federal funds that can be used for bicycling and walking facilities. The most common include: • Funds through federal land agencies such as the National Forest Service, National Park Service or Bureau of Land Management. These funds are primarily for trails and must be on federal lands. • Community Development Block Grants through HUD —the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funds for community-based projects. Examples of the types of projects they fund are: o Commercial district streetscape improvements o Sidewalk improvements o Safe routes to school o Neighborhood-based bicycling and walking facilities that improve local transportation options or help revitalize neighborhoods The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinqhouse has prepared a useful Technical Brief: Financing and Funding for Trails that cites over thirty federal and national funding sources that could be used to help fund bicycling and walking facilities and/or programs, especially trails. Private Sector fundinq Sources Local There are many examples of local communities creating revenue streams to improve conditions for bicycling and walking. Three common approaches include: special bond issues, dedications of a portion of local sales taxes or a voter-approved sales tax increase, and use of the annual capital improvement budgets of Public Works and/or Parks agencies. Some examples follow: • The City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Bernalillo County, have a 5 percent set-aside of street bond funds which go to trails and bikeways. For the City, this has amounted to approximately $1.2 million every two years. City voters last year passed a 1/4 cent gross receipts tax for transportation which includes approximately $1 million per year for the next ten years for trail development. Many on-street facilities are developed as a part of other road projects. Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Pinellas County, Florida built much of the Pinellas Trail system with a portion of a one cent sales tax increase voted for by county residents. • Seattle, Washington approved a nine year levy (property tax) in the fall of 2006 that provides five million dollars a year for pedestrian and bicycle projects. • Denver, Colorado invested $5 million in its emerging trail network with a bond issue, which also funded the city's bike planner for a number of years. • Eagle County, Colorado (which includes Vail) voters passed a transportation tax that earmarks 10 percent for trails, about$300,000 a year. • In Colorado Springs, Colorado, 20 percent of the new open space sales tax is designated for trail acquisition and development; about$5-6 million per year. Local Organizations Shared-use trails have spawned a widespread movement of local non-profit organizations. Many of them have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to plan and construct trails. Land Trusts The environmental land trust movement has mushroomed in the past twenty years. Many of these organizations have raised funds to purchase land where trails are built, especially rail-trails. Businesses There is increasing corporate and business involvement in trail and conservation projects. Employers recognize that creating places to bike and walk is one way to build community and attract a quality work force. Bicycling and outdoor recreation businesses often support local projects and programs. • In Evansville, Indiana, a boardwalk is being built with corporate donations from Indiana Power and Light Co. and the Wal-Mart Foundation. • In Arizona, trail directional and interpretive signs are being provided by the Salt River Project— a local utility. Other corporate sponsors of the Arizona Trail are the Hughes Missile Systems, BHP Cooper, and Pace American, Inc. • Recreational Equipment, Inc. has long been a financial supporter of local trail and conservation projects. • The Kodak Company now supports the American Greenways Awards program of The Conservation Fund, which was started in partnership with the Dupont company. This annual awards program provides grants of up to $2500 to local greenway projects for any activities related to greenway advocacy, planning, design or development. For further details and tips for accessing the corporate and business community contact the Trails and Greenwavs Clearinqhouse at the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy: 1-877-GRNWAYS (476-9297). Community Fundraising & Partnering Community fundraising and creative partnerships are plentiful. A common approach is to find creative ways to break a large project into small pieces that can be "purchased" by the public. Some examples: • In Ashtabula, Ohio the local trail organization raised one-third of the money they needed to buy the land for the trail, by forming a "300 Club." Three hundred acres were needed for the trail and they set a goal of finding 300 folks who would finance one acre each. The land price was $400 an acre, and they found just over 100 people to buy an honorary acre, raising over $40,000. • In Jackson County, Oregon they had a "Yard Sale." The Bear Creek Greenway Foundation sold symbolic "yards" of the trail and placed donor's names on permanent markers that are located at each trailhead. At $40 a yard, they raised enough in private cash donations to help match Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan their $690,000 Transportation Enhancements program award for the 18-mile Bear Creek trail linking Medford, Talent, Phoenix and Ashland. • Selling bricks for local sidewalk projects, especially those in historic areas or on downtown Main Streets, is increasingly common. Donor names are engraved in each brick, and a tremendous amount of publicity and community support is purchased along with basic construction materials. Portland, Oregon's downtown Pioneer Square is a good example of such a project. • In Colorado Springs, the Rock Island Rail-Trail is being partly funded by the Rustic Hills Improvement Association, a group of local home-owners living adjacent to the trail. Also, ten miles of the trail was cleared of railroad ties by a local boy scout troop. • A pivotal 40-acre section of the Ice Age Trail between the cities of Madison and Verona, Wisconsin, was acquired with the help of the Madison Area Youth Soccer Association. The soccer association agreed to a fifty year lease of 30 acres of the parcel for a soccer complex, providing a substantial part of the $600,000 acquisition price. Foundations A wide range of foundations have provided funding for bicycling and walking. A few national and large regional foundations have supported the national organizations involved in pedestrian and bicycle policy advocacy. However it is usually regional and local foundations that get involved in funding particular bicycle, pedestrian or trail projects. These same foundations may also fund statewide and local advocacy efforts as well. The best way to find such foundations is through the research and information services provided by the national Foundation Center. They maintain a huge store of information including the guidelines and application procedures for most foundations, and their past funding records. Grant Writing Tips The following are some helpful tips for successful grant writing (e.g., for government grants and private foundations): 1. Read the directions and applications thoroughly. 2. Find out what projects were previously funded. 3. Obtain a copy of a successful application. 4. Find out who reviews the applications and talk to him or her; it may be an individual or a larger group. 5. Always include a picture and graphic that quickly conveys what is being asked for in the proposal. 6. Identify key words and concepts in the grant application and then use them in your narrative. 7. Convey a sense of urgency — for example, if funding is not obtained, something of value such as a rail corridor, will be lost. 8. Provide a timeline —demonstrate that the project is ready to go once funding is secured. 9. Focus on a tangible product — e.g., construct something, purchase some property, etc.; minimize the amount that goes for overhead and design. 10. Demonstrate that you are leveraging funds and that this is not the only funding source; no one wants to be a sole source of funds for a project or program. 11. Demonstrate community support through letters from neighborhood associations, advocacy groups, and local businesses. Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Federal Highway Administration Recreational Trails Program The RTP funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel excise tax collected from non-highway recreational fuel use: fuel used for off-highway recreation by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks. The RTP funds are distributed to the States by legislative formula: half of the funds are distributed equally among all States, and half are distributed in proportion to the estimated amount of non-highway recreational fuel use in each State. See the Funding Levels by State. The distribution model is based on a report for FHWA by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in July 1999 (Fuel Used for Off-Road Recreation: A Reassessment of the Fuel Use Model). Transportation Enhancements TE investments benefit communities through rehabilitation of historic facilities related to transportation, renovated streetscapes, rail-trails and other transportation trails, transportation museums, and scenic and historic highway program visitor centers. This website is a resource to States providing official legislation and guidance documents. The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC) also has a website where you can get an introduction to TE, find out about the TE program in your State, see project examples, access a database of TE projects, see how States use TE funds, and order TE related documents. State of Washington-WSDOT WSDOT— Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants Program Purpose The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants were established to address the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. These safety focused projects may also support increased mobility and encourage more people to bicycle and walk. Eligible Applicants Only agencies that have been contacted with an invitation to apply for funding are eligible apply. Projects submitted by agencies who have not been contacted will not be considered. Invitations to submit applications will be sent to public agencies where WSDOT has identified known pedestrian and bicycle risk locations. Please see the invitational methodoloqv to learn more on how the process took place. Examples of Eligible Projects Engineering improvements — based on recent state and national research, arterial streets in urban areas with higher speeds and volumes are the locations with the most collisions and risk. The research also indicates that several treatments may effectively reduce pedestrian and bicycle collisions at these locations. Projects may include items such as: • Intersection improvements such as: curb extensions, lighting, raised median, crosswalk enhancements, signs, signals and mid-block crossing treatments; • Completing bicycle lanes and sidewalks; • Constructing bicycle and pedestrian paths; • Providing safe routes to transit; • Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements for at risk groups (children, elderly and people with disabilities). Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Education efforts — inform the public about project and how it improves safety, educate the public about biking and walking safety in general, and include the broad range of transportation choices and events and activities that promote walking and biking safely. Projects may include items such as: • Implementation of educational curricula. • Distribution of educational materials. • Walk or bike promotional programs. • Pedestrian sting operations. Other WSDOT Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities WSDOT works closely with local, county and regional organizations to balance transportation needs with community values and environmental goals. There are several state and federal funding sources that may be available to support these efforts: • Washinqton Wildlife and Recreation Proqram: Acquisition and development of local and state parks, water access sites, trails, critical wildlife habitat, natural areas, and urban wildlife habitat. • Small Citv Sidewalk Proqram: Improve safety, provide access, and address system continuity and connectivity. The program is on an annual cycle. • Non-Hiqhwav and Off-Road Vehicle Proqram: Develop and manage recreation opportunities for those who use off-road vehicles and facilities for those who pursue non-motorized trail activities. • Traffic Safetv Grants: Reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that result from traffic crashes. • Transportation Enhancement Grants: Strengthen the cultural, aesthetic and environmental aspects of the intermodal transportation system. • National Recreational Trails Proqram: Rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilities that provide a backcountry experience. • Intersection and Corridor Safetv Proqram: Eliminate or reduce fatal or injury accidents by identifying and correcting hazardous locations, sections and/or elements that constitute a danger to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists. • Washinqton Scenic Bvwavs Proqram: WSDOT provides federal funding to projects on highways designated as National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, or as State scenic byways. • Public Lands Hiqhwavs Proqram: Improve access to and within federal lands "served by the public lands highway." • Surface Transportation Proqram - Reqional Funds: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funding for projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. • Trip Reduction Performance Proqram: Get people out of their cars and onto buses, trains, vanpools, and other commute options. • Conqestion Mitiqation Air Qualitv Improvement Proqram: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funds to projects and programs that reduce transportation related emissions in four air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas in the state. Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan State of Washington — Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) TIB Funding Programs for Urban Customers - Urban Sidewalk Program TIB typically issues a Call for Projects each summer with applications due at the end of August. Overview The Sidewalk Program was established by the Legislature in 1995 to Urban Programs provide funding for pedestrian projects. The program is available to both small city and urban agencies. Urban and small city projects compete Urban Arterial Proqram separately. lUAP) To be eligible for the program: Urban Corridor Proqram (UCP) • The intent of the project must be transportation and not recreation. Urban Sidewalk Proqram �� • The project must be on a federally classified route (principal, minor, or collector). More Information Projects improve pedestrian safety, access, connectivity, and address system continuity. Completed projects must be consistent with the Urban Proqram Overview Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Urban Proqram Criteria Projects are usually large in scale with multiple funding sources ranging from local contribution to private developer fees. These projects are Proqram Guidelines selected annually on a competitive basis. Each program has distinct W( ACs) characteristics for the best suited project. Qualification and criteria are Process Map different within each program. Fundinq Applications Once selected, TIB staff provides grant oversight, participates in Value Engineering (VE) studies, and acts as facilitators to bring projects to completion. Program Specific Information The intent of the Urban Sidewalk Program is to provide funding for projects that address safety, access to generators, and system connectivity. All projects must be transportation related on a federally classified route and be consistent with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). General criteria include: ❑ A minimum 20 percent match is required on all urban SP projects. ❑ Funds are distributed across five regions based on arterial lane miles and population. WAC 479-12-421 What projects are eligible for sidewalk program funding. Minimum project requirements for each subprogram are as follows: 1. Urban sidewalk program project eligibility: a. Must be on or related to a functionally classified route; and b. Primary purpose of the project is transportation and not recreation. 2. Small city sidewalk program project eligibility: a. The project must be located on or related to a street within the TIB designated arterial system; and b. Primary purpose of the project is transportation and not recreation. Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan For both of the subprograms, TIB does not participate in the cost for right of way acquisitions. For the urban sidewalk program, TIB does not provide funding increases. WAC 479-12-431 Award criteria for the sidewalk program. The board establishes the following criteria for use in evaluating sidewalk program grant applications for both urban and small city sidewalk projects: 1. Safety improvement- projects that address hazard mitigation and accident reduction. 2. Pedestrian access - projects that improve or provide access to facilities including: a. Schools; b. Public buildings; c. Central business districts; d. Medical facilities; e. Activity centers; f. High density housing (including senior housing); g. Transit facilities; h. Completes or extends existing sidewalks. 3. Local support-addresses local needs and is supported by the local community. WAC 479-12-121 What projects are eligible for urban arterial program funding. Eligible projects are improvements located on a route with an urban federal functional classification. Any urban street that is not functionally classified at the time of award must obtain functional classification prior to approval to expend board funds. For the urban arterial program, sidewalks are required on both sides of the roadway unless a sidewalk deviation is granted by the executive director or board through WAC 479-12-500. WAC 479-12-131 Award criteria for the urban arterial program. The board establishes the following criteria for use in evaluating urban arterial program grant applications: 1. Safety improvements - addresses accident reduction, eliminates roadway hazards, and corrects roadway deficiencies. 2. Mobility improvements - improves level of service, improves access to generators, and connects urban street networks. 3. Pavement condition - replaces or rehabilitates street surfaces and structural deficiencies. 4. Mode accessibility - provides additional high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus volume, or non- motorized facilities. 5. Local support-demonstrates initiative to achieve full funding and project completion. Safe Routes to School Mini-grants About Safe Routes to School Mini-grants The goal of Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs is to enable and encourage children to safely walk and bicycle to school. SRTS programs are implemented nationwide by parents, schools, community leaders, and local, state, and tribal governments. The aim of the mini-grants is to use student creativity and leadership skills to increase safe walking and bicycling to school. Successful applications will include one or a combination of the following: student-led Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan activities, concern for the environment, and/or promotion of physical activity. Activities funded by the mini- grants must be part of a new or existing Safe Routes to School program. Application Process The National Center is not currently accepting applications for SRTS mini-grants. The next application cycle will open late spring 2010 for projects implemented in the fall 2010 semester. Applicant Eligibility Eligible applicants include: • Faculty, staff, or parent volunteers at elementary or middle schools; • Adult-supervised elementary or middle school groups or clubs; • Adult-supervised high school groups/clubs that wish to partner with a nearby elementary or middle school; • Local governments; • Tribal governments; and/or • Community-based or private non-profit organizations engaged in improving safety for and increasing the number of children who safely walk or ride a bicycle to school. Eligible Activities The schools at which mini-grant activities will occur must be elementary or middle schools. Also, these schools must be either starting new SRTS program activities or events, or currently conducting SRTS activities and want to expand them. The National Center is providing mini-grants for creative ideas that are youth-focused and that may explore related issues such as: How do students encourage their peers and the adults in their lives to walk and bicycle safely to school? How do students and others make the connection between safe routes to school and environmental or physical activity issues? Example eligible activities include, but are not limited to, the following: • Students encouraging peers/parents to find opportunities to walk or bicycle, starting with the trip to school. • Students connecting the choice to walk or bicycle with helping the environment. • Students connecting the choice to walk or bicycle with better health. • Students developing messages for parents/other drivers to drive safely, especially in school zones and neighborhoods. From carbon calculators to social marketing campaigns, from audits of school environments to communicating with local politicians and/or government officials, submit a proposal for a project that can make a difference at your school or community. Activities funded by the mini-grants must have the potential to have long-term impacts. Although it is not required, applicants may want to collect student travel data as part of their application in order to have more information about current rates of walking and bicycling to school. This information may help applicants decide on appropriate activities. For more information about data collection, and for student travel tally forms, please see www.saferoutesinfo.orq/data. Selection Criteria All applications that meet the eligibility requirements above will be reviewed by a committee that will aim to make awards to: • A broad geographic distribution of recipients; Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Applicants representing a variety of program types; • Applicants who provide a clear description of how funding will be used to begin new programs or advance current projects or programs with activities that fit with eligibility requirements outlined above; and • Projects or programs that align with SRTS goals of encouraging more children to walk and bicycle to school safely. Funding Restrictions Mini-grant funds may not be used for staff salaries, fundraising, food or refreshments, or cash prizes. The mini-grant funds are Federal funds, and there are Federal restrictions on how the funds are spent. If you have questions about funding eligibility for specific activities, please email info(a�saferoutesinfo.orq. Reporting Requirements Mini-grant recipients will be required to submit an informal written report on activities midway through the implementation period. Recipients will also be required to submit a formal report at the end of the implementation period (June/July 2010) that provides information about the project. The formal report will include the following: • Budget report of actual expenditures • Description of the project's activities, challenges, successes, and participation rates • At least three digital pictures that show one or more activities of the funded project Mini-grant recipients may be required to complete a brief questionnaire after the grant period. Application Deadline The National Center is not currently accepting applications for SRTS mini-grants. The next application cycle will open late spring 2010 for projects implemented in the fall 2010 semester. Adopted August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources _� � _ �� "� � Map 11.1 a,e �� '�° o� I a � - � Existing Bike daa.� � e, r . �, �a� � a we�� Y �� 1 w , g 2 we� s � i--_ , . e . + a v � �;9 3 � � � - 3� � _ � CI�Ll� m �i B ceo Ciryof �� e, Spokane � ,e„„�,r � � ��-:�. � �� aa ��.. �� Legend O�charcl_��'e _ - rsy • fA - • Na • • � 0 r Parl. o�i o �I . v 'b�= � an_ 6oue �Z � Ec t gF J.hes �S k�Ri� � � � '.. . . E'tl B�keLane P� - Town ofMillwobYl � � �I.f.. r�, V b � a � E�stlib9hazedUSePeth a �a^ P ii 1. &I �4�� M��-�,T�� M a � on�m � . _• S 11 v .M�me � Pm'k" � ..... Ge��te�uuelTreil ��' �� I Trailheads �� PV�'1,f —�in�� re PT k � ua a a o \11 -5 �,Ce�t °�� C;�'eenac � � Schools _ �1 °`' 1 ' � ;a = - >� m.�a� ...^-��--^ Rsilroad w ea - m m ��me�� Parl.Roel ' o"� sme m f a w r � em o�� > �w w -eeno � m aons . . '� �°°� eaam,e � �' � �POOI . � _�. - . — � O[herM�vapalihes �"°� - I Ak� -o�" � m � � tiTyofSpokaneValley _ �Be1Po�i�'E 3 O��porNUit�-TO�cushi��^'�" �r Parks � Pei'1; _ �HSII " p a �. "Cµ _:. .�� - a � R'aterBOdies _ �� - �� 9. Sli�ellei� _ � - a� a � _ Lake ?*_ s� Fs iu � e�n z � ��u u s m o . � v ° an '� .��.� � E`Iaecliff � m „ _ - � i ' Y`— - � Pa�'1: ` E � h B ou h �� m o�n n � m JJ ��\---��,,, m m`2tn latn � 3 0 $ _` �. S �YF _ `12tn t F = � � � m .. 3 . .. . @ S0 a�n � A F u >>�n i � � � _ � a J'�^. , , 'O'r - z �.e,.r��. � a,r o� _ - � °3 ��... -rooi � } ._ �� -� _ _ _ � _ ,. � ��\I� _°� /� . �' �� MapLocation > �m _ za� E I �I� i B. e y w s I nn qa � o� zsuL� � � 8� m . . P ti . ` ''3 - �`�,e9e.- @ 1` � � � C.tle � �I i� � �—�� w� P�g � c� �� . $�, rJ.. ERecmeDate�A,YA,Y3\X s� � Ord�naviceho:Y\hYY d �q ��T,� �� 8 � � � _ . F� 5: l , -- �{ �m €w I i"��'in�L¢£ �� n 3 � vai��'tl �n �$ ' 0 OS 1 ZMiles ��'"��.�� od 0b": r�'�c r sest l� urc r f .I C:. ke cla m.s k�.. � 90 e�Mom I esP�(d !. !. 1 f f . . d eaF � �� M zoroh �. c��fs .m ar��c m�. � � o� . 1 ��o �a�ain n��ev��a,a�,�o,ofzran �oo,o<<_:000�� m � � -rer� / � _� ° � �.z., m� � ��° Map 11.2 � E � ° � m e Em Me� , � e ,a oo� �� ° � a� we�.� / � � � Recommended a �� w �� (� 3 { �e m � m � � F � � Bikeway Network c�syot � ( � "°a _� `�_ a, P��a : e�e, � Spokane � - ' � - �i �,n,�_ ?�� _ w�— �`� � " Legend � �" � � � � s'�t�s}�srem 0 Orcha��cl��e -�-�I . n z �3� �— �z _ • • • W • r �rs+ a n v PflYI� ss,... " � u � r .. , m � -' m^ E ° E�E's[' B�ke Lane i�Tp�1 ,,��,�`� m"0 }TM Spoka�ne�Ri� - "PT'• 1 � � �� _ E�s[v�gSheredUSePeth To��'of.Millwood �� _ ='F �I ... o m .....pr�osedBikeBlvd a� Ua^ � ,�� e P �S F My�auaE � ry�a ' )• a %��. ••w s s Aoposed B�ke Lane � � �, �'��e� �d _ S 11 a c s�r Moo�^en - ��- P�� AoposedShazedUSePath w / �� : m o -J � - � c n `i'S �� `�—� � �rroposeareeisikeanave N g P ��'Y 0 y S Ce�tL � PR �I,.� G e ��i � Polential Crosvng Treatments - P I.ROed ; g ' .�om _ne�\�fe41�1 � �POOI ' - �� / b a e'mo � ` r �� . Ak' n � .. �N.ty _ ,,,c�._o-eau.. �e0oo �p tl Y�Icr..�.�g�_"� Hall ow _ m �y .• I ��N € � a, M -�'8 °�' OPPor nah�p °"a � � •••••Centennlal Tra11 Aki i e / m � � !�' me� a°".: � m a ei � ''�"� ��'- � '` ..�.- �`� m ' ` �� Trailheads _ �+ap�y-v �,. ,--�' \J- �itl O ' Schools 4'!k _ 3het/� � � �' � � �Lake m ` � �.�.�.Ra'lroad 0 Edgerliff � '. 61 a s�n� � e'n �p[her M ''p 1't' � Park ��, ' y � an q�y� y � , E ��n � � � ��'°,a�n � � _ �� o AJ L��n ��e� �-1��',�� 0 a�otspo�„eti auey m a� xitn 3 � »�n i � � � Pazks ., , /I m �� - - T UiewPa k �e�n � ""I' - \ `'y J. � v:s[erBOd{es 1� J� , � _ � � '�1i �JPool . - � ��T _ '� �-�` �' �' � - I ' r�� 3 � , KK Map Location �I ;o.� �� d,��I�� / a $ en� _ _ - c7 l W � i a L ' � P 1. os a 3 " .. �� Y ��Q C atle _� �� f' � . P k }a � �� EfPecmeDate�AYA,Y3\X � -� g��?s� Ocd�naviceho:Y\hYY d s� ^ �S� � ��_ . ,.. � � . 9" eda ✓� �lanc � °%,� � �,�� a '3 jValkw � � ' -`___I _ ,� Qa�eW Q.Fn �ey, /a�� 0 OS 1 oZMiles . 3 _ aa$ ma��M1h etn � a� �0 �+m '� r. .f . .t F ,�,o� w� o � ,�.,i m _ �..� .z c� m ��a�� r '� � o,s,��a t� t�-r .f . .. f a o n ..� � Ao �� Mom ee ,� ea F. � , �e�o zo ro h =�.an��o c��fs .m a r��c m�. m8� m �a�aionman��ev��a �� o,ofzran o� .-:000na >� � �� — ��,, � � '�� Map 11.3 �� ° °' � �� ,�� Existing Sidewalk � °� � <m - __ � �� -�� --` �— _ , Network m ` �m �j�_ c� of . � —� _ �a�� v Spokane � �� M1 " �roo � � �''� ��, Legend O'b d S�I o� ' � m Sidenalkln�enton' P � �0 d�I�TAe=�l� 1� � � — Side..�alks �;p kar eRi. tl _ ITOWtl OfM1��V00(1 � f �. � ��; a • Cw6Ramps -�]U�abee $/ �n 3�� ye� � pa�'1.1 ,. ��z�1y� TextwedCw6Remps � I I � - r ,c • � �t � - — ' �� + I� 'gy �� •.• 5 Iliceu �. �o�ame � I�� Y '"��—� . a�g r��k.��;ierj �i��'I .... centennial Trail �vk"'�+ I` P�l—\11�-]ISSion � F e � I � C� 'r"� � � I�'P ��—��s�r`_I a �'°s.::. r �d'' ��r� � Trailheads �,� -�I_ 3 � —�v��ey seo�sreeorii� �� - c eeo��l �,t ' s�,00�s 1� laaa�e � � , -� _ .�,�, _ .� 't, -� - Rzilroad - - - a� � —,�� - �'��. tl `� , l� — � PA�e'o��i _ _ �II ��L` I�I i'_��_I_YW��— � � anermm�dpaaties - �A '� g� �I I' � 8�"� JII� �� me'I � tiTy of Spokene Velley II I - "I�•Balfovr�� OpPyr/n_ily Township^'kon�g I�e � — _ �`rv+ �eti A Peik.v x Pa`k Hall �� i �. � � s II—I !LLI �r _� � �� e� _ ��_� ----- --- --- ----- --- -- — �..�.��,e�_�a aa'�$:—'�� _ �� 1 �� - � �amm �. .. . waceraomes 3 � I-=�,�� a� f�i�_�� IF3 —��-_ ja '��'�'�` � w s, — �� 9 `y�" I n'� i„^ ��Cif4e� r e�n�� i i � �� :� � _�' I� ��' _ ��C—� � �e�n �.�� - ,Ed eeetiee " �; n � ; Im�j a� ��' �C�� anv: � Prk s N wsl'i3�n S ` �� o. M 3' m� I �u e f lean � � �r I e'�y � ��i�- ,I�� I`�n n��Y_��s,ne ��I�� :.:_�,. m � � I I I I �_�I /.�em .,- �.�i4c � � `�\��IPark ' aj(j� m � ':. .:.j �� $ � ,� E � �� %Poti� °= u � �� r„_ - � �o- ,Ez3 _ �3, �,V --r�`� �� oo� �t. (�(\ `�'�`-'� � — � _� _ � �� J I , \ E tl� r '•�$ _.1 `tl I�zau emn�� yll Map Locahon � � �� a. ��L_?�.I � �I � �� I , � � �� C atle I ��`,� �, I� — � "�Crar� 3 . � � . �� _ °' . EfP D te A,YA,Y3\X ' �� n Ord ho:.Y.1'h.Y.Y d s.� - .�.�J 3` �o ` � G��l y ed�aleire � � � n� � �� N� vl �..,'�'n/� . _ - ��y� �g jVallev � � ; w I gN � ��'�s"'a —_ — _ e a,m e wa� m 3 � �m W I $ r 0 OS 1 2Miles Y� � e.s � / x I . � � � � H ��: ' � r "" E r I ,. c Z' ( .. .Z C�'t ke ]�m 4'e LLF �� ces=Maro 2 I 8va � /- d '�aFV� V i�� . , � �e(d ! !�-1 f zoroh c��fs .m ar��c e�m � o a �� aoai n �� fri. o =000n � �� - _� w _ � ��` ��' Map 11.4 � ^�� oo� � �� Recommended . _ � Y � - a `� _ `J - �b s�= 8 {a,� o � _ - trian ork � ,�- m LL _ - � � � e es etw �C�ty of �' �.- . ed _ � . , � �,�e, � Spokane � o e �,_ � �'l _q_ �� ' F � � � �� ` Legend �r � � � J _��I � 3 O h 11� J-- .•�. , N i P � � ^ _ _ Pedesnianretnrork �� 'ae � � � � -Sideuela a 1 '� SPokaneR��er - - -`, -� ,� TM �� ° � ao � - -ProposedSideu�ell� � w P 7 1 r N+ ��, � wo ° ToWn�"�f.M1RVi'ood ..��,, � F � µ�`•k � _� �i_r� � _lGrabee - E�st'v�gShazedUSePeth a� _ _ PA��u AoposedShazeAUSePath '� a� n Sull�caup `� •••• Centennial Trtil , e P�� Trailheads m�enm� � ' ��11 \[.s � � .l�e � �m Pe�-6'o m =� - 9choola a - _ - - Va1leySeniorCen[er - o� _ Greeuecres= ' �.�.�+:fu py�7road � _ � `� - -�-�" °°��a�� 0 � Pa�'I;ROed - - - 3� _ � O[herM��u�palities _ �POOI - � � - � _ � �n,ofSpokane Valley �� 9 _l �� o y �, 8� Perks _� Balfou OppoHUnity Township �g� ve � r .o� � u a� e e ey_ o-o� � �e�� a a .a� � ` o Pack - Ha0 a - g� g �t'e[er Bodies i 3h'elley� ' �6 � ..._. n� � �ke �� . , �n Ed eectiff m �(h �_ P rk �li o 3 0 ' � y7] �� s:�� I . � � m � � D� �,� � „�n J�� Terra/Pbl Park� �o � _ � o ' tt , � ' r� ., � � - - ;� � � ,( o\ � o�' � MapLocation ,�� f\ " B' � nT I z o� V - I / � I �d Pa�kf v �F� -_ 'nCaatle - • Il Pa�rk - se . . ..,� m � � r � . EllecmeDate.a.Ya.YI\X ... � sc,, �� w z�� R „� _ Ord�naviceho.:Y\-hYY �s � �� _ � � e � � � �1 �`K� � � A� I� A m �� v �� m�i E �UI'flC _ `� m � � � ' , - � .I � N�" �/ j�d��i,9' � �� . �r� �" - � ��W � 0 OS 1 2Miles �c �8� � M� x p0� o� �I I c r f e or an¢ rs o u n u ro rena� ,¢o y e e �n as .Z C' ke c]¢�mr tl aatn �� o s e I Mw.o I� P�l d !� !. 7 ..� .f � d . ,�' �a F.� � - � �, n�� zo ro h c��fs .m a r��c �. ,� � aa`l � ..�� a�ai � � fP�. o --000� � a� � °� E ,�., ° � ` Map 11.5 � "°��` �� a°� o� � - w a� ' � � � BS � , _ � t Safe Routes �°°��. ��y� ��- �. �w � �=� �� em�ro,� �� to Schools cityof : �`'�� . t � � Spokane� s, r '�- L ° � ka -_ �.,. �� t-:t�—. a�� -�C' � �- �y+� �i Legend ��°��3 m �`��-�' - � ' ' �q PedesnianNetnrork --SP��°�'•°� ..,Town f�Millwood ,� N°\j0 =� `u��` I(�I xo�cat _ uu ;x_ �`°=u� °' m F a� � Police SteNon �. �ia��un'rr�yHpn I . � M�� Librery �*" I�I Tren9[LOCetion $ W H �'o'••' no �� saeexa�-�„ W r �"m r ��'aro� 9chool Idendfied � t �g - m-'�ry �J'-, q� � a'alldnsROnte � � en ten � W .....Ce.nte.nnial Trail r�mael� 5 y„. _ � Trailheads amu�i.a�i cooe �r�ary = �"tf _ S - " . Schools - ,�. V 2�a es I m cm�U V ° ........Neilroed 3a a�n o . a�n �� y Sh I/ey� _ �. �. ma� arL�ke / " � O[herM 'pl't'es � �� ' �` �IE t o � � -- � tiryofSp keneValley �t L o � m � � m r' n m ° ` �zu � �i u� � -a3 i3 8 a z ¢ ��8 � �� aa Perks ' g,.. 3 2 �n£ e f c[a.[.Wi .; R'aterBOdies v 31.3�' ,� o ry g � �� : r � tt L`�k � � � � W � � "�' � ' erv Map Location zu�� m�yi �&�� t`a �' ��z.� � IJ � ��e�ie �� m - e EtPecH�-eDate:A/YA/Y3\X v -•�sy- g�^e �cta Ord�naviceho:Y\-kYY d sr�,� Vn�32 _ � 3� I 1 m � ,i,. ,� 36�u �� .�,rv � cv� r . �� L J "� c i a. �c 9 �� '�4 ��. �3� g �, � �xn �0 �$�r+ 0 OS 1 o2Vliles �8� � LL r�re�> , I�� r �f �t-F ,.�,o� �g tr�„ � ' - ��.� ..�.z C� m ��m �#�mn} �� e�'mre g�� fiM �(d ! !�-1 S - n �� M`n."�' .a ro ro h �. c��ts .m a r��c - s�� " � �a�ain n��ev��a,a��v��o,ofzran �oo,o�._:000nn �� _� ° � �.z., m� � ��° Map 11.2 � E � ° � m e Em Me� , � e ,a oo� �� ° � a� we�.� / � � � Recommended a �� w �� (� 3 { �e m � m � � F � � Bikeway Network c�syot � ( � "°a _� `�_ a, P��a : e�e, � Spokane � - ' � - �i �,n,�_ ?�� _ w�— �`� � " Legend � �" � � � � s'�t�s}�srem 0 Orcha��cl��e -�-�I . n z �3� �— �z _ • • • W • r �rs+ a n v PflYI� ss,... " � u � r �. A iT1 m � -' �,� �aa o E�.E's[' B�ke Lane Spoka�ne�Ri� "PT' �m� 1 a� � � .:� � E�s[v�gSheredUSePeth To��'of.Millwood � � �� "' �I .. o „ m •••••AoposedB�keBlvd „ �a^ � P �S F My�maaE M' ' )Y a %��. ••w s s Aoposed B�ke Lane � � �P, �'��e� �ga"� _ S 11-a c$�r Monwme�y - f ��- A dShazedUSePath W / p��.ti� opose �� 3: a� o -J m � - � �n �i�5 � �`��—� � �rroposeareeisikeanave N g P ��'Y 0 y S Ce�tL � PR �I,.� G e ��i � Polential Crosvng Treatments - P I.ROed ; g ' .�om _ne�\�fe41�1 � �POOI �� b a e'mo � ` r �� . Ak' 4 � O ��yyy mmtly _y �,=�,.�6.. � M � �� . � H��ow �� r E m l� ��, hip �� e .... Centen H�- m � oPPor �h T' � m'�`� nlal Tra11 os �o�a i � � M� w Me�� '�"� ��''- � '` - � Trailheads e��e r. r.• � �� . � � � ��`� /�� _ zp� ',� ,--.�>.' \J- `��"° U ' c Schools £ 4'!k _ }� 3het/� � � Lake N�FS _ '---�ilroad � � Edgerliff � '. � C a s�n� h , y �p�herM ''p 1't'es Park �,q ' { � £ m �AIL �y.� ��'n JJ \� �._ �City ofSpoka�ie Velley +�n � m�'��a�n - '�� fd 7�'- Y�� m a� i i�n 3 - � er. u? m »�n s � P ]cs � m 6 a .. J � am L .. zo �/P�1 P � �.� ��' � � . v:s[erBOd{es �f�� r . T ak �� - �_ &� ��I~ �,�., I'\ r��31�---��r�� . �` n �� ' M �• MapLocation � za� , � � e sl � 1 � �` � w g e„o� - . °a � _ � 's�n- L v , P -6 as a �a ' ° I° O � O'aHe. _ o �J, . �a . ~��p�� p k ka �� EfPecmeDate�AYA,Y3\X ` -I g��?s� � Ocd�naviceho:Y\hYY d s� - _ ^ "�i ,y ��_ . ,.. � � . 9" eda �� P �kanc J °%� � _,�l a '3 jValley � � . -`___I _ ,� Qa�eW Q.Fn �ey, /a�� 0 OS 1 oZMiles . 3 _ aa$ ma��M1h etn � a� �0 �+m '� r. .f . .t F ,�,o� w� o � ,�.,i m _ �..� .z c� m ��a�� r '� � o,s,��a t� t�-r .f . .. f a o n ..� � Ao �� Mom ee ,� ea F. � , �e�o zo ro h =�.an��o c��fs .m a r��c m�. m8� m �a�aionman��ev��a �� o,ofzran o� .-:000na >� � �� ..� _.w� ao,e, o � v � � �- w a _ �n ,m� ��aF�� a� ,_ �� Map 11.4 � ^�° oo� �� _ , _ _ _1 � � _ Recommended �.b ,�� = 8 {a,� o Pedestrian Network _ � i � � P,��eo LL - , �a n _ � , �� d e�e. � _ � , etl _ �C�ty of �,�e, � � - o v ew 4 \ ;�� e�ya, Spokane _ � �.;1— � ' .--`- �� _ � . �= m @ � > m � 3 - h -� , _ m .. � � v - ' o � _ -_-,�� 9 am Legend O��chercl_1��e � _ � .•� N m � Parl. ._ r � �s,.�' _ � _ Pedesn�an retnnrk � e,a e �- � _�- � 6 — Side.vella � c ➢ _- A _ '� SQokaieeR��er � T � " ��O � _ - — 6ide.vella � w 'i�, m � T N'R��luW00(1.� �" a a F • Aoposed �t�� ]Grabee �-z Ezis gSheredUsePeth a" _ _ P��'�u AoposedShazedUsePeth '� a� • Sullna �=aPedBil�Bndge m�e �ene P�� `, •Cen[ennielTrail m� � _� �� s � — � Trailheads � o3m Pa�l.l - E creP"� a - _ - - Yauey Sen r Cent - _ _ creeu�cres w � s�ools �� m � 5 `1' � 1 a �� - . •�� Railroed Pa�'I,ROed - - - 3� - � �POOI � O[LerMUnidpelitles _ ' ki9 J - aki� a ��i� ' � _ _ 8w � tiTy ofSpokene Velley _� � Balfou OppoHUnity Township �"' �g Parks Packr = Ha0 - a _ a� a,m �WetaBadies 3h'ell� �6 - n� � �ke �� m , �n Edg�ectiff � - _ P rk �y7] �\� '� 1 _ n .'�o = 30 � n tl � _. �3,:�.., 4'�,:� .e � m � -� j Terrace View Park �o � o °� I ��fi @ / - _ ` /Pbl g ,( � f`6b� � � �� m . � � f� g� -o � I I TII O1 MapLocahon �� v I � d P�I:s �J2m - . s '� �& - I � � ��... C tle � a �z�� . P k �._ ERecmeDate�a.Y?�Yl\X ' �� w � R F� Ocd�naviceho:Y\XXX s� � _ � � � � � �� 1 ea n'� - -F°v A � �� - - � � m;3 A - � 5��e�°° � ' . _ �w° J� ;b l j�u�y . a� —_... .". _ � �W il 4 0 , z M��ies � s� � �dm � ?3 °0� °°�' �� r s � F M,o,� � � e e ,_ � � �� ,a�� a i � j a �' Ma.�o � �(d !� !�-1 f - .rsou�numeena. ,�' �a F.� � - � �,�u rron�� zo ro h «.an��o c��fs .m a r��c �. ,� � aa`l � .��a �a�aioP n��ev a �� fP�. o --000� . e. _ :� o �w 0 �°� � a°� ��r a "E � � 9� °�"" Map 11.5 r. ,. : x=e�e E �a m �� „� �°�� m° ; �o.M=,a� °d �. a�' �� E ,��a��s� w�3� . Safe Routes '� �°� � � � � � �° � �� to Schools ��a.o �� a�� , = we��,� �� ,3�a ro,� , c�ty of�� •,� � � �. a �` o Spokane t � w, A ��9R -- .. `', � „�� d , a� ,P Legend „ > �� .,. ti� � . ..••'� �"°� ,� � " sa � �y ��e '� � �q. Pedesnian hetnrork m� E I �'�7� �+ o �e�mn t �J II � - W ' '��'�a 11=11 Ho t 1 � sp ti x � �Town of Mdlwood � , uui�ii 'P'a R t � ��8 e � �,�� . . r . �. ,FM a� B M�r� �"e � PoliceStenon �0"S• " .� n�„�+-��n��6 :rrea ,.,.. :... M ��"�`lt+ � L�brery N„� -- � - "" � ... `a•�� •• w 2i I�I Tren9[LOCetion �57 rrt�4 3� , .__ s �� • n e �a a,e v _ i� �. �` sna,p € . . . . . �.�� m �•• � � �, t �J SafeHaven �e a� �'S� aa� Ere�1e��rv.3 0� $ �3 q� � � � .. . � '� School IdenNfied . t ��g� �p tl.; � 3__ mm . Walldng Rrn�te . . _d s r y' °�k"' W r,Y _ S � �Y4 � . . ��.�; .... , _ . g� . . . w 3 9_ yy� 8 orene ee.nn P.oe en�en� m •Ce.nte.nnial Trail Ak a N e � i �. 0 3. t .. . E .,o�� - � i�rv+ �xo�8 . _ � 6 � . ' Trailheads �...-Tr+ .� . . > . � m me� ar �iJ�n� tie.:rvcoor � *.�+--;-�„-+sa��H � ' � � R a� t a'm°"y .� . _ . ,� � . o =.� -� . . . . . ... � Schools . . � �..3�y�, " - � 3,a ��AO s .. �,z� ,y �' ..��....Railroad i t '�4-�3.. � n Shelley �3 tl£�S � ��`�a � " ��a � . . t . . � Lakee �eu �� O[herM ''p 1't'es = n � �� ' en, p/, y � a � ut��^�N �.c�csC� � tiryofSpkeneValley � � . . �� a a�, §�1 3 S . 2 . orn ` ti" h . �� '°°�� .°�3 s � _ �. " � s�' 8 .s Per� �,e� "�o' �' r . � ��n m � �� ..�.� r�y � ; u-aceraon;es n � , ., � � ,e, ,s s � . e tii b � �m ��+. �m ��°° � � �" � . � G��-9 3� � � a y� .� �., � ..a� . �� i,� ea r:�, . �e ffi � . .v z�a yo p3 ^�,. y .�.si...Jenn;� c ' � 'b `� i u � � '�,i� • � m� �� `� '�� 2�:�"n w��.�i� � m zu � e� c„e.�� .e � . � � D i� ��,� a �;h'Yy c co�u Map Location . —_ W d —9t � ewa 2 .��eT�tEe�7� .�. `�nCae o 31ne � l7 � - 3�.,� d [n �° �. t g v � � � 4 -�� '8 y 3� E[fecmeDate�a.Ya.YI\X sy j_. . �"' ��g�i�� g � Ocd ceho:Y\hYY d s}� v: w ty .�.e. ' r�u � �� y �e �� a p . c1m�ti n �c J � �& w �+aro� �� ?`I.a, p '�s� ° �ar g ai / a�V� a�re � aa�n �; . a � _.� �y� � .�vs�a a�n �n�� M -3 � — � w g.�. g 0 OS 1 2Miles ��a e� �� 8� � �� mF� 3 ��. �°'�. aaa pN m I� r f . .i �, . �p �y �� n� m� M ,.� .. .Z �, � d].m e(d !� !�-1 f ��m��, ea c< g ��.a �i,��}'� mwti„m-�� :"°� c�a� �, .a � zo ro h «.an��on c�ts .m a n�c - s� �.� � o,� �� - x �a�aion n��ev a �� ofzran o .-:000na �° 3 �v`'�S City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan I Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects € � Comments and Potential # Street From To � Proposed � Improvements � IShort Term Projects IEast—West Routes IValleyway Avenue Flora Road Park Road - Bike boulevard IAlki Avenue Barker Road Flora Road - Bike boulevard I12`n Avenue Sullivan Road University Road - Bike boulevard I13`h Avenue University Road Woodruff Road - Bike boulevard I24�n�25�n Avenue Sullivan Road University Road - Bike boulevard I �Ili�ar� a, b, c"indicates portions of a Sprague Avenue University Road ��Pines Rd- Bike lanes connected route. Ib Spraque Avenue Pines Rd Everqreen Rd Ic Spraque Avenue Everqreen Rd Sullivan Rd IMission Avenue Pines Road Sullivan Road - Bike lanes IMission Avenue Flora Road East City Limits - Bike lanes Desiqn funded I North Greenacres Centennial Trail East City Limits - Shared Use Path Design partially funded Path I Millwood Path Fancher Road Mirabeau _ Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Parkway Design funded Sprague Appleway Path University Road Avenue/ - Shared Use Path Tschirley Road ISpraque Sullivan Spraque/Corbin Bike lanes Alreadv desiqned I North—South Routes IProgress Road 24`h Avenue Mission Avenue - Bike boulevard I Blake Road Highway 27 Valleyway _ Bike boulevard � Avenue I a Pierce Road 32"tl Avenue 4`h Avenue = Bike boulevard b 4`h Avenue Pierce Road Skipworth Road Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of connected route. Ic Skipworth Road 4`h Avenue Appleway Path - Bike boulevard I Long Road Appleway Montgomery _ gike boulevard I Avenue Avenue I a Marguerite Road Mission Avenue Harrington _ Bike boulevard Avenue b Hutchinson Road Harrington Riverside _ Bike boulevard Avenue Avenue "a, b,c,d°indicates portions of c Harrington Avenue Marguerite Hutchinson _ Bike boulevard connected route. Road Road I d Riverside Avenue Hutchinson Argonne Road - Bike boulevard Road I �� a University Road �uea�eSpraqu Mission Avenue Bike lanes a, b, c"indicates portions of e Ave connected route. Ib Universitv Road 16`h Ave Spraque Ave Bike lanes Ic Universitv Road 32"d Ave 16`"Ave Bike lanes I Sprague �� a, b,c"indicates portions of a Park Road Avenue �eBroadw Bike lanes connected route. av Ave Ib Park Road Broadwav Ave Indiana Ave Bike lanes Ic Park Road Indiana Ave Rutter Ave Bike lanes IEvergreen Road ��'-16`"Avenue 32"d Avenue - Bike lanes IFlora Road Mission Avenue Appleway Path - Bike lanes ILong Term Projects Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 19 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan I Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects € � Comments and Potential # Street From To � Proposed � Improvements � IEast—West Routes Ia Indiana Avenue East City Limits Arc Street - Bike boulevard I b Tschirley Street Indiana Avenue Baldwin _ Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of Avenue connected route. Ic Baldwin Avenue Arc Street Flora Road - Bike boulevard Ia 4`h Avenue Park Road Carnahan Road - Bike boulevard Ib Carnahan Road 4`h Avenue �`*-6`h Avenue - Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of I u, cn West City _ connected route. c � -6 Avenue Carnahan Road Limits Bike boulevard I16`h Avenue Sullivan Road Rotchford Drive - Bike boulevard IBoone Avenue University Road Pines Road - Bike boulevard I a 3'tl Avenue Flora Road Tschirley Road = Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of b �`��/4`h Avenue Tschirley Road Barker Road Bike boulevard connected route. I3��n�38m Avenue Bowdish Road Pines Road - Bike boulevard IMission Avenue Fancher Road Vista Road - Bike boulevard ILiberty Avenue Vista Road Park Road - Bike boulevard IRailroad Avenue Stanley Road Fancher Road - Bike boulevard Ia Knox Avenue Vista Road Sargent Road - Bike boulevard I b Sargent Road Knox Avenue Montgomery _ gike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of Avenue connected route. Ic Montgomery Avenue Sargent Road Argonne Road - Bike boulevard I 4'n Avenue Dishman Mica University Road - Bike I�ar�eB�oulevard Road ISprague Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits - Bike lane I a Wellesley Avenue West City Evergreen _ Bike lane "a, b,c°indicates portions of Limits Road connected route. Ib Wellesley Avenue Progress Road Flora Road - Bike lane I 8`h Avenue West City Park Road - Bike lane Limits I3�a Avenue Wm tsCity Fancher Road - Bike lane One-way westbound I Broadway Avenue Fancher Road West City _ Bike lane Limits IMontgomery Avenue Argonne Road Woodruff Road - Bike lanes ' IMontgomery Avenue University Road Wilber Road - Bike lanes I Mission Avenue Marguerite �/�/illow Road - Bike lanes Road IBroadway Avenue Flora Road East City Limits - Bike lanes I Euclid Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits - Bike lanes I32"a Avenue Highway 27 Road reen _ Bike lanes IMansfield Avenue Pines Road Houk Road - Bike lanes I Indiana Avenue Sullivan Road ��Desmet _ gike lanes Avenue I Trent Path Park Road East City Limits - Shared Use Path Along south side of roadway, requires 2 bridges I Sprague Path Appleway West City _ Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Avenue Limits I North—South Routes I Rotchford 16`h Avenue 4`h Avenue - Bike boulevard Drive Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 20 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan I Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects € � Comments and Potential # Street From To � Proposed � Improvements � IPark Road Liberty Avenue Rutter Avenue - Bike boulevard IVista Road Mission Avenue Liberty Avenue - Bike boulevard I Conklin �gpraqu _ Bike boulevard Road Broadway Avenue e Avenue IRoadlin S raau� 4`h Avenue Bike Lane I ILocust Road Valleyway Avenue Mission Avenue - Bike boulevard I `�°'�Broadwav m _ a Farr Road Avenue $ Avenue Bike boulevard Ib 8`n Avenue Farr Road Woodruff Road - Bike boulevard "a, b,c°indicates portions of I connected route. � Woodruff g�h Avenue 16`h Avenue Bike boulevard Road I Stanley Railroad Avenue Broadway _ Bike boulevard Road Avenue I University University _ a Road Mission Avenue Pedestrian- Bike boulevard I Bicycle Bridge University University Pedestrian- Montgomery "a, b,c"indicates portions of b Road Bicycle Bridge Avenue Bike boulevard connected route. I � University Montgomery Avenue Trent Avenue - Bike ILanebsaleva�� Road I Mamer Mirabeau Road-Nora Mission Avenue Parkway Bike boulevard Avenue Pedestrian- Bicycle Bridge I Thierman g�h Avenue Appleway _ Bike boulevard Street Avenue I Park Road 8`h Avenue South City _ Bike boulevard Limits � IFlora Road Appleway Path 3rd Avenue - Bike boulevard I re.,+e.,��i T.��i _ Riverway Montgomery Avenue �e�aesbiewEde Bike boulevard Avenue n Road IRoadher Rutter Avenue 3rd Avenue - Bike lane I Carnahan g�n Avenue 14`h Avenue - Bike lane Possible climbing lane only Road I Bowdish Dishman Mica Road Mission Avenue - Bike lanes Road IBarker Road 8`h Avenue Boone Avenue - Bike lanes IBarker Road Spokane River Trent Avenue - Bike lanes IR�cD�Onald 16`h Avenue Mission Avenue - Bike lanes IFlora Road Wellesley Avenue Euclid Avenue - Bike lanes I Evergreen Trent Avenue North City _ Bike lanes � Road Limits I Evergreen Mansfield _ Road Indiana Avenue Avenue Bike lanes Extension IPines Road Mirabeau Parkway Trent Avenue - Bike lanes I Dishman Appleway Avenue South City _ Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Mica Path Limits Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 21 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan I Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects € � Comments and Potential # Street From To � Proposed � Improvements � I Sullivan Path Centennial Trail Wellesley _ Shared Use Path Avenue IFlora Path Mission Avenue Centennial Trail - Shared Use Path I Long Road Crossing over I-90 _ Pedestrian-bicycle Bridge bridge I Mirabeau _ Pedestrian-bicycle Parkway Crossing over I-90 bridge Bridge I University Crossing over I-90 _ Pedestrian-bicycle Road Bridge bridge ITable 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects I # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements IShort Term Projects IEast-West Routes IWellesley McDonald Evergreen Both sides IWellesley Sullivan Isenhart North side South side sidewalk exists I �� Y-��} � IBuckeye Park Vista One or both sides Schools in area IMontgomery +/-Dartmouth Carlisle Both sides IMontgomery East of Carlisle Pines Crosses railroad IIndiana Pines +/-McDonald Both sides IIndiana Mirabeau +/-Adams North side South side sidewalk exists IBroadway Havana Fancher North side South side sidewalk exists IBroadway Fancher Heacock South Side North side sidewalk exists IBroadway +/-Moore Conklin South Side North side sidewalk exists IBroadway +/-Conklin Flora — North side South side sidewalk exists IBroadway Flora Long Both sides I ��'A� �i � �si�ss I16`"Ave Sullivan Rotchford North side South side sidewalk exists I `24 h Ave Adams Sullivan North side omnlete existina aans:schoo Desiqn and construction funded I East of Evergreen,sidewalk 32ndAve SR-27 Best already exists on north side of street I44`"Ave City limit Woodruff I 44`h Ave Bowdish Sands North side Complete gaps in sidewalk on north side of street INorth-South Routes Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11-Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 22 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ITable 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects I # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements I �-�� r,,..,.,ie+e�„�e�.,�i�,..,r�+„�„�e �2�2R3 ��e +r�nLs .,s�o��.ve+ IFancher +/-Cataldo Boone Gap in front of school I nn„�+i„�„ e�+��.�e„s C��rhe Chnrv� Dii�+er c+r�°+ onarp I cn Funded for desiqn and Farr Applewav 8 Ave Both sides tn construction to 4 Ave a, b,c"indicates portions of a Bowdish 8`h Ave 16th Ave Both sides connected route.To nrovide safe access to middle school Ib Bowdish 16`hAve 24`h Ave � IPerrine Main — Sprague One or both sides To connect to library I Adams 4`h Ave 24`h Ave Gaps on one or both sides;3 schools on segment IEY�� `1Si9yg "�2�yg Both sides With road construction I �� r��+„� �"i°'� ISullivan 4`h Ave 16`h Ave West side East side sidewalk exists IConklin Broadway Sprague Both sides ILong Mission Boone Future school and new park site ILong Term Projects IEast—West Routes I Trent McDonald Barker One or both sides Could be replaced by Shared Use Path(see Bicycle network) IMission Fancher — Vista — Both sides IMission Willow Pierce Both sides Connects to Valley Mission Park I Mission Bowdish +/-Union Both sides Connects Valley Mission Park to commercial area on Pines I �11�& Sup� itv Boundarv North side South side sidewalk exists I `12hAve Bowdish Union — Bothsides I24`"Ave University Wilbur — Both sides Two schools I24`h Ave Union Pines South side School I Nice residential through street; 24`h Ave Pines Evergreen One side would need treatment to solve difficult crossing at SR-27 I �4"'-Axe ,4fla+�s = �rap = A1e�t�a-siEle INorth—South Routes �� n�,��rv.e+groadwav Access to park area and school� a Park Sprague Ave Ave One or both sides Broadwav to Indiana is funded — for desiqn. Ib Park Broadwav Ave Indiana Ave Both sides I Park Sharp Dalton Both sides Access to schools; need safe railroad crossing Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 23 of 30 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ITable 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects I # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements IVista Dalton I-90 Both sides School; railroad crossing IVista — Mission Broadway Both sides IFarr — Broadway Sprague One or both sides Connects school I €a�K °""� �"�A�e �eEU-si�4es I m Portions included as short-term Bowdish �24 Ave Dishman-Mica Both sides project I � �� IEvergreen Forker Trent Both sides x. Ancillary Facilities Ancillary facilities add to the safety and comfort of using walking and bicycling as modes of transportation. Ancillary facilities can include bicycle parking, showers and lockers, transit features and bicycle and pedestrian maps. Crosswalk design can aid in increasing visibility through the use of specific striping patterns and lights. The City of Spokane Valley will use the following methods to address ancillary features: Bicycle Parking: • Program: Continue to require bicycle racks with new development. Consider incentives to address lack of facilities at existing developments when proposed tenant improvements or expansions do not necessarily generate a requirement for new spaces. Consider developing standards for the size of bicycle parking spaces, clearance, aisles, signs, anchoring, non-interference with pedestrian circulation, and weather protection. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Overall increase of bicycle parking spaces throughout the City. • Responsible: Community Development Department Shower and Locker Facilities: • Program: Coordinate with Spokane Valley Commute Trip Reduction program to encourage shower and locker facilities as tenant benefits and to encourage employers to consider partnering with nearby gym facilities for use of existing shower facilities. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Suggestions included on the City's BPMP web page. • Responsible: Community Development Department, Commute Trip Reduction program Transit Features: • Program: Continue as an active partner with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Spokane Transit Authority to encourage the accommodation of bike lockers and bikes on transit vehicles. • Timeframe: Immediate and ongoing. • Metric: Increased bike racks on transit vehicles. • Responsible: Community Development Department Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 24 of 30 E�s� 1fal�ey School [�istr��c� 1"�c�. �G 1 � 1?325 East Grace Spokane WA 99216 Phone 509.924.1830 Fax 549.927.95C�{1 W�bsite w+n+��r.ev�d.flrg Superintendent. ,lahn Glenewinkel Board of @irectors: MAitch Jense� Mike Harris Heidi GillFngham �G@ff!LUf1StF4�F1 Rager Trainar .�L1I7� ?�, ��1 � Ciiy o�!`S�ok�ne V'aJley Mike [3asin�e�•, �er�iar Plar��er i ]7�J7 E. 5prague:, Suite ]�b Spakai�e �'alley, W,4 9�2(}� Dear i1�1�°. Baainger: PIease acee�t khi� letter as eviclence of siippa�°t far thc; Spakane �'alley Bike and P�destrian ll�aster I'lan fi�om t�le L.ast ��allcy �cl�ool Districi. It was our hor��r to �e includeci ii� tl►e develop�nenk c�f this��an and �ve }�ape to t�emai�� part of't��e pr�c�ss as ihe plan is implementec(. As � schaol district, vwe are committed to s�fe nan-matorized r�ute� to and ti•orn aur sehac�ls, [)ur schoals not only� s�,�-ve as cc�nters ot educatian for over 4.O�Q students tlley also se�•��e as eominunity �enters. Nearly evcry r�veekend and evc;nii�� otir buildin�s and ��°auncis are crc�wded with actir�•ities �nd events. Surr�mer�nc�nt�s finc� all th� fi�ld spaces in use ant� aur �yms are ir� constant use throubh �f�e Ial1 and �v�inte�'. Hawing � cart�prehensi�re plan that ca�� g��aw� with time,to safely rl,a�re p�:d�sirians and k�icyclists �.nhance� not only aut°edueational activiti�s but also ser�es t� enhance thosc com3nunilv�l�ased acki��itit;s. ��v'e helie��e tlla# i��an�j ol�our families prcfer to ��alk oi• hike to e�,�ents when possiUle. `I�har�k vo� i�r your [eadership in tl�e dcv�lc�pn�ent af this plan. The rnee#in�s w•e ��av�e at4e�ldec! ��ave k�een veiy ianpressive aud dem�nstrate ha��v iinportai�t this pr�,jec� is ta the entire � corntnunity. Sitieerelv. - . � �� ---- _ � 'I � Jo��r� R. Gf�ne�vinkel,��Ed.I). `� Supei°infe�dent , , � TO: Mike Basinger FROM: Dee Caputo,AICP,Senior Planner,Growth Management Services, Dept of Commerce DATE: 6/28/11 RE: Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Thank you for this opportunity to add my voice in support of all the great work the city of Spokane Valley has been doing to get its Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) drafted and soon, adopted. It is my pleasure to capture a few thoughts in support of the work you and others have been doing in this regard. I am certain in this day and age that most people 'get' how important it is to provide safe and convenient routes for travel to and from various destinations that include getting to school and work; accessing and indulging in recreational activities, and making the other trips we take typically take in the course of daily living. While we can agree that not every trip will be suitable for traveling by the seat of a bike, many more such trips could be appealing if people knew that this mode of travel would be safe and enjoyable (particularly when weather`conspires' to cooperate!). By making the efforts that Spokane Valley has undertaken to craft this deliberate and thorough plan, people WILL know and trust that traveling by bike or on foot can become, in many instances, the preferred alternative for local trips. Although I have not been able to make time to attend any of the public meetings related to the Spokane Valley BPMP (nor this scheduled public hearing for July 7t", 2011), I do receive all the workshop/meeting/hearing notices, and so, I am confident the city has been attentive in its efforts to offer public involvement opportunities.The city's citizen participation work should help to encourage greater loyalty and enjoyment during the implementation phase of the BPMP, too, which should be quite exciting! There are so many positive attributes that accrue to people who bike, including improved health and wellbeing of persons, their environment, and the enhancement of purchasing power to personal and public pocketbooks. Providing safe, convenient and pleasant places to go on foot or by bike should help foster a greater sense of community pride, too! This concept of growing community support through extensive citizen involvement brings up an interesting thought process I entertained last summer: one of my exquisite memories while traveling throughout France and the Netherlands, especially in Amsterdam, involved witnessing the amazing strides that have been made to promote wide spread bicycling in those countries.Just as here, the first step in achieving their stories of success came from a shift in local thinking that allowed the collective soul of the community to accept a new direction for desirable travel options. After decades of spending dedicated funds to implement their effective program, benefits too numerous to count are self evident, and enviable. Keep at it, and Spokane Valley could become another leader in this regard! I am sorry I won't be able to join you later in the week to learn what others have to say. I'd love to get some feedback on the various comments. Please feel free to share with me the community's reception of the BPMP after you experience it during the hearing this coming Thursday. Thanks for inviting me to comment! And good luck for the entire life of the program! OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES DEPARTMENTS MEMORANDUM �� _ � �� TO: Mike Basinger and City of Spokane Valley �ENTRAL�ALLEY FROM: Jay Rowell, Assistant Superintendent s c r� o v s. v � s r R � � fi SUBJECT: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program DATE: June 29, 2011 I am writing this memo in support of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Over the course of the last year I have had the opportuniry to meet with Mike and his staff on numerous occasion to have input into the master plan for the city's improvement of Bike and Pedestrian pathways. First of all I would like to say that I am very impressed with the professionalism and information that has been provided by both Mike and his staf£ The opportunity to be heard from the school district perspective has been real and is very much appreciated. The plan that you are reviewing in this hearing receives the support of the Central Valley School District. We appreciate that you have taken into consideration the walkways that are used most often by our students and the bike paths that will make it safer for our students to maneuver the roadways. The creation of the safe routes to schools is already being used in our schools today. The sooner that these improvements can be made the safer our children will be as they travel to and from school and around our communiry. If I can be of any further service in support of this plan please feel free to contact me at 228-5556. Thank you. + DEPARI'MENT OF Y �4�I I�'� ENGINEERING SERVICES �� SOg W SPOKANE FALLS BLVD. SPOKANE�WA 99201-3343 509.625.6700 '�-;y;�� FAX 509.625.6349/509.625.6124 �� >> � �'� 1 Spokaneengineering.org , ] � ) } i $ + June 30, 2oi1 To: Mike Basinger, City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Valley's Bike and Pedestrian Program. I have had the pleasure of attending two meetings during the development of Spokane Valley's Bike &Pedestrian Program. As the City of Spokane continues to make improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safety, and opportunities, it's critical to make strides as a region as well. Many of our existing and proposed routes and facilities,large and small, depend on connections and the continuation across jurisdictional boundaries, serving all types of citizens living,working, and traveling throughout the area. I personally and professionally support, and see the regional value of Spokane Valley's Bike and Pedestrian Program. Grant Wencel, Bicycle &Pedestrian Coordinator, City of Spokane � � �---,---�c. � � � Spakane Regional Transpartatiot� Councit ?2� W. FirstAr•enue, Suite 31i7 • 5pok�ne, WA94�a1-�u13 5�]91343_537[� FAh: 54913�3-640n �un� �9, 2[!11 City o€Spokane Valley Mayar Tam TQwey City Co�neii MEm�ers 11707 E. 5praguef Suite 1D6 Spokarte, WA 9�206 R�: Spo�sane Valley Bike and Pedes#rian Master Plan Dear Mayar Tawey and City Council Members; The 5pakane Regianal Transparka#ion �ouncil �SRTC� strongly�upparts the City of Spakane Valley`s Bicycle an�d Pedestrian Master Pl�n �BPMP} as an effart t� ach��ve a baianc�d transporkatic�n system irr c�ur region. SRTC has k�een a�ti�ely eng�ged in the develQpment a�khe BPMF' an� realizes the significance af Spakane Valfey's nan- matorized planning effcarts ta �eip rea�h regional gaals. Spak�ne Valley is significant du�to rts size and its locati�n is centrai to region�l cc�nn€�ctivity and mability. Adoption ar�ci implarnenta#i�n c�f the BPMP will ir�creas� muiti- madal transport�#ion efFc�rts and create saf� �Iternative transportation ir�frastructure in Spakan�Va11ey as well as pro�ide ir�t�g�al regional non-mo#orized transportatiQn c�n€�ecti�ity. Planning efFarts af this �ature also h�ve the pas�tive side henefit of pramating he�lthy iif�styles by pr�viding active transpartatio�r Qpportunitses for �crmmunity members. Many jurisdictians in the regi�n �re rocusing mnre r�saurces c�n develaping, implementing and pramati�g a robust nor�-matorized rretwark. Spakane Cc�unty rec�nt�y adopt�d a Region�l Trai�s Plan; the City of Spa�Cane u�dated the�r Master 8icycfe Plan and is naw draf#ing an update to the pedestrian Plar�; Airway Heights has passed a Complete Stre�ts s�rdinanc�; and SRTC has adopted a Bik� Plan, a Pedestrian �lan and is participating in a natior�al effort to doubfe fundir�g far n�n-motorized transpartati��. We are excited hy the develop�ent of the City Qi Spakane Valley'� Bicycle and Pedestri�n Mast�r Plan. Thank y+ou far taking this impg�kant st�p in h�lping us attain aur �vals. Sinc�rely, � � / ` .�� C� ��°t.� Mayk Rohwer Int�rim Trans�artatian Manag�r Spokane Regior�al Transportation Counci!