2015.06.10 Urbane Streets - Ridgefield - Multimodal Network Tech - Memo 1 Existing

Technical Memo (1) of 15

June 10, 2015

RE: The City of Ridgefield – Multimodal and NEV Network Technical Memo (1)

TO: Eric Eisemann, E2 Land Use Planning Services LLC

FM: Todd Boulanger, Principal, Urbane Streets

Technical Memo (1) assesses the circulation opportunities and barriers for bicyclists, pedestrians and neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) operators within the city limits of Ridgefield WA.1 Technical memo (2) discusses existing policies and design guidance along with a KMZ file for Google Earth. The KMZ file is a map that includes layers of existing conditions and facilities along with proposed facilities that may be integrated in future network development for pedestrians, bicyclists and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV). Overall the City has a good foundation of trail facilities but these are primarily recreational in function and design and do not yet contribute well to supporting active transportation trips. There are even fewer bike lane facilities and no on-‐street NEV facilities as of yet. EXISTING CONDITIONS

All Travel Modes The existing grid of arterial and local streets in most areas of Ridgefield prevents the widespread adoption of walking and bicycling for transportation trips. This condition along with a lack of mixed land uses ensures that traffic must travel out of direction to stay on lower speed arterials or use a few higher speed narrow highways. See Figure 1.

1 For purposes of this memo the term “electric vehicle” will primarily include neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) and traditional golf cars (aka ‘golf carts’) but not medium speed electric vehicles (MSV) or higher speed electric cars (Tesla, Nissan Leaf, etc.).


FIGURE 01: LOW SPEED ARTERIALS, BIKE LANES AND TRAILS ‘NETWORK’ MAP

Note: GREEN routes are either low speed arterials or have bike lanes and PURPLE routes are off-‐street paths.

Many of the once rural highways the City annexed maintain their historic posted speed limits. A higher speed on arterials is often not ideal when combined with growing suburban traffic volumes and incomplete safety features, such as lighting, sidewalks, crosswalks, center turn lanes, bike lanes or paved shoulders. This is as much of a problem for car drivers and truck drivers as it is for pedestrians and bicyclists travelling within the city limits.

Pedestrian Travel Mode Walking is the foundation of all mobility in the City, as almost every trip begins and ends with a walk. The compact pre-‐war city center allows many a trip to be a potential walking trip, as long as one’s work and daily needs can be provided locally. Local secondary routes often are not fully ADA accessible as they may be unpaved alleys, steep or unpaved trails or a sidewalk without ramps.


FIGURE 02: DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN, ALLEY AND TRAILS ‘NETWORK’ MAP

Note: not all trials are paved and accessible per the ADA, as many have unimproved surfaces or have steep slopes.

Arterials missing continuous sidewalks, curb ramps, lighting and conveniently located mid-‐block marked crosswalks severely limits the ability to walk outside of downtown. The older homes and businesses along rural arterials have limited space to walk let alone stand safety or to cross and collect mail at mailboxes along the roadway edge. These roadways are primarily a legacy of County level planning and design decisions.

FIGURE 03: TYPICAL PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ALONG RURAL ARTERIALS

Source: Google Streetview image. Location: 1034 NW Carty Road.


The existence of pedestrian network and ADA barriers is not only found in older areas but in many newer emerging residential developments. In many subdivisions visited there are often sidewalk gaps along any parcel without a home constructed even though the motor vehicle facility (“the roadway”) has been fully constructed curb to curb. These barriers to walking are often expected to be only short term in nature but can often last for years due to a depressed real estate market or changes in project financing. Some cities address this through the pedestrian circulation element of a developer agreement with a policy to require sidewalk connectivity at time of the adjoining road construction. Occasionally some cities find that the construction of long stretches of gap sidewalk within a development may be too great a hardship then a transportation detail for a temporary ramp with striped on-‐street walkway to the next sidewalk section is developed. This is one of the facility network barriers that the City has full administrative control over and should successfully address in the short term for future developments.

FIGURE 04: NEW DEVELOPMENT SIDEWALK TRANSITION AND ADA BARRIERS

Left side: photo of sidewalk gap from North 33rd Court. Right side: photo of temporary ramp on South Sevier.

Even the more recently constructed trails (versus ad hoc) that exist are often unpaved loop trails with woodchip or gravel treatments that typically do not connect adjoining subdivisions or to area schools. All of the previous conditions reduce the ability of these facilities to attract and support active transportation trips, thus currently limiting their functionality to recreational trips.

Bicycle Travel Mode Ridgefield residents have used bicycles for transportation and recreational use for over a century. This long history of bicycle use has primarily shared low speed urban streets or low volume rural highways. Youth riding today is generally limited to only sidewalks and trails within subdivisions. The current physical size of Ridgefield is ideal for a bicycle-‐sized city because no part of the city is more than five miles from any other part of the city. Five miles is often considered the maximum desirable distance for most urban bicycle trips. The older city center is well suited to bicycle transportation because much of the public and retail facilities exist within the half-‐mile square core area.


FIGURE 05: BICYCLIST SHARING NARROW RURAL ROAD WITH HEAVY TRAFFIC

FIGURE 06: YOUTH CYCLING OFTEN LIMITED TO SIDEWALKS

Many novice bicyclists or even experienced bicyclists escorting youth may have difficulty with off-‐street paths that are not well integrated with street intersections. The combination of legacy rural highways and poor trail integration with these arterials can often overwhelm novice bicyclists as they attempt to cross higher volume roadways for the first time. The crossing location and desirable route may be very different to a bicyclist versus the route they drive more frequently as a local driver. Both of these conditions then may frustrate other drivers who do not understand why a bicyclist may choose a given route or to do what looks like a very unsafe movement but may be the safest action possible given the state of the facilities. An example of this situation was seen during a field visit in Ridgefield at the multi-‐legged intersection of Cemetery Road, South 9th Street/ South Hillhurst and the South 8th Court


pathway. The design of the narrow pathway along South 8th Court made it very difficult for the family riding into downtown from South Hillhurst. The three bollards installed at the trail head kept the father from continuing from the Hillshurst sidewalk to the trail since his child trailer could not fit easily through the gap. He then continued to ride northward against traffic. He was soon followed by his family (two children and a spouse) who had great trouble getting down off of the elevated sidewalk, as there was no ramp there and they did not follow the lead bicyclist’s path down an earlier driveway ramp. After much shouting to direct the children across the street the spouse was able to find a gap in traffic and cross to the sidewalk along South 9th Street. They then rode on the sidewalk with the flow of traffic. These situations with deficient facilities can also be compounded by the lack of “good role models” of other more experienced bicyclists one might have in higher numbers in an urban areas with a more developed bikeway network. Novice bicyclists need to repeatedly see how these more experienced bicyclists handle barriers or complex movements such as, crossing a multi-‐lane highway or ride with the flow of heavy or fast traffic.

FIGURE 07: POOR TRAIL INTERSECTIONS CAUSE CONFUSION FOR NOVICE USERS

Note: Father leads and family follows him through gaps in traffic, avoiding trail at 9th Avenue.

The one local facility that comes closest to the improved integration of off street pathway and arterial intersection would be the newer section of SR-‐501 built at the I-‐5 interchange. This facility has a wider off-‐street hard surfaced path with ramps and well-‐marked intersection crosswalks. Its use for active transportation trips should increase as property redevelops near by and it becomes better connected to the downtown with WSDOT’s planned pavement widening and bike lanes in 2015.

Existing Arterials with Bike Lanes • Heron Ridge Drive; • South 11th Street (near South Timm Road); • South Union Ridge Parkway; • South 10th Street (near South Union Ridge Parkway); and • North 85th Avenue (near South 5th Street).

Note: only arterials with bike lanes on both sides are included.


The bikeway facilities above are designed per current standard details and function within their isolated network segments.

The Strategic Space of Half-‐Street Improvements Additional bikeway facilities may be easily added over the short-‐term to the above list with some creative and strategic reconfiguration of travel lane layout and widths using existing design details. One place to look for these opportunities is where a development driven half-‐street improvement along one side has added road widening but not bike lanes and or sidewalks on both sides. The effort to built a “complete street” within the limits of a project nexus often leads to additional shoulder or bike lane space that is not well connected. There may be operational or safety advantages to shifting this space to the other side of the centerline as part of a future “maintenance” activity. There are at least three locations to consider this type of modification:

• North Reiman Road/ 51st Avenue north of North 5th Way (convert to uphill bike lane and add downhill shared lane marking with sharrow);

• SE 5th Street west of North 85th Avenue (shift bike lane over to provide a shared bike and walking lane along curbless section without sidewalk); and

• Multiple sections of Hillhurst (consolidate and reallocate roadway space and lane narrowing to establish bike lanes or shared bike and walking lane where sidewalks are missing).

There are additional safety benefits for this “temporary” shift in bike lane to the undeveloped side, as the bike lane would help better define the edge of roadway of the curbless section in periods of low light for drivers. The change on SE 5th Street would also facilitate a longer bike lane connected route with NE 10th Avenue, but only in the counter-‐clockwise direction due to NE 10th Avenue’s longer northbound bike lane. Overall the shifting of lane lines and centerline for these types of projects would be best coordinated with planned “maintenance”, such as pavement preventive surface treatments (micro-‐surfacing, slurry seal, etc.) versus grinding or blacking out old lane lines.


FIGURE 08: EXISTING BIKEWAY REGIONAL ‘NETWORK’ MAP

Note: the GREEN roads have bike lanes / shoulders or low volumes. The PURPLE are off street bikeways.

The Geography of Development, No Development and Speed The geography of the Ridgefield area and the recent growth of population and traffic require the establishment of a dedicated off-‐street network of paths and, or on-‐street arterial bike lanes with additional right-‐of-‐way. The topography of the west side will make bicycling trips physically challenging for many unless well-‐chosen new routes minimize steep grades. Ridgefield east of I-‐5 and near the high school have more physical opportunity for bike lanes because the topography is less challenging, traffic volumes are lower and it is easier to target shoulder widening/shoulder conversion to bike lanes. The challenge for greater bicycle use on the eastside and south are the higher rural speeds (both posted and the eighty-‐fifth percentile) that bicyclists must operate with and the greater distances between single land-‐uses until the roadways can be reconstructed when areas redevelop. In areas where half-‐street improvements triggered by development will not occur for a while other creative options will have to be explored. County’s with growing numbers of bicycle trips along such rural highways are beginning to develop new interim bikeway facility designs and practices that refine urban street concepts of shared facilities but with the lower volumes and higher speeds of older rural roadways. The Washington County Bikeway Design Manual is a good regional example of such an effort to provide safer roadways until more conventional urban facilities with bike lanes can be built. Their manual is a very good synthesis of the best practices nationally.


The arterials shown in the map below in YELLOW or RED are higher speed facilities that need either bike lanes or paths for safe and effective bicycle circulation. The PURPLE arterials are currently County arterials that will likely maintain speeds of 35 mph or more immediately after an annexation.

FIGURE 09: EXISTING ARTERIAL SPEED ZONES – BICYCLE ROUTE PLANNING

Note: MPH = 25 (GREEN), 35 (YELLOW), >40 (red), and County (PURPLE).

FIGURE 10: BIKE ACCESS BARRIERS TO THE ARTERIAL NETWORK ROAD FROM TO MPH ADT BIKE LANE NW 289/291 St. North Main St. NW 31st Ave. 50* Low Needed N 20th St. I-‐5 NW 65th Ave. 40 Low Needed NE 259th St. NE 10th Ave. NE 20th Ave. 40 Medium Needed NE Carty Rd. I-‐5 NE 10th Ave. 50** Low Needed NW 31st Ave. NW 289 St. N 10th St. 50 Low Needed S 45th Ave SR-‐501 S 15th St. 40 Low Needed NW Royle Rd. S 15th St. S. Hillhurst 40 Low Needed Notes: *County “Scenic routes design may allow reduced design speeds…”; **R-‐2 roads have a speed of 30 to 50 MPH, assume 40 MPH when “rolling” topography and 50 MPH in “flat” topography unless posted. See County Code 40.350.030. Bold text: Combined roadway conditions that would not allow a shared lane facility and instead trigger a bike lane treatment. See the Washington County Bikeway Design Manual (2014) Table 1: Travel Speed and Volume, page 11.


Electric Vehicle/ NEV Mode Electric low speed vehicles have operational benefits over bicycles such as higher operating speeds, higher payload or passenger capacity, and the ability to climb steeper hills. NEVs may also offer easier adoption as they operate more similarly to existing motor vehicles that most citizens already use each day. These qualities have made electric vehicles readily adoptable in higher numbers in many communities nationwide; even Washington State has one in ten registered plug-‐in electric vehicles for the nation as a whole.2 The majority of these vehicles are located in the wetter and more urban areas long the I-‐5 corridor. Smaller cities along the West Coast with higher proportions of retirees are experiencing higher adoption rates, such as:

• City of Palm Desert, CA • Lincoln City, CA • City of West Sacramento, CA

Overall, the adoption of improved facilities for NEVs on arterials may be a desirable midterm strategy to support enhanced bikeways if space can be made for these vehicles now. Community support for NEVs may grow since many adults may feel more comfortable in an NEV than on a bicycle when traveling to a store or to work. Wider NEV facilities improve the level of service and safety over narrower bikeways if shared. Consequently, bicyclists may support improved shared facilities too if the volume of either mode does not become so great as to cause conflict. Golf cars are generally not ideal for use on higher volume arterials or higher speed rural roads due to their low operating speeds. The higher speed differential between conventional motorized vehicles and lower speed electric vehicles can make it very stressful for such operators to share the road. Golf cars are best used in a downtown grid of lower volume streets. The existing public street and trail network currently is not conducive to the widespread operation of low speed electric vehicles for several reasons, including:

• A lack of golf car lanes or existing wide bicycle lanes on arterials, • Few district and regional arterials with low traffic volumes and 25 mph speed limits

for shared lane operation; or • Separated facilities on higher speed arterials and highways.

2 There was a 50% increase registrations for plug-‐in electric vehicles in our state in 2014 versus 2013. In 2014 there were 12,351 plug-‐in electric vehicles in WA versus 118,773 in the US. Washington State Electrical Vehicle Action Plan (2015), pg. 9


NEVs will have a major disadvantage to bicycles due to their wider width when operating on many of Ridgefield’s narrow shoulder-‐less arterials. Even Ridgefield’s lowest volume arterials have up to one car per minute passing an NEV. Additionally the wider operational space of a NEV makes it almost impossible for faster traffic to pass a NEV and not cross the centerline, thus causing higher stress for NEV operators than similar traffic passing a narrower slower bicyclist.

FIGURE 11: NEV ARTERIAL AND PATHWAY REGIONAL ‘NETWORK’

Note: The GREEN roads are 25 MPH arterials and open to most NEVs. The YELLOW roads are 35 mph and have either low volumes or shared space of a bike lane or shoulder. The PURPLE are wide off street paved paths.

There are additional topographic barriers that will make facilities very expensive to directly connect isolated neighborhoods with creek overcrossings on the Westside, especially the Gee Creek watershed. Other existing trails are too narrow to drive on, too steep to walk on, and do not have all weather surfacing for wheeled use in the wet winter or spring seasons. These network barriers will continue to slow the safe and legal adoption of lower speed electric vehicles.


FIGURE 12: NOT ALL CITY TRAILS ARE NEV READY

There are other areas with streets were electric vehicles could easily operate but are often isolated islands, such as the downtown, as shaded in YELLOW in Figure 13. Other potential zones require long out of direction travel to reach employment or retail centers. Islands can also be created by urban arterials that function as an operational barrier to crossing due to being a legacy highway where design and operational jurisdiction falls outside the City to the State. Such was the case for the small town of Ryderwood (WA) that successfully petitioned WSDOT for electric vehicle access to a state highway that serves as its main street and divided its downtown. The City should study the requirements for a similar request to WSDOT for SR-‐501 as an interim action item until the facility is widened and NEV facilities are added. Other arterials need selective speed reduction and shoulder widening for successful NEV use, see Figure 14.


FIGURE 13: DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION NETWORK FOR NEV

Note: the YELLOW area is the desirable circulation area for NEVs in the Downtown, phase 1.

FIGURE 14: NEV ACCESS BARRIERS TO THE ARTERIAL NETWORK ROAD FROM TO MPH WIDE SHOLDER NW 289/291 Sts. North Main St. NW 31st Ave. 50* No N 20th St. I-‐5 NW 65th Ave. 40 No SR-‐501 Old Pioneer Way S 65th Ave. 40 Limited Sections NE 259th St. NE 10th Ave. NE 20th Ave. 40 No NE Carty Rd. I-‐5 NE 10th Ave. 50** No NW 31st Ave. NW 289 St. N 10th St. 50 No NE 10th Ave. NE 259th Ave. NE Carty Rd. 50 Yes S 45th Ave SR-‐501 S 15th St. 40 No NW Royle Rd. S 15th St. S. Hillhurst 40 No Note: *County “Scenic routes design may allow reduced design speeds…”, so limit could be made lower; **R-‐2 roads have a speed of 30 to 50 MPH, assume 40 MPH when “rolling” topography and 50 MPH in “flat” topography unless posted. See County Code 40.350.030.

The arterials shown below in YELLOW or RED are higher speed facilities that need either NEV lanes / wide shoulders or off street paths for safe and effective NEV circulation. The PURPLE arterials are currently County arterials that will likely be annexed as arterials higher than 25 mph.


FIGURE 15: EXISTING ARTERIAL SPEED ZONES – NEV ROUTE PLANNING

Note: MPH = 25 (GREEN), 35 (YELLOW), >40 (RED), and County (PURPLE).

Conclusions: 1. The City’s policies and staff outlook as a whole are very supportive of active

transportation; 2. Topography, poor street grid and lack of pavement width make establishing active

transportation facilities in the near term challenging on the west side where current demand is greatest;

3. High traffic speeds, poor street grid and dispersed land uses make establishing active transportation facilities in the near term challenging on the east side where current job growth is most likely;

4. Many of the off-‐street paths and sidewalks in newer residential areas are limited to recreational use and are not good active transportation facilities due to poor surfacing, sidewalk gaps, and missing crossings of riparian areas or other physical barriers;

5. The older narrower sections of WSDOT SR-‐501 and the existing roundabouts with incomplete sidewalks are major facility barriers for active transportation and NEV modes thus separating the downtown from regional transit services (the C-‐TRAN park & ride) and employment centers;

6. The City should undertake a holistic study of the traffic speeds and volume of its City wide network with crash locations and multimodal facility deficiencies to better understand how higher speed County arterials can be brought into the City, new arterials integrated with the old, which existing City roadways can function with the new 20 mph state limit, and where separated facilities are needed since speed reduction cannot be done;

7. This network study may also include a strategic look at where to shift arterial center lines and lane locations at points where half-‐street improvements created a spatial opportunity to create a bike lane or shared shoulder lane (road diets);


8. Consider adopting NEV supportive lanes and off-‐street facilities as an interim tool for enhanced bikeway network where right-‐of-‐way can be provided;

9. Institute speed reduction with shared street facilities along appropriate rural sections that will not experience redevelopment and half-‐street improvements in the near term; and

10. Integrate the addition of bike lanes during the annual planning of roadway pavement “maintenance” activities.

2015.06.10 Urbane Streets - Ridgefield - Multimodal Network Tech - Memo 1 Existing

Documents

Transcript of 2015.06.10 Urbane Streets - Ridgefield - Multimodal Network Tech - Memo 1 Existing