HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN 2011-002 Pasco Bike-Ped Master Plan 9-15-11.pdf Pasco Bicycle 8v Pedestrian Master
Plan
City of Pasco _
Date:9/15/11
K �
Community&Economic
Development Department
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Master Plan Purpose Statement ...........................................................................................2
TimeFrame..........................................................................................................................2
Background..........................................................................................................................2
LegalRequirements.............................................................................................................2
AdoptedLocal Plans............................................................................................................3
Goal, Policies & Objectives.............................................................................................................5
Goal......................................................................................................................................5
Policiesand Objectives........................................................................................................5
ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................................7
City-Wide Challenges......................................................................................................................8
ProposedFacilities...............................................................................................................9
AreaDescriptions (1-6)..................................................................................................................11
OverviewMap ...................................................................................................................11
Area1.................................................................................................................................12
Area2.................................................................................................................................18
Area3.................................................................................................................................20
Area4.................................................................................................................................24
Area5.................................................................................................................................27
Area6.................................................................................................................................32
AlternativeSolutions .....................................................................................................................37
Sharrows ............................................................................................................................37
Signage...............................................................................................................................3 8
BikeBoxes/Green Boxes...................................................................................................39
PotentialFunding Sources .............................................................................................................39
Federal................................................................................................................................3 9
State....................................................................................................................................40
Local ..................................................................................................................................41
Prioritizationand Ranking.............................................................................................................42
Scoring...............................................................................................................................44
Maps...............................................................................................................................................44
Additional Bicycle Facility Components.......................................................................................44
Transportation SYSTEM Plan...........................................................................................44
Install municipal bike racks (identify effective locations).................................................44
1
Introduction
Bicycling and walking as means of recreation and transportation have been
growing in popularity as many communities work to create more balanced
transportation systems by giving bicyclists and pedestrians a greater share in
use of the roadway networks. In addition, recent national surveys find that
more people are willing to cycle more frequently if better bicycle facilities are
provided.
Master Plan Purpose Statement
The purpose of this document is to consolidate existing efforts addressing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities; to provide a prioritized action plan for
improving listed travel routes; and to analyze the costs and potential funding
sources.
Time Frame
Pasco's Comprehensive Plan has a horizon to year 2027; this Plan will adhere
to the same time frame.
Background
In 2006 the Pasco City Council authorized appointment of an ad hoc advisory
Committee to assist staff in developing policies relating to the design, location
and maintenance of bikeways throughout the City. The Committee was charged
with the following tasks: 1) propose design standards and options for bikeways
throughout the City; 2) propose policies regarding bicycle accommodation in
the City; and, 3) propose maintenance standards for the bikeway system. This
Committee convened a total of six times in late 2006 and early 2007.
In 2007 City Council approved Resolution No. 3021 adopting a three page
"Bikeway Plan". The Bikeway Plan is the culmination of ideas generated by the
ad hoc committee and contains a total of one (1) overall goal, six (6) policies
and thirty (30) related objectives aimed at creating a contiguous network of safe
and convenient bicycle pathways. The Plan provides insight into the values of
the local bicycling community, but lacks specific data needed for cost estimates
and construction planning. The Committee also produced a map (see attached
Bike Route Map) delineating both existing and proposed routes and pathways
where bicycles should be able to travel safely and comfortably.
Legal Requirements
With the intent of promoting healthier and more physically active communities
two pertinent bills (ESSB 5186 and 2SHB 1565) were passed by the State of
Washington.
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5186, passed in 2005, requires
communities to consider urban planning approaches that promote physical
activity, and also requires a bicycle and pedestrian component be included in
the Transportation Element of a comprehensive plan. ESSB 5186 also added a
2
requirement to the Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan for
jurisdictions fully planning under the GMA: "Wherever possible, the Land Use
Element should consider utilizing urban planning approaches that promote
physical activity" [RCW 36.70A.070(1)] citing that several studies have
demonstrated that a person's immediate environment is the most important
determination of physical activity.
Bill 2SHB 1565 also passed in 2005, specifies that multiple modes of
transportation may be included in concurrency programs when reviewing the
transportation impacts of new development.
This Plan together with the Pasco Comprehensive Plan and the Benton
Franklin Council of Governments 2010 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, are all collaborative efforts aimed at meeting the
requirements set by ESSB 5186 and 2SHB 1565.
Adopted Local Plans
Pasco Comprehensive Plan
Pasco's Comprehensive Plan contains a number of Goals and Policies which
support the objectives of this Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan Goals
and Policies apply:
- Goal TR-1 aims to continue to provide and maintain an effective and
convenient street system.
- Policy TR-1-G supports development of an interconnected network of
streets, trails and other public ways while preserving neighborhood
identity; and building streets and sidewalks without interrupted or
patchwork rights-of-way or construction.
- Goal TR-2 aims to encourage efficient, alternate and multi-modal
transportation systems.
- Policy TR-2-D encourages greater use of bicycles and walking by
providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes.
- Policy TR-2-E encourages park-and-ride lots for bicycles and
automobiles.
- Policy CF-3-A aims to assure land development proposals provide land
and/or for facilities for pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Pasco Parks and Recreation Plan
The city's 2010 Park and Recreation Plan indicates trail corridors should be
developed to include trees, landscaped areas, open lawn areas, seating areas,
and some picnic facilities. The plan proposes ten future parks and
improvements or expansions at many existing parks.
Locations containing the amenities listed above may at least serve as rest areas
or destinations for bicyclists. Adding landscaping features to pathways will
require irrigation and continuous maintenance creating additional costs.
3
Landscaping feasibility should consider a sites' proximity to FCID irrigation
water and relative benefits of the additional amenities.
Benton Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) 2010 Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) 2010 Regional Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan discusses many aspects of pedestrian and
bicycle related issues throughout Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties.
The 2010 BFCG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan fulfills federal
requirements (23 CFR 450) that a metropolitan transportation plan contain a
bicycle and pedestrian component as well as state mandates (RCW 36.70A)
that regional transportation plans encourage efficient multi-modal
transportation systems which are based on regional priorities and coordinated
with city and county comprehensive plans. The BFCG Bike/Ped. Plan includes
a useful bike route map at the Tri-Cities scale. The map is included in the
appendices for reference.
It is the policy (Policy 13) of the BFCG to promote pedestrian and bicycle travel
as essential modes of transportation both within existing communities and new
development and to provide opportunities for the safe and efficient use of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities as a legitimate alternative to motorized travel
and for improved health.
Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Titles 12 (Streets 8v Sidewalks), 25 (Zoning) 8v 26
(Residential Subdivision Regulations)
Pasco Municipal Code does not require installation of sidewalks in the
Suburban (RS-12 and RS-20) zones and bicycle facilities are not presently
required as part of residential, commercial or industrial development in any
zone. The absence of concurrency requirements for bicycle/pedestrian
infrastructure improvements acts as a barrier to achieving the overall goal of
this Plan by transferring the responsibility of pedestrian facilities (sidewalks)
from private developers to the City. Modifications to PMC Title 26 (Pasco Urban
Area Subdivision Regulations) and Title 12 (Streets 8v Sidewalks) may be an
effective approach to establishing development requirements relative to
bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure.
Amending Title 12 to require curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bicycle lanes be
installed concurrent with both commercial and residential development in
Suburban zones would help meet the Goal of this Plan.
4
Goal, Policies & Objectives
Goal
Create and maintain a high-quality bikeway and pedestrian network that is
safe, direct, comfortable, aesthetically pleasing, and which allows cyclist to
access destinations accessible to automobiles where practical.
Policies and Objectives:
The overall Goal can be broken down into Policies and Objectives that help
quantify the goal statement.
1) Policy: Connectivity/Access—Bicyclists should have safe access to City
destinations accessible by motorized vehicles, where practical.
Objectives
a) Encourage bicycle lanes, paths, or trails and bicycle access points in new
development design.
b) Design bike paths for the most direct routes possible.
c) Mitigate major barriers such as freeways and railroad crossings by
including over/underpass facilities. Crossing points should be at right
angles and to be as short as possible.
d) Provide for bike path continuity.
e) Loop and interconnect paths, or trails to provide a variety of trail lengths
and destinations including small and large loops for a broad range of
experiences and ability levels.
fl Provide safe bicycle access and parking facilities for major commercial
destinations, where practical.
g) Provide safe bicycle access and parking facilities for major civic
destinations, (e.g., library, post office, schools) where practical.
h) Design bicycle routes and paths to minimize conflicts between motorists
and bicyclists and increase the separation of cyclists from motorized
vehicles.
i) Design intersections with bicycle-friendly facilities such as bicycle-first
signaling so as not to interfere with traffic flow.
j) Include secure bicycle lock-up facilities at appropriate destinations.
k) Design landscaping to be open and "visually secure".
1) Install clear right-of way indicators such as 8" wide edge line stripes,
sharrow stencils and freestanding bicycle signs for automobiles and
bicyclists.
m) Utilize "Traffic Calming" measures where appropriate.
n) Mark bike paths and lanes for safety.
o) Install lighting along bike paths and trails as appropriate.
5
2) Policy: Comfort/Convenience - Bikeways shall be designed to
encourage non-motorized travel citywide.
Objectives:
a) Plant shade trees along bicycle paths that do not possess a destructive
root pattern.
b) Include rest areas with water, air, and toilet facilities at convenient
intervals along bicycle routes.
c) Design bicycle lanes, paths, or trails for "flow," with as few stops as
possible.
d) Mark trails for distance monitoring.
3) Policy: Aesthetics - Bikeways shall be aesthetically pleasing so as to
encourage non-motorized travel citywide.
Objectives:
a) Plan bike paths and trails to provide visual and physical access to
natural areas and to the Columbia/Snake Rivers.
b) Landscape bicycle lanes, paths, or trails to be interesting and attractive
to the user.
4) Policy: Incentives/Promotion - Encourage non-motorized travel
Objectives:
a) Develop bikeway maps that are easily available (brochures and internet)
and provide safety guides/education.
5) Policy: Maintenance - Establish bike path maintenance policies and
schedules.
Objectives:
a) Maintain roadways and bikeways to a relatively hazard-free standard.
b) Encourage bicyclists to report maintenance problems and other hazards.
c) Include maintenance costs and maintenance procedures in bicycle
facility projects as appropriate.
d) Include reasonable estimates for the maintenance costs in the project
budget.
e) Establish clear maintenance responsibilities in advance of construction.
6
Existing Conditions
Much of the residential development west of SR395 and south of Hwy I-182 is
developed to a rural standard, without curbs, gutters and sidewalks and edge
lines. The absence of the fore mentioned improvements facilitates road
widening and bike lane striping by eliminating physical barriers which may
complicate project implementation and add to the costs.
A large majority of roadways east of SR395 and south of Hwy 1-182 are fully
developed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Right-of-way widths on proposed
routes vary from 50ft. to 150ft. The most common right-of-way width is 60
feet.
Roadways within residential development north of Hwy 1-182 and west of Road
36 contain curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Most streets in this area have a 60ft.
wide right-of-way with curbs, gutters and sidewalks adjacent to the roadway.
Road 60 between Burden Boulevard and Sandifur Parkway is a fully developed
roadway containing bike lanes and sidewalks and could be used as a model for
many routes identified on the Overview Map.
This Plan contains an Overview Map of roadways with needed bicycle and
pedestrian facilities; though many facilities are needed some currently exist.
There are existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City which
provide excellent opportunities for establishing connectivity to the proposed
bicycle lanes and bicycle/ pedestrian pathways listed in this Plan. These
existing amenities include the following:
- A paved east-west bicycle/pedestrian pathway north of I-182
extending from Road 100 to the Argent underpass at I-182.
- The Sacajawea Heritage Trail (a paved east-west
bicycle/pedestrian pathway traversing the river shore from the
1-182 overpass at Court Street to Sacajawea State Park) covers
approximately 14 miles of the Columbia River shoreline.
- Road 60 from Sandifur Parkway to Burden Blvd. contains
stripped bicycle lanes and sidewalks along both travel lanes.
- Court Street contains paved shoulders with striping between
the 1-182 Bridge and approximately Road 48.
- Road 84 adjacent Chiawana High contains approximately 1200
feet of bike lane and sidewalk.
7
- Road 36 north of I-182 and south of Burden Blvd. contains
striped bicycle lanes in both directions. Intermittent segments
of sidewalks exist on the west side of the Road 36 (adjacent
residential development). The east side of Rd 36 abuts the
Pasco Airport. This undeveloped area contains the runway and
will remain in the current condition unless right-of-way
improvements are initiated via a City Public Works project.
City-Wide Challenges
Although each Area contained in this Plan contains the sub-heading
"Challenges", it is important to address challenges at a larger (City-wide) scale.
The following list generally describes challenges to project
implementation/construction. For more detailed descriptions of issues and
conditions see the Area Descriptions section for Areas 1-6.
- Sandifur Parkway between Convention Drive and Road 68 lacks
bike lanes and sidewalks. Edge lines are present, but paved
shoulders are of insufficient width to accommodate bike lanes.
The paved shoulder is 22 inches wide eastbound 3 feet wide
westbound. Each travel lane is 14 feet wide with no left-hand
turn lane.
- Burden Blvd. between Road 60 and Road 68 is a fully developed
roadway and lacks bicycle lanes. This section of roadway may
play an important role in the Plan by providing enhanced
transportation at a location experiencing ever increasing traffic
congestion. This location is arguably the most congested
roadway in Pasco.
- Bike lanes are needed on Sandifur Parkway from Road 100 to
Road 44. Sidewalks are needed along most of the undeveloped
properties fronting Sandifur Parkway. A significant challenge
related to bicycle lanes on this roadway segment is that most of
Sandifur Parkway is fully developed curb-to-curb without edge
lines or shoulders.
- Areas 5 8s 6 are proposed in long established areas of Pasco.
The proposed facilities primarily front residential development
which do not contain curbs, gutters, sidewalks or edge line
striping. Many of the road shoulders are too narrow to support
the addition of a bicycle lane. In such instances, fill material
and additional paving may be needed to provide the minimum
8
four (4) foot wide bike lane with 8" stripes. This is the
predominant condition in areas south of I-182.
- 201h Avenue, contained in Area 5, presents significant
constraints. Much of 20th Ave. experiences very high traffic
volumes, especially around Court Street. Current roadway
features impeded bicycle facility construction.
- Areas 3 & 5 contain primarily residential roadways developed to
rural standards. This means sidewalks and wire road shoulders
are largely lacking throughout both areas. Substantial
infrastructure improvements are required to meet the goals of
this Plan.
- The Road 100/I-182 Overpass Bridge contains edge line striping
and five (5) foot wide shoulders in both directions. The existing
shoulder may be wide enough to accommodate either a bike
lane or a sidewalk, but not both adjacent one another. The
ideal solution to this spatial constraint is widening the bridge.
Right-of-way Policies
This Plan poses policy changes related to right-of-way development
requirements for new development proposals in suburban zones. Contrary to
past practices, development proposals on arterial and collector roads in
suburban zoning districts will be required to accommodate right-of-way facility
needs in the way of sidewalks, bike lanes and ADA features.
Materials costs estimate tables indicate sidewalks are needed on various
roadways however, the cost estimate dollar amounts do not include sidewalk
construction costs because it is unlikely the City will construct sidewalks as
part of any right-of-way project. Rather, sidewalk construction will be a
concurrency requirement for new development.
Proposed Facilities
The Master Plan Overview Map (Map "M-l") illustrates a connected network of
proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes to serve as a structural "backbone".
Proposed bicycle/pedestrian routes generally follow arterial streets. All routes
identified as solid lines in the Overview Map are in need of bicycle facilities.
City-wide, bicycle lanes are needed on the following street segments:
- Sandifur Parkway (Rd 100 to Rd 44)
- Road 100 (Powerline Road to Court Street)
- Road 103 (Court Street to Argent Rd)
- Argent Road (Rd 103 to 4th Ave) *with the exception of segments in front
of McLoughlin and Chiawana Schools
- Road 60 (Argent Road to the river shore)
9
- Road 76 (Sandifur to I-182)
- Burden Blvd. (Convention to Road 36)
- Madison Ave (Burden to Road 44)
Road 44 (Sandifur Parkway to Argent Rd)
- Road 52 (Sandifur Parkway to Burden Blvd)
Road 88 (Argent Rd to pathway south of Whipple Ave.)
- Road 52 (Argent to Sylvester)
- Road 60 (Court St to Sylvester St.)
- Livingston Rd (Rd 48 to Rd 36)
- Wernett Rd (Rd 48 to Rd 36)
- Pearl St (Rd 48 to Rd 32)
- Road 36 (I-182 to Haystad St)
- Road 40 (Sylvester St to Riverhaven St)
- Riverhaven St (Rd 40 to Rd 39)
- Rd 39 (Riverhaven St to Haystad St)
- Haystad St (Rd 39 to Rd 36)
- Road 40 (Livingston Rd to Wernett Rd)
- Court Street (Rd 48 to 26th Ave)
- 26th Ave (Court St to Henry Street) to 24th Ave to West Henry PI to
22nd Ave to Henry St to 20th Ave)
- Henry Street (26th Ave to 24th Ave)
- 24th (Henry St to Henry PI) (Approx. 180 feet)
- Henry PI (24th Ave to 22nd Ave)
- 22nd Ave (Henry PI to Henry St.) (Approx. 180 feet)
- Henry St (22nd Ave to 18th Ave)
- 20th Ave (Argent Rd to "A" St)
- West Lewis Street (Rd 28 to Heritage Blvd)
- Road 28 (Sylvester to "A" St)
- "A" St (Road 28 to Heritage Blvd)
- Hopkins St (Sacajawea Trail @ 395 Bridge to Road 28)
- 4th Ave (Boeing St to 3rd Ave)
_ 3rd (4th to Columbia St)
- Columbia St (3rd Ave to 4th Ave)
- Elm Ave (Sheppard St to Lewis St)
- 4th (Columbia to Ainsworth Ave)
- Beech Ave (Sheppard St to Park View Blvd)
Wehe Ave (Park View Blvd to "A" St)
- Oregon Ave ("A" St to Ainsworth Ave)
14th Ave (Pearl St to "A" St)
- Pearl St (20th to 14th)
- Octave St (18th Ave to 16th Ave)
- Henry St (16th Ave to 3rd Ave)
- 5th Ave (Henry St to Margaret St)
- Margaret St (5th Ave to 4th Ave)
- Nixon St (4th Ave to 3rd Ave)
- 4th Ave (Washington St to Ainsworth Ave)
- Sheppard St (Beech Ave to Elm Ave)
10
The bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure proposed by this Plan is summarized
in the table below. Infrastructure types are abbreviated for use in the Area
Description roadway lists to indicate the needs of each particular roadway.
Sidewalks SW
Striping ST
Road
Widening RW
Area Descriptions (1-6)
Overview Man
Large scale plans such as this one benefit from logical spatial division to
establish some degree of organization. This Plan divides the City into six (6)
"Areas" which were chosen to spatially consolidate roadways based upon
relative similarity of existing right-of-way conditions. Dividing the City into
Areas is useful for discussion purposes and for assigning unit costs at an
implementable scale. The Overview Map (Map "M-1") below and attached
illustrates the way in which the City is divided and how the Areas connect to
one another.
Pasco Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Overview Map
9 n Lftend
Pmat#1
Project 92
Project N3
Proje t#4
Na*!5
I Will PMecl#6
Rd Rita Shore
Bike Pathway
p City Limits
OP
h d
1,
ou >
z d \�
0
N I
11
Area
Area description
Area 1 is bound by the Columbia River to the west, Powerline Road to the north,
Chapel Hill Boulevard to the south and Road 60 to the east. Bicycle facilities are
proposed on the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Road 100 SW, ST, RW
Harris Road NA
Sandifur Parkway ST
Road 76 SW, ST
Convention Drive ST
Homerun Road ST
Burden Blvd. ST
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #1
J
Lezend m
E�
Proposed Route.
C
8
ity Limits
:E ry
Bike Pathway
River Shore 0
FCID Canal m
�-P/ Pi
° 0 0
CL
m
Chapel Hill Blvd. rFt' !e 4 $
Ile
�e410 Homerun Rd.
Co
as o
Q°
c
o
12
Existing Facilities
Most of the proposed routes indicated in the Bike Master Plan Area 1 Map
contain standard sidewalks. The west side of Road 76 contains sidewalks from
Sandifur Parkway to Burden Boulevard.
Needed Facilities
No sidewalks or bicycle lanes exist on the Sandifur Parkway between Road 68
and Convention Drive. This portion of Sandifur Parkway is undeveloped on
both the north and south sides (see photo below). As development occurs on
Sandifur Parkway the adjoining properties will be required to construct the
right-of-way improvements.
(Sandifur Parkway between Rd. 68 & Convention Dr.)
Sandifur Parkway serves as a primary/arterial connection between large
residential subdivisions and the Road 68 commercial corridor. A high priority
should be placed on the installation of bike lanes to provide a safe connection
between residences and the Rd 68 commercial center. Edge lines are present,
but existing paved shoulders are of insufficient width to accommodate bike
lanes. The paved shoulder is 22 inches wide eastbound and 3 feet wide
westbound. Each travel lane is 14 feet wide with no left-hand turn lane.
Development proposals adjacent to Sandifur Parkway must install bike lanes
on their portion of Sandifur Parkway.
Area 1 includes the proposal for a bicycle/pedestrian pathway to be
constructed from Court Street at the I-182 river overpass bridge to Harris
Road. The pathway would parallel I-182 at the base of the elevated roadway
embankment gradient; extending to Harris Road from the existing pathway
which currently leads riders and walkers up to the sidewalk on the bridge.
Approximately 2,600 linear feet of pathway is needed in order to achieve this
connection. To avoid the need to cross Harris Road, while maintaining
pedestrian/bicycle travel in both directions, the pathway should connect
directly to Road 100.
13
Harris Road
w
papa
xNnsion location
(Future pathway extension from Court St @ I-182 to Harris Road)
(Existing pathway @ I-182/Court St. Bridge) (Area proposed to extend pathway to Harris Rd.)
The Road 100/I-182 overpass bridge should be widened to provide sidewalks
and stripped bicycle lanes without reducing the existing number or width of
travel lanes. The bridge currently contains edge lines with 5 foot wide
shoulders on both sides without sidewalks.
14
(Rd.100/1-182 Overpass Bridge) (Rd.100/I-182 overpass bridge 5' shoulder)
The entire length of Road 100 should be treated with bicycle lanes and
sidewalks to foster neighborhood scale transportation between residential
subdivisions and commercially zoned lands. A significant percentage of the
commercially zoned land surrounding the Road 100 corridor remains vacant.
Facilitating intra-neighborhood non-vehicular transportation may promote the
marketability of these vacant tracts and invite commercial investors. The Area
Description table indicates road widening is needed on Road 100 when in fact
the I-182 Bridge is the only portion of Rd 100 needing to be widened.
Road 100 currently terminates at the north city limits, soon to be Powerline
Road. The west side of Road 100 at its northern terminus remains vacant.
(Road 100 south of Vincenzo Dr. -looking south) (Road 100 north of Vincenzo Dr. - looking south)
Challenges
Connecting bicycle/pedestrian facilities on Road 76 to the existing pathway by
I-182 (behind Lowe's) presents some challenges created by the vacant parcels
(117530015 8v 117500118) owned by the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR).
Convention Drive from Fairchild Cinema to Powerline Road is currently
constructed to 1/2 the standard width as the west side of Convention Drive is
largely undeveloped.
15
Road 100 north of Chapel Hill Blvd. is a relatively high-traffic area which
contains varied striping configurations. This roadway segment contains two (2)
freeway on-ramps and two (2) freeway off-ramps. This relatively complex
roadway layout may require creative solutions to accommodate safe bicycle
lanes while maintaining acceptable vehicle traffic flow.
Sandifur Parkway between Road 100 and Road 68 is a fully developed roadway
without edge lines or shoulders to allow for widening.
(Sandifur Parkway at Rd 76) (Sandifur Parkway at Rd. 90)
Undeveloped commercial parcels exist on Sandifur Parkway, however the
roadway, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and landscaping improvements are
currently contiguous from Road 68 to Road 100 with the exception of a few
vacant parcels on the north side of Sandifur Parkway. This existing
infrastructure is not configured to allow for safe bicycle travel. A majority of
this roadway is laid out with a single 25.5' wide travel lane in either direction
and a 10.5 wide center turn lane, providing a total road surface width of 61.5
feet.
The pathway parallel to Harris Road is proposed to be located within WSDOT
right-of-way. Prior to beginning constriction of the pathway, an agreement
granting permission to the City, must be made between the City and WSDOT.
The existing pathway is located in WSDOT right-of-way and the same is true
for the proposed pathway.
Opportunities
Physical constraints created by fully developed roadways require creative
solutions for accommodating bicycle infrastructure. Some possible solutions
for the challenges presented along Sandifur Parkway include freestanding signs
located roadside at a minimum rate of 1/block; and/or, "sharrows". Sharrows
are a combination of freestanding signs and painted symbols on the road
surface. While sharrows are a feasible method they are not without
drawbacks. Designating a travel lane for bicyclists to share already busy
streets can create a false sense of security in the riders' mind.
16
Sandifur Parkways' 25.5' wide travel lanes could each be reduced by 4'8"
resulting in approximately 21' wide travel lanes; allowing the minimum 4' wide
bike lanes.
This Plan supports the need for widening the 1-182/Rd 100 Overpass Bridge.
During the planning stage of the I-182 Bridge construction project, a larger
width than currently exists was requested of the WSDOT. The request for extra
width was denied at that time. The high rate of residential development in
Pasco in recent years has greatly contributed to the need for this bridge to be
widened. The bridge has edge lines and five (5) foot wide shoulders bound by a
wall. The five foot shoulders are sufficient to accommodate bike lanes or
sidewalks on both sides, but not both bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides.
These factors support the need to widen the bridge.
Key Route
Key routes are identified within each Area as having particular importance
based on a variety of factors; particular emphasis is placed on the function of
east/west connectivity. Key routes can be interpreted as having high
implementation priorities. Not all key routes connect in a contiguous fashion.
The key route in Area 1 is Sandifur Parkway which extends from Road 100 to
Road 60. Sandifur Parkway is a main thoroughfare connecting dense pockets
of homes to the Road 68 commercial corridor.
Materials Cost Estimate
Materials cost estimates developed by the City Engineering Department are
shown below. Area-wide materials cost estimate tables provide detailed
estimates of cost and quantity as they relate to the individual components of
construction. Subsequently, estimates have been pared down into linear foot
cost figures which can be applied when attempting to estimate costs for various
project configurations within an area. Materials Cost Estimate tables apply to
an entire Area; not individual roadway segments within an Area.
# Roadway(s) Required Improvements Cost
1a Broadmoor Blvd. SW, ST, RW
(Pwrline to Bedford) $13,260.00
1b Rd 100 Bridge SW, ST, RW
1C Harris Rd NA
(pathway) $148,568.60
1d Rd 76 SW, ST
(Sandifur-1-182) $7,710.00
1e Convention Dr. & Homerun ST
Rd. $41,650.00
if Sandifur Prkwy ST
(Rd 100-Rd 60) $18,230.00
1 Burden Blvd.
g (Convtn-Rd 60) ST
$4,500.00
TOTAL $197,518.60
17
Area 2
Area Description
Area 2 is unique in that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility and key route
is a stand-alone pathway located on the Franklin County Irrigation District
canal extending from Road 111 at Court Street to the 1-182/Argent Road
underpass. The paved bicycle/pedestrian pathway is proposed within the
Franklin County Irrigation District FCID canal right-of-way.
N
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #2
0
0
9 N
V
Chapel Hill 131v (�4t`reJ °' RflE BFD
^ chaoe/
r
v
v
ARGENT
Project#2/
FCM Canal
Co
Pathway Q
Q Riper Shore O
0 City Limits
Existing Facilities
The irrigation canal and gravel service road are currently contained within the
FCID right-of-way (see photos below taken at Road 84) which narrows,
approximately, from 134 feet to 55 feet east of Road 84 to the western
terminus of Valley View Place. This right-of-way varies in width from 50 feet to
approximately 130 feet; providing enough space for a future pedestrian trail
and bicycle pathway. The irrigation canal from Court Street to Road 100 was
placed in underground piping several years ago.
Needed Facilities
Additional information about pathways can be found on the US Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration website:
bttp://www.fbwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks2l4.htm
18
fi
(A well designed shared-use paths that provide different lanes for users who travel at different speeds prevent
conflicts between user groups on high use trails.)
L ''
1
_Q"
•
Z i
t
i y
(Frequent rest areas that include benches and wheelchair spaces provide relief from prevailing grades.)
(FCID canal @ Road 84)
Challenges
Timing of Area 2 facilities constriction is dependent upon the completion of
work to underground the canal by FCID. An agreement between the Irrigation
19
District and the City securing shared use of the FCID right-of-way must also be
arranged.
Opportunities
The right-of-way trail would be ideal for walking/biking. Opportunities for
using existing public rights-of-way for augmentation of the trail network will
likely occur in the future following completion of the FCID plan to bury the
canal.
Materials Cost Estimate
# Pathway Required Cost
Improvements
2 Court St. @ Rd 111 - Pedestrian/Bike $609,637.30
Rd. 68 Pathway
Area 3
Area Description
Area 3 is bound by Road 103 to the west, Chapel Hill Boulevard to the north,
the Columbia River shoreline to the south and Road 60 to the east. Bicycle
facilities are proposed on the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Chapel Hill Boulevard ST
future Chapel Hill Blvd. ST, SW
Argent Rd SW, ST
Road 103 (350') ST
Road 100 ST, SW
Road 88 SW, RW, ST
Road 84 SW, RW, ST
Road 76 SW, RW, ST
Road 68 SW, RW, ST
Road 92 SW, RW, ST
20
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan
Area #3 »
m
CL
Cha el Hill BI U WEkL
a I �y merun d.
cc OC
E
to
�o 0
a
0
lAtend p
tY
Proposed Routes
Fausting Bike Lanes COU St.
FCID Canal
River Shore
BilcePathway
City Limits
Existing Facilities
Bike lanes exist on certain portions of Court Street. Sidewalks exist on very
limited sections of Court Street west of Road 100.
Needed Facilities
The edge lines on Court Street need to be widened to the 8 inch standard for
bike lanes. All of the proposed routes indicated on the Bike/Pedestrian Master
Plan Area 3 Map require construction of bicycle facilities. As well, many of the
proposed routes lack sidewalks with the consistent exception of those segments
bordering public schools. The schools may serve as good beginning points
from which to extend facilities outward. Development in Suburban zones, even
when fronting arterial streets, does not currently require installation of
sidewalks.
21
A more detailed site survey should be performed to identify spots where the
Court Street road surface needs to be widened. Due to the extent of existing
roadway bike lanes and wide shoulders, the need for shoulder widening on
Court Street will be very limited. Part of Court Street (between Rd 48 and Rd
42) has steep shoulders intended to facilitate stormwater drainage which may
require modification to accommodate widening. Additional striping may be
needed in some areas to define the outer boundary of the bike lanes and to
meet the minimum 8 inch wide striping standard for bicycle lanes.
_ f-•`-� _ _ -�'i�'S,�s�•ice.•,:
(Existing bike lanes on Court Street at I-182 looking east)
Chapel Hill Boulevard from Road 100 to Road 84 is a fully developed 4-lane
roadway without a left-hand turn lane or edge lines. Sidewalks exist along all
developed parcels fronting this roadway. Bike lanes do not exist on any portion
of Chapel Hill Blvd., but travel lanes could be reduced to allow bike lane
striping.
i
(Chapel Hill Blvd. westbound) (Chapel Hill Blvd. eastbound)
22
Road 84 between the FCID canal and Argent Road contains bike lanes as
shown on the Area 3 Map. The bike lanes are not contiguous from the canal to
Argent Road. Between the FCID canal and Sterling Road the bike lane is on the
west side of Road 84 only. A bike lane exists on the east side of Road 84 south
of Sterling Road (fronting Chiawana High School). Even though the Area 3 Map
indicates existing bicycle facilities, improvements are needed to make them
functional.
Challenges
Road 100 north of the irrigation canal is a relatively high traffic area and is
largely developed with two travel lanes in either direction and a center turn
lane. This short segment of roadway contains right and left-hand turn lanes
and center-turn lanes.
(Road 100 north of the FCID canal) (Road 100 at Massey Drive)
Chapel Hill Blvd. east of Road 100 does not contain an unimproved shoulder
where bike lanes could be installed. One possibility for the inclusion of bicycle
lanes on Chapel Hill Blvd. is the use of freestanding bicycle logo pole signs
and/or sharrow stencils painted on the road surface. Another option is
reducing the width of travel lanes to provide bike lanes.
The extension of Chapel Hill Blvd. from Road 84 to Road 68 is complicated by
the current ownership (WA Dept. of Natural Resources). Opportunities to
develop this extension are contingent upon transfer of ownership and rezoning.
Opportunities
The west side of Road 100 between I-182 and the FCID canal is mostly vacant.
As in most cases, undeveloped properties present opportunities to install
needed bicycle infrastructure. Much of the west side of Road 100 south of the
irrigation canal has wide paved or graveled shoulders. Sufficient shoulder
width exists on both east and west sides to allow re-striping and to
accommodate a bicycle lane with the exception of the east side of Road 100
south of Maple Drive.
23
Plans exist to extend Chapel Hill Blvd, from Road 84 to Road 68 concurrent
with development proposals. At the time development is proposed in this
location, conditions should be placed on all land divisions/development
projects to require 4' wide bicycle lanes be stripped in both eastbound and
westbound directions.
Chapel Hill Blvd from Road 100 to Road 84 contains a total of four (4) travel
lanes, two in each direction, and each lane is 14 feet wide. If each travel lane
were reduced to twelve (12) feet, six (6) feet would become available on each
side of the road where bike lanes could be installed without affecting the level
of service. Once the roadway striping configuration has been decided, the same
should be applied to the future extension of Chapel Hill Blvd.
Key Route
The key route in Area 3 is Argent Road. Within Area 3 Argent Road extends
from Road 100 to Road 60. This key route will extend into Areas 5 8v 6 finally
connecting with 4th Avenue.
Materials Cost Estimate
# Roadway(s) Required Cost
Improvements
Rd. 100(1-182-Court)
3a Chapel Hill (Rd. 100- Rd 84) ST, SW, RW $68,816.00
Rd 84(Chapel Hill-Argent)
Rd. 92 (Court- River),
Rd. 88 (Argent-s/Whipple),
3b Rd. 84(Argent-S/Sunset), ST, SW, RW $106,885.00
Rd. 76 (Argent-S/River Blvd.)
3c Future Chapel Hill (84-68) NA
3d Rd. 68 (Argent- River) ST, SW, RW $57,590.00
3e Argent Rd. & Rd. 103 ST, SW, RW $116,860.00
(Court- Rd 60)
TOTAL $350,151.00
Area 4
Area Description
Area 4 is bound by Road 60 to the west, Sandifur Parkway to the north, Argent
Road to the south and Road 36 to the east. Bicycle facilities are proposed on
the following roadways:
24
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Sandifur Parkway ST, SW, RW
Burden Boulevard ST
Madison Avenue ST
Road 52 ST
Road 44 ST, SW, RW
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #4
BUR PM Sand ur Parkw
Pi
z
0
m
CL
V
T
RBE B4�D
Homerun Rd.
Leeend
Proposed Routes
Existing Bike Lanes
FCID Canal Ar ent Place
Bike Pathway
City Limits F: LIVING ON ROA
Existing Facilities
Bike lanes exist along both travel lanes on Road 36 from Argent Road
continuing to Burden Blvd. to Road 60. Madison Avenue west of the
roundabout at Road 44 contains bike lanes and sidewalks.
Sidewalks exist on Burden Boulevard.
Needed Facilities
Additional shoulder widening on the east side of Road 44 is needed to
accommodate bike lanes. Sandifur Parkway is currently developed at one half
of the standard width bordering the County island between Road 60 and Road
52.
25
To date, Madison Avenue is incomplete. Madison Avenue lies within the Linda
Loviisa and First Place residential subdivisions. No connection exists between
Madison Avenue at Salem Drive and Madison Avenue at El Paso Drive.
Sidewalks are lacking on the east side of Road 36 bordering the Paso Airport.
No sidewalks exist along Burden Blvd. when bordering undeveloped parcels.
Several undeveloped parcels exist on Burden Blvd. between Road 60 and Road
68 creating the need for approximately 1235 feet of sidewalk in order to
complete pedestrian facilities on Burden Blvd. Promoting safe bicycle travel on
Burden Blvd. has the potential to alleviate traffic congestion by providing a
reasonable option to access the Road 68 commercial corridor.
Challenges
The Franklin County "island" bordering Sandifur Parkway and Road 60
presents a challenge for concurrency development of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities as the timeline for annexation is undetermined.
The roadway on Burden Blvd. from Road 60 to Road 68 is fully developed with
two travel lanes in both directions and a landscaped median with street lights.
No edge lines or shoulders exist on which to locate bike lanes and the edge of
road ends in curbs. Reduction of vehicle travel lanes is not advisable due to the
existing traffic volume at this location.
Opportunities
The landscaped area with sidewalk on the south side of Burden Blvd. west of
Road 60 is twenty five (25) feet wide. This may be the only area allowing for the
installation of bicycle facilities. The sidewalk in this area is constructed as an
asphalt pathway. The pathway could be widened and striped to provide a
designated a bicycle lane.
Key Route
The key route in Area 4 is Sandifur Parkway combined with Road 44. In Area 4
Sandifur Parkway extends from Road 60 eastbound to connect with Road 44
continuing southbound to Argent Place.
Materials Cost Estimate
# Roadway(s) Required Cost
Improvements
Road 52 (Sandifr- Burdn)
4a Madison Ave. (Brdn - El Paso) ST $19,950.00
4b Rd.44 (Sandifr-Madison Ave) ST, SW, RW $43,680.00
4c Sandifur Prkwy(Rd 60- Rd 44) ST, SW, RW $42,030.00
TOTAL $105,660.00
26
Area 5
Area Description
Area 5 is bound by Road 60 to the west, Argent Road to the north, the
Columbia River shore to the south and 20th Avenue to the east. Most of the
rights-of-way within this area is rural residential, 2 lane roads lacking edge
lines (designated shoulders), curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Bicycle facilities are
proposed on the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Road 60 ST, SW, RW
Road 52 ST, SW, RW
Road 48 ST, SW, RW
Livingston Road ST, SW, RW
Wernett Road ST, SW, RW
Pearl Street ST, SW, RW
Court Street ST, SW
Sylvester Street ST, RW
Road 32 ST, SW, RW
Road 36 ST, SW, RW
Road 40 ST, SW, RW
Haystad Street ST, SW, RW
26th Avenue ST
Henry Street (fragmented) ST
24th Ave 200 ft. ST
22nd Ave 200 ft. ST
Henry Place ST
20th Avenue ST, RW
"A" Street ST, SW, RW
W. Lewis Street ST
Road 28 ST
Hopkins Street ST, SW, RW
Road 39 300 ft. ST, SW, RW
27
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #5
Argent Place
FTArge
Legend LIVING ON RO N
Proposed Routes
hoe*** Existing Bike Lanes ROAD
Cin•Limits
Bike Pathway
River Shore P d I PFA TRFFT T.
FCID Canal
0
� a
E E
00
Sta St s
y
Existing Facilities
Generally, sidewalks exist adjacent to commercial development and adjacent to
a majority of the proposed routes east of Hwy 395. Court Street between Roads
48 8v 36 contains 5'-6' wide shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Meaning,
this segment of Court Street only requires edge line striping (4") to establish
bike lanes.
Needed Facilities
All of the proposed routes indicated on the Area 5 Map require bicycle lane
striping. Most of the proposed routes are in need of sidewalks with the
exception of those segments bordering commercially developed properties.
Shoulder widening should be completed where needed to achieve the minimum
28
bike lane width of four feet. Shoulder widening is needed on most of the
identified routes in the Area Map.
Critical features of Area 5 are the east/west crossings over SR-395 at Court
Street and Sylvester Street. These State Highway crossings will serve as the
primary connecting routes between residential west Pasco and the commercial
core east of Hwy 395.
(Sylvester St./Hwy 395 Overpass - looking east)
A third critical feature is the Argent Road/I-182 underpass which, once
striped, will provide much needed north-south connectivity. Since west Pasco
is bifurcated by the 1-182 freeway this connection point should receive
particular attention and priority.
Challenges
Road 40 between W. Pearl and Ella Street has not been dedicated to the City at
this time. Right-of-way dedications need to be obtained prior to construction of
improvements proposed in this Plan.
The need for right-of-way dedications, although fragmented, should be closely
examined on the following roadways:
- Wernett Road
- Road 40
- Road 52
- Sylvester Street
- Court Street
201h Avenue, particularly north of Court Street, presents significant challenges
for installing bike lanes due to high traffic volumes and fully developed right-of-
way improvements. Sharrows may be an unsafe recommendation at this
location.
Bike lanes are proposed on the Court Street/SR 395 Overpass Bridge. The
bridge is currently too narrow to accommodate bike lanes; widening is needed.
Overpass widening is beyond the scope of this Plan. Cost estimates in this
29
situation reflect striping only. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities will have to be
included in any future project to widen the overpass.
All bike routes proposed on Sylvester Street require road widening and striping.
Argent Road, from 20th Avenue to 4th Avenue, is identified as a bike route. Said
portion of Argent belongs to the Port of Pasco. In 2011 the Port widened Argent
Rd in this location, but did not provide bicycle facilities. Cost estimates are
provided for this portion of Argent, however installation of bicycle 8v pedestrian
facilities is not likely to be a City funded or implemented project.
Opportunities
The lack of right-of-way infrastructure west of Hwy 395 poses fewer site
specific limitations caused by existing infrastructure. Improvements have the
potential to contain comparatively uniform and easy to follow
bicycle/pedestrian routes.
Completion of bicycle facilities on Sylvester Street and "A" Street will provide
eight (8) separate connection points to the Sacajawea Heritage Trail; six (6) of
which will clearly indicate connection between residential neighborhoods and
the Trail. Particularly useful are the Road 44 and Haystad Street connections
to the Sacajawea Trail.
(Sylvester Street between Road 45 & Road 40 -looking east) (Sylvester Street/Road 60 pathway connection)
30
yx
(Road 26/Hopkins St. pathway connection point) (Pathway @ Wade Park boat launch)
Once constructed, bicycle/pedestrian facilities at the Argent Rd./I-182
underpass will provide much needed north/south connectivity crossing
Highway 1-182.
The southbound lane on Road 52 between Court Street and Whitetail Court
contains a 6.5' wide shoulder without an edge line. This wide shoulder
eliminates the need to add paving to the road surface in order to accommodate
a bike lane for approximately 616 linear feet on Road 52.
Key Route
Two key routes are identified in Area 5; they are: 1) Argent Road from Road 60
to 20th Avenue, and 2) Sylvester Street from Road 60 to Road 28. Both of these
key routes enable cyclists to cross State highways.
Materials Cost Estimate
# Roadway(s) Required Cost
Improvements
5a Rd.60(Court-S/Sylvester) ST, SW, RW
Rd. 52 (Argent-Rivershore) $9,750.00
Rd.48(Argent-Pearl)
Livingston Rd. (Rd.48-Rd 36)
5b Rd.40(Livingston -Wernett) ST, SW, RW
Wernett(Rd.84- Rd. 36)
Pearl St. (Rd.48- Rd. 32) $225,958.40
5C Court St(Rd.48-Rd.36) ST, SW $23,310.00
5d Rd.36(Livingston -rivershore) ST, SW, RW $85,108.40
5e Sylvester St. (Rd. 60-Rd. 28) ST, RW $301,125.60
31
Rd. 32 (Pearl-Court)
Court St. (Rd.32-26th Ave.)
5f 26th Ave. (Court St-Henry St.) ST SW RW
W. Henry PI. (24th Ave.-20th Ave.)
24th Ave. (Henry St-W. Henry PI.)
22nd Ave. (W. Henry PI.- Henry St) $97,768.80
5g 20th Ave. (Argent-"A"St.) ST, RW $7,500.00
Rd. 28(Sylvester-"A"St.)
5h W. Lewis St. (Rd. 28-20th) ST, SW, RW
"A" St. (Rd. 28-20th Ave.)
Hopkins St. (HWY 395- Rd. 28) $72,290.00
5i Argent(Rd 60-20th Ave) ST, SW, RW $104,372.00
TOTAL $927,183.20
Area 6
Area Description
Area 6 is bound by 20th Avenue to the west, Argent Road/Boeing Street to the
north, the Columbia River shore to the south and Heritage Blvd. to the east.
Bicycle facilities are proposed on the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Argent Road ST, SW, RW
Boeing Street ST, SW, RW
Pearl Street ST
Henry Street ST
Henry Place ST
E. Lewis Street ST
5th Avenue ST
"A" Street ST, SW
4th Avenue ST
3rd Avenue ST
Ainsworth Avenue ST, SW
Whehe Avenue ST
Elm Avenue ST
Sheppard Street 1,000') ST
Highland Street 300' ST
Beech Avenue ST
18th Ave 270' ST
Octave Street 620' ST
16th Ave 200' ST
32
5th Ave (350') ST
Mar aret St 450' ST
Nixon Street 450' ST
Columbia Street 450' ST
Washin ton Street 350' ST, SW
9th Ave (600') ST, SW, RW
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area 96
Legend
Proposed Routes
•••••• Existing Bike Lanes
Argent Rd. Bike Pathway
Citv Limits
River Shore
_ z
S e yard St.
p
e r
71 F
M
'A" St. rn
W-............
Approximate distances are provided in the preceding list for those
bicycle/pedestrian facilities proposed on relatively short sections of a road.
This circumstance occurs when routes make a "jog" in order to make the
desired connection between points. The proposed route containing Henry
Street; extending from 20th Ave to 3rd Ave. is a good example.
33
Existing Facilities
Bike lanes exist on "A" Street from unimproved Spokane Street to Road 40
East. Said section of "A" Street also contains sidewalk on the north side of the
road and a 9' wide asphalt pathway with a 6' landscaping strip on the south
side of the road. A large majority of routes indicated in the Area 6 map
currently contain sidewalks with some exceptions.
Needed Facilities
All routes indicated in the Area 6 map are in need of bicycle facilities.
Sidewalks are needed on those roadways indicated in the Area Description
table.
Challenges
A large majority of the proposed routes in Area 6 are located on fully developed
roadways in older established areas of town. Most roadways are fully
developed without striping.
Traffic from the Highland Park neighborhood (north of Lewis St. and east of
Wehe Ave.) is funneled through the Lewis Street underpass in order to access
the central downtown area. There are plans to convert this underpass into an
overpass. Bike lanes are incorporated into the design of this project. Much of
the roadway design work has been completed at this time. The City has
established a high priority to conversion of the existing underpass to an
overpass. The current design of the Lewis Street/railroad overpass includes a
six (6) foot wide sidewalk and five (5) foot wide bike lanes.
The C-2 (Central Business) District zoning regulations do not require
businesses to provide off-street parking. On-street parking is the predominant
condition while some small off-street parking lots are scattered throughout the
downtown area. Lewis Street provides only parallel parking stalls which
cannot be eliminated to install bicycle facilities.
Opportunities
The downtown area east of Hwy 395 is an active commercial area serving
residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. The C-2 zoning regulations in
the central downtown area emphasize pedestrian access and circulation.
Enhancing pedestrian and bicycle safety in the downtown area will promote the
economy of the Pasco downtown area.
Residential neighborhoods east of Oregon Avenue and north of "A" Street
contain three public schools: Whittier and Robinson Elementary Schools and
Helen Ochoa Middle School. Establishing safe, well marked bicycle facilities on
Wehe Ave., Elm Ave., Lewis St. and short segments of other roadways will
enhance bicycle/pedestrian travel in the neighborhood.
34
Railroad tracks intersect "A" Street at two points east of Oregon Avenue.
Curbing extends approximately eight (8) feet into the travel lanes; reducing the
lanes' width and interfering with the availability of area to locate a uniform bike
lane. It is recommended the curbing be removed and the area within it be
paved to match the roadway allowing bike lanes to be striped.
R�
("A" Street(c6 Railroad tracks - note extended curbing)u
t ,
. 1
\9
(Pedestrian pathway along "A" Street)
35
i
1
�f
(Bicycle &pedestrian facilities on "A" Street—looking east)
A recently completed Local Improvement District (LID) installed bike lanes
and sidewalk and pathway along the eastern portion of "A" Street. The
layout/design of these improvements should serve as a model with which to
match the proposed facilities in Area 6.
Key Route
Two key routes are identified in Area 6; they are: 1) Lewis Street from Road 28
to Heritage Blvd., and 2) "A" Street from Road 28 to Heritage Blvd. The Lewis
Street route provides access to residential neighborhoods, commercial
business areas and a school.
Materials Cost Estimate
# Roadway(s) Required Cost
Improvements
6a 4th Ave. (Argent-X/3rd&4th) ST $32,375.00
3rd (4th-Columbia)
6b W. Lewis St. (20th- Heritage) ST $106,550.00
6c "A" St. (20th-Heritage) ST,SW $106,490.00
6d Columbia (3rd-4th) ST $33,700.00
Pearl St. (20th-14th)
14th Ave. (Pearl-W. Lewis St)
Henry St. (20th-5th)
6e 5th Ave. (Henry-Margaret) ST, SW, RW $118,630.00
Margaret St. (5th-4th)
4th Ave. (Maragret-Nixon)
Nixon St. (4th-3rd)
Owen Ave. (Sheppard-Park View)
6f Park View Blvd (Owen-Wehe) ST $87,260.00
Wehe Ave. (Park View-"A"St.)
Elm Ave. (Sheppard St.-E. Lewis)
36
6g Argent Rd. (20th-4th) ST, SW, RW $41,710.00
6h Heritage Blvd. (E. Lewis-"A"St.) ST, SW $20,580.00
10th Ave./397 (shore-Washington)
Washington St. (10th-9th)
6i ST, SW, RW $52,040.00
9th Ave. (Washington-Ainsworth)
Ainsworth Ave. (9th-Oregon Ave/397)
TOTAL j $599,335.00
Alternative Solutions
It should be noted that all of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities proposed in
this Plan should be designed and constructed in accordance with the most
current edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at
the time of design. The following methods are presented as ways to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements where
physical constraints exists due to the layout of previously constructed right-of-
way infrastructure. Incorporating bicycle facilities into existing roadways
without eliminating vehicle travel lanes is paramount. Facilities serving
pedestrians and bicyclists should not come at the expense of vehicle traffic flow
rates.
Sharrows
Sharrows are a relatively new method of bicycle route identification whereby a
roadway is marked on the road surface (see roadway surface stencil below) and
a freestanding pole sign with the image of a bicycle is placed near the edge line
or curb at a minimum rate of 1/block. Due to their recent introduction,
sharrows require an educational component in order to be safe and effective.
The intent of the sharrow is to indicate to the motorist they are traveling on an
identified bike route and to use caution when passing a bicycle. If a
center/left-hand turn lane exists, the vehicle can pass the bicyclists safely
without stopping. If a center/left-hand turn lane is not present, the vehicle is
supposed to wait until on-coming traffic clears before passing the bicyclist.
The City of Spokane has implemented sharrows with limited success. Due to
the necessity of an educational component in order to facilitate safety,
sharrows can create a false sense of safety in the cyclists' mind. The use of
sharrows should be more closely examined prior to their implementation.
37
54.0 in � I
122.0 in
72.0 in
40.0 in
(Sharrow stencil)
$ignage
Either as stand-alone features or together with sharrow roadway markings,
freestanding pole signs may be installed adjacent to the roadside. Examples of
sign designs extracted from the 2009 edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) are provided below.
f — —
r
RIDE
MAY U E WITH
BIDE LANE FULL LAME TRAFFIC
•'
'AD
TO -Downt
i
KEEP
'LROA
LUT p11
The signs above are intended to serve a variety of purposes including conveying
a message to vehicles, directional signs for bicyclists and pathway use divisions
and should be used accordingly.
38
Bike Boxes/Green Boxes
The bike box is an intersection safety design to prevent bicycle/car collisions,
especially those between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight. It is
a green box on the road with a white bicycle symbol inside. It includes green
bicycle lanes approaching and leading from the box.
�l
P�
r'
The main goal is to prevent collisions between motorists turning right and
cyclists going straight. It's all about visibility and awareness. At a red light,
cyclists are more visible to motorists by being in front of them. At a green light,
the green bike lane through the intersection reminds motorists and cyclists to
watch for each other.
Potential Funding Sources
There are a wide range of potential funding sources for improving pedestrian
and bicycle transportation options. Federal funding is administered through
the state and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding
programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an
emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections.
Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education
programs and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. Many
of the funding sources included below require local cities to take the lead to
provide bicycle facility improvements.
Federal
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 included several
funding categories wherein improvements for pedestrian and bicycle
transportation could be funded, either as part of a road improvement project or
39
an independent improvement. The 1998 TEA 21 legislation perpetuated those
funding categories. Of particular significance is the ten percent set aside of
surface transportation funds for enhancements, which contains a specific
category for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
2005 marked the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Act - A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU), which reauthorizes the
federal highway and transit programs through FY 2009. The bill increased
funding of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) by roughly 30 percent.
Tansportation Enhancements continue to be funded through a 10 percent set-
aside of STP funds or the amount set aside in 2005, whichever is greater.
As of 2009, over $5.3 million in enhancement funds have been allocated to
projects in the RTPO area since the inception of the program, with $3.0 million,
or 57 percent, awarded to bicycle/pedestrian.
State
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Funding
In 2005, the Governor and Washington State Legislature increased the state's
role in safety by providing funding that supports pedestrian and bicycle safety
and safe routes to school projects (ESSB 6091). In addition, with the passage of
SAFETEA-LU in 2005, a new federal Safe Routes to School program was
established that provided federal funding to the state.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant
This program focuses on pedestrian and bicycle safety and providing children a
safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. Its purpose
is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective projects that improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety through engineering, education and enforcement.
Safe Routes to School Grant
The purpose of this program is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective
projects within two-miles of primary and middle schools (K-8) that provide
children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school.
These two programs are very lightly funded and highly desired. Grant cycles
are based on the budget biennium, so there have been three full funding
periods to date: 2005-2007, 2007-2009 and 2009-2011.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety program, over the combined 2005-2007 and
2007-2009 periods, had $15 million available which funded 47 projects from
the over $63 million in requests. In the RTPO, a single project in Kennewick
was funded during these two cycles.
Safe Routes to Schools had a total of $10 million available to fund 39 projects
from the over $49 million requested. In the RTPO, two projects were funded in
Walla Walla during these two cycles.
40
For the 2009-2011 biennium, approximately $11 million was available to fund
the over $82 million in requests received. WSDOT received 92 Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety project applications totaling approximately $35 million.
Statewide, 16 projects were funded. Four were submitted from within the RTPO
and one, from Richland was funded. The State received 112 Safe Routes to
Schools project applications and funded 21. Three were submitted from the
RTPO and none were funded.
Additional Funding Sources
Under RCW 47.30, Paths and Trails, 0.3 percent of state construction
expenditures must be spent on paths and trails: WSDOT estimates that it
spends about 0.5 percent. This amounted to about $2.4 million in 1994. Some
of these monies are distributed to cities and counties.
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has assorted legislatively funded
categories wherein cities and counties annually compete for project funds.
Some of these categories are specifically earmarked for pedestrian or bicycle
improvements. Other categories for roadway and street improvement projects
require pedestrian elements on either one or both sides.
Community Development Block Grants target communities and neighborhoods
that are principally low and moderate income. Such communities tend to have
high demand for pedestrian and bicycle travel and public transit services.
Funding is for street improvement projects, presumably including non-
motorized and transit elements.
Local
Local revenue sources include: the road portion of "impact fees," county-wide
vehicle license fees, commercial parking tax, local street utility tax, county-wide
fuel tax, property tax, Local Improvement Districts, real estate excise tax,
Transportation Benefit Districts, toll roads, and bonds.
Funding and Implementation Practices
Bike lanes, shoulder bikeways, and sidewalks, which make up the majority of
the bicycle and pedestrian system, are usually implemented as part of a
standard roadway project and represent a small fraction of a project's cost. As
new arterials and collectors are constructed or old ones are reconstructed to
current standards, appropriate bikeways and walkways should be included in
the project.
Walkways and bikeways may also be provided as a part of routine roadway
repairs. Resurfacing of an arterial or collector is an excellent time to restripe for
bike lanes at little additional cost. In this way a bikeway system can develop
incrementally in step with the road system.
41
In private developments, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are made a condition
of approval, just as are the roads and parking lots. In some cases, System
Development Charges (SDCs) or transportation impact fees can be imposed. If
the impact of a development on adjacent streets is not immediate, the
developer may participate in future improvements through a Local
Improvement District (LID).
Prioritization and Ranking
Roughly forty (40) miles of bikeways, in all of their various forms, are needed in
order to meet the Plan goals. The total mileage of needed striping is twice the
length of the total roadways needing striping due to the need for striping on
both sides of the road. Clear guidance for dedicating funds is needed.
The materials cost estimates separate and list roadways (or groups of
roadways) within each Area to organize construction phasing and to narrow the
scale of individual projects for the purpose of securing reasonable funding
amounts. When funding becomes available ranking scores can be used to
quickly choose roadway improvement projects based on their effective
importance.
The following criteria were developed to serve as a guide for implementing
roadway improvement projects. Ranking scores should apply to individual
projects and be used to prioritize the project list. The criteria scale ranges from
0 to 3. The prioritization criteria are as follows:
1) Traffic Volume
2) Gap Closure/Increase Connectivity
3) Land Use
Definition of Terms:
The definitions below are included to assist in conducting an objective scoring
of routes. The following terms are used in the evaluation criteria:
1) SIGNIFICANT ROUTE. "Significant route" includes all key routes
and other routes located on major/minor arterial roads.
2) MINOR ROUTE. "Minor route" means a route on a collector road.
3) MAJOR BARRIER. "Major barrier" means a feature preventing or
obstructing access or travel (i.e. SR 395, I-182, BNSF Rail).
Traffic Volume
The traffic volume criterion is based on gross volume. Data used to inform this
criterion is based on actual traffic volumes or public works estimates. A higher
42
ranking value indicates higher traffic volumes and therefore a greater likelihood
of dangerous incidents, and a greater number of people that would benefit from
this improvement. The higher speeds that tend to accompany higher traffic
corridors typically require improvements to allow separation of users. This
criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines:
0. Very Low volume.
1. Low to moderate traffic volumes and low speeds. Average daily traffic is
less than 4,000 vehicles and speeds less than or equal to 30 mph.
2. Moderate traffic volumes and/or vehicle speeds. Average daily traffic
equals 4,000 vehicles or greater and speeds equal 30 mph or greater.
3. Traffic volumes exceed 10,000 vehicles per day and/or traffic speeds are
35 mph or greater.
Closure of a Gap / Increases Connectivity
This criterion focuses on facilities that would close a gap or remove a barrier
along an existing route, or would address a major safety concern for
pedestrians and bicyclists at transition points such as bridges, interchanges,
and other difficult environments for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate. This
criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines:
0. Does not provide significant connection, safety improvement or improved
access.
1. Provides limited connection or safety improvement to a minor route.
2. Provides connection on significant route and/or makes pedestrian and
bicyclist environments better.
3. Provides multiple connections, closes significant gap, significantly
improves safety or mitigates major barriers such as I-182, SR 395, BNSF
Rail Line, or others.
Land Use Criterion
The land use criterion ranks projects based on connections or access to
multiple land uses. Facilities that provide access to schools, shopping, transit,
and public open space or parks rank favorably according to this criterion.
Projects that connect compatible land uses or provide a critical link between
two or more major land uses rank higher than projects that do not connect
origins with destinations. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on
the following guidelines:
0. Does not go to specified destination; is not part of school, employment, or
transit route.
1. Makes some connection to, or part of, a significant route.
2. Multiple connections or school route.
3. Multiple connections and school route or significant employment/
shopping route.
43
Scoring
The simple chart below can be used to evaluate and compare priority ranking
scores amongst the various roadway improvement projects identifiable in this
Plan.
Roadway Criterion Score
Traffic
Gap Closure/Connectivity
Land Use
TOTAL
Maps
(see attached)
Additional Bicycle Facility Components
Transportation SYSTEM Plan
The Pasco Public Works Department plans to initiate a City-wide
comprehensive traffic study to evaluate various needs related to vehicle
circulation. The Transportation SYSTEM Plan is proposed to include elements
addressing needed bicycle and possibly pedestrian facilities. The Plan may
duplicate and contribute to efforts made in compiling this Bicycle/Pedestrian
Master Plan.
Install municipal bike racks (identify effective locations
A concurrency requirement for the installation of bicycle lock-up racks should
be considered for new businesses locating on roadways identified as proposed
bike/pedestrian routes in the Master Plan Overview Map. Such a development
requirement may be imposed by amending PMC Title 12 (Streets and
Sidewalks). The availability of convenient ways to secure bicycles in front of
businesses may foster bicycle transportation; thereby advancing the stated
goal, policies and objectives of this Plan.
44
m
o
SANDiFUP PKWY co .11VII -
1
1 1 BURDEN BLVD 1_
l — 1
L�j �1
0 1 ,Ml
�T `� ARGENaD Q►
OOM
_ G
00
� r7
Q
OUR T
YL ESTER ST
„A„ ST vy "All ST
4,QV&,
Legend lyq�Ei
Proposed Route/Path Library
.....:::.,
Bike Route Post Office
Pathway Schools Bikeway Advisory Committee
CITY LIMITS Parks Draft Map
February 2007
• . • ,
MEN
Area#I
Area#2
Area#3
Area#4
WWO
Area#5
• �I/�
_
■■■
° -� ; Area .
POP River Shore
Bike Pathway
City Limits
��!t
• 1
® � 1
_ ■ `��1111 �� 1■■ �
■
• ��� r1--
MW
pr I A a
S - nard
WIN
il
NO 4,Tff.
- III
BOOM, IRMW
- __■■ on
ail HOW
� Y: AC::C ■C _
MEN
IMENIMMEN
iii `u_,,��3 j♦♦♦
• ' . _ • � ' TIC r♦♦•�'�'' �♦ ♦ ♦ ■■■■ ■■■ '
�` s_-• iiiiii�l ��`
11 son mom
Bi* cycle/Pedestri* an Master Plan - Area # 1
lea
J
Legend m
Proposed Routes 0 IL
City Limits
Bike Pathway
a _
River Shore S,A,N,D I,F-U-R—P,K�VV_Y
FCID Canal m 6
<
M ;0
D
0 v
CL CD
Chapel Hill Blvd.
(!c4t4re B�U-RD-EN-B,L-V-D
J chaps
Homerun Rd.
o °
r
�Q
00
O
OC
N
BI* CYCIe/Pedestri* an Master Plan - Area #2
7,0 D
o p v
Q Q O N
O
-4
.
Chapel Hill Blvd a' a'
p (F4t4 :.z Q1° B U-R D-E-N—B L—V--D
e� C
Homerun Rd.
0
�o� r
a °°
O a
o
oC
Lie end ARGENT RD
Project#2/
FCID Canal c
00
Pathway 0
Q River Shore
OW
0 City Limits
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area #3 N
CL '
0
Cha el Hill BI d. rF4t4re °' BURD-E-N-B-L-V-D
merun Rd.
O 00
a
o °
�c
ARGENT RD
cc
�O o p
0 —O
Legend p
Proposed Routes
Existing Bike Lanes
Cou St.
FCID Canal
River Shore
BikePathway
City Limits
Bicycle/Pedest ian Master Plan - Area #4
z
SAN-D�I�F-U-R--PK� Sandi ur Parkw
;0 v
<
N
M ; O
X
D D
7v
O
v
B U-RD-E-N-B-L-VD
Homerun Rd.
O
Lellend D
v
w
Proposed Routes
®� Existing Bike Lanes
FCID Canal Argent Place
Bike Pathway
City Limits
LIVING TON ROA
Ar Place
Proposed Routes
Existing Bike Lanes
City Limits
Bike Pathway Milo
River Shore
FCID Canal
JILI 1111
MOM
O
moms
No
vim
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #6
Legend
Proposed Routes
••••• Existing Bike Lanes
Argent Rd. Bike Pathway
City Limits
River Shore
x�
2
I
e I rn_ O� S e Pard St.
N �
o O
� O
= 2
m He
N
It I I LL
j
c _7 E LEWIS ST =
rn
ID
is S D
G)
f rn
., St 'A" St.
-
"All l,- ST�-- ---- ----- -
r
giNsw v
0
■Y v I=� � ,
ILYA F
.1�' ■■■■ r
Area
Area #4
Area#5
:, � I■■. � ��'.Via..._
' _: —�r ■„■ ��— lit Area -
INN River Shore
Bike Pathway
• ■-
191 @1►
MONK _.P __� Far
—� �_ . __ . ► —- -
y 1■■
� YY Y 11_111111 Il _II S 111
. orm __21111` .M57- � YIIIII►
-
E man
Nuff105 ;--W§ WO MEM1
mm , P. r-M SMAT."i, nil I
mmm com. .0 T"
Mill
- •: �r ._■ •��♦�,��♦♦ �♦ moll ■■■
. _ ' •
Nil ��•�♦♦ ♦ ■■■■■■■m /rte■■
Wftl E 4OWN
�.,
Bi* cycle/Pedestri* an Master Plan - Area # 1
Key
J
I M I P
Legend m
Key Route O �T
City Limits 0 l�
Bike Pathway
Q — SAN-D-I-F-U-R PKWY
River Shore if r Parwwdy
FCID Canal M7
_X
rn �
X v
y to o
Chapel Hill Blvd.
(F4t4re B U-R D-E-N-B-Lr-V D
� cha
Homerun Rd.
CD
CD
o
r
0
�Q 00
0
O
OC
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan
Area #3 Key Route N
°o _ y///e/ merun Rd.
Q V
O �
� G°C
ARGENT RD
LFC*-U
�.0 o 0
—O
ca
0
Legend
Key Route S
COU t.
FCID Canal
River Shore
BikePathway EEJ
City Limits
B ic Y cle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area #4 Key Route N
SANDIFUR PKWY
z
M
0
D O
D D
O
v
B U-RD-E-N-B-Lr-VD
Homerun Rd.
Legend
Key Route
City Limits Ma 'son W
e O
D
Bike Pathway
W
FCID Canal c1l)
PD7 Argent Place
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan
Area #5 Key Routes N
Argent Place Ar e
9
Legend
Key Route Q`
City Limits LIVINGS ON RO
Bike Pathway
River Shore I
FCID Canal WERNE T ROAD
o n
o PEARL TREET
CQ
I-T
Pal
N
COURT ST =
Q D
rn
0 M
SYLVESTER ST
0 00
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan
Area #6 Key Routes
MEN
NOW
IN IN
OEM 0 OF 0
OEM
memo
Iloilo
11001111
sling I NINE
0
4