HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject Scoring CriteriaScoring Criteria
Public Input
The Idaho Falls Connecting our Community Plan has engaged the public through the public workshops
and mapping exercises, public surveys, and website. Feasible recommended projects with demonstrated
public endorsement will qualify for these prioritization criteria.
Proximity to Schools
To encourage more students to walk and bicycle to school, proposed facilities that directly connect to or
travel within ¼ mile of any school (public or private) would qualify for this prioritization criteria.
Connectivity to Proposed Facilities
In addition to the existing bikeway network, the Connecting our Community Plan will be proposing the
addition of many projects throughout Idaho Falls. While not as immediately effective for bikeway continuity,
facilities that connect to proposed facilities will help create a robust and cohesive network. Proposed
facilities that intersect with other proposed facilities will be awarded this criterion.
Network Gaps
Gaps in the bicycling and walking networks discourage use of these modes because they limit route
continuity, sense of belonging and security, or require users to choose less direct paths to access their
destinations. Some feel “stranded” when a facility abruptly end or does not easily connect to their
destination, forcing users to ride on a street that does not accommodate their proficiency level or increase
the length of their trip. Facilities that fill gaps in the existing bicycling and walking network will qualify for
this criterion.
Connections to Activity Centers
Activity centers are the major trip-driving destinations within Idaho Falls (e.g. parks, commercial districts,
employment centers, Downtown, etc.). By increasing accessibility to major activity centers, the
recommendations in the Connecting our Community Plan can help reduce traffic congestion and support
residents and visitors who choose to bicycle or walk. Projects that connect to these centers qualify for this
prioritization criterion.
Jurisdiction (applicable only to Table 1)
This criterion considers which agency or agencies own the right-of-way for which changes are proposed
and whether or not the project is partially or completely outside of the City limits. For example, a project
that is only private land and is located in Iona would receive the lowest score, while a project utilizes
existing right of way within Idaho Falls would receive the highest score. Planning and implementation are
much more time-consuming and costly when projects cross jurisdictional and/or property lines.
Resurfacing Projects (applicable only to Tables 2 and 3)
As Idaho Falls maintains its pavement, on-street bicycle facilities should be installed when a street is
scheduled to be resurfaced or seal coated. Furthermore, developers can be required to include
recommended facilities in the Connecting our Community Plan that are located on the streets they are
improving. This can be an added benefit as Idaho Falls will not have to pay for the construction of these
bikeways. Facilities that coincide with street paving projects will meet this scoring criterion.
Ease of Implementation
Bicycling and walking facilities range in project readiness and amount of reconfiguration or prior work that
needs to be completed before a facility can be installed. With regard to on-street bikeways, some streets
can accommodate bike lanes with little effort; where as other projects may require significant changes to
the travel lanes, medians, street parking, right-of-way, etc. Similarly, some trail and street crossings will be
easier than others to implement. Many cities choose to pursue the “low-hanging fruit” projects to achieve
quick wins and build support for more politically complex projects. Projects that require minimal changes to
the built environment and have lower costs will score higher on this criterion.
Criteria Score Mult. Total Description
Public Input
2
3.0
6 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility
(multiple times)
1 3 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility
(once)
0 0 Not identified by the public as desirable for a future
facility
Proximity to
Schools
2
3.0
6 Direct access to a school
1 3 Secondary access to school (within 1/4 mi.)
0 0 No direct or indirect access to a school
Connectivity -
Existing
2
3.0
6 Direct access to two or more existing bicycle or trail
facilities
1 3 Direct access to one of above
0 0 No direct or indirect access to an existing bicycle facility
Connectivity -
Proposed
2
1.0
2 Direct access to two or more proposed bicycle or trail
facilities
1 1 Direct access to one proposed bicycle or trail facility
0 0 No direct or indirect access a proposed bicycle or trail
facility
Network Gaps
2
3.0
6 Fills a network gap between two existing facilities
1 3 Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a
proposed facility
0 0 No direct or indirect network gap fill
Connectivity -
Activity Centers
2 2.0
4 Connects to a major trip-driving destination or two or
more major or minor destinations
1 2 Secondary connectivity to above
0 0 No direct or indirect connection
Street Paving
Projects
2
2.0
4
Located on street scheduled for paving (1-5 yrs).
Sharrow and bike boulevard projects receive the full two
points because they don't require repaving or
reconstruction.
1
2
Bikeway is located on a project scheduled for street
paving (5-10 years) or partially located on a project that
will be repaved or reconstructed within 1-5 years.
0 0 Bikeway is not located on a project scheduled for street
paving
Ease of Imple-
mentation
2
2.0
4 Can be constructed with little to no reconfiguration of
the existing roadway
1 2 Can be constructed with minor or moderate alterations
to the existing roadway
0 0 Requires major alterations to the existing roadway or
right of way