Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200113_PTSC Agenda_item1 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee SUBJECT: PRIORITIZE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN MEETING DATE: January 13, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: None. It is anticipated that the Committee will take action on this item and while it may occur at this meeting no action is needed at this meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND: At their December 22, 2020 meeting the Bozeman City Commission approved the Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. The commission amended the proposed capital plan to add $500,000 for stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian projects. City Staff will work with the Bicycle Advisory Board and the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee to prioritize projects for this funding. While city staff does not anticipate construction of projects with this funding in fiscal year 2022, the possibility of that exists depending on the projects that are prioritized. City staff has previously presented the Board with prioritization projects for Street Maintenance funding from fiscal years 2021 and 2022. The previously approved projects for 2021 will move forward. The projects prioritized for 2022 can now be reconsidered as the amount of funding assumed during the discussion of those priorities was significantly less than what is now available. Staff suggests that the Board discuss how they would like to approach this effort. Among other options, the Board could consider: keeping the previous recommended priorities and adding to them, adding to the previous list of priorities and re-ordering them, or the Board could choose to revisit the prioritization of fiscal year 2022 funds completely now that the available amount is $500,000? During the previous prioritization discussion several board members discussed a desire to revise the prioritization criteria to among other things, specifically include safety as a criteria. Staff has looked at ways other communities do this and has developed some potential revisions to the criteria. They are included as part of the packet should the Board decide they wish to revise the criteria prior to working on the prioritization effort. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: Funding will be available July 1, 2021 pending approval of the budget. Attachments: 2021 BZN Project Scoring Criteria Desc_draft 2021 BZN Project Scoring Criteria Table_draft Report compiled on: December 30, 2020 Prioritization Criteria for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Safety Does the project address a specific bicycle and/or pedestrian safety concern? Is there crash history at this location? Does the crash history include bicycle and/or pedestrian involved crashes? Does the project improve safety for all users? Does the project address a high use location? Is there use data available for the location? Equity Does the project improve equity in Bozeman and/or the bicycle and pedestrian network? Is the project in an area that has previously been underserved by bicycle and pedestrian network connectivity? Will the project improve access to employment and services for people that rely on biking, walking and transit for transportation? Public Input Is the project identified in the Transportation Master Plan, the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, or other adopted plans for the City of Bozeman? Is the project identified in other regional plans? Is there documented public input in support of the project? Access to Schools To encourage more students to walk and bicycle to school, proposed facilities that directly connect to, provide improved safety, or improve network connectivity to any school (public or private) would qualify for this prioritization criteria. Network Connectivity Does the project add to the connectivity of the existing bicycle and pedestrian network? Does it connect to existing paths or sidewalks? Does the project add connectivity to planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Does the project extend the connectivity of the existing network? Network Gaps Does the project fill in an existing gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network? 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 or walk 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 the community (e.g. parks, commercial districts, employment centers, Downtown, transit stops, etc.). By increasing accessibility to major activity centers, the multi modal network can help reduce traffic congestion and support residents and visitors who choose to bicycle, walk, or ride transit. Projects that connect to these centers qualify for this prioritization criterion. Consideration of population density at the origin of the trips served by the facilities is an important consideration. If the facility connects two destinations, such as commercial district and a park, it may have less impact than if it connects high density residential with and employment center or a school. Relation to current projects Do other projects create a unique opportunity to complete this project? This includes City lead projects, as well as developer led projects. Leveraging of the investments helps to extend the projects that can be accomplished with established budgets. Ease of Implementation (separate into R/W and Maintenance) 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. Feasible recommended projects with demonstrated public endorsement will qualify for these prioritization criteria. This criterion considers which agency or agencies own and maintain the right-of-way 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 outside the city limits would receive the lowest score, while a project utilizes existing right of way within city limits would receive the highest score. Planning and implementation are much more time- consuming and costly when projects cross jurisdictional and/or property lines. Will the existing R/W accommodate best practice design or will it require concessions to fit in R/W. (eg. Eliminate/narrow boulevard, narrow sidewalk or path) Maintenance Who is responsible for maintenance, including snow removal, is there reasonable assurance the facility will be maintained? Assigning Scores The following table does not intend to dictate scores but provides guidance on assigning scores for each criteria. Scores for each criteria will range from 0 to 4. For each criteria, descriptions are provided for what might be associated with a low, middle, and high score. The scores will then have a factor applied based on the relative importance of each criteria. The following table does not intend to dictate scores but provides guidance on assigning scores for each criteria. Scores for each criteria will range from 0 to 4. For each criteria, descriptions are provided for what might be associated with a low, middle, and high score. C riteria Public Input Proximity to Schools Score 4 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility (multiple times) 2 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility (once) 0 Not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility 4 Direct access to a school 2 Secondary access to school (within 1/4 mi.) 0 No direct or indirect access to a school 4 Creates robust connectivity by connecting existing facilities. Description Network Connectivity Network Gaps Connectivity to Activity Center Relation to Current Projects Ease of Implementation Safety Equity 2 Extends the existing network but does not add to the connectivity or provides connectivity to planned facilities. 0 No direct or indirect connectivity to an existing or planned facility. 4 Fills a network gap between two existing facilities 2 Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a proposed facility 0 No direct or indirect network gap fill 4 Connects to a major trip-driving destination or two or more major or minor destinations 2 Secondary connectivity to above 0 No direct or indirect connection 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. 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 Bikeway is not located on a project scheduled for street paving 4 Can be constructed with little to no reconfiguration of the existing roadway 2 Can be constructed with minor or moderate alterations to the existing roadway 0 Requires major alterations to the existing roadway or right of way 4 addresses a specific safety concern with bicycle or pedestrian crash history 2 addresses a high use location with specific safety concerns. 0 addresses a general safety concern with low of unknown use 4 project improves network AND community equity 2 project improves network OR community 0 project does not address equity.