2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan

Transcription

1 For Benton and Franklin Counties and Tri-Cities Urban Area Benton-Franklin Council of Governments

2

3 2016 REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN for Benton and Franklin Counties and Tri-Cities Urban Area Adopted: June 2016 Prepared by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments P.O. Box Terminal Drive Richland, Washington The preparation of this document was aided by the Washington State Department of Transportation through a grant from the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration

4 The was adopted in June This Update fulfills federal requirements (23 CFR 450) that a metropolitan transportation plan contain a bicycle and pedestrian component as well as addresses state direction (RCW 36.70A) that regional transportation plans encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. Title VI Notice The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statues and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form call (509) or online at Cover photograph courtesy of the Tri-City Herald.

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Benton-Franklin Council of Governments The following people participated in the development of this Plan, either through staff participation, evaluating text for their jurisdiction, or serving on the Active Transportation Plan Advisory Committee. We wish to acknowledge their contribution. Advisory Committee Adam Fyall Benton County Carl Berkowitz Bike Tri-Cities Carol Moser Benton Franklin Health Alliance Chad DeMeyer Ben Franklin Transit Danielle Mullins City of West Richland Jeff Peters City of Richland John Deskins City of Kennewick Mike Stevens City of West Richland Paul Gonseth Washington State Department of Transportation Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Staff Tanna Dole Andres Gomez Len Pavelka Geoff Wagner Jacob Gonzalez Julia Cassidy Benton County Adam Fyall Connell Sterling Joyner Kahlotus Sharon McCaleb Kennewick John Deskins Mesa Teresa Standridge Pasco Joe Seet Prescott Elizabeth McCaw Prosser Steve Zetz Richland Jeff Peters

6 West Richland Danielle Mullens Mike Stevens Washington State Department of Transportation Paul Gonseth Bike Tri-Cities Carl Berkowitz

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND Introduction Transportation Planning/Health And Fitness Link Bicycle And Pedestrian Planning Washington State Bicycle And Pedestrian Planning Benton-Franklin Council Of Governments Bicycle And Pedestrian Planning Credibility And Institutionalization Development Of A Bicycle And Pedestrian Friendly Environment Bicycle And Pedestrian Travel Statistics Recommendations The Five E s CHAPTER TWO: GOALS, REGULATIONS & PRACTICES AND SYSTEMS Regional Transportation Plan Comprehensive Plan Goals Regulations And Practices and System CHAPTER THREE: BIKE SYSTEM WORKSHOP Issue Identification Location of Issues CHAPTER FOUR: PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS AND RESOURCES Five Keys To Walkability Types Of Pedestrians Types Of Pedestrian Facilities Types Of Street Treatments General Guidelines For Walkways Shared Use Pathways By Jurisdiction Pedestrian Improvements Additional Resources

8 CHAPTER FIVE: HEALTH AND SAFETY Federal Policy State Law and Policy Bicycle Safety Education and Enforcement Student Pedestrian Safety Local Safety/Education Efforts Access to Funds Additional Resources County Health Rankings and Roadmaps Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Data CHAPTER SIX: PROJECTS AND FUNDING Federal Funding State Funding Local Funding Funding and Implementation Practices Proposed Project Lists APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Federal Policy and Resources...A-2 APPENDIX B State Policy and Resources...A-9 APPENDIX C Regional Funding for Active Transportation Background and Detail... A-19 APPENDIX D Detailed Annual County Health Ranking for Benton and Franklin Counties... A-33 APPENDIX E Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Assessment Tools... A-47 APPENDIX F Glossary and Acronyms... A-53 APPENDIX G Citizen Comments... A-66

9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: 2014 Non-Motorized Journey to Work United States, Washington and RTPO Table 2: 2014 Non-Motorized Journey to Work Counties Table 3: Non-Motorized Journey to Work Benton and Franklin Counties Table 4: RTPO Jurisdiction Comprehensive Plan Goals Table 5: Benton County Workshop Issues Table 6: Kennewick Workshop Issues Table 7: Pasco Workshop Issues Table 8: Richland Workshop Issues Table 9: Multiple Jurisdiction Workshop Issues - Locations Table 10: Multiple Jurisdiction Workshop Issues - Concerns Table 11: General Workshop Concerns Table 12: Workshop Issues by Priority and Concern Table 13: Shared Use Pathway Facilities in Benton and Franklin Counties Table 14: County Health Rankings Summary Table 15: Washington State Federal-Aid Highway Fund Bike-Ped Expenditures Table 16: Benton-Franklin RTPO Ped-Bike Safety/Safe Routes to School Grant History Table 17: Transportation Alternative Project Funding - Benton & Franklin Counties LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 2014 Non-Motorized Journey to Work U.S.,WA.& RTPO Figure 2: 2014 Non-Motorized Journey to Work Counties Figure 3: Non-Motorized Journey to Work Benton and Franklin Counties Figure 4: Alternate Caution Signage Figure 5: Total Benton County Bicycle Collisions by Jurisdiction Figure 6: Total Benton County Bicycle Collisions by Year Figure 7: Total Benton County Pedestrian Collisions by Jurisdiction Figure 8: Total Benton County Pedestrian Collisions by Year Figure 9: Total Franklin County Bicycle Collisions by Jurisdiction Figure 10: Total Franklin County Bicycle Collisions by Year Figure 11: Total Franklin County Pedestrian Collisions by Jurisdiction Figure 12: Total Franklin County Pedestrian Collisions by Year Figure 13: Washington State Federal-Aid Highway Fund Bike-Ped Expenditures Figure 14; WSDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant Program Past Performance Figure 15: WSDOT Safe Routes to School Grant Program Past Performance LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Benton County Parks and Active Transportation System Map 2: Benton City Parks and Active Transportation System Map 3: Kennewick Parks and Active Transportation System Map 4: Prosser Parks and Active Transportation System Map 5: Richland Parks and Active Transportation System Map 6: West Richland Parks and Active Transportation System Map 7: Franklin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Map 8: Connell Parks and Active Transportation System Map 9: Kahlotus Parks and Active Transportation System Map 10: Mesa Parks and Active Transportation System Map 11: Pasco Parks and Active Transportation System Map 12: Location of Workshop Issues

10 PREFACE The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) is an intergovernmental board comprised of local governmental jurisdictions and agencies within Benton and Franklin counties. Nonvoting and ex-officio members from both the public and private sectors also actively participate in activities of the agency. The BFCG is the lead planning agency for both the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Benton-Franklin Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO). The MPO is federally mandated and authorized to fulfill federal planning requirements for the urban area. The RTPO is voluntary, locally developed, and fulfills state planning requirements for the three-county region. The organization is comprised of sixteen member jurisdictions/agencies which represent the region s population of 279,116. The BFCG fulfills its MPO/RTPO responsibilities through Tri-MATS (Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area Transportation Study), consisting of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), and the BFCG Board. Special citizens task forces are also intermittently formulated for specific projects. The mission of BFCG is to oversee a continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive planning process that results in regional multi-modal transportation plans and programs that incorporate anticipated social, economic, and environmental needs of the metropolitan area, the region, and the state. Major products of the process are the long-range (20-year) Regional Transportation Plan (of which the Active Transportation Plan is a component), the regional Transportation Improvement Program (by year), the Unified Planning Work Program (yearly), a comprehensive transit plan (yearly), and special planning and research studies. The TAC is comprised of engineers and planners representing local jurisdictions, special purpose districts, and WSDOT. The TAC provides staff level input to the activities being undertaken and forwards its recommendations to the PAC and the Board. The PAC is comprised of elected officials from the same jurisdictions represented at the technical level. The PAC provides policy review and guidance to activities and projects that will require action or adoption by the BFCG Board and/or local jurisdictions. This multi-level forum provides coordination and consensus prior to adoption of work program products.

11 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND In March 2010, United States Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood issued a Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations: The United States Department of Transportation policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes. The purpose of the policy is to reflect the Department s support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks and to support the establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks as an important component for livable communities. The purpose of this document is to report on the status of bicycle and pedestrian planning and implementation in the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area and in Benton and Franklin Counties. It presents a review of policies and practices of jurisdictions and discusses active transportation safety issues; it looks into several of the issues involved in successful integration of these travel modes into the transportation systems of urban and rural areas; and presents a summary of state laws and policies. Attention to bicycling and walking issues in the Benton and Franklin Counties has significantly increased in volume and importance in the last decade. The establishment of coherent, interconnected pedestrian and bike systems has become a critical component of our communities transportation network. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. Public agencies and public interest groups alike are striving to define the most appropriate way in which to accommodate the two modes within the overall transportation system so that those who walk or ride bicycles can safely, conveniently, and comfortably access their destination. Public encouragement and citizen advocacy for improved conditions for bicycling and walking in the metropolitan area have demonstrated strong support for increased planning, funding and implementation of shared use paths, sidewalks and on-street facilities. Organizations and agencies in Benton and Franklin Counties that have come out in support of enhanced bicycle/pedestrian access include the Benton-Franklin Community Health Alliance, the Benton-Franklin Health District, the Alliance for a Livable and Sustainable Community, Visit Tri-Cities and Bike Tri-Cities. REGIONAL CONTEXT The 2010 Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan is a component of the Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan (M/RTP) and this update will be adopted as a part of the M/RTP. 1-1

12 To establish a regional context for this Plan, it is relevant to review policy text from the existing MTP. Policy language and additional text from the current plan are cited below. Policy 11 of the 2011 M/RTP states: It is the policy 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. Action Strategies Develop, implement, and maintain, a pedestrian and bicycle plan that is consistent with federal, state, and local pedestrian goals and objectives. Establish Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to oversee, promote, review, and make recommendations on regional bicycle and pedestrian issues. Assign a high priority to the provision of bicycle and pedestrian access in local comprehensive plans. Encourage local jurisdictions to develop ordinances which require the provision of safe, adequate, and convenient access for pedestrians and bicycles in new development. Encourage provision of sidewalks and bicycle lanes on arterials and school routes. Encourage local jurisdictions and school districts to cooperatively seek funds through WSDOT s Safe Routes to Schools Program. Encourage the connection of parks, open spaces, water and other recreation areas to residential areas with bicycle and pedestrian paths and when appropriate, equestrian paths. Promote the adoption of efficient non-motorized compatible land use patterns and zoning requirements. Encourage consideration of pedestrian/bicycle transportation needs relative to all urban transportation improvement projects and subdivision developments. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/HEALTH AND FITNESS LINK ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Active transportation refers to multimodal transportation solutions that connect people of all ages and abilities to their destinations using active modes of travel such as walking and bicycling. Bicycling is very efficient and capable of transporting people over distances of five miles or more while using no fossil fuels and requiring a minimal amount of space. There is much untapped 1-2

13 potential for bicycling in our urban environment, but growth of the urban area, with more roads and more traffic, in addition to existing physical, institutional, and mental barriers prevent bicycling from becoming a more common mode of transportation. Urban planning in our community has had a significant impact on ease of bicycle use. Pedestrian movement is perhaps the most important mode in the transportation network since all other modes ultimately depend on walking. Pedestrians typically do not walk greater than one-half mile. This means that land uses and other transportation modes need to be coordinated if they are to support this mode of transportation. Additionally, the pedestrian is much more exposed to the elements than the occupants of a car or bus and requires extra attention in regards to safety and comfort. If pedestrian movement is to evolve as a mode, it will take more than just the design and construction of sidewalks. It will require coordination of public transportation options and design of urban areas allowing shopping and socializing within pedestrian-scale communities. Many people cite existing conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists as the reason for not using these alternative modes. Existing conditions include trip barriers (distance, fear of safety, inadequate facilities, and environmental factors) and destination barriers (security, facilities, lack of employer support). For bicycling and walking to increase as partners in the transportation network, usable facilities must be in place, along with the land use designations to support them. A bicycle and pedestrian friendly transportation network will provide increased travel and recreation options for individuals and families. Investing in active transportation provides a significant opportunity to leverage limited resources to produce multiple health benefits, work toward important public health goals, and reduce health care spending. Transportation policies and systems impact quality of life and health, both from a standpoint of physical and mental health, but also related to air and water quality. Expanding the availability and access to active transportation has the potential to save lives by reducing chronic diseases, reducing childhood obesity, and reducing motor vehicle related deaths and injuries, and by improving air and water quality. In the past, transportation policies and projects have focused only on minimizing or mitigating negative impacts to human health but there is growing awareness of the very real health benefits of these policies and projects. Active transportation benefits people, the environment, and the transportation system. People who walk and bike are more likely to get the physical activity they need every day than those who drive. They are benefiting the community simply by being out and about. Jane Jacobs, the acclaimed urban planner, said that a well-used city street is apt to be a safe street, and noted that the qualities of a safe street include good lighting, people and children on the sidewalks with eyes on the street from businesses and public places. People out walking and bicycling are also more likely to frequent local businesses and often spend more money locally than those who drive. The environment benefits from reduced emissions, and the transportation system benefits from reduced traffic congestion and improved connections to transit. 1-3

14 To further develop Policy 11, there is much metropolitan area jurisdictions can accomplish. Many lessons can be modeled on success stories learned from other metropolitan areas in the United States that encourage bicycle and pedestrian access to reduce congestion and to enhance business in selected areas. Cities can work together to develop consistency in signage and improved bike access between jurisdictions. Bicycle-pedestrian policy direction can be coordinated between jurisdictions. These and other ideas will be expanded upon, and this plan can assist in the development of a more seamless active transportation network in the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNING Federal Bicycle/Pedestrian Policy and Planning Initiatives The past 25 years has seen multiple Federal transportation policy and planning initiatives. Much of the impetus for increased emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian travel was initially manifest at the federal level. In 1990, then Federal Highway (FHWA) Administrator Dr. Tom Larson described bicycling and walking as "the forgotten modes" of transportation. Previously, these two nonmotorized transportation options had been largely overlooked by Federal, State and local transportation agencies. The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, building on an earlier law requiring curb ramps in new, altered, and existing sidewalks, added impetus to improving conditions for sidewalk users. People with disabilities rely on the pedestrian and transit infrastructure, and the links between them, for access and mobility. Government support for bicycling and walking was demonstrated as well in the transportation authorization legislation titled the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, ). Federal-aid funding for non-motorized travel was made available from a number of ISTEA programs. Planning requirements for bicycling and walking were established for states and metropolitan planning organizations. In 1994, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) sent The National Bicycling and Walking Study Final Report, Transportation Choices for a Changing America to Congress. The report established goals and action plans to work toward a more balanced, multimodal transportation system in which individuals can enjoy the widest possible range of travel choices for particular trips. The study presented two national goals: To double the percentage of all transportation trips made by bicycling and walking from 7.9 percent to 15.8 percent. To reduce by 10 percent the number of injuries and fatalities sustained by bicyclists and pedestrians in transportation crashes. The National Bicycling and Walking Study stands out as the first time the Federal government had ever committed itself to modal split targets, i.e. achieving a certain percentage of trips by specified modes. 1-4

15 Subsequent transportation authorization legislation: the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA- 21, ); the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, ); and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21, ) and the current Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act carried forward and further developed the active transportation elements of ISTEA. Enacted in 2012 as part of MAP-21, Section 217 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways, calls for the integration of bicycling and walking into the transportation mainstream. More importantly, it enhances the ability of communities to invest in projects that can improve the safety and practicality of bicycling and walking for everyday travel. In 2013, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach. The purpose of the Policy Statement was to reflect the Department s support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks. It called for the design and development of the transportation infrastructure to improve conditions for bicycling and walking, including: Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes; Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, especially children; and Going beyond minimum design standards. Additional discussion of federal action and policy initiative in active transportation is contained in Appendix A. The Trickle Down Effect Influenced by evolving Federal emphasis, state and local public agencies have become considerably better equipped to respond to demand. Many states and localities rediscovered bicycling and walking in the 1990s, and began devoting staff and financial resources to the creation of a more robust bicycle-friendly and walkable infrastructure. At the same time, public agencies have become considerably better equipped to respond to this demand. Research and practical experience in designing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians has generated numerous national, State and local design manuals and resources. An increasing number of professional planners and engineers are familiar with this material and are applying this knowledge in towns and cities across the country. In 1990 only a handful of States and cities had bicycle coordinators and none had a pedestrian coordinator. Buoyed by Federal legislation that boosted support for walking and bicycling, and the National Bicycling and Walking Study (NBWS), the number of bicycling and walking professionals has grown to the point that they have established their own professional association with more than 400 members. Acknowledgement of the need to more fully integrate bicycle and pedestrian travel into the transportation mix is growing at both the metropolitan and regional level, as is the awareness and effectiveness of non-motorized planning. 1-5

16 WASHINGTON STATE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLANNING The Washington Transportation Plan In 2015, The Washington State Transportation Commission, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, released WTP 2035, The Washington Transportation Plan. The document provides policy guidance and recommendations across all transportation modes and regions in the State. Among the WTP Key Findings was, in the public health arena: Stakeholders representing a wide cross-section of the general public called for more clear connections between state policies on transportation and public health. Strategies that support increased bicycling and walking, as well as greater use of public transportation, are shown to increase physical activity levels and contribute to overall improved personal health. When pursued as a statewide strategy, there are significant aggregate health benefits and economic savings to the state as a whole as well as to individuals. The Plan s Transportation Priorities also found linkage to public health in strategies supporting the State s adopted Environmental Goal, which seeks To enhance Washington s quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment. The Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan In 2008, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) released the Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan. The Plan sets a statewide goal to increase bicycling and walking while reducing injuries and deaths. The Plan sets a goal of decreasing collisions by five percent per year for the next 20 years, while doubling the amount of biking and walking. This plan also establishes objectives and performance measures in each of the state s five transportation policy areas (as established in state law, RCW ). Preservation: Ensure no net loss in pedestrian and bicycle safety, and mobility. Safety: Target safety investments toward known risk factors for pedestrians and bicyclists. Mobility: Increase bicycling and pedestrian transportation choices. Environment: Walking and bicycling will be part of Washington State s strategy to improve public health and address climate change. Stewardship: Improve the quality of the transportation system by improving transportation access for all types of pedestrians and bicyclists, to the greatest extent possible. The Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70a.070) states comprehensive plans should include collaborative efforts to identify and designate planned improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that address and encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy lifestyles. Additional detail on WSDOT action in relation to active transportation may be found in Chapter Five and Appendix B. 1-6

17 BENTON-FRANKLIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN PLANNING The This bicycle/pedestrian transportation plan is a component of the Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan and addresses the Tri-Cities and Benton and Franklin Counties in Washington State. It reports on the status of bicycle and pedestrian planning in the Metropolitan Area and in Benton and Franklin Counties. It presents a review of policies and practices of jurisdictions and discusses active transportation safety; it reviews the issues involved in successfully integrating these travel modes into the transportation systems of urban and rural areas; and presents a summary of state laws and policies. The supersedes the 2010 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan prepared by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Bicycle Map A bicycle map for the Tri-Cities metropolitan area, Cycling Tri-Cities A Bicycle Guide Map for Kennewick, Pasco, Richland and West Richland, Washington is available at the Council of Governments website: or by contacting the agency office. It also contains many of the shared use pathways discussed later in the Plan. The map is discussed in Chapter 4. CREDIBILITY AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION CREDIBILITY A major barrier to implementation of bicycle and pedestrian elements of long-range plans can be credibility. Some decision makers aren t convinced that investing in bicycle and pedestrian facilities will help address congestion, air quality, and other related transportation problems. They don t see sufficient numbers of people bicycling and walking to make an impression, so do not implement policies or plans to support non-mechanized transportation, which support these activities. Additionally, the advocacy often lacks a unified voice and strength of numbers to compel the attention of council members or commissioners. Overcoming this barrier requires ongoing monitoring of funded projects to confirm they are producing desired results and encouraging people to bike and walk more often. Efforts to facilitate bicycling and walking can also result in more general transportation benefits besides offering additional travel options for those who are unable to drive or who choose not to drive for all or some trips. Roadway improvements to accommodate bicycles, such as the addition of paved shoulders, have been shown to reduce the frequency of certain types of motor vehicle crashes. Urban area congestion can be reduced. 1-7

18 These actions also impact positively on motor vehicle safety and local business. Studies have shown that shopping districts that favor bike and pedestrian access result in smaller financial exchange per visit, but more visits. In Portland, Oregon, average spending per trip by automobile shoppers was $13.70 vs $10.00 average spending per trip by cyclists, while annual average spending per month by automobile shoppers was $61.03, much less than the $75.00 average for cyclists. Communities in the BFCG region have multiple reasons to encourage cycling. Congestion is very familiar in and around many of our shopping centers: along Road 68 in Pasco, Columbia Center in Kennewick and the Queensgate area of South Richland. Many cyclists and pedestrians can be seen at the Pasco and Richland Farmers Markets, and some hotels are now providing bikes free to their guests. Clearly, bikes and pedestrians belong in any thriving community. Greenways along waterways, railway lines, or other public rights-of-way yield recreational, educational, environmental, and aesthetic benefits in addition to providing corridors for walking and bicycling. A general enhancement of the "livability" of our metropolitan area parallels a truly multimodal transportation system in which bicycling and walking are valuable components. Establishing a context for the Plan by linking it to ongoing, but related actions in the metropolitan area and the region is another effective approach in gaining wider acceptance. Coupling the Plan to existing planning efforts such as the Sacagawea Heritage Trail adds credibility to all involved. The formation of advisory committees and boards, advocacy groups, and citizen participation programs will further improve credibility. Maintaining collision statistics can also be a factor. Our region already has many strengths in bicycle and pedestrian access; much of the infrastructure is already in place, there is good signage in many locations, many of our streets are already striped for bicycle access and we have good weather and mostly flat terrain. These features, in addition to strong community support, suggest a favorable response from jurisdictions that further bicycle/pedestrian access. Although our community has many assets already in place, there are challenges. There is a need for standardized policies on infrastructure and hardware to support cycling (bike racks, road design, signage, etc.). Each city should formally designate a contact person for addressing bike and pedestrian issues or questions raised by citizens. This staff person could act as a filter, determining if the question is safety, facilities or enforcement related and direct the inquiry to the correct department. Development and maintenance of a database documenting collisions and injuries occurring on each city s pathway facilities is important. Jurisdictions, in concert with the Council of Governments could also develop a process to quantify the results of their pedestrian/cycling programs, including head counts for bikes and walkers at intersections in the vicinity of shopping centers, schools, libraries, etc. Many cyclists can be observed riding to the south Hanford site, or commuting between Pasco and Richland, but few numbers are available to quantify trends in the use of bicycle trails in these areas. More education is needed for staff and citizens to ensure the safety, comfort and convenience of cyclists and other road users. Incentives to bike or walk via promotional activities could be 1-8

19 encouraged and coordinated. Two aspects of developing environments conducive to walking and cycling that are seldom addressed are enforcement and evaluation. Pedestrians and cyclists are subject to rules of the road that many law enforcement personnel are either not aware of or ignore. Enforcement of all rules, for all road users, motorized and non-motorized, should be encouraged. Partnering with the Safe Kids Coalition formed by the Benton-Franklin Health District could have a dramatic impact. Child accident prevention is one of their primary goals. Furthermore, the health industry is promoting biking, walking, and physical fitness to reduce obesity, increase longevity, and reduce risk of Diabetes Type II. INSTITUTIONALIZATION Creating a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment goes beyond funding and planning issues. It requires that local transportation agencies be thoroughly involved in promoting and looking out for the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Those needs must become part of the mission and corporate culture of each transportation agency. Bicycle and pedestrian safety and access must automatically be included in new policies and projects. The system itself must be structured in such a way that this occurs. Once successful, there would no longer be a need for a bicycle or pedestrian program just like there is currently no need for a car program. It is a matter of taking what is now a special project and making it the norm. This process has come to be called institutionalization. Institutionalizing pedestrian and bicycle programs has been effective in many communities in the United States, proving a strong draw for business and helping to bring in new residents. Institutionalization does not just happen. It takes a well thought out, orchestrated, and purposeful plan that may require years to implement. While it is not the intent of this plan element to fully discuss this issue, it is useful to list some of the things that a local agency can do to begin to institutionalize bicycling and walking. Policy Documents Local governments generally have policy documents on transportation, land use, housing, recreation, shoreline preservation, the environment, and other topics. They articulate basic approaches to addressing urban problems, setting priorities, and providing guidance for decision making. At any given time, one or more of these documents are probably being revised or reviewed. Bicycle and pedestrian considerations should be integrated into these documents in conjunction with these periodic revisions. The intent is to change bicycling and walking from being perceived as alternative activities to being treated as mainstream activities by including them in documents used by decision makers. Planning Documents Most local governments are involved in planning at some level. This could take the form of a single comprehensive plan or a decentralized plan that involves several documents. Typically, communities will have transportation, recreation, land use, and open space plans. They may also 1-9

20 have separate transit plans. Increasingly, these documents are being taken more seriously when making funding decisions on capital projects. Consequently, it is critical that bicycle and pedestrian considerations are integrated into planning documents at the time they are revised or developed. Regulations and Codes Local governments have codes and regulations that apply to commercial and residential development. There may also be special traffic provisions that apply during construction. Requirements for sidewalks and paths that are accessible to persons with disabilities, bicycle parking, showers, lockers, and other amenities should be included here, as well as provisions for ensuring pedestrian and bicycle safety and access during construction. Again, these requirements should be incorporated into the appropriate codes and regulations at the time they are being revised. Design Manuals and Traffic Control Policies Local street design manuals define standards for designing streets and sidewalks and are thus critical to bicyclists and pedestrians. At the minimum, they should include designs and specifications for bicycle facilities. The importance of design manuals cannot be overstated. For example, simply adopting a 15-foot standard for an outside curb lane width would be a major step creating a bicycle-friendly infrastructure. Traffic control policies are also critical since they guide signal timing, channelization, and signing. For example, the amount of green time given to pedestrians at a signal can determine whether persons with disabilities and senior citizens can safely cross a busy arterial. Maintenance Schedules and Procedures Since bicyclists tend to use the outer portion of the outside lane where debris, vegetation, and water are most likely to collect, it is important that streets with heavy bicycle traffic receive special maintenance attention. While most local governments have regular maintenance schedules for sweeping streets, filling potholes, cutting back vegetation, and cleaning drainage inlets, they may not be aware of the special needs of bicyclists. Additionally, they generally do not have the resources to maintain every street at an optimal level. Maintenance supervisors should develop maintenance schedules that ensure heavily used bicycle streets will receive an adequate level of maintenance. Regular maintenance of local bicycle trails is critical. Trail fitness should be addressed on a regular and continuing basis. Conditions locally range from irritations such as the accumulation of dirt, to costly, like the presence of tack weed, to the potentially hazardous such as root damage. Consultants Experts in bicycle and pedestrian transportation planning should be included in all consulting teams for major public works projects that affect the transportation system. This can be accomplished by making sure the RFPs (Requests for Proposals) that are issued include this requirement. 1-10

21 Citizen Advocates Many of our jurisdictions have citizen advocates who are knowledgeable about bicycle and pedestrian transportation, having both practical, firsthand knowledge of local issues, and familiarity with broader planning issues. These groups and individuals are often very willing to act as consultants in developing transportation plans. Training Designers, planners, and engineers who would be sympathetic to the needs of bicyclists and walkers, but have not received training on how to facilitate safe walking and bicycling, make many of the small day-to-day decisions that affect bicyclists and walkers. Consequently, the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians are too often overlooked. To correct this, there needs to be ongoing training. This can take the form of presentations, conferences, seminars, and written materials. Frequently, simply making presentations at staff meetings can be an effective way of alerting people to particular needs. DEVELOPMENT OF A BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT Improving the pedestrian and bicycle environment involves redesigning streets and constructing facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes. However, it also involves re-developing low-density, auto-oriented areas within our communities. Redevelopment for a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment means bringing clusters of shops and services around transit stops within reasonable distances of residences. It also means building apartments, offices, and retail services upon oversized parking lots. These activities are more generally thought of as economic development activities rather than transportation projects. Making the commitment to redevelop auto-oriented areas rather than allow continued low-density sprawl links not only land use, community health and transportation, but economic development and housing as well. The goal of redevelopment for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly communities can provide a framework for comprehensively linking land use, transportation, economic development, and housing goals. When these goals are pursued separately, more staff time and resources are required and the programs are less comprehensible to the taxpaying public. Linking the goals into a coherent framework establishes a common vision of a livable community that uses land, energy, materials, and financial resources more efficiently. Livable communities are characterized by full participation of residents, neighborhood organizations, and business community (including small and minority businesses) in the decisionmaking process. Neighborhoods are well-planned and designed where housing, schools, and parks are within easy walking distance of user-friendly transit and link residents to job opportunities and social services. Public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle access is compatible with land use, zoning, and urban designs to reduce dependence on the automobile. 1-11

22 Mixed-use neighborhoods complement residential areas with commercial, recreational, educational, health, and other social services. Transit services and facilities provide safety, security, and accessibility for all passengers, including the disabled and elderly. Sound environmental practices include careful parking and traffic management techniques to reduce auto trips, conserve space, encourage green areas, avoid gridlock, and improve air quality. Furthermore, livable communities have improved mobility and quality of services through a strong link between transit planning and land use planning. Commercial and social service programs and activities are coordinated to increase employment opportunities, improve neighborhoods, and promote the investment in and use of transit and other pedestrian-oriented transportation facilities and services. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS Improvements for Bicyclists and Pedestrians For bicyclists and pedestrians, the following transportation network improvements can make significant contributions toward increasing the levels of bicycling and walking activity. These improvements are not applicable to all situations. Their implementation must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Complete Streets. Complete streets refers to the concept that roadways should be designed with all users in mind, not just motorists. The Complete Streets movement aims to develop integrated, connected networks of streets that are safe and accessible for all people, regardless of age, ability, income, ethnicity, or chosen mode of travel. Complete Streets make active transportation such as walking and bicycling convenient; provide increased access to employment centers, commerce, and educational institutions; and allow greater choice in traveling. Barrier-breaking paths or structures. These could include bridges, overpasses, tunnels, and sections of trail that allow access to areas previously accessible only by highly circuitous routes. Typical barriers consist of canals and other waterways, railroads, highspeed highways, and residential neighborhoods with a maze of dead-ended, cul-de-sac streets. Networks of trails give bicyclists and pedestrians an opportunity to get around away from the noise and pollution of motor traffic. Most popular among casual and family travelers, trails are particularly useful for recreation and exercise. Spot improvements. Typically dealt with through policy or as an ongoing program, this includes replacement of dangerous drainage grates, conversion of traffic signals to bicyclecompatible systems, provision of rubberized or pre-cast concrete railroad crossings, installation of ADA-compliant curb cuts, etc. 1-12

23 Traffic calming techniques. These are particularly useful in residential and commercial areas. Such elements as traffic choke points, speed bumps, small traffic circles, and diverters help slow vehicles and encourage non-motorized travel. Paved roadway shoulders. Shoulders can provide space for both bicyclists and pedestrians. Transit site and system improvements. Pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops, shelters, bicycle parking at stops and bike racks on buses promote increased use. For example, Ben Franklin Transit has installed some bike lockers and all of their buses have bike racks. Pedestrian crossing signalization improvements. Traffic signal timing could be improved, or signalization could be added, at selected pedestrian crossings near major transit stops to give seniors and handicapped citizens more green time to cross the street. Also, at selected intersections, signals which count down the remaining time available for a pedestrian crossing could be added. Improvements for Bicyclists Improvements to roadways can benefit bicyclists as well as motorists, and can often be implemented at a fraction of the cost of separated bicycle facilities. Widened outside travel lanes. On higher-volume arterials, collectors, and structures, providing extra width in the outside traffic lane can reduce tensions between cyclists and motorists. Bicycle lanes. Many riders prefer the separation from motorized traffic provided by a painted bicycle lane in lieu of the unmarked extra width of an outside lane. A network of such bike lanes can connect most areas of a community and thus stimulate non-motorized travel for commutes to work, school, shopping, recreation, etc. Bituminous Surface Treatment (chip seal). Chip sealing to prolong roadway surface life produces a very rough surface, requiring increased effort by cyclists (rolling resistance). A good solution is to use an aggregate with a higher content of fine grain materials (3/8-#10 [finer] versus 3/8-#4 [courser]) or apply a choke stone to fill voids. WSDOT specifications use the 3/8-#4, usually with choke stone. Improvements for Pedestrians Eliminating disconnects or missing links and making sure that people can walk safely from one point to another are elementary improvements that will promote walking. Sidewalks. Providing sidewalks where there are currently none can improve safety and convenience for those walking now, and potentially attract new pedestrians. 1-13

24 A city s pedestrian plan. The plan should include an inventory of existing sidewalks, locations without sidewalks, potential attractors and other factors, and a plan to fund and implement needed facilities. Sidewalk condition information could also be integrated into a Pavement Management System database in order to more easily identify pedestrian-related problems and to incorporate the appropriate fix into a street improvement project. Pedestrian-friendly intersections and crossings. At particularly popular crossings, consider such measures as reduced-radius corners to slow turning vehicles, parking removal near corners, and sidewalk bulbs to reduce crossing distance for pedestrians. All four corners of an intersection should have crosswalks to discourage jaywalking. Walking routes. Routes to schools, playgrounds, parks, and other activity centers should be assessed for deficiencies and prioritized for corrective action. Correction of access and setback deficiencies. Corrections at or near urban transit stops can enhance ridership and increase walking activity. Lack of sidewalks severely restricts or eliminates handicapped access to some transit stops in the Tri-Cities. Unsafe waiting areas adjacent to busy streets deter use by all transit riders. Land Use Changes Local planning commissions, zoning boards, and planning organizations involved in land use decisions can have a dramatic impact on how people will get around in the future. Neo-traditional design. Emphasizing compact development and mixed land use helps make short non-motorized trips more feasible. Neighborhood-oriented commercial districts, parks, and schools located within safe and easy walking or bicycling distance from residential areas make non-motorized modes the most efficient modes. Siting development adjacent to the street and sidewalk rather than set back within a large parking lot further encourages these modes. An ideal people-oriented place or community is one in which a resident can reach work, the store, or recreation in a ten-minute walk. Policy changes and design standard modifications. By integrating bicycle and pedestrian-friendly elements into standard designs, improving the non-motorized environment becomes a routine activity. Cities should develop criteria for pedestrian circulation serving public facilities, transit stations, and housing complexes. Developers should be required to provide sidewalks where appropriate. Encouragement of programs and non-motorized elements in Transportation Demand Management (TDM) work. In a growing number of communities, transportation demand management is a requirement. This should include encouragement of non-motorized modes. Eliminating employee parking subsidies and other policies that encourage Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) use and creating incentives for non-motorized use helps level the playing field between different modes. 1-14

25 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL STATISTICS The following tables and figures contain data from the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nationwide survey designed to provide communities with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and housing data every year. The U.S. Census Bureau will release data from the ACS in the form of both single-year and multiyear estimates. The ACS replaced the decennial census long form in 2010 and thereafter and now collects long-form-type information throughout the decade rather than only once every 10 years. According to American Community Survey five-year estimates of Journey to Work data, nationally 76 percent of all workers drove alone, 10 percent carpooled, and 5 percent used public transportation. Comparable percentages for Washington travel mode choices are 73 percent, 10 percent and 6 percent, while for Benton and Franklin Counties the numbers are 80 percent, 12 percent and 1 percent. The tables and graphs below compare American Community Survey five-year estimates of bicycle and pedestrian Journey to Work data for the United States, Washington State and various Washington counties. 1-15

26 Figure 1 and Table 1 compare percent of non-motorized travel for the United States, Washington State and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) based on data from the 2014 ACS 5-year data. The RTPO lags behind both Washington and the United States in non-motorized modal trip share, while the state exceeds both. FIGURE 1: 2014 UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON STATE AND BENTON-FRANKLIN RTPO NON-MOTORIZED JOURNEY TO WORK TRIPS 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2014 Journey to Work Percent of Non-Motorized Trips 2.00% 1.50% Bicycle Walked 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% United States Washington RTPO Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates TABLE 1: 2014 UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON STATE AND BENTON-FRANKLIN RTPO NON-MOTORIZED JOURNEY TO WORK TRIPS 2014 Non-Motorized Journey To Work Trips United States Washington RTPO Walked 2.8% 3.49% 2.00% Cycled 0.59% 0.91% 0.29% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates 1-16

27 Figure 2 and Table 2 compare percent of non-motorized travel for the two counties in the RTPO and our neighbor counties. Walla Walla has a larger percentage of citizens who walk and bike to work than the other counties. This may be due to the compact nature of the urban area and the presence of three colleges as employers; residents live close to their jobs and are able to walk to work. FIGURE 2: 2014 BENTON, FRANKLIN, WALLA WALLA & YAKIMA COUNTIES NON-MOTORIZED JOURNEY TO WORK TRIPS 2014 Journey to Work Percent of Non-Motorized Trips 9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% Bicycle Walked 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% Benton County Franklin County Walla Walla County Yakima County Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates TABLE 2: 2014 BENTON, FRANKLIN, WALLA WALLA & YAKIMA COUNTIES NON-MOTORIZED JOURNEY TO WORK TRIPS 2014 ACS Journey to Work - Percent of Non-Motorized Trips by Mode Benton County Franklin County Walla Walla County Yakima County Walked 2.16% 1.65% 7.69% 1.74% Bicycle 0.33% 0.19% 2.19% 0.21% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates 1-17

28 Figure 3 and Table 3 show the percentage of pedestrian and bicycle journey to work trips in Benton and Franklin Counties as estimated in five consecutive American Community Surveys. As can be seen, the number of trips increased over three periods and then declined the next two periods. FIGURE 3: JOURNEY TO WORK PERCENT OF NON-MOTORIZED TRIPS BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES 3.00% RTPO Journey to Work Percent of Non-Motorized Trips 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% Walked Cycled Combined 0.50% 0.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, , , , and American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates TABLE 3: JOURNEY TO WORK PERCENT OF NON-MOTORIZED TRIPS BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES Percent of Trips - Five Year Average Trend Walked Cycled Combined % 0.26% 2.15% % 0.33% 2.33% % 0.31% 2.63% % 0.30% 2.51% % 0.29% 2.29% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, , , , and American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates 1-18

29 RECOMMENDATIONS Benton-Franklin Council of Governments As work on the Plan progressed, Advisory Committee discussions ranged over a wide variety of topics relevant to active transportation in the Tri-Cities. The Committee believed several were important enough to be noted in a separate section of the plan. Here they are. Jurisdictions should work together to develop consistency in signage. Jurisdictions should work together to address inter-jurisdictional connectivity issues. Each Jurisdiction should formally designate a contact person for addressing bike and pedestrian issues or questions raised by citizens. This staff person could act as a filter, determining if the question is safety, facilities or enforcement related and direct the inquiry to the correct department. Jurisdictions should develop and maintain a database documenting collisions and injuries occurring on each city s pathway facilities. Jurisdictions and the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments should cooperate in a bicycle/pedestrian census. Cyclists and drivers are subject to rules of the road. All road users, motorized and nonmotorized, should be educated in the rules of the road. That education should be reinforced. Enforcement of all traffic regulations, for all road users, motorized and non-motorized, should be encouraged. A thoughtful, organized process should be developed to effectively apply for grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and safety projects. Cycling on shared-use paths has a collision rate nearly three times that for cyclists on normal roads. The safest situation for cyclists is when a) they share the road with cars and b) both cars and cyclists follow the rules of the road. Shared-use pathways are a wonderful amenity, but are no substitute for a jurisdiction s commitment to development of dedicated bike lanes on city streets. THE FIVE E'S An example of tested, proven guidance toward successful implementation of a comprehensive cycling environment is offered by the League of American Bicyclists.. The League has developed a set of guidelines which can be used to provide a roadmap to improve conditions for cyclists. There are essential elements across five categories known as the Five E s that are consistent in 1-19

30 making great places for bicycling. Additional background on the League of American Bicyclists is found in Appendix E. The Five E's Engineering: Create safe and convenient places to ride and park through the design and construction of physical infrastructure and hardware to support cycling. Provide safe and accessible routes and accommodations for biking and walking as a daily form of activity. Education: Give people of all ages and abilities the skills and confidence to ride through programs that ensure the safety, comfort and convenience of cyclists and fellow road users. Implement comprehensive education programs giving people of all ages and abilities the skill and confidence to ride. Encouragement: Create a strong bike culture that welcomes and celebrates bicycling through incentives, promotions and opportunities that inspire and enable people to ride. Promote and celebrate transportation options, creating a strong bike culture. Enforcement: Enact and enforce equitable laws and programs that ensure motorists and cyclists are held accountable to ensure safe roads for all users. Maintain positive enforcement programs, ensuring safe roads for all users. Evaluation & Planning: Plan for bicycling as a safe and viable transportation option and develop processes that demonstrate a commitment to measuring results and planning for the future. Source - The League of American Bicyclists: bikeleague.org 1-20

31 CHAPTER TWO: GOALS, REGULATIONS & PRACTICES AND SYSTEMS GOALS describe in broad, general terms a desired future condition, which is consistent with community ideals or vision. Chapter Two first looks at Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) jurisdictions comprehensive plan goal statements related to bicycle and pedestrian travel in two different ways: A summary of the text of goal statements by jurisdiction and document, and Table 4, which identifies common themes among plans. The next section of Chapter Two summarizes regulations and practices concerning bikes and pedestrians by jurisdiction and contains maps of components of the bike/pedestrian systems of each. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area and the Benton-Franklin RTPO has a stated mission to develop and maintain a balanced regional transportation system that provides access and mobility for people, goods, and services in a safe, convenient, and energy efficient manner; minimizes impacts upon the environment; is coordinated through a multi-jurisdictional effort; is compatible with adjacent land uses; facilitates planned economic growth; and maintains the livability of the region and the communities therein. Goals of the RTP relevant to and resonant with active transportation include: A transportation system that provides lower cost solutions in the form of transit, vanpool/carpool, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), bicycling, and walking, in lieu of expanding capacity; A transportation system that provides access and mobility for all citizens regardless of age, race, or handicap; A transportation system that provides access while minimizing energy consumption and environmental impacts; and A transportation system that assures improvements are consistent with and support the values of communities and neighborhood structures. 2-1

32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires all counties regulated by the Act to prepare and adopt policies that will serve as the framework for planning done by themselves and the cities within them. The following section reviews county and city planning goals related and relevant to non-motorized transportation. First it summarizes goals by jurisdiction, and follows that with a table that shows goal statements from RTPO members comprehensive plans in relation to several themes. This content is provided to portray the range of alternatives selected by member jurisdictions in addressing these components of their comprehensive plans. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT GOALS BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTY JURISICTIONS CITY OF CONNELL 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Parks and Recreation Goal 1. - Provide a variety of well distributed, accessible parks and recreational facilities. Transportation Goal 2. To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the community. Goal 3. - To recognize bicycle and pedestrian movement as basic means of circulation and to assure adequate accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and physically challenged persons needs in all transportation policies and facilities. Goal 7. - To provide a comprehensive system of parks and open spaces that responds to the recreational, cultural, environmental and aesthetic needs and desires of the City s residents. HORIZONS KENNEWICK S 2014 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Goal 2: Develop air, water, rail, pedestrian and bicycle systems to coordinate the roadway system. Goal 4: Create and maintain a roadway system that promotes function, safety and aesthetics with minimum adverse environmental impacts. CITY OF KENNEWICK Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan Goal 2 To encourage greenbelts throughout the City. 2-2

33 PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Policies TR -1. Goal: Provide for and maintain an effective transportation system centered on a convenient and integrated street network. TR-2. Goal: Encourage efficient, alternate and multimodal transportation systems. Capital Facilities Policies CF -3. Goal: provide adequate lands for public facilities. CF-4. Goal: In conjunction with the county, provide parks, greenways, trails, and recreation facilities throughout the urban growth area. CITY OF PROSSER 2011 CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Policies Transportation Design Policies Goal TD 1- To emphasize the movement of people and goods rather than vehicles in order to obtain the most efficient use of transportation facilities; and to establish a minimum level of adequacy for transportation facilities throughout the City through the use of consistent and uniform standards. Multi-Modal Policies GOAL TM 1. - To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the community. GOAL TM 2. - To recognize bicycle and pedestrian movement as basic means of circulation and to assure adequate accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and physically-challenged persons needs in all transportation policies and facilities. CITY OF RICHLAND 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TE (Transportation Element) Goal 1: The City will provide an efficient transportation network including road, rail, water, and air to serve existing needs and to accommodate new development. TE Goal 6: The City will encourage the use of transportation modes that maximize energy conservation, circulation efficiency, and economy. 2-3

34 CITY OF RICHLAND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP PLAN Keys and Objectives Key 5 Natural Resource Management Objective 1 Balance private and public interests in the preservation of identified natural and environmentally sensitive areas. Objective 2 The City will provide services that promote sustainable environmental stewardship; provide a healthy and satisfying work environment for its employees; and minimize its impact on the physical environment of the community. Key 7 Neighborhoods and Community Safety Objective 2 Create non-motorized connectivity features that link neighborhoods, civic facilities, employment centers, parks, and commercial centers. WEST RICHLAND 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Goals GOAL 1: Plan and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system to serve the planned land uses of the urban growth area. GOAL 2: Coordinate transportation system improvements and service level standards with other jurisdictions and providers. GOAL 4 Develop a coordinated, multi-modal transportation system. Parks and Recreation Goals GOAL 1: Provide a variety of well-distributed, accessible parks and recreational facilities for persons of all ages, including individuals with special needs. BENTON COUNTY 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Goals GOAL 20: To provide safe, convenient, economic, and multi-modal transportation networks with new construction and other County public works projects designed to be compatible with the rural character and serve the transportation demands of the Land Use Element, at designated levels of service, and consistent with all other relevant provisions of the Comprehensive Plan GOAL 22: To provide County road right-of-ways wide enough for off-road walking, jogging, and horseback riding, from one area to another safely. GOAL 26: Provide an integrated network of trails and paths for non-vehicular recreation and travel throughout the rural areas and connecting to urban trails and paths, as part of an overall 2-4

35 County/city trails system. GOAL 27: To provide safe pedestrian ways and bicycle routes, separate from vehicle roadways where feasible. Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Historic Preservation Goals GOAL 39: To develop and maintain a park system for Benton County residents and visitors which provides a variety of recreational opportunities including: regional and local parks and trail systems for bicycle, hiking and equestrian use. GOAL 40: Jointly, with cities and agencies owning public property, adopt the Tapteal Greenway concept Plan, and prepare and facilitate the realization of a Greenway along the riverine corridor of the lower Yakima River from just west of Benton City and extending downstream to Columbia Point and including Bateman Island. FRANKLIN COUNTY 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Goals GOAL 1 To ensure that transportation facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the actual impacts of such development, which protects investments in existing transportation facilities and services, maximizes the use of these facilities and services, and promotes orderly compact growth. GOAL 2 To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient, multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the county. GOAL 3 To recognize bicycle and pedestrian movement as basic means of circulation and to assure adequate accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and physically challenged persons needs in all transportation policies and facilities. GOAL 7- To provide a comprehensive system of parks and open spaces that responds to the recreational, cultural, environmental and anesthetic needs and desires of the County s residents. As stated above, Table 2-1 shows goal statements from comprehensive plans of RTPO member jurisdictions. It shows/compares a variety of possible alternatives in language and approach to a given topic at the local level. 2-5

36 Table 4: RTPO Jurisdiction Comprehensive Plan Goals COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT - GOALS: BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES Jurisdiction Document Text Multimodalism Connell 2007 Comprehensive Plan Goal 2. - To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the community. Kennewick 2014 Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Develop air, water, rail, pedestrian and bicycle systems to coordinate the roadway system. Pasco 2011 Comprehensive Plan TR-2. Goal: Encourage efficient, alternate and multimodal transportation systems. Prosser 2011 Comprehensive Plan GOAL TM 1. - To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the community. Richland 2008 Comprehensive Plan TE Goal 6: The City will encourage the use of transportation modes that maximize energy conservation, circulation efficiency, and economy. West Richland 2006 Comprehensive Plan GOAL 4 Develop a coordinated, multi-modal transportation system. Benton County Franklin County Connell Kennewick Pasco 2006 Comprehensive Plan 2008 Comprehensive Plan 2007 Comprehensive Plan 2014 Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan GOAL 20: To provide safe, convenient, economic, and multi-modal transportation networks GOAL 2 To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient, multi-modal transportation system Trail/Pathway Advocacy Goal 3. - To recognize bicycle and pedestrian movement as basic means of circulation and to assure adequate accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and physically challenged persons needs in all transportation policies and facilities. Goal 2: Develop air, water, rail, pedestrian and bicycle systems to coordinate the roadway system. CF-4. Goal: In conjunction with the county, provide parks, greenways, trails, and recreation facilities throughout the urban growth area. 2-6

37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT - GOALS: BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES Jurisdiction Document Text Prosser Benton County Franklin County Kennewick Richland Connell Kennewick Prosser Trail/Pathway Advocacy (continued) GOAL TM 2. - To recognize bicycle and pedestrian movement as basic means of circulation and to assure adequate accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and physically-challenged persons needs in all transportation 2011 Comprehensive Plan policies and facilities GOAL 26: Provide an integrated network of trails and paths for nonvehicular recreation and travel throughout the rural areas and connecting to urban trails and paths, as part of an overall County/city 2006 Comprehensive Plan trails system. GOAL 3 To recognize bicycle and pedestrian movement as basic means of circulation and to assure adequate accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and physically challenged persons needs in all transportation 2008 Comprehensive Plan policies and facilities. Environmental Awareness 2014 Comprehensive Plan 2008 Comprehensive Plan 2007 Comprehensive Plan 2014 Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Goal 4: Create and maintain a roadway system that promotes function, safety and aesthetics with minimum adverse environmental impacts. TE Goal 6: The City will encourage the use of transportation modes that maximize energy conservation, circulation efficiency, and economy. Safety Goal 2. - To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the community. Goal 4: Create and maintain a roadway system that promotes function, safety and aesthetics with minimum adverse environmental impacts. GOAL TM 1. - To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the community. 2-7

38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT - GOALS: BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES Jurisdiction Document Text West Richland Benton County Benton County Franklin County 2006 Comprehensive Plan 2006 Comprehensive Plan 2006 Comprehensive Plan 2008 Comprehensive Plan Safety (continued) GOAL 1: Plan and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system to serve the planned land uses of the urban growth area. GOAL 22: To provide County road right-of-ways wide enough for offroad walking, jogging, and horseback riding, from one area to another safely. GOAL 27: To provide safe pedestrian ways and bicycle routes, separate from vehicle roadways where feasible. GOAL 2 To develop, maintain and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient, multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special needs populations and activities in the county. 2-8

39 REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES Benton-Franklin Council of Governments The following section notes various regulations and practices particular to each jurisdiction. Following each county section are maps showing components of the active transportation systems of each jurisdiction. Benton County Some rural Benton County roads have adequate shoulders to accommodate non-motorized travel. Those roadways with inadequate shoulders are generally low-volume routes where multi-modal shared use does not present significant hazards to motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists using reasonable caution. The County has no specific ordinances or codes regulating the use of bicycles. They follow state laws and guidelines regarding use of non-motorized vehicles. Funding of pedestrian and bicycle facilities has generally been through use of paths and trails monies generated as a portion of the county s gas tax allocation designated for that purpose. To a lesser extent, the County has funded some multi-modal trail construction within its parks with its own funds, sometimes leveraged by outside grants and donations. Federal Surface Transportation Program Enhancement funding was used for the county s portion of the Centennial Pathway bicycle/pedestrian path completed in This two-mile section of abandoned Union Pacific Railroad right of way is now a multi-use path between Prosser and Grandview. Opportunities for use of existing public or quasi-public rights of way for augmentation of the trail network will likely occur in the future. For example, irrigation districts throughout the Yakima Valley are converting open canals to buried pipe systems. Trails would be ideal multi-use of their rights of way, if not for transportation, then for recreation. Existing trails in rural Benton County are shown on Map 1 following this section. Benton City Sidewalks serve pedestrian movement through the commercial core from Dale Avenue to Ellen Avenue. Bicycles are routed around the commercial core from Dale Avenue to Ellen Avenue. From Ellen Avenue on SR 225 a west side parallel pathway extends to Grace Avenue beyond which a diamond lane extends to the north city limits. In the absence of local ordinances or regulations, state laws regarding bicycles are applied. There is no local safety program for bicyclists. 2-9

40 Portions of the city s general fund have been used for non-motorized improvements. Regional allocations of federal transportation funds have or will soon build street improvement projects containing non-motorized elements. A walkway has been implemented from the downtown area northerly along SR 225 to serve school and other facilities. Federal Enhancement funds helped with mitigation of downtown angle parking and implementation of pedestrian amenities. State funds, through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), have helped fund the 7 th Street reconstruction and extension, which included sidewalks. The TIB also helped to fund the Grace Avenue sidewalk project. Ben Franklin Transit (BFT) includes service to Benton City and Prosser providing links between Benton City, Prosser and the Tri-Cities. BFT s buses have front-mounted bicycle racks, however some of the vehicle fleet is smaller paratransit vehicles without racks. Benton City, in cooperation with BFT, has constructed a park and ride lot/bus transfer site at the intersection of SR 225 and Dale Avenue. This site has pedestrian facilities adequate for the physically impaired. Benton City bicycle and pedestrian facilities are shown in Map 2 following this section. Kennewick Kennewick has adopted RCW sections for operation of non-motorized vehicles, including penalties for traffic infractions; applicability of laws same as vehicle drivers; required hand signals; riding on other than the seat; not clinging to vehicles; riding on roadways and bicycle paths; carrying of articles; and requirements for lamps and reflectors during nighttime operation. Those state laws are defined elsewhere in this document. City ordinances further define obedience to traffic control devices and bicycle parking requirements to avoid obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. A person may ride a bicycle on any sidewalk or any roadway unless restricted or prohibited by traffic control devices. Bicyclists on sidewalks must yield to pedestrians. Any obstruction of walkways or bicycle pathways is prohibited. The city has several typical roadway sections that provide for bicycle facilities. Standard street sections all make provision for sidewalks. Many older areas do not have sidewalks. Some sidewalks are not required until development of adjacent properties. As new developments occur, sidewalks are included in the infrastructure. The city also has standards for pedestrian ramps. The city s standard specifications are based on WSDOT/American Public Works Association Standard Specifications. The city is working with adjacent municipalities to standardize requirements on sidewalks. Funding for pedestrian/bicycle facilities is not separated from roadway funding. The city uses a combination of local revenue, grants, loans, and development regulations to provide these facilities. 2-10

41 Regional allocations and statewide competitive grants of federal transportation funds have or will build street improvement projects containing amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. At the present time, there are no signed or designated bike routes to guide unfamiliar cyclists through the city. State Route (SR) 395 is not suited to bicycle travel due to congestion from 10 th Avenue to the SR 240 interchange. Furthermore, bicycles are prohibited on SR 395 from the SR 240 interchange to the Court Street interchange in Pasco, except the east side of the Blue Bridge on a- separated path. Guide signs are needed in both Kennewick and Pasco to accommodate through bicycle travel. The Sacagawea Heritage Trail includes a bicycle and pedestrian pathway on both sides of the Columbia River. The trail stretches from the west city limits of Kennewick through Columbia Park and past Clover Island, linking up to the Cable Bridge. Ben Franklin Transit (BFT) operates out of the Huntington Transit Center on West Clearwater Avenue and North Huntington Street, in addition to the Three Rivers Transit Center on West Okanogan Place. Bicycle lockers are available at the Huntington Transit Center. BFT buses travel four routes throughout the city with routes connecting to Richland, West Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco. Rural interconnections also access Benton City, Prosser and the unincorporated community of Finley to the southeast of Kennewick. Bike racks on the buses facilitate intermodal travel. Map 3 depicts bicycle routes and paths in Kennewick. Prosser The city s bicycle regulations require compliance with signals, signs, and other control devices applicable to vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited from using sidewalks. No person shall ride bicycles, skateboards, roller skates, in-line skates, or other such recreational device, not including baby strollers, on city streets, alleys, sidewalks, and other public places in the downtown business district. It is unlawful for any person to park, lend, drive, ride, or propel any team, wagon, animal, or vehicle other than a bicycle or similar vehicle within, upon, or along any bicycle path or pedestrian path within the city, except at provided crossings. Prosser has a marked bike lane on a portion of Wine Country Road from SR 22 to the bridges. However, some streets without marked lanes can suitably accommodate bikes. Other streets could be amenable to bicyclists with a minimum of upgrade, such as restricting parking and minor widening. Sidewalks in the downtown core area have been reconstructed and streetlights and other amenities added as part of a downtown revitalization project. Sidewalks in some other parts of the city are generally older, narrow (3-6 ), often times on only one side of a street, and frequently have missing 2-11

42 links. Portions of the city s general funds have been utilized for non-motorized improvements. Regional allocations of federal transportation funds have or will build street improvement projects containing non-motorized elements. Federal Enhancement funds played a major role in a downtown revitalization project for sidewalks, illumination, and other amenities. A park and ride transit center has been constructed at 7 th Street and Stacey Avenue in response to transit service by Ben Franklin Transit. The city has no exclusive bicycle facilities. The Centennial Pathway from Grandview to Prosser, a joint-use, two-way pathway has a six-foot paved width. It should be widened to at least eight feet (minimum standards) and preferably to ten feet. Figure 2-4 depicts existing bicycle facilities in Prosser. Ben Franklin Transit (BFT) includes service to Prosser and Benton City with transit links between Prosser, Benton City and the Tri-Cities. Most of BFT s buses have front-mounted bicycle racks; however some smaller paratransit vehicles do not have racks. Prosser, in cooperation with BFT, has constructed a park and ride lot/bus transfer site at the intersection of Stacy Avenue and 7 th Street. This site has pedestrian facilities adequate for the physically impaired. Map 4 depicts bicycle routes and paths in Prosser. Richland The most important existing pedestrian needs in the City of Richland are providing sidewalks on arterials and collectors and connectivity to key activity centers in the City. This includes the need for safe, well lighted arterials and collector streets with suitable provisions for on-street and crossing facilities to reduce the barriers to pedestrian travel. Richland s 2005 City-wide Transportation Plan includes a chapter dedicated to improving the bicycling environment in the City. Since the adoption of the plan many bicycle facilities have been added, including dedicated bicycle lanes on Keene Road, Gage Boulevard, Leslie Road and Stevens Drive. In addition the City has reconfigured several of its downtown streets, including Lee Boulevard, Stevens Drive, Williams Boulevard and Van Giesen Street to include shared on-street parking and bicycle spaces that are wide enough to support both uses. A network of shared bicycle/pedestrian facilities has been expanded. The City does not stripe local or collector streets with bicycle lanes, but designs them with adequate width for comfortable bicycle use and has signed many collector streets with Share the road signs. The City takes each opportunity with funded street improvements to implement components of the Plan, so additional system enhancements are planned. Several long-standing streets arterial streets, such as George Washington Way and Jadwin Avenue, were not designed with bicycle facilities and present significant obstacles to bicycle travel. The high cost of improving these routes has impeded he City s ability to change this. Richland pursues financially feasible projects to build an increasingly robust network around these obstacles. Cyclists 2-12

43 desiring to travel through the City generally either share the roadway with motor vehicles on major streets or find alternate routes on lower volume local streets. The City uses its Zoning Code to establish requirements for bicycle parking. The existing code specifies on-site parking facilities for a wide range of commercial, institutional, and industrial uses but there are still many areas where cyclists must use trees, lampposts, etc., due to the absence of adequate bicycle parking. However, the code does not include requirements for multi-family dwellings, where bike storage can be challenging given the relatively smaller living units and storage areas. It is suggested that this section of code be expanded to include bike parking facilities for multi-family uses above a minimum size (e.g., 4 units, to exclude duplexes and triplexes from the requirement). It is important that, as new development occurs, connections or access is provided to link the development to the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in as direct manner as is reasonable. If a development fronts a proposed bikeway or sidewalk (as shown in the Bicycle or Pedestrian Master Plans), the developer should be responsible for providing the bikeway or walkway facility as part of any half-street improvement required for project mitigation. The off-street trail system along SR-240, I-182, the Columbia River and Keene Road augments the roadway sidewalk facilities, primarily for recreational and longer walking and cycling trips. Connections between the trails and city streets should be emphasized to maximize the utility of the trail system. Bicyclists must obey all traffic control devices and, if dismounted, a cyclist must obey pedestrian regulations. Parked bicycles must not obstruct pedestrians. Bicycles are prohibited on sidewalks in business districts. Bicyclists on sidewalks must yield to pedestrians and must give an audible warning before passing. Riders are limited to the bicycle s designated capacity; cannot cling to vehicles; must use the far right side of the road; and may ride no more than two abreast on an exclusive bike route. Bicyclists must keep at least one hand on the handlebars. Nighttime operation requires lights and reflectors. Every bicycle must be equipped with brakes that will skid the wheels when braked on dry, clean pavement. Richland uses a combination of local, state, and federal funds for transportation improvement projects. Regionally allocated federal funds have assisted in implementing citywide signal enhancements and street projects with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Federal Enhancement funds helped preserve the city s portion of the abandoned Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way and reconstruct the Bypass Shelterbelt Trailway adjacent to SR 240. Richland s city core has a substantial network of sidewalks; however, not all residential areas have sidewalks. Current design standards for residential streets (collectors and local access streets) include provisions for five-foot sidewalks. New residential developments are required to include sidewalks. The bicycle paths in the city also facilitate pedestrian needs. The city, in conjunction with WSDOT, has developed a trail from the SR 240-Yakima River Bridge south along the highway then east along the Columbia River shoreline near the Ben Franklin 2-13

44 Transit Administration/Operations campus to connect into the trail in Columbia Park. A northern portion of the SR 240 Bypass Trail was completed as a component of the project adding additional lanes to SR 240. Ben Franklin Transit (BFT) operates out of the Knight Street Transit Center on Knight Street and Goethals Drive with five routes traveling throughout the city. There are additional routes connecting to West Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco. Rural interconnections also access Benton City and Prosser. Bike racks on the buses facilitate intermodal trips. Bicycle lockers are available to rent at the Knight Street Transit Center. The City s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development process includes an annual review by the Parks and Recreation Commission focused specifically on bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Richland s TIP always includes high priority bike and pedestrian system enhancements that are implemented as funding allows. Map 5 shows bicycle routes and paths in Richland and a portion of West Kennewick. Over 100 miles of Richland s streets have been designated as bicycle routes, including principal and minor arterials and some collectors. West Richland There are no locally adopted ordinances to regulate the use of bicycles. The city's comprehensive planning policies are to locate, design, and develop new high-density areas so residents will have access to walking, bicycling, and public transit and will be situated near commercial centers and other facilities and services. The plan commits to an integrated multi-modal system including pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle paths. The older portions of the city lack curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bicycle facilities. As new developments go in, the infrastructure includes those features. Along with locally generated funds, West Richland actively seeks state and federal funds for transportation projects. Such funding has allowed acquisition of the abandoned UPRR right of way through the south fringe of the city. State funding, through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), helped finance sidewalks, shy lanes and several segments of separated multi-use pathways over the past decade. State Beautification dollars have also been used to fund pathway construction. As the City continues to grow it strives to provide continuity of bicycling and pedestrian pathways in the community. By summer of 2015, the city provided several segments of pathway and sidewalk as a result of Federal funding received by the city. Currently West Richland is working on the Yakima Gateway project, which, when completed in 2016 will provide an additional 1800 of sidewalks/pathways for pedestrian and bikes at the east entrance to West Richland along the Yakima River and will work into a recreational trail that traverses between the golf course and the river. It should be noted that the majority of the segment of trail has been lost due to lack of maintenance and damage from recent floods, but the City of West Richland is planning to re-establish the trial via Community Volunteers. 2-14

45 The city does not have a scheduled safety program for bicyclists. A Ben Franklin Transit transfer center is located at the intersection of SR 224 (Van Giesen Street) with Bombing Range Road. Bike racks on the buses facilitate intermodal linkage east and west throughout the Tri-Cities. Map 6 shows existing multi-use pathways, along with current bicycle and pedestrian facilities in West Richland. 2-15

46 Map 1: Benton County Parks and Active Transportation System 2-16

47 Map 2: Benton City Parks and Active Transportation System 2-17

48 Map 3: Kennewick Parks and Active Transportation System 2-18

49 Map 4: Prosser Parks and Active Transportation System 2-19

50 Map 5: Richland Parks and Active Transportation System 2-20

51 Map 6: West Richland Parks and Active Transportation System 2-21

52 Franklin County Franklin County is predominantly rural, consisting of irrigated and dry land farm and range lands. As with any rural county, bicycle and pedestrian travelers in these areas utilize the county road shoulders that in most places are narrow and function as part of the roadway lanes. Franklin County has no ordinance to regulate the use of bicycles. Franklin County utilizes a combination of local, state, and federal funds to finance transportation improvements. Numerous county road segments have been hard surfaced to all weather status to the benefit of motorized and non-motorized travel. Additional planned projects will all-weather surface and widen roads where needed to provide adequate shoulder width for non-motorized travel. Franklin County does not conduct bicycle safety programs. The Columbia Plateau Trail, a relatively undeveloped 130 mile rail-trail connecting an area east of Pasco, near Ice Harbor Dam, to Fish Lake, a Spokane County Park near Cheney, is managed by the State Parks and Recreation Commission. The trail utilizes an abandoned Burlington Northern Railroad line and offers great opportunity for multi-use trail development. The trail will be crushed rock surfaced for use by pedestrians, equestrians, and mountain bicyclists. The property, through a master planning effort approved in June of 1998, is scheduled to be developed in phases. Map 7 shows Franklin County bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Connell Pedestrian access in Connell is mostly available on main streets and in nearby parks, the Community Center, and facilities such as the elementary, junior, and senior high schools. Continuous sidewalks and marked crosswalks are limited. An objective of the city is to add more sidewalks as main roadways are reconstructed or resurfaced and provide incentives for pedestrians to walk to the park for concerts and other summer activities. For the most part, Connell s street system is sufficiently wide to accommodate both bicycles and motorized traffic, provided intermittent on-street parking does not create a hazard. There are currently no striped or signed bicycle lanes except on West Adams Street. The City s bicycle ordinance restricts bicycles to daytime use on Columbia Avenue; however, bicycles may cross Columbia Avenue. Bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks. Most existing sidewalks are three to five feet wide, old, and in varying conditions. Handicap ramps are nonexistent except with newer, wider sidewalks along Columbia Avenue, West Adams Street, and West Clark Street. Like other small cities, Connell must rely heavily upon state and federal funding sources to 2-22

53 accomplish many transportation improvements. Its limited funds must be dedicated to maintenance and operations, with bicycle and pedestrian improvements often achieved in concert with a street project. For example, in 2012, the city utilized a grant from the Transportation Improvement Board to finance improvements on West Adams Street from North Columbia Avenue to the southeast entry to North Franklin School property. Those improvements included a five-foot sidewalk on the south side, bike lane, and a seven-foot sidewalk on the north side to facilitate access to the schools. Map 8 depicts pedestrian/bicycle facilities in Connell. Kahlotus Pedestrian activity is centered in the downtown area, the nearby parks, and the school complex. Continuous sidewalks and marked crosswalks are limited and usually in the downtown area. An objective of the city is to add more sidewalks as main roadways are reconstructed or resurfaced and provide incentives for pedestrians to walk to the park for concerts and other summer activities. Most existing sidewalks are three to five feet wide, old, and in various conditions. Current design standards require at least six-foot widths. Handicap ramps are non-existent. Kahlotus requires a light of sufficient power to be visible one hundred and fifty feet in the direction the bicycle or tricycle is heading on any public street. The City receives revenues for transportation projects from several funding sources, including: federal monies through competitive grants and direct allocation; state per capita revenues and competitive grants; and local improvement districts (LIDs) for specific approved transportation projects assessed to benefit properties. Like other small cities, Kahlotus must rely heavily upon state and federal funding sources to accomplish many transportation improvements. A recent example is sidewalk replacement project on Martin Street, which was completed with participation from the State Transportation Improvement Board. Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities for Kahlotus are shown on Figure 2-9. Mesa Pedestrian/bicycle activity is oriented toward the downtown area, the city park and the school. Lacking sufficient tax base, the city is challenged to maintain, let alone improve the street system. The majority of the street system must rely on local funding and, therefore, is in need of improvements. State and federal funds may be sought for those few streets being eligible. Mesa relies upon state funding for transportation improvements. For example, the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) financed a stand-alone pedestrian/bicycle pathway from the May 2-23

54 Avenue/Short Street intersection southerly to Pepiot Road. In 2012, TIB funded the May Avenue Improvement Project which extended May Avenue from Short Street to Pepiot Road alongside the pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The City of Mesa relies upon state laws for regulation of bicycle operations. Mesa pedestrian facilities are shown on Map 10. Pasco East-west routes in Pasco are limited because of disruptions caused by north-south highways or rail lines. Generally, the residential street system, if it has sidewalks and paved streets, is adequate for pedestrian and bicycle transportation. The city core, defined by SR 395 to the west and the railroad to the east, has a substantial network of sidewalks. Few streets are without sidewalks on one or both sides. East Pasco (railroad track easterly) has sidewalks on 80 percent of all residential streets. The westerly fringe of the city, and the urban growth area have minimal sidewalks. Recently implemented developments north of I- 182 have included sidewalks in the infrastructure. Overall 60-plus percent of all commercial and residential streets in Pasco have sidewalks. At the present time there are no signed or designated bike routes to guide unfamiliar cyclists around the bikes prohibited segment of SR 395 from Court Street in Pasco to the SR 240 interchange in Kennewick. In 2011 the Pasco City Council adopted The Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan with the purpose of consolidating previous efforts addressing bicycle and pedestrian facilities; providing a prioritized action plan for improving listed travel routes; and to analyze costs and potential funding sources for facilities expansion projects. The Plan is 46 pages and includes a series of maps in the appendices. The maps illustrate both existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian travel routes. A full text Plan can be viewed and/or downloaded from the City of Pasco website by visiting the following URL link: ( and is available for viewing at the Pasco Planning Department office in City Hall (525 N. 3 rd Avenue, Pasco). Pasco borders the north shore of the Columbia River for approximately 12.5 miles. The Sacagawea Heritage Trail is an asphalt bicycle and pedestrian trail which parallels the Columbia River shore for approximately 10 miles, extending from the bridge to Sacajawea State Park lying at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Most of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail is striped to divide travel lanes. There are periodic entry/exit access points connecting the pathway to local access roads in residential, commercial and industrial areas of the City. The pathway leads users to several municipal parks including Sacajawea Park, Wade Park, Riverview Park and also Sacajawea State Park at the eastern terminus. 2-24

55 Design work has begun on the Sacagawea Heritage Trail underpass routing the Trail beneath the BNSF railroad bridge just west of Pasco Boat Basin and Schlagel Park. Currently the Trail detours around the BNSF Bridge to the Ainsworth Avenue overpass and back to the River shore. The I-182 Pathway is an east/west asphalt bicycle and pedestrian path which borders the north side of Interstate 182 for approximately 4 miles; extending from Road 100 to Argent Road underpass at I-182. The path is mostly detached from City roads except where it follows the south side of Argent Road between the I-182 underpass to 20 th Avenue where the asphalt path functions as a sidewalk. Compared to the Sacajawea Heritage Trail, the I-182 path is more rudimentary in its design. The path does not contain striping dividing travel lanes and there are far fewer access points to local roads. The TRAC event center/recreation facility is the primary point of access to the path. Road 68 interrupts the path and users can expect to use the crosswalk at the intersection of Road 68 and Burden Boulevard. The path is in WSDOT right-of-way, and was located in Franklin County when it was constructed. At that time, there was an agreement that Franklin County would be responsible for maintenance. Pasco has since annexed the land surrounding the path. Responsibility for maintenance of the facility was assumed as a part of the annexation. The issue of consistent maintenance, such as regular removal of tackweed and larger issues such as repair of cracks and ruts on the path was identified at both the 2010 and 2015 Bike Plan public workshops. The Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan outlines a project to install a pedestrian and bicycle pathway along the Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) irrigation canal in Pasco. The canal extends from Road 100 to Road 44. The District plans to convert the existing open irrigation canal into an underground pipeline system. Once the system has been converted, more detailed plans and targeted efforts can be made toward installing the proposed pathway. This path would serve as yet another east/west pedestrian and bicycle transportation route and would be largely free of motor vehicle traffic disruptions. Ben Franklin Transit buses serve Pasco via the 22 nd Avenue Transit Center with connections to Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Benton City, Prosser and the unincorporated area of Finley. Bike racks on the buses facilitate intermodal trips. The Pasco Intermodal Train Station, completed in 1998, is served by Amtrak, Greyhound, Ben Franklin Transit, the Grape Line (service from Walla Walla) and local taxi service. The facility is accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. The Tri-Cities Airport, also in Pasco, is accessible to pedestrian and bicycle travel. Map 11 shows bike routes and paths in the Pasco/Riverview area. 2-25

56 Map 7: Franklin County Parks and Active Transportation System 2-26

57 Map 8: Connell Parks and Active Transportation System 2-27

58 Map 9: Kahlotus Parks and Active Transportation System 2-28

59 Map 10: Mesa Parks and Active Transportation System 2-29

60 Map 11: Pasco Parks and Active Transportation System 2-30

61 CHAPTER THREE: BIKE SYSTEM WORKSHOP A critical component of the plan - a workshop on the metropolitan area bike system - was held in late April The purpose of the meeting was to gather comments on needs, for example, gaps in system connectivity, or safety issues, from users of the area s bike system. More than eighty cyclists attended the meeting. Interest was significant enough that multiple comments were submitted via by citizens who commented they would be unable to attend the meeting. The workshop opened with presentations by area jurisdictions, the Benton Franklin Community Health Alliance and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Of those attending, about 65 percent self-identified as recreational cyclists, 5 percent as commuters and 30 percent said they were both. A focus of the workshop were maps of the metropolitan area jurisdictions and Benton and Franklin Counties arrayed on tables throughout the room. Attendees conferred over the maps, using them to locate and identify issues and areas of concern. Those concerns were transferred from maps to lists identifying issues by jurisdiction. The final action of those in attendance was to identify priority issues by voting with dots on the lists. Sixty issues were identified by workshop participants, but twenty five of those issues received no votes in the prioritization exercise. This chapter of the plan summarizes the workshop and presents the prioritized issues by jurisdiction. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION Benton County The top issues for Benton County include: 1. Badger Road bike lane and signage 15 votes 2. Dallas Road Five foot bike lane and Share the Road signs; Repair the shoulder as a quick fix 12 votes Kennewick The top issues, as identified by the meeting attendees, for Kennewick include: 1. Keene Road pathway extended to Columbia Center Mall 7 votes 2. Bike lanes on Edison Street and Canal Drive in both directions 4 votes 3. Missing link between 45th Avenue & 27th Avenue at Ely Street 4 votes Pasco The top issues, as identified by the meeting attendees, for Pasco are: 1. Bike from CBC to Sacagawea trail (no connections to river) 6 votes 3-1

62 2. Sandifur Parkway - No Bike Lanes! (recently repaved) 5 votes Richland The top issues, as identified by the meeting attendees, for Richland include: 1. Railroad crossing on Weidle Road/Snyder Street from Robertson Drive to Stevens Drive 15 votes 2. Whole area at the west end of Columbia Park Trail and junction with Queensgate Drive needs better access; complete the missing link. 13 votes 3. Heritage Trail from Amon Park to WSU in need of maintenance; Path needs separation between bikes and pedestrians 5 votes Washington State Department of Transportation Although WSDOT was not a focus of discussion at the meeting, several of the issues discussed relate to WSDOT facilities and are their shared responsibility with other jurisdictions. These projects are shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 below. West Richland As with WSDOT, no issues were discussed relating specifically to West Richland, but the City does share responsibility for one concern identified at the meeting: A bike lane on SR 224 (Van Giesen Street) from the SR 240 bypass to Benton City. Franklin County, Prosser and Benton City No issues were discussed relating to these jurisdictions. Tables 3-1 to 3-4 below show prioritized concerns by jurisdiction, as well as indicating the type of issue brought into focus. Many issues identified at the workshop, including the issue prioritized highest by workshop attendees, are the responsibility of multiple jurisdictions. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 list those concerns by jurisdiction and issues. Following is a table showing general concerns for the Tri-Cities area. An evaluation of the issues area-wide shows that connectivity concerns, those identified as spot barriers (13) and missing connections (15), along with a safety issue bike lane width (14) were the top three types of concerns identified at the workshop. A maintenance issue, resurface/repair (10), and signing (7), a safety issue, were next, followed by another maintenance issue, cleaning/weeds (2). 3-2

63 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Table 5: Benton County Workshop Issues Table 6: Kennewick Workshop Issues 3-3

64 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Table 7: Pasco Workshop Issues Table 8: Richland Workshop Issues 3-4

65 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Table 9: Multiple Jurisdiction Workshop Issues: Locations Table 10: Multiple Jurisdiction Workshop Issues: Concerns 3-5

66 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Table 11: General Workshop Concerns 3-6

67 LOCATION OF ISSUES Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Map 12 below shows the location of workshop issues. The map shows the priority rank of each issue and identifies the type of issue by color. Table 3-8 lists the issues by priority with an associated issue description. Neither the map nor the tables show issues that did not receive votes. 3-7

68 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Map 12: Location of Workshop Issues 3-8

69 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Table 12: Workshop Issues by Priority and Concern 2015 Bike-Ped Plan Workshop Map - Classification of Concerns SAFETY CONNECTIVITY MAINTENANCE OTHER Citizen Concern Votes Signing Bike Lane Width Spot Barrier Missing Connection Resurface /Repair Clean / Weeds 1 Bike lane on Van Giesen Street (SR 224) to I-82/SR 224 Interchange (Benton City) with Share the Road signs 23 X X X 2 Badger Road bike lane and signage 15 X X 3 Railroad crossing on Weidle Road/Snyder Street from Robertson Drive to Stevens Drive 15 X 4 Whole area at the west end of Columbia Park Trail and junction with Queensgate Drive needs better access; Complete the missing link 13 X 5 Dallas Road - 5 foot bike lane and share the road signs; Repair the shoulder as a quick fix 12 X X X 6 SR 240 Bypass/Stevens Drive intersection; Access from Richland across SR 240 Bypass towards Hanford, Horn Rapids, Lamb Weston, BMX Park, Business Park is not safe 12 X 7 Sacagawea Heritage Trail southbound extended toward Two Rivers Park 10 X 8 Improve bike-ped access and travel on the Columbia Center Boulevard overpass over SR 240 to the river 9 X 9 Widen shoulders on Clodfelter Road, add 'Share the Road' signs 8 X X 10 Improve bike access and travel on the Edison Street overpass over SR 240 to the river 7 X 11 Keene Road pathway extended to Columbia Center Mall 7 X 12 Bike from CBC to Sacagawea trail (no connections to river) 6 X 13 Riverfront Trail from Amon Park to WSU in need of maintenance; Path needs separation between bikes and pedestrians 5 X X 14 Sandifur Pkway - No Bike Lanes! (recently repaved) 5 X 15 Bike lanes on Edison Street and Canal Drive in both directions 4 X 16 U.S. 395 & Ridgeline crossing access 4 X 3-9

70 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Table 12 (cont.): Workshop Issues by Priority and Concern 2015 Bike-Ped Plan Workshop Map - Classification of Concerns Citizen Concern Votes Signing SAFETY CONNECTIVITY MAINTENANCE Bike Lane Width Spot Barrier Missing Connection Resurface /Repair Clean / Weeds 17 Missing link between 45th Avenue & 27th Avenue at Ely Street 4 X 18 Bike path extension between I-82 and Harris Road to Court Street 3 X 19 Dangerous to cross over I-82 on Road this is a major bike route 3 20 Improved and consistent maintenance on I-182 bike path from Argent to Road 68; path is in horrible shape/tackweeds! 3 x 21 Jadwin between Van Giesen and Williams is too narrow to accommodate bikes 3 X 22 Maintenance issues for Bypass Bike Trail (bumps, debris) 3 X X 23 Do not repeat failure of Rachel Road extension 2 X 24 Bike path from dike to Court Street needs widening and resurfacing 2 X X 25 Eliminate shared parking spaces and bike lanes on Lee Boulevard and Swift Boulevard 2 X 26 Pave the first 15 miles of the Columbia Plateau Trail 2 X 27 Road 68 - No access to stores (too dangerous) 2 X 28 Extend paved trail from Harrington Road to Ruppert Road 1 x X 29 Improve access at the railroad crossing in the vicinity of Kellogg Street and Yellowstone Avenue 1 X 30 Shoulders on U.S. 397 to Cable Bridge in Kennewick 1 X 31 Improved/consistent maintenance of Sacagawea Heritage Trail 1 X X 32 Lots of blowing sand on bike path near Chamna Natural Preserve 1 X 33 Saint Street from Stevens Drive to the Columbia River needs resurfacing 1 X 34 West Argent Road needs wider shoulders 1 X 35 Wider shoulders needed near CBC 1 X OTHER 3-10

71 CHAPTER FOUR: PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS AND RESOURCES Walking is the most fundamental transportation choice. It s the oldest and most efficient, affordable, and environmentally-friendly form of transportation it s how transit riders eventually reach their destinations, how drivers get from the front door parking lot to the front door, and how cyclists get from the bike rack to the business. Nearly everyone, for at least some portion of every day, is a pedestrian. Despite the fact that nearly all mid-columbia residents walk at some point, the details of the walking environment go largely unexamined; as for most people, the duration of a walking trip is so short that a facility of any quality that connects two places with the shortest path will do. However, most everyone is a pedestrian and walking is a daily activity. Wheelchair users are pedestrians and their access to use public pedestrian infrastructure is protected as a civil citizen. Walking is about more than transportation. Walking helps to build strong communities and is the primary way that neighbors get to know one another. Walking is also great exercise and an easy way to improve mental and physical health. U.S. Department of Transportation guidance to local jurisdictions states that, Congress clearly intends for pedestrians to have safe, convenient access to the transportation system and sees every transportation improvement as an opportunity to enhance the safety and convenience of walking. FIVE KEYS TO WALKABILITY The list below can be quantified as a graduated set of criteria for incorporation into design or development requirements for neighborhoods. Walkways with all five elements represent the highest rating (Level of Quality A, for example). Locations with none of these elements represent the lowest rating (Level of Quality F, for example). Existing infrastructure can be evaluated based on their respective LOQ, i.e., the presence or absence of these features. Planning policies can prioritize locations for improvement based on target LOQ standard. 1) Security/Safety Visible from nearby parks and community centers Pedestrian-scale lighting Buffer from motor vehicle traffic 2) Convenience Proximity to destinations, commercial areas Connectivity between residential and transit 3) Efficiency Direct walkways make it easier to walk than drive Walkways connect to crosswalk without significant detours 4) Comfort Shade from sun, protection from rain Street furniture available outside main walking corridor Walkway surface treatment delineates walkway from driveways 4-1

72 5) Welcome Public artwork Street trees Attractive vegetation People lingering or visible at all times of day and night TYPES OF PEDESTRIANS The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has published the Guideline for the Development of Pedestrians Facilities. The standards incorporated in that guide detail industry norms for facilitating walking transportation in a wide variety of environments. In order to develop an appropriate walking transportation network, it is important to serve different pedestrian needs and purposes. A classification of pedestrian travelers is listed below, along with a summary of the types of walking surfaces necessary to accommodate the different pedestrian trip purposes. Commute Walking to work or school or for errands: designs should include paved or compacted gravel, direct, good sight, distance, lighting, 5ft. width minimum (wide enough to pass slower travelers), continuous routes from origin to destination, cross walks and signals, well-maintained, graded slopes, curb ramps and absence of stairs to facilitate wheeled carts. Social Walking strolling or shopping: designs should include a 6 ft. width recommended minimum (wide enough for two or more people to walk together), meandering okay, street furniture, plantings, active store-fronts, smooth for wheeled carts and baby carriages, level or gentle grades, well-maintained, lighting, places to sit adjacent to (not in) traveled walkway, curb cuts. Recreational Walking for exercise or recreation: design concepts including meandering narrow widths and steeper slopes; dirt, gravel, or paved surfaces; and landscaped or natural vegetation. Running and Competitive Walking design concepts include dirt or gravel surface (no pavement), similar to walking for exercise. Wheelchair Users designs should include curb ramps, no cross-slope, level rest areas on long slopes, firm surface (pavement or compacted gravel), no grates or gaps in brickwork, no stairs. Vision Impaired Walking designs should include yellow truncated domes on curb cut slopes, audible crossing signals, no low over-hanging branches or street-furniture. TYPES OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Jurisdictions should endeavor to provide safe pedestrian facilities in all new construction and reconstruction transportation projects where there is the potential for significant use, such as in a traffic corridor within one mile of a school or community center that links residents to those facilities. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has adapted the standard 4-2

73 that bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be provided for all new construction where their use can be expected. Traditional curb/gutter/sidewalk designs may not always be the ideal approach for projects since they require large impervious surfaces and may detract from a rural setting. Other separated walkway designs should be considered that also provide a physical barrier from motorized traffic. Adjacent shared-use paths or other facilities that serve equivalent pedestrian activity are preferred. Walkways For the purpose of this planning document, walkways are defined as generic pedestrian facilities that are in compliance with state and federal standards, and in some cases may include pedestrian facilities categorized as recreational paths or traits. The intent of this categorization is to include an array of pedestrian facilities that provide some means of physical barrier or separation from motorized traffic lanes, providing the most suitable project design with an appropriate degree of safety. Sidewalks Sidewalks serve all six categories of pedestrians. Sidewalks or walkways are especially important for children walking to school and for people with disabilities. These populations are found in many areas throughout the country. The WSDOT Design Manual and the AASHTO Pedestrian Guide state that a sidewalk that is next to the curb would be a minimum 6 ft. wide. If the sidewalk is separated from the curb by a planting strip then the sidewalk can be a minimum of 5 ft. wide. Paths Paths are non-motorized routes that do not necessarily follow a roadway but can be designed as an effective walkway, substituting for sidewalk designs. Paths offer advantages over sidewalks in the following types of locations: Parks and natural areas. Former railroad right-of-ways or utility corridors. Dead-end roads in residential or commercial developments Side-paths along roads where there are few intersections or driveways Connecting schools to recreation and residential areas. Connecting senior housing to commercial service areas. Path surfacing can vary depending on location and use. Rustic dirt paths are appropriate in parks or natural areas with low usage. Rustic dirt paths are subject to erosion but offer the advantage of a water permeable area. Compacted gravel paths serve the widest variety of uses and offer some water permeability. Paved paths are appropriate for high usage routes or to serve wheelchairs or strollers. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that paths be built to accommodate wheelchair users and those with other disabilities or that an equivalent facility be available. Because paths offer a transportation route separated from motor vehicles on the roadway, they offer a greater margin of safety than sidewalks or roadway shoulders for children walking or for 4-3

74 beginning bicyclists. Near senior citizen centers, paths and walkways should include benches for resting at reasonable intervals. Paths are part of the network of non-motorized transportation facilities and should be designed to link walkways or bike routes to create a continuous system. Shared Paths: Pedestrians, bicyclists, runners, horseback riders, roller skaters, and other nonmotorized travelers can safely share most paths where the facility is well designed and maintained. To reduce the potential for collisions, the different users of shared-use path require posted etiquette or guidelines and a method of educations should be in place. Pedestrian-only Paths: In the following types of locations, path use restricted to pedestrians only offers some safety and practical advantages. Narrow (less than 4 ft. or 1.2 m) paths with high pedestrian use. Commercial areas with frequent entry and exit to the path. Areas where enforcement of pedestrian-only use is feasible. TYPES OF STREET TREATMENTS Safe street crossings are an important part of an accessible pedestrian system. The presence of curb ramps and crosswalks may make it more comfortable to cross a road on foot. Traffic signals and stop signs might also make it easier to cross a road. A wide road is more difficult to cross than a narrow road. Likewise, a road with a lot of traffic is more difficult to cross than one with less traffic. Street treatments can enable safer and more efficient travel for a pedestrian. Crosswalks Every roadway intersection is a crosswalk, whether marked on unmarked. Intersections of trails or alleys and roadways are also defined as crosswalks. In a crosswalk, pedestrians have the right of way and motor vehicle traffic must yield. Education of every motorist about this law is an important component to ensuring an effective pedestrian transportation network. A public crosswalk education campaign is the most effective. Marked Crosswalks Collisions are reduced where motor vehicle traffic is alerted when approaching a location where pedestrians are likely to be crossing the road. The method of alerting a motor vehicle driver to these crossings varies according to the roadway design, traffic volume, and speed limit. Marked crosswalks reduce collisions on two-lane roads where speed limits are 25 mph (40kph) or less. On roadways with three or more lanes or with higher speed limits, marked crosswalks alone are not sufficient to reduce collisions. Additional features may be incorporated along with the marked crosswalk such as: Advance fluorescent yellow pedestrian crossing signs Pedestrian refuge island in the middle of the crossing Pedestrian activated in-pavement, overhead flashing lights, or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Design of marked crosswalks can include painted (thermoplastic) striping, contrasting colored pavers, signage, or raised crosswalks. Raised crosswalks function similarly to a speed hump slowing motor vehicles. 4-4

75 Pedestrian activated lighted crosswalks Located at mid-block areas with high traffic volume and high pedestrian crossing demand, pedestrian-activated overhead, in-pavement or RRFB lights help alert drivers to yield to the pedestrian waiting to cross. Signalized pedestrian crossings At signalized intersections, pedestrians cross with the traffic light for their direction of travel, while turning motor vehicles must yield to the pedestrians. Pedestrian accommodations are recommended at all signalized intersections. Standards for the installation of the pedestrian crossing signal are included in the WSDOT Design Manual Section 850. Signal time for the pedestrian crossing, motorist education about the meaning of pedestrian signals and issues regarding right-of-way traffic are topics dealt with in the manual. Alternative pedestrian signals are the Hybrid Pedestrian Beacons (HAWK signals) in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Grade Separated Crossing Facilities (bridges or tunnels) On roads with four or more lanes, high traffic volumes and high speed limits, grade separated crossings for pedestrians are a practical way to prevent traffic slowing or stopping. Where grade separation is required, steep inclines are more easily navigated by motor vehicles than by pedestrians. For example, a pedestrian overpass bridge requires extra walking and climbing but slopes resulting from depressing the roadway do not cause hardship for vehicle travel. Design standards for pedestrian underpasses (tunnels) require clear view through the entire tunnel with lights and safety monitoring. Curb Extensions (bulb-outs) At urban intersections with on-street parking, an extension of the curb increases pedestrian visibility and reduces crossing distance. The added pedestrian space of the curb extension offers additional space for installation of wheelchair ramps and truncated domes to guide the sightimpaired. Planted Median Islands or Pedestrian Refuge Islands At a crosswalk where more than three lanes of traffic must be traversed by the pedestrians, a refuge island offers protection while waiting for a break in motor traffic. This type of facility helps slower walkers to cross wide roads in two stages, when necessary. Curb Ramps At intersections where walkways or paths are separated from the roadway by a curb, installation of curb ramps enable access by wheelchair uses and others using wheeled devices such as baby strollers, grocery carts, or wheeled luggage. Textured surfaces at crossings should be avoided because they have negative impacts on wheeled vehicles and equipment. Accessible Crossing Signals To be accessible to pedestrians with disabilities, intersections with pedestrian-activated signal devices should provide crossing information in visual, audible, and tactical modes. Audible signals should assist the visually impaired traveler across the street during the appropriate phase. Specific technology recommendations are described in the U.S. Department of Transportation publication Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II. 4-5

76 Planning and design considerations include conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Federal Highway Administration s two-part publication Designing Sidewalks and Trains for Access includes specific recommendations for technical features to serve pedestrians with mobility, vision, aural or other impairments. Determining the appropriate pedestrian facility for a given transportation corridor is dependent on the type of pedestrians who will be served. For example, areas with high numbers of pedestrians and commercial activity may warrant the exclusive pedestrian signal phases (all traffic stops) rather than the concurrent pedestrian signal (vehicles traveling parallel to the pedestrian crossing are permitted to go). GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR WALKWAYS Urban Walkways Complete walkway width in urban areas should be 10 to 15 ft. wide, including within the shy zone (set back from adjacent buildings), street furniture area, and a main walk/talk zone of at least 5 ft. width. Commercial buildings should be adjacent to the walkway and have windows and doors transparency so that people walking feel the security of being watched over. Driveways should ideally have a sloped entry ramp and the walkway area should have a paving or color treatment to clearly show that this is a pedestrian space. Where speeds are 25 mph or higher, buffers between the walkway and the motor vehicle traffic are important to protect the comfort of pedestrians. Buffers can consist of bike lanes, planting strips, or a car parking. Traffic engineering has historically used a definition of Design Speed of the roadway as a safety issue. By designing roads with features that accommodate slightly higher speed traffic the roadway would be safer for all drivers. Recent research shows that roads built wider and straighter for these high speeds tend to encourage speeding and can result in enforcement problems. The Transportation Research Board study described below recommends a carefully considered approach to Design Speed: Design speed has long been a prime factor in the design of roadway geometric elements, such as vertical and horizontal alignment and cross sections. The current design process does not always result in the desired consistency in roadway alignment or driver behavior along these alignments. The desired product of good geometric design is a roadway alignment and cross section that will encourage the driver to operate safely and consistently with the function of the facility. Further, an ideal geometric design is both consistent with the context of the setting and cost-effective. Rural Walkways Rural roads are built without walkways due to the perception that distances between destinations are too great to expect a significant proportion of trips to be carried out by walking. Certain factors determine whether the proportion of walking trips or demand for walking infrastructure is higher along a given rural road or in a given rural area. When these factors are presented, infrastructures to facilitate walking trips should be constructed: Roads within the one-mile walk zone of an elementary school 4-6

77 Roads within the two-mile walk zone of a junior or senior high school ¼ mile radius of public transit stops and stations ½ mile radius of trail heads or other recreation destinations Connecting residences in rural villages to village commercial centers Facilities to serve walking trips in rural areas ideally include walkways, trails, marked crossings, signage, signals, or other infrastructure such as those identified above for urban areas. Shared use shoulders are not the ideal facility for walking transportation but can be an acceptable alternative when the listed facilities are not feasible. Rural residents would like to walk in the rural areas in which they live. Many wish to walk as a way to enjoy the outdoors in Benton and Franklin Counties. However, most do not walk from their houses because they do not feel safe walking even as short a distance as 300m (1/4 mile) to their neighbor s houses. Washington Traffic Safety Commission research shows that rural (county) roads have higher than average collision rates. Trail networks connecting to walkways can be an important step to increase the proportion of walking trips in rural areas. LOCAL COMMENTS ON PEDESTRIAN ACCESS A member of the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee shared plan development efforts with some avid walkers. The following issues were raised with regard to pedestrian access. Jurisdictions should be encouraged to work with local school districts to develop and promote robust programs to encourage walking among students e.g. Safe Routes to School, Walking School Bus. While schools would bear the brunt of administering such programs, they can t accomplish these programs without a strong, safe infrastructure in place. There is a need to improve access for crossing major streets. As noted elsewhere in the report, striped crosswalks alone do not work, especially on busy streets where evidence suggests this alone can increase the risk to pedestrians. But this fact should not be used as a reason to do nothing to facilitate pedestrian access across such corridors. Instead, striped crosswalks should be combined with pedestrian activated flashing lights, warning signs, etc. The pedestrian activated flashing light has proven successful in West Richland and should be a more common feature elsewhere in the community. New construction areas should include sidewalks wide enough to allow for comfortable walking, rather than having sidewalks that directly abut major streets such as the east side of George Washington Way, between Comstock Street and Columbia Point Drive. Planners should make use of designs that create protective spaces (e.g. planting strips, trees, decorative bollards) to separate pedestrian areas and the street. More attention should be given to the current infrastructure of sidewalks and pedestrian paths. These activities should include enforcement of existing code to assure that sidewalks are safe and accessible for pedestrians and disabled persons, with special attention to keeping garbage cans off of sidewalks, repairing root damage and making sure sidewalks are kept clear of snow and yard vegetation. 4-7

78 SHARED USE PATHWAYS BY JURISDICTION Shared use trails are a distinct type of pathway. A shared use path is a pedestrian and bike facility outside the travel way and physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier, and is either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent alignment. Shared use paths are true multi-use facilities, used by skaters, users of manual and motorized wheelchairs, joggers and other authorized motorized and nonmotorized users. Because they typically wind through and connect destinations, shared use paths attract recreational users, as well as function as commute or travel routes. These trails may be the preferred facility for cyclists uncomfortable on roads with vehicles. In this region, construction of these facilities is often a component of a larger street project, making their addition to the existing network easy to track. Table 4-1 below shows shared use pathway additions to the regional pedestrian network by jurisdiction. 4-8

79 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan Table 13: Shared Use Pathway Facilities in Benton and Franklin Counties SHARED USE PATHWAY FACILITIES IN BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES Jurisdiction Length Benton City Benton City Bike/Walking Path 2.0 miles Kennewick Sacagawea Heritage Trail: A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway along the Columbia River 6.20 miles Steptoe Street Phase 1: A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway 1.1 miles Spirit of America Trail: A 10-foot wide gravel bike/walk pathway 1.4 miles Prosser Prosser Centennial Pathway 0.7 miles West Richland Keene Road: Kennedy Road to Bombing Range Road - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway 1.2 miles Bombing Range Road: Keene Road to Mt. Adams View Drive - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike pathway 1.2 miles Keene Road: Bombing Range Road to South Highlands Boulevard - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway 1.0 miles Belmont Boulevard: Kilawea Drive to Keene Road - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike pathway 1.0 miles Park at the Lakes Community Park: An 8-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway 1.0 miles Belmont Boulevard: Keene Road South to end of new street - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway 0.6 miles Keene Road: South Highlands Boulevard to Belmont Boulevard - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway 0.3 miles Pasco I-182 Trail: Road 100 to Argent Road - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway 3.51 miles Sacagawea Heritage Trail - A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway along the Columbia River 9.75 miles Richland Richland Riverfront Trail (Horn Rapids Road to I-182 Bridge) 7.22 miles Leslie Groves Bike Trail 1.6 miles Bypass Shelterbelt (Wellsian Way to Jadwin Ave) 4.36 miles Sacagawea Heritage Trail 3.67 miles Chamna/Coulee Street Trail 0.96 miles Keene Road/ Gage Boulevard Trail 4.5 miles Stevens Drive Trail 0.82 miles 4-9

80 PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Listed below are pedestrian-related capital improvements that member jurisdictions have made to their street systems over the past five years. These types of projects are described earlier in this chapter in the section on street treatments. Kennewick Annual Pedestrian Ramp Project upgrading ramps to meet current ADA Standards. Accessible Pedestrian Pushbuttons. By the end of 2016 Kennewick s entire signal system will use the latest technology for APS (Accessible Pedestrian Systems) signals for crosswalks at signals. Shared use path installed on Steptoe Street Project. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons: The City installed new Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB s) at Amistad Elementary, Westgate Elementary, Sunset Elementary and on Quinault between the Mall and the Hotels on the south side of the street. Three additional installations are planned in 2016 including two on Edison Street and one on Clearwater Avenue at Arthur Street to help high school kids cross safely. Median Islands for two stage crossings: This is another important improvement for pedestrian crossings so that they only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Several locations have seen these treatments over the past five years. Richland Annual Pedestrian Ramp upgrades Ongoing project to install new pedestrian ramps and upgrade existing ramps to meet current ADA Standards. Accessible Pedestrian Signals Installation of APS systems at George Washington Way (GWW)/McMurray, GWW/Swift, GWW/Knight, GWW/Lee, Jadwin/Swift, Jadwin/Knight, Jadwin/Lee, Lee/Stevens. Pedestrian activated beacon on the Keene Road Trail where it crosses Leslie Road. Completed various missing sections of sidewalk and removed architectural barriers on sidewalks within the Central Business District. Repaired root damage on Bypass Shelterbelt trail. Pasco Annual ADA Retrofit. Accessible Pedestrian Pushbuttons. City of Pasco is in the process of updating the City s entire signal system which includes Accessible Pedestrian Pushbuttons for signalized crosswalks. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons: The City installed new Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons on Court Street vicinity of 17 th Ave High intensity Activated crosswalk (HAWK): The City will be installing two (2) HAWK on 20 th Ave vicinity of Marie St. and Pearl St. The City is annually repairing and replacing damaged sections of sidewalk. 4-10

81 West Richland Keene Road: Kennedy Road to Bombing Range Road- A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway. Keene Road: Bombing Range Road to South Highlands Boulevard A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway. Belmont Boulevard: Kilawea Drive to Keene Road A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway. Lakes Community Park: An 8-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway. Belmont Boulevard: Keene Road south on Belmont Boulevard to the City/County Limit Line. Keene Road: South Highlands Boulevard to Belmont Boulevard-A 12-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway. Belmont Boulevard: Quartz Ave to the end of the subdivision (past Onyx Ave) A 10-foot concrete bike/walk pathway. Two Pedestrian activated signals located at the intersections of 38 th Ave/SR224 and 40 th Ave/SR224. One Pedestrian activated signal located on Bombing Range Road at the Sports Complex. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Benton and Franklin Counties are fortunate to have several paths and path systems, some of which can be used for both recreation and commute purposes. This section provides a short narrative on some of these trails as well as background on additional bicycle/pedestrian resources in the twocounty area. Sacagawea Heritage Trail The Sacagawea Heritage Trail traverses both sides of the Columbia River from the I-182 Bridge at Richland to the SR 397 Cable Bridge between Kennewick and Pasco. The 22-mile long shared use trail and associated amenities enable able bodied and disabled outdoor enthusiasts to experience a unique shrub-steppe habitat. The system includes Class I multi-purpose trails, sidewalks, Class II bike routes (striped bike lanes) and Class III bike routes (signed bike routes). The Tapteal Greenway The Tapteal Greenway is a 30-mile corridor along and including the Yakima River extending from Kiona Bend at Benton City to the mouth of the Yakima River at Bateman Island in Richland. The Greenway trail system includes both water and pedestrian trails. This corridor includes a variety of habitats ranging from arid shrub-steppe to lush emergent marshlands. The Yakima River and watershed is recognized as one of the most diverse, scenic, and biologically productive systems in the entire Pacific Northwest. Additional information, including maps, is available at the Greenway website: Badger Mountain Trail System The Badger Mountain Centennial Preserve is a 650-acre park located in southern Richland, which is owned and managed by Benton County for conservation and non-motorized recreation. The Preserve was established in 2005, the year of Benton County s centennial celebration, hence the 4-11

82 name. Badger Mountain is open to hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian uses facilitated by over eight miles of soft-surface trails anchored at two separate trailheads. The summit of the mountain rises about 1000 feet over the surrounding Tri-Cities, offering a 360-degree view of the region and beyond. Creation of the Preserve was the result of a grassroots awareness and fundraising effort led by the Friends of Badger Mountain organization, which has since gone on to continue its preservation efforts on other ridgeline areas in the Tri-Cities. Additional information, including maps, is available at the Friends of Badger Mountain website: Hike Tri-Cities Hike Tri-Cities is a website maintained by a local hiking enthusiast. It contains information, including maps and route descriptions, on more than 40 hikes in the Mid-Columbia Basin area. The website for Hike Tri-Cities is: Cycling Tri-Cities Cycling Tri-Cities, developed by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, is a bike map for the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. It is referenced here because it shows many of the shared use facilities listed in Table 4-1. Hard copies of the map are available at Council of Governments offices, 1622 Terminal Drive in Richland. It is also available to be downloaded onto mobile devices. Information on the bike map is available on the Council of Governments website: Ridges to Rivers Open Space Vision Plan The Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision Plan is a vision of how preserved open space could retain special, one-of-a-kind features in the Mid-Columbia, and also how the creation of a network of trails would allow residents and visitors an opportunity to experience these features first hand. The Vision Plan is intended to be the foundation for regional planning and community involvement. It is a resource for all; a regional tool to initiate conversation about the value of open space. The Ridges to Rivers Open Space Vision Plan was awarded the American Planning Association 2014 National Planning Excellence Award for a Grassroots Initiative. Information on the Open Space Vision Plan is available on the Ridges to Rivers website:

83 CHAPTER FIVE: HEALTH AND SAFETY Active transportation benefits people, the environment, and the transportation system. Active transportation systems that encourage walking or bicycling can help people to increase their levels of physical activity, resulting in significant potential health benefits and disease prevention. Transportation planners can increase opportunities for active transportation by planning regional and local transportation systems that are safe, convenient, affordable, and attractive for system users. Access to health-related activities is especially critical for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and children, as well as designated Environmental Justice communities (specifically lowincome and minority populations). These populations often have low car ownership or high transit dependency, which planners must consider to target resources and develop transportation systems that assist these groups to access healthy destinations. An emphasis of this plan is the need for safe environments for walking and bicycling for people of all ages and abilities. Concerns about safety are often a barrier to more people choosing to walk or bike, and with increased emphasis on the benefits of active transportation, providing safe environments is increasingly important. Overcoming these barriers can happen in a variety of ways, including education as well as safe infrastructure. Strategies such as providing places of rest along a walking route or ensuring the perception of safety through increased lighting encourage people to begin to include active transportation as a key option. Community design integrated with transportation can also help people to age safely in place, or to safely access all of their nutrition, exercise, and medical needs throughout each lifecycle stage. This aspect considers changing mobility, health needs, safety, and the contribution of multi-modal transportation systems to offering a broad range of affordable transportation and housing options. FEDERAL POLICY On March 11, 2010, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) provided this Policy Statement to reflect the Department s support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks : The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. Legislation and regulations exist that require inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project development. Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit. In addition, DOT encourages transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use by 5-1

84 bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate. Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive. This has been codified in 23 CFR 652.5: The safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists should be given full consideration during the development of Federal-aid highway projects, and during the construction of such projects. The special needs for the elderly and the handicapped shall be considered in all Federal-aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. Where current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle traffic, every effort shall be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the facility. On highways without full control of access where a bridge deck is being replaced or rehabilitated, and where bicycles are permitted to operate at each end, the bridge shall be reconstructed so that bicycles can be safely accommodated when it can be done at a reasonable cost. Consultation with local groups of organized bicyclists is to be encouraged in the development of bicycle projects. In 2014, USDOT Secretary Andrew Foxx launched the Department s Safer People, Safer Streets Initiative. This comprehensive and coordinated approach builds off existing work to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. The initiative includes new research and tools to improve safety, generate better data on pedestrian and bicycle activity, crashes, and infrastructure, and build stronger partnerships between DOT headquarters and field offices, local officials, safety organizations, State, regional, and local planners and engineers, and advocacy groups. This new Initiative recognizes the need to work in a coordinated, multimodal fashion, not just across the U.S. Department of Transportation, but throughout America s states, regions, towns and cities. Additional discussion of Federal policy and resources may be found in Appendix A. STATE LAW AND POLICY Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) was adopted in 1990 to provide for growth and development while maintaining the state s quality of life. Section 36.70A.070 (6)(a) lists the requirements of transportation elements in Comprehensive Plans under growth management. In 2005, the Washington State Legislature amended the Growth Management Act to help guide city, county and regional elected officials and planners to increase physical activity opportunities in their comprehensive plans. Under the amendment land use should use urban planning approaches that promote physical activity. Additionally, transportation elements within a comprehensive plan must include a pedestrian and bicycle component, methods to increase pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that improve community access and promote healthy lifestyles. Specifically, the amendment includes the following language: (a)the transportation element shall include the following sub elements: 5-2

85 (vii) Pedestrian and bicycle component to include collaborative efforts to identify and designate planned improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that address and encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy lifestyles. This further highlights the importance of active transportation planning in Washington State. Complete Streets During the session, the Washington State Legislature passed the State Complete Streets Bill. The purpose of the legislation was to spur transportation design and redevelopment efforts to make the state highways and local arterials within local communities more walkable, bikeable and transit friendly. Subsequently, RCW , the Complete Streets Grant Program was enacted and a Complete Streets Grant Program authorized, but not funded. The purpose of the grant program is to encourage local governments to adopt urban arterial retrofit street ordinances designed to provide safe access to all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, and public transportation users. The program lists four goals, the first two of which are: Promoting healthy communities by encouraging walking, bicycling and using public transportation. Improving safety by designing major arterials to include features such as wider sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities, medians, and pedestrian streetscape features, including trees where appropriate. In 2015, the state allocated funds to the program. Funding was initially set at $3 million in the first biennium and is scheduled to increase to $12 million in subsequent budget periods. Applicants for funds will be required to have an adopted Complete Streets ordinance. The grant program, to be administered by the Transportation Improvement Board, is under development. Neighborhood Safe Streets The Neighborhood Safe Streets Bill was signed into law in The law makes it easier and less costly for cities and counties to reduce speed limits to 20 miles per hour on non-arterial roads. Before this bill was enacted, cities and counties wishing to reduce speed limits on targeted roads would need to conduct a rigorous engineering study to justify the change. This was a barrier to reducing speed limits when merited, for instance, near schools in residential neighborhoods. Reducing speed limits, especially in residential areas, can result in fewer collisions and more people walking and biking. The Neighborhood Safe Streets Law improves community safety by giving city and county planners another tool to help make it safer for people of all ages and abilities to move along and across our streets. The city or town has to develop procedures regarding establishing speed limits. Information on implementing the Safe Streets law may be found here: 5-3

86 School Walk Route Plans All Washington State school districts are required to have Walk Route Plans, suggested routes to get to school for every elementary school (WAC ). Schools districts must develop walk route plans for each elementary school that has students who walk to and from school. Recommended routes will be based on consideration of traffic patterns, existing traffic controls, and other crossing protection aids such as school patrols. Route plans shall limit the number of school crossings so that students move through the crossings in groups, allowing only one entrance-exit from each block to and from school. The route to school plan shall be distributed to all students with instructions that it be taken home and discussed with the parents. Information on School Walk Route Plans, including maps made available by school districts in the RTPO may be found here: db=walkroutes&-lay=counties&-find The Washington Transportation Plan In 2015, The Washington State Transportation Commission, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, released WTP 2035, The Washington Transportation Plan. The document provides policy guidance and recommendations across all transportation modes and regions in the State. Among the WTP Key Findings was, in the public health arena: Stakeholders representing a wide cross-section of the general public called for more clear connections between state policies on transportation and public health. Strategies that support increased bicycling and walking, as well as greater use of public transportation, are shown to increase physical activity levels and contribute to overall improved personal health. When pursued as a statewide strategy, there are significant aggregate health benefits and economic savings to the state as a whole as well as to individuals. The Plan s Transportation Priorities also found linkage to public health in strategies supporting the State s adopted Environmental Goal, which seeks To enhance Washington s quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment. Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan Washington State Department of Transportation s Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan for establishes the following goals: Double the percentage of total trips made primarily by bicycling and walking in Washington within the next 20 years; and Simultaneously reduce the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured in traffic crashes by five percent each year. In order to achieve these goals the state plan has objectives and implementations steps for each of the state s five transportation policy areas including: Preservation, Safety, Mobility, Environment and Stewardship. The objectives are below. Three are relevant to health and safety. 5-4

87 Preservation Objective: Ensure no net loss in pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. Safety Objective: Target safety investments toward known risk factors for pedestrians and bicyclists. Mobility Objective: Increase bicycling and pedestrian transportation choices. Health and Environment Objective: Increasing walking and bicycling will be part of Washington State s strategy to improve public health and address climate change. Stewardship Objective: Improve the quality of the transportation system by improving transportation access for all types of pedestrians and bicyclists, to the greatest extent possible. An expanded presentation of objectives and actions in this Plan is contained in Appendix B. BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT Milestone Report B Existing Conditions: Evaluation of Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Data (2007), was generated as part of the update to the WSDOT 2008 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. According to Report B, the number of traffic-related bicycle fatalities statewide averaged about 10 per year between the years The rural/urban split for location of bicycle fatalities was 39 percent/61 percent for the same time period. Thirty three percent of the fatalities were children under fourteen, more than twice as many as the next most affected age group. Seventy four percent of the fatalities were not wearing helmets, while Twenty four percent were wearing helmets and using them properly. Research shows that the bicyclists crashes are not random, unrelated events. They are situations that occur over and over. There are, however, two different contexts to consider and plan for when discussing bicycle collisions pathways and roads. According to John Forester, author of Effective Cycling, car-bike collisions account for only about 12% of all bicycle crashes, and occur when cyclists disobey the rules of the road. Additionally, concerning experienced cyclists, he notes that Cycling on bike paths has an accident rate 2.6 times that for the same cyclists on normal roads. In another study by Jerrold Kaplan ( Characteristic of the Regular Adult Bicycle User, 1975) it s noted that the accident rate (for cyclists) on paths is nearly three times the rate of bike accidents on the road. Regardless of the skill level of cyclists, their accident rate is nearly three times higher on bicycle paths than on the open road. Most bicycling accidents occur on bike paths because pedestrians operate without rules. The safest situation for cyclists is when a) they share the road with cars and b) both cars and cyclists follow the rules of the road. This approach requires not only planning, but education and law enforcement. Statistics show that cyclists sharing the road with cars result in the fewest accidents and have the lowest maintenance costs (e.g., street sweeping and road maintenance benefits both cyclists and cars). This approach has worked in major European cities for decades. The flip side is that cyclists on shared streets should receive the same attention from traffic police as car drivers. 5-5

88 Situations in which the motor vehicle operator, the bicyclists, or both make errors that threaten the bicyclists life and safety can be avoided. A study of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes conducted in 1976 for AAA found that the following recurring events account for the majority of bicycle/vehicle crashes: Mid-block or stop sign ride-out by bicyclist Bicyclist unexpected left turn Motorist stop and go Motorist left or right turn Wrong way riding by bicyclist. In the above study, two-thirds of the sample were children. In a 1992 study in Madison, Wisconsin, ninety nine percent of the sample involved adults, revealing different events account for adult bicyclist crashes: Motorist left turn/merge into bicyclists path Motorist drive-out from a stop sign Motorist drive-out from an alley Bicyclist turn/merge into motor vehicle. Analyzing crash records has allowed researchers to develop a number of programs designed to promote bicyclists safety. These programs are designed to teach bicyclists the skills necessary to avoid the critical errors most commonly associated with bicycle/motor vehicle crashes. While the development and improvement of bicycle facilities enhance safety, there are some crashes that can only be counter measured through education and enforcement of rules of the road for both bicyclists and motor vehicle operators. Child Cyclists The ideal program to educate children about bicycle safety is one that is integrated through the school system and which is supported by the parents. Research shows that school-based curriculums often show positive results in children s knowledge, but only short-term improvements in their bicycling behavior. However, if the school program is supplemented with parental follow-up messages to children, studies show their behavior does change. Other child education programs include community bicycle safety events, bike rodeos, and bike safety fairs. A bike rodeo is a popular event, often sponsored by civic groups or bicycle clubs. Children are invited to bring their bikes to a park or large parking lot where they run through a series of safety skills tests. These are excellent opportunities to teach children and their parents about bicycle safety and to introduce safe riding behaviors, such as helmet use and using bike lights, etc. The Tri-City Bicycle Club sponsors such events, often donating helmets to children. The Benton Franklin Safe Kids Campaign and Blue Mountain Safe Kids offer helmet inspections and new helmets at minimal cost. The Novice Cyclist This type of bicyclist will benefit from comprehensive public information and education programs. This includes promoting safe bicycling practices through the use of public service announcements on television and radio, brochures, and articles in local newspapers and journals. Many good 5-6

89 educational resources are produced at the state and national levels, but unless these materials are promoted at the local level, their message will be lost. In addition, this type of bicyclist will benefit from general efforts to include information on bicyclist safety in all traffic safety materials, including driver s education training, driver licensing exams, etc. Some bicycle safety advocates believe that all individuals applying for a driver s license should be required to complete an Effective Cycling training course so that they will understand bicyclist s rights to the roadway. Certainly novice bicyclists could benefit from this training program. The Novice bicyclist may also benefit from selective enforcement programs promoted through the media. If these bicyclists, assumed to be law-abiding citizens, are educated about their responsibilities to obey the rules of the road, and if this education is reinforced through some high visibility law enforcement then, as these people begin to bicycle more and more, they will be more likely to bicycle in a safe manner. Experienced Cyclists For the most part, this group of bicyclists understands the rules of the road and is capable of functioning efficiently in traffic. However, experienced bicyclists may deliberately disobey traffic laws because they find them inconvenient. Educational programs will probably have little effect on this type of rider; however, enforcement programs may change their behavior. Many communities with large populations of adult bicyclists implement bicycle monitor programs or bicycle law enforcement programs designating civilians or trained law enforcement officers as specifically responsible to make sure that bicyclists obey traffic laws. In addition, this type of bicyclist could benefit from public information programs designed to educate motorists about their responsibilities in sharing the road with bicyclists. As noted from the Madison study, a majority of adult bicyclists crashes are caused by a critical error on the part of a motorist and not the bicyclist. The Motor Vehicle Operator In any bicycle safety program it is very important to include both educational and enforcement programs targeted at motor vehicle operators. Research shows that one-third to two-thirds of all bicycle/motor vehicle crashes are caused by critical errors on the part of motor vehicle operators. Motor vehicle operators must be educated about bicyclists rights to the road. An educational campaign promoting the idea of sharing the road with bicyclists is recommended. In Washington a bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle, and as such is subject to all the same rights and duties of motor vehicle operators. Highly publicized selective enforcement programs aimed at citing motor vehicle operators for violating bicyclists rights may be an effective way of communicating to our motoring public that they must share the road with bicyclists. REGIONAL CONCERNS Bicycle ordinances in Richland and Pasco prohibit bicycle riding on sidewalks only in business districts. In Kennewick a person may ride a bicycle on any sidewalk unless restricted or prohibited 5-7

90 by traffic control devices. These ordinances permit a very dangerous practice, contrary to local and regional goals and policies encouraging safe active transportation. Sidewalks at public intersections for the most part do not have curb ramps, although Pasco has been working toward having ramps at all street intersections and hopes to have their system complete by autumn Young bicyclists distracted by curb dropoffs may dart into traffic. Motorists, likewise, are concentrating first and foremost on vehicular conflicts, then secondarily on nearby pedestrians. Higher speed bicycles on sidewalks exceed the driver s expectancy. Driveway/sidewalk and alley/ sidewalk intersections are particularly dangerous due to sight distance restrictions (fences, trees, hedges, signs, etc.). Drivers are quite often backing out of driveways and can only see over one shoulder at a time or are restricted by a mirror s field of view. Drivers typically rely on slow-moving pedestrians to hear their vehicle and yield the right of way. Faster moving bicycles exceed such restricted sight and sound conditions. Bicycle/motor vehicle collision statistics attest to the danger. Official public messaging to watch out for cyclists on roadways is critical. Too many drivers are unaware of the presence of cyclist on the roadways, their right to be there. Visible bicycle safety signage - for example: Caution: Cyclists on Roadway, Watch for Bike Riders, etc. - at many locations (especially intersections) is lacking throughout this area and is very much needed. This is an urgent need. Bicycle safety signage should be considered an appropriate local community safety project for schools, community groups, and businesses to promote, develop, and help fund. In a recent peer reviewed article prepared by investigators at North Carolina State University the efficacy of the traditional Share the Road signs is called into question. The following paragraph is part of the summary of this publication, which may be viewed at Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage was the most consistently comprehended device for communicating the message that bicyclists may occupy the travel lane and also increased perceptions of safety. Share the Road signage did not increase comprehension or perceptions of safety. Shared Lane Markings fell somewhere between. Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage showed notable increases in comprehension among novice bicyclists and private motor vehicle commuters, critical target audiences for efforts to promote bicycling in the USA. Although limited in scope, our survey results are indicative and suggest that Departments of Transportation consider replacing Share the Road with Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage, possibly combined with Shared Lane Markings, if the intent is to increase awareness of roadway rights and responsibilities. 5-8

91 Figure 4: Alternate Caution Signage Summary When bicycle and pedestrian safety programs are integrated with other programs or within an overall safety plan, supported by organizations and promoted through the media, safety can become institutionalized in the community. This should, in turn, modify the behaviors of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians and lead to a reduction in the number of pedestrian and bicyclistmotorist collisions. Historically, the most effective countermeasures have been instituted at the local level rather than the State or Federal level. Safety programs can be introduced systematically involving all segments of the community in strategies designed to take into account the unique values and needs of the community. To have a long-term and sustained effect on the community, these comprehensive, integrated efforts will require that safety leadership involve city and county planners, law enforcement personnel, teachers, business people, parents, members of civic organizations, traffic safety professionals, and many others. STUDENT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY The safety of children on their way to and from school is a major concern of parents, schools, public works departments and law enforcement agencies. Washington State law requires students to walk to school if within one mile, unless there is a hazardous road to cross. School districts are responsible for developing walking routes for their schools. This process involves preparing walk route plans, providing walk route maps and information to parents and students, identifying pedestrian safety deficiencies, and working collaboratively with local public works agencies to implement remedial actions to address any pedestrian safety concerns. The Washington State Department of Transportation has prepared School Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students February 2015, to guide and assist school administrators through the process of developing School Walk Route Plans. Pedestrian safety for school children is not just the responsibility of the school. Everyone in the community has a critical role. Perhaps the greatest responsibility lies with the individual driver. Pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk, marked or not. Even when the pedestrian does not have the right of way, the motorist must exercise care, particularly when young children are 5-9

92 involved. Their immature thinking and motor skills, explorative and impulsive natures, and lack of traffic experience all contribute to the high rate of pedestrian collisions involving children. Nearly one-third of child pedestrian collisions occur when children dart in front of moving vehicles. Furthermore, young children are struck more often while crossing streets between, rather than at, intersections. The student s personal responsibilities for their own safety as a pedestrian cannot be overemphasized. The child must understand and follow the instructions given for walking to and from school. Merely memorizing safety rules or learning words of a safety song or poem are not enough. Learning by doing safe behaviors has repeatedly proven to have the most success in modifying a child s behavior. Parents have the best opportunity to see and correct poor pedestrian behaviors of their children. The child s attitude toward obeying school crossing, pedestrian, and bicycle safety rules will be greatly influenced by the parents attitude toward obedience of traffic laws, both as motorists and pedestrians. Parents should also be certain their children are following the designated route to and from school. In addition to their responsibilities to establish and enforce school route plans, the schools should also play an active role in the training and utilization of crossing guards and school safety patrols. Teachers and administrators also have an opportunity and responsibility to observe the students walking behavior and note where special problems exist. School districts are responsible for siting and developing school facilities that foster a good walking environment. These responsibilities include choosing locations which balance vehicle access with pedestrian safety needs, constructing adequate pedestrian facilities along the perimeter of the school site, and working with the local public works agency to fund and install adequate crossing protection at key points. Local public works agencies and the state Department of Transportation have responsibilities for design, installation, and maintenance of traffic control devices and pedestrian facilities (such as sidewalks, shoulders, pathways and pedestrian phases at signalized intersections). In addition to enforcing vehicle speeds and stopping behaviors in school zones, local police officers may be available to talk about school traffic safety before student assemblies or lead school safety programs. The Washington State Legislature has given local governments specific responsibilities to ensure that new development provides adequate facilities for school pedestrian safety. Specifically, local jurisdictions are required to adopt regulations that ensure that new subdivision and short plats are served by adequate facilities that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. Getting students to school can no longer be viewed in isolation. Community pedestrian safety efforts that benefit schools and children also benefit other pedestrians regardless of age or activity. By combining resources, skills, and support services of community agencies, the efforts to secure 5-10

93 limited funding for improvements and programs are multiplied. The ability to cooperate and use limited funds to achieve multiple goals enhances the safety of not only our youngest walkers, but the entire community. Pedestrian Safety Education and Enforcement According to Milestone Report B, the number of pedestrian traffic fatalities statewide between the years averaged 70 per year. The rural/urban split for location of pedestrian fatalities was 25 percent/75 percent for the same time period. Six percent of the fatalities were children under fourteen, while twenty-nine percent involved citizens age 61 or older. 51 percent of the fatalities occurred at locations where no crosswalk was available. Only about 15 percent occurred in marked crosswalks. Strong, well-designed pedestrian safety education programs for children develop safe and responsible roadway users and emphasize self-reliance rather than protection. Programs should equip youngsters for independence by creating within themselves a safety consciousness that effectively guides their behavior through many real life traffic situations. Children should learn not only good habits, but practice for situations that may suddenly become dangerous. They need to learn how to cross when there isn t a crosswalk and what to do if a car comes after they ve already started to cross or if the signal light changes while they are in the crosswalk. Programs should teach children to identify hazardous situations, assess problems accurately, calculate the risks involved, and respond in an efficient and safe manner. Safety education programs for young pedestrians should address marked crosswalks, unmarked crossings, vehicle turning movements, obstructions to driver and pedestrian visibility, traffic signals, pedestrian control devices such as walk and don t walk indicators and push-button controls, stop signs, intersections where there are no controls, sidewalks, areas with no sidewalks or narrow or non-existent shoulders, one-way streets, and the functions of police officers, adult crossing guards, and school safety patrols. Parents consistently overestimate the abilities of their children to cope with traffic and may be inadvertently placing their children in situations in which the child s skills are mismatched to the task at hand. Therefore, parents need to be included as active participants in teaching safe pedestrian skills to their children. At home, parental reinforcement of the lessons learned at school is critical to the successful modification of their child s habits. Preventing pedestrian injuries requires a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary approach. It should include developing children s skills, community education, environmental modifications, legislative changes, and improved enforcement. Research shows that the most change in students behaviors occurs when the emphasis is on practicing the right behaviors. Reinforcement comes from parents both by modeling good habits and reviewing safety rules taught at school. The awareness level of the neighborhood driver, and the parents, are both raised in the process. Enforcement is a critical part of a student pedestrian safety program. Visible enforcement efforts remind both drivers and pedestrians to follow the rules. The law enforcement agency should visit 5-11

94 the school site frequently and patrol the school routes, giving warnings or tickets to pedestrians and drivers as warranted. Enforcement activities that contribute to better student pedestrian safety include: Parking restrictions near schools warning parents not to create traffic jams at schools during pick-up and drop-off hours by illegally parking at the school and ensuring that parked cars and trucks do not block sight lines for drivers passing the school; Strict speed enforcement along streets near schools and for compliance with speed limits, and where appropriately signed, reduced speeds in school zones; Vehicles stopping for pedestrians in marked or unmarked crosswalks enforcing the state s crosswalk law which requires drivers to stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the road in an unmarked or in a marked crosswalk when the pedestrian is within one lane of their half of the roadway; and Warning pedestrians to cross at crosswalks this practice is difficult to enforce in rural areas where few crosswalks exist, but in urban and suburban areas, pedestrians should be reminded to cross at intersections. Not parking within or near blind intersections when waiting to pick up students. Many jurisdictions have established neighborhood speed watch programs to educate, remind, and warn drivers of reduced speed limits in residential areas. Options include arming volunteers with a radar gun and a reader board that shows the approaching vehicle s speed, or an automated radar trailer that has a speed limit sign, and a readout showing the vehicle s speed. Although not enforcement per se, these activities can be effective in reducing speeds through school zones. LOCAL SAFETY/EDUCATION EFFORTS Cooper s Corner The 1998 legislature passed the Cooper Jones Act: Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Bill, which sets up a bicycle and pedestrian safety education program. The bill is named in memory of Cooper Jones, a young Spokane resident who was killed during a sanctioned bike race. The focus of the legislation is to help teach the importance of sharing the road with bikes, pedestrian safety, rail road safety and many other traffic safety areas. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) was responsible for creating the safety program, creating an advisory committee to recommend or develop effective bicycle and pedestrian safety programs, and recommending a plan to fund an ongoing bicycle and pedestrian program. Cooper s Corner, an interactive educational tool opened in 2009 at Columbia Center Mall in Kennewick with support from Kennewick Police Department and the Benton-Franklin Traffic Safety Task Force. The project was funded by the WTSC along with many community supporters and the City of Kennewick. The miniature city is whimsical in design, while integrating real traffic safety elements such as traffic lights, electronic walk signs, cross walks and street signs. Families can tour the city by foot, learning about pedestrian safety or by Plasma car learning about the rules of the road. Another mode of transportation is the stationary bikes and the virtual bike tour through Tri Cities. 5-12

95 The hands-on exhibit teaches young and old about bicycle safety, bike helmets and the proper fit, hand signals, general basic rules to bicycle safety and the importance of bike maintenance. Approximately 12,000 students have visited the exhibit since The exhibit was moved to the Reach Museum as a part of their Pre-K section in mid Safe Kids Benton-Franklin Coalition The mission of the Safe Kids Benton-Franklin Coalition is to reduce the number of unintentional, preventable childhood injuries and resulting deaths. The Coalition has several areas of emphasis, but two of interest here are prevention of head injuries in children and pedestrian safety. Falls from bikes, in-line skates, scooters, and skate boards are a major cause of head injuries to children. Helmets have been shown to be very effective in preventing these injuries. The Coalition s goal is to increase community awareness about the importance of safety education, and proper helmet use, to decrease the risk of serious injury to children who participate in a wheeled sport activity. Parents should also be encouraged to set an example by wearing helmets whenever they want their kids to wear them. The Coalition works to increase preventive education and training regarding the importance of correct helmet use and publicize the availability of low cost helmets at various fit sites at member organizations in the area. They have developed a curriculum, educational tools, and conduct trainings in the community on helmet fitting and conduct bike safety rodeos to increase awareness of safe biking practices and proper helmet use. They also engage community partners with a longterm focus of establishing helmet legislation in cities and counties. Pedestrian injury is the third leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 5 to 14. Children are especially vulnerable to pedestrian injury or death because they are exposed to traffic threats that exceed their cognitive, developmental, behavioral, physical and sensory abilities. The goal of the Coalition is increased awareness of the importance of pedestrian safety practices through the education of parents, children and community leaders. The Coalition works to create networks involving community programs, schools, PTA and parents in evaluating safe routes to school in an effort to promote physical activity, pedestrian safety and to become aware of the difficulties children face on their way to school. It also sponsors and provides resources on pedestrian safety at safety fairs. ACCESS TO FUNDS Washington Traffic Safety Commission Each biennium, the Traffic Safety commission offers reimbursement grants up to $300 per school to assist with crossing guard equipment to help children walk and bike to school safely. The program is open to public, private, and tribal elementary and middle schools within the state of Washington. Examples of the use of the money include training materials, equipment, and supplies for school zone crossing guards. Allowable equipment includes flags, cones, signs, whistles, vests, raincoats, gloves, and hats. 5-13

96 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Safe Routes to School Grant Programs In 2005, the Washington State Legislature increased the state s role in improving conditions for biking and walking by providing a grant program and related technical assistance services. The program has two components: the Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety program, and the Safe Routes to School program. A more detailed discussion of these two grant programs may be found in Chapter Six. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant Program The purpose of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety grant program is to address the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrian and bicycles each year. The program aids public agencies in funding cost-effective projects that reduce bicycle and pedestrian related collisions, and work to increase walking and biking. Safe Routes to School Program The Safe Routes to School program addresses pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety near schools. The program aids public agencies in funding cost-effective projects that improve safety and increase the number of children walking and biking to school. Active Community Environments Program in Washington State Discussed below, The Active Community Environments (ACES) Program has grant funds available to assist regional and local agencies efforts integrate complete streets, transportation, and health objectives. Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or "FAST Act", superseding MAP-21. The FAST Act eliminates the MAP-21 TAP program and replaces it with a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for transportation alternatives. These set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP. STPG program transportation alternative funds are administered by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Certain Non-Governmental Organizations are eligible to apply. This fund source is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Six and Appendix C. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Safe Routes to School Washington Action Network The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Washington Action Network is a listserv-based community of people across the State who have joined together to advance SRTS throughout the State of Washington and make walking and biking to school more safe and practical. The SRTS Action Network is convened through the combined efforts of Feet First, Washington Bikes, Cascade Bicycle Club, Transportation Choices Coalition, and the Child Obesity Prevention Coalition, with funding from the Washington State Department of Health. 5-14

97 SRTS has been a concerted, organized movement in the State of Washington for over a decade. In this period of time, agencies and advocates have gained a wealth of experience, and now have collective wisdom for best practices in SRTS. The goals of the SRTS Action Network are to: Share models for successful programs Provide training on how to start and sustain SRTS programs Develop and expand partnerships Gather input for potential policy advancements Identify needs and opportunities for action For additional information about the SRTS Washington Action Network, and enroll in the listserv, visit the SRTS Washington website: Active Community Environments Active Community Environments support and promote physical activity. They are places where people of all ages and abilities can easily enjoy walking, bicycling, and other forms of recreation. They have sidewalks, on-street bicycle facilities, multi-use paths and trails, parks, open space, and recreational facilities. These environments encourage mixed-use development and a connected grid of streets, allowing homes, businesses, schools, and stores to be close together and accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. Active Community Environments Program in Washington State The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention s partnership project with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), Department of Commerce (DOC), and Department of Transportation (DOT), called the Active Community Environments Initiative (ACE), promotes walking, bicycling, and the development of accessible recreation facilities. The objective of the project is to improve the health and quality of life for Washington s residents by improving and increasing opportunities to be physically active. This project seeks to incorporate planning and transportation policy and infrastructure changes that improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and safety, and use urban planning approaches related to zoning and land use that promote physical activity. The project will ensure health language is inserted into transportation and planning documents. ACE was developed in response to data from a variety of disciplines, including public health, urban design, and transportation planning. These data suggest characteristics of our communities such as proximity of facilities, street design, density of housing, and the availability of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities play a significant role in promoting or discouraging physical activity. With funding provided by the Center for Disease Prevention the state and regional agencies work to integrate complete streets, transportation, and health objectives. 5-15

98 The partnerships have been successful in implementing projects around the state that focus on building partnerships, developing Safe Routes to School programs, creating Complete Streets policies, and updating Comprehensive Plans to include walking, biking and physical activity. The Department of Health has developed the Active Community Environment Toolkit to outline the steps needed to create successful Active Community Environments. The Toolkit may be found here: Active Community Environments Network The Active Community Environments Network includes public health professionals and transportation planners from across the state. Members participate in conference calls once every other month to learn about upcoming opportunities, network and share successes. For more information about the Active Community Environments Program contact Charlotte Claybrooke, Active Transportation Programs Manager. COUNTY HEALTH RANKINGS AND ROADMAPS The County Health Rankings and Roadmaps program is a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. The annual County Health Rankings measure vital health factors, including high school graduation rates, obesity, smoking, unemployment, access to healthy foods, the quality of air and water, income, and teen births in nearly every county in America and rank the counties within states. The annual Rankings provide a revealing snapshot of how health is influenced by where people live, learn, work and play. The Rankings are compiled using county-level measures from a variety of national and state data sources. These measures are standardized and combined using scientifically-informed weights. The Rankings are based on a model of population health that emphasizes the many factors that, if improved, can help make communities healthier places to live, learn, work and play. Health outcomes in the County Health Rankings represent how healthy a county is. It assesses two types of health outcomes: how long people live (length of life) and how healthy people feel while alive (quality of life). Health factors in the County Health Rankings represent what influences the health of a county. It measures four types of health factors: health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors and physical environment factors. In turn, each of these factors is based on several measures. Health behaviors measures alcohol and drug use, diet and exercise, sexual activity and tobacco use. Clinical care evaluates access to care and quality of care. Social and economic factors assessed include community, safety, education, employment, family and social support and income. Physical environment evaluates air and water quality, housing and transit. These rankings are relevant because they present snapshot evaluations of counties using identical 5-16

99 metrics, and are comparable over time. Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Table 14, below, contains a comparison of County Health Rankings for the years among Benton, Franklin, Yakima, Walla Walla and Spokane Counties. Remember that Washington has 39 counties. Appendix D has detailed annual rankings for Benton and Franklin Counties. Much more detail is available on the website:

100 Table 14: County Health Rankings Summary Benton, Franklin, Spokane, Walla Walla and Yakima Counties 5-18

101 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISION DATA The following eight graphs and tables summarize bicycle and pedestrian collision data in Benton anf Franklin Counties for the years All incident data is from the Washington State Department of Transportation, Transportation Data Office. 5-19

102 Figure 5: Total Benton County Bicycle Collisions by Jurisdiction Total Benton County Bicycle Collisions by Jurisdiction Kennewick Richland West Richland Prosser Benton City Total Collisions Total Injury Collisions Fatal Collisions Number of Injuries Number of Fatalities Benton County Figure 6: Total Benton County Bicycle Collisions by Year Total Benton County Bicycle Collisions by Year Number of Fatalities Number of Injuries Fatal Collisions Total Injury Collisions Total Collision

103 Figure 7: Total Benton County Pedestrian Collisions by Jurisdiction Total Benton County Pedestrian Collisions by Jurisdiction Kennewick Richland West Richland Prosser Benton City Total Collisions Total Injury Collisions Fatal Collisions Number of Injuries Number of Fatalities Benton County Figure 8: Total Benton County Pedestrian Collisions by Year Total Benton County Pedestrian Collisions by Year Number of Fatalities Number of Injuries Fatal Collisions Total Injury Collisions Total Collision

104 Figure 9: Total Franklin County Bicycle Collisions by Jurisdiction Total Franklin County Bicycle Collisions by Jurisdiction Pasco Connell Kahlotus Mesa Franklin County Total Collisions Total Injury Collisions Fatal Collisions Number of Injuries Number of Fatalities Figure 10: Total Franklin County Bicycle Collisions by Year Total Franklin County Bicycle Collisions by Year Number of Fatalities Number of Injuries Fatal Collisions Total Injury Collisions Total Collision

105 Figure 11: Total Franklin County Pedestrian Collisions by Jurisdiction Total Franklin County Pedestrian Collisions by Jurisdiction Pasco Connell Kahlotus Mesa Franklin County Total Collisions Total Injury Collisions Fatal Collisions Number of Injuries Number of Fatalities Figure 12: Total Franklin County Pedestrian Collisions by Year Total Franklin County Pedestrian Collisions by Year Number of Fatalities Number of Injuries Fatal Collisions Total Injury Collisions Total Collision

106 5-24

107 CHAPTER SIX: PROJECTS AND FUNDING FUNDING There is a range of federal and state funding sources for financing pedestrian and bicycle transportation options. FEDERAL FUNDING The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 enacted significant changes to Federal transportation policy and programs that expanded consideration of and eligibility for bicycling and walking projects. Significantly, this included ten percent of surface transportation funds for transportation enhancements, which contained a specific category for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Since 1991, the biggest sources of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects have been the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program, Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998 and the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005 continued these provisions as outlined in ISTEA. In 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) combined the TE, SRTS and RTP programs into one Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), encompassing a variety of smallerscale transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to storm water and habitat connectivity. On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or "FAST Act", superseding MAP-21. The FAST Act eliminates the MAP-21 TAP program and replaces it with a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for transportation alternatives. These set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP. The biggest change to these programs in the FAST Act is that the STP is renamed the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program and the TAP becomes a set-aside program of this block grant. Walking and bicycling projects remain an eligible activity for the larger STBG as well as CMAQ and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). In Washington State, prioritization and selection for eligible alternative transportation projects is managed by Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs). Outcomes in Benton and Franklin Counties are described later in this chapter in Local Funding and in Appendix C. 6-1

108 State of Washington Federal-Aid Highway Program Expenditures The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) reports Federal-Aid Highway Program expenditures to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) annually. Table 15 and Figure 13 present Washington State-reported spending on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs during fiscal years 1999 to Table 15: State of Washington Expenditures of Federal-Aid Highway Funds- Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs Figure 13: State of Washington Expenditures of Federal-Aid Highway Funds- Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs $50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 State of Washington Expenditures of Federal-Aid Highway Funds: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs $ Source: FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Program: Federal-Aid Highway Program Funding for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs The spike in 2009 is a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), an economic stimulus package which included a large amount of funding for infrastructure improvements. 6-2

109 STATE FUNDING Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety In 2005, the Governor and Washington State Legislature increased the state s role in safety by providing funding for two grant programs that support pedestrian and bicycle safety and safe routes to school projects. 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. The two programs that resulted from this legislation are described below. These two programs are very lightly funded and highly sought after. Grant cycles are based on the budget biennium. 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. Since the inception of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program in 2005, $55 million has been awarded to 132 projects from over $274 million in requests. Figure 14 presents the total cost of applications received and the value of grants funded by biennium since the program s inception. Figure 14: WSDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant Program - Past Performance Source: WSDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle & Safe Routes to School Grant Programs: Prioritized Project List and Program Update Safe Routes to School Grant The purpose of this program is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective projects within twomiles of primary and middle schools (K-8) that provide children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. Since its inception in 2005, the program has awarded funds for projects targeting 291 schools across the state. To achieve these improvements, approximately $71 million has been awarded to 182 projects from over $242 million in requests. 6-3

110 Figure 15 presents the total cost of applications received and the value of grants funded by biennium since the program s inception. Figure 15: WSDOT Safe Routes to School Grant Program - Past Performance Source: WSDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle & Safe Routes to School Grant Programs: Prioritized Project List and Program Update Benton-Franklin RTPO Past Performance: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program and Safe Routes to School Program Jurisdictions in the Benton-Franklin RTPO have been less than successful in either of these grant programs A total of three projects selected over the 12 years of the programs. Table 16 below tracks the outcome of RTPO jurisdictions applications in relation to these two funding sources. The descriptions above detail the magnitude state-wide of the programs since their inception. Detail on the history of RTPO jurisdiction applications for these grants may be found in Appendix C. Table 16: Benton-Franklin RTPO Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety/ Safe Routes to School Grant Application History Source: Washington State Department of Transportation Pedestrian and Bicycle & Safe Routes to School Grant Programs Biennial Reports to the Legislature 6-4

111 Additional Funding Sources There are several state and federal funding sources that may be available to support the efforts of local, county and regional organizations to balance transportation needs with community values and environmental goals. Safe Routes to Schools: Provide children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program: Aid public agencies in funding cost-effective projects that improve bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program: Acquisition and development of local and state parks, water access sites, trails, critical wildlife habitat, natural areas, and urban wildlife habitat. Small City Sidewalk Program: Improve safety, provide access, and address system continuity and connectivity. The program is on an annual cycle. Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Program: Develop and manage recreation opportunities for those who use off-road vehicles and facilities for those who pursue non-motorized trail activities. Traffic Safety Grants: Reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that result from traffic crashes. National Recreational Trails Program: Rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilities that provide a backcountry experience. City and County Safety Programs: Eliminate or reduce fatal or injury accidents by identifying and correcting hazardous locations, sections and/or elements that constitute a danger to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists. Public Lands Highways Program: Improve access to and within federal lands "served by the public lands highway." Surface Transportation Program - Regional Funds: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funding for projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. Contact your WSDOT Regional Agency for additional information. Public Transportation Grants: Get people out of their cars and onto buses, trains, vanpools, and other commute options. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funds to projects and programs that reduce transportation related emissions in four air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas in the state. Contact your WSDOT Regional Agency for additional information LOCAL FUNDING As described at the start of the chapter, bicycle and pedestrian projects have been eligible for federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) dollars through a mandatory set-aside since ISTEA in STP funds are distributed by the federal government on a state by state basis. WSDOT has localized distribution of this money through Regional Transportation Planning Organizations. The programs were known, in succession, as Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds, the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) 6-5

112 program. Successive transportation acts have changed the composition of eligible activities, but bicycle and pedestrian projects were always included. Table 17 below shows funds awarded by category in Benton and Franklin Counties since ISTEA. Although Walla Walla County was part of the RTPO for many years, that is no longer the case, and that presence is not included in these calculations. Several ISTEA categories shown in this breakdown were merged or eliminated under MAP-21. Historical outcomes of TE/TAP funds distribution are shown in Appendix C. Table 17: Alternative Transportation Project Funding Benton and Franklin Counties Additionally, municipalities have an array of funding sources available to them. Consideration should be given to prioritizing those sources that are collected from motor vehicle travel and from development that contributes to sprawl. These sources will help recover some of the costs not currently included in the price of these activities. 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. 6-6

113 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. For construction projects it is important to coordinate with other roadwork so as to keep expenses administration, material unit costs, mobilization, traffic control to a minimum by sharing them with larger road projects. For example, shoulder widening to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles in a rural area might be prohibitively expensive unless done at the same time as a scheduled pavement overlay. Walkway and bikeway maintenance should be funded along with routine roadway maintenance. Special projects such as separated paths, shoulders added to a road that is in good condition, and restriping existing roads for bike lanes require dedicated funding. In private developments, pedestrian and bicycle facilities could be 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). It is to a jurisdiction s advantage to develop a consistent funding source for priority projects and maintenance, and to actively seek additional sources for the remaining projects. Available funds should be leveraged to the greatest extent possible by using it for matching grants and joint projects. Coordination of construction projects and maintenance between various agencies and private development helps reduce costs, not just for bikeways and walkways, but also for the entire urban infrastructure. For example, state and local public works departments should strive to form partnerships that allow efficient sharing of resources (materials, equipment, and labor) and quick response to opportunities. Bicycle facilities and programs are a community investment shared by all sectors private, business, and government. Each can contribute in many ways, including land dedications, donations of engineering and public relations talent, special grants, sponsorship of fund-raising events, and so on. Developers can also choose to include extra bikeway projects, beyond what is required, in their project designs. Businesses can voluntarily construct showers and offer incentives for their employees. These sources should be actively sought and nurtured. 6-7

114 Students could be utilized to provide low-cost sidewalk repairs or bike path maintenance in exchange for on-the-job training. Other inventive means for obtaining materials, funds, or rights of way include environmental impact mitigation, street vacation money, enforcement of franchise agreements for railroad crossings, utility tax for public works, utility easements, and tax-deductible gifts in the form of signs, equipment, and trail segments. PROPOSED PROJECT LISTS This section shows proposed and planned bicycle and pedestrian projects for jurisdictions in the RTPO. Projects shown include those that are both funded and unfunded. Suggested metropolitanarea wide planning projects have also been included. All three suggestions would help prioritize improvements and could inform grant applications Kennewick Project List: Funded or Alternate Bike Lane and Path Improvement project between Fishing Pond and Blue Bridge. Bike lanes on Columbia Park Trail (south side) between the Golf Course and Veteran s Memorial. Connection of bike path from Steptoe to Mall on RR ROW. Citywide Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon projects. Canal Pathways Richland Project List: Vantage Highway Pathway Phase 2 This would extend the 12 separated pathway from Robertson Drive to Stevens Drive along Snyder Street. Stevens Drive Pathway Extend the 12 separated pathway north along Stevens Drive from Spengler Street to Horn Rapids Road. Vantage Highway Pathway Phase 3 This would extend the 12 separated pathway from Hanford Legacy Park to Twin Bridges Road along SR 240. Columbia Park Trail This project would reconstruct Columbia Park Trail from the east City limits to Ben Franklin Transit providing new sidewalks and bike lanes along Columbia Park Trail. Marcus Whitman Safe Routes to Schools This project would construct sidewalks along Snow Ave between Duportail Street and Marcus Whitman Elementary school. West Richland Project List Belmont Boulevard: Marble Street to Quartz Ave A 10-foot wide concrete bike/walk pathway miles. Belmont Boulevard: End of the Sunset Ridge 3-Phase 3 (past Onyx Ave to Belmont Heights - 10-foot wide concrete bike/walk pathway miles. One pedestrian activated signal located at the intersection of 62 nd Ave/SR224. Riverwood neighborhood pathway to the new middle school located on Belmont Boulevard- A 10-foot wide asphalt bike/walk pathway. 6-8

115 Connell Project List The proposed Connell Bike/Pedestrian Path is an 8 wide asphalt lane located along an abandoned railroad right-of-way between Heritage Park on East Adams Street and to South Chelan Avenue; for a distance of approximately 2300 feet. Metropolitan-area wide Projects Evaluate sidewalk-transit stop connectivity the metropolitan area. Perform a metropolitan area-wide sidewalk inventory to identify significant gaps in the system and needed improvements. Develop a method/system to track collisions on paths and trails. Analyze and address bike system connectivity issues between metropolitan area jurisdictions. 6-9

116 APPENDICES A-1

117 A-2

118 APPENDIX A - FEDERAL POLICY AND RESOURCES A-3

119 TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY RAY LAHOOD UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY STATEMENT ON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATION REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010 Purpose The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is providing this Policy Statement to reflect the Department s support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks. The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. Legislation and regulations exist that require inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project development. Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit. In addition, DOT encourages transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate. Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive. Policy Statement The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes. Authority This policy is based on various sections in the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in Title 23 Highways, Title 49 Transportation, and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare. These sections, provided in the Appendix, describe how bicyclists and pedestrians of all abilities should be involved throughout the planning process, should not be adversely affected by other transportation projects, and should be able to track annual obligations and expenditures on nonmotorized transportation facilities. Recommended Actions The DOT encourages States, local governments, professional associations, community organizations, public transportation agencies, and other government agencies, to adopt similar A-4

120 policy statements on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation as an indication of their commitment to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. In support of this commitment, transportation agencies and local communities should go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient bicycling and walking networks. Such actions should include: Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes: The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently move people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist, these nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly increase trip distance. Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes. Walking and bicycling should not be an afterthought in roadway design. Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, especially children: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should meet accessibility requirements and provide safe, convenient, and interconnected transportation networks. For example, children should have safe and convenient options for walking or bicycling to school and parks. People who cannot or prefer not to drive should have safe and efficient transportation choices. Going beyond minimum design standards: Transportation agencies are encouraged, when possible, to avoid designing walking and bicycling facilities to the minimum standards. For example, shared-use paths that have been designed to minimum width requirements will need retrofits as more people use them. It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an older facility. Planning projects for the long-term should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated, and limitedaccess bridges: DOT encourages bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on bridge projects including facilities on limited-access bridges with connections to streets or paths. Collecting data on walking and biking trips: The best way to improve transportation networks for any mode is to collect and analyze trip data to optimize investments. Walking and bicycling trip data for many communities are lacking. This data gap can be overcome by establishing routine collection of nonmotorized trip information. Communities that routinely collect walking and bicycling data are able to track trends and prioritize investments to ensure the success of new facilities. These data are also valuable in linking walking and bicycling with transit. Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time: A byproduct of improved data collection is that communities can establish targets for increasing the percentage of trips made by walking and bicycling. Removing snow from sidewalks and shared-use paths: Current maintenance provisions require pedestrian facilities built with Federal funds to be maintained in the same manner A-5

121 as other roadway assets. State Agencies have generally established levels of service on various routes especially as related to snow and ice events. Improving nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects: Many transportation agencies spend most of their transportation funding on maintenance rather than on constructing new facilities. Transportation agencies should find ways to make facility improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists during resurfacing and other maintenance projects. Conclusion Increased commitment to and investment in bicycle facilities and walking networks can help meet goals for cleaner, healthier air; less congested roadways; and more livable, safe, cost-efficient communities. Walking and bicycling provide low-cost mobility options that place fewer demands on local roads and highways. DOT recognizes that safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities may look different depending on the context appropriate facilities in a rural community may be different from a dense, urban area. However, regardless of regional, climate, and population density differences, it is important that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be integrated into transportation systems. While DOT leads the effort to provide safe and convenient accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists, success will ultimately depend on transportation agencies across the country embracing and implementing this policy. Ray LaHood, United States Secretary of Transportation A-6

122 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Benton-Franklin Council of Governments ACCOMMODATING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL: A RECOMMENDED APPROACH Purpose Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach is a policy statement adopted by the United States Department of Transportation. USDOT hopes that public agencies, professional associations, advocacy groups, and others adopt this approach as a way of committing themselves to integrating bicycling and walking into the transportation mainstream. The Design Guidance incorporates three key principles: a. a policy statement that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist; b. an approach to achieving this policy that has already worked in State and local agencies; and c. a series of action items that a public agency, professional association, or advocacy group can take to achieve the overriding goal of improving conditions for bicycling and walking. The Policy Statement was drafted by the U.S. Department of Transportation in response to Section 1202 (b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) with the input and assistance of public agencies, professional associations and advocacy groups. FHWA GUIDANCE: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION Introduction The purpose of this guidance is to describe Federal legislative and policy direction related to safety and accommodation for bicycling and walking. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 enacted significant changes to Federal transportation policy and programs that expanded consideration of and eligibility for bicycling and walking. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998 and the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFTEA-LU) in 2005 continued these provisions. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of 2012 enacted some program changes but continued broad consideration and eligibility for bicycling and walking. The statutory provisions affecting bicycling and walking are codified in titles 23 and 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). This document describes the range of opportunities to improve conditions for bicycling and walking. A-7

123 FEDERAL STATUTES 23 CFR PART PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS AND PROJECTS Purpose. To provide policies and procedures relating to the provision of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on Federal-aid projects, and Federal participation in the cost of these accommodations and projects. 23 U.S. CODE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS This US Code section provides rulemaking authority for 23 CFR Part 652. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES For more information about: FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Resources FHWA s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program FHWA guidance documents on walking and bicycling Publications related to walking and bicycling Information about State and local resources Equestrian and Other Nonmotorized Use on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Framework for Considering Motorized Use on Nonmotorized Trails and Pedestrian Walkways Manuals and Guides for Trail Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Operation Recreational Trails Shared-Use Paths Along or Near Freeways and Bicycles on Freeways Snow Removal on Sidewalks Constructed with Federal Funding Federal Aid funding resources for walking and bicycling facilities Federal funding spent on walking and bicycling facilities Accessibility A-8

124 U.S. Access Board information about ADA for public rights of way Accessibility Guidance for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, Recreational Trails, and Transportation Enhancement Activities Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Programs Context Sensitive Solutions FHWA and Context Sensitive Solutions State Bicycle and Pedestrian Contacts State Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators A-9

125 APPENDIX B STATE POLICY AND RESOURCES A-10

126 WTP THE WASHINGTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN WTP 2035, The Washington Transportation Plan, provides policy guidance and recommendations across all transportation modes and regions in the State. WTP 2035 is organized around the six statutory transportation policy goals in RCW These six policy goals are: Economic Vitality. To promote and develop transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of people and goods to ensure a prosperous economy Preservation. To maintain, preserve, and extend the life and utility of prior investments in transportation systems and services Safety. To provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation customers and the transportation system Mobility. To improve the predictable movement of goods and people throughout Washington State Environment. To enhance Washington s quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment Stewardship. To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the transportation system While the six policy goals are shared statewide, the implementation strategies and actions to make the goals a reality may vary across Washington. There is some degree of overlap between the transportation policy goals, and many strategies may be appropriate to achieve more than one policy goal. Environment The Environment goal area seeks To enhance Washington s quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment. Strategies A. Transportation Investments Should Support Healthy Communities There is a rapidly growing awareness of both the positive and negative links between current transportation behavior and public health. Collaboration between transportation and public health officials is pointing towards the significant aggregate and individual benefits that can result from transportation policies that promote active transportation, reduce mobile source pollutant emissions, and improve safety for travelers. Multiple studies reveal a positive return on community investment in active transportation infrastructure and programs, in terms of reduced health care costs and economic benefits.11 Forty percent of all trips taken in Washington State are under two miles in length, and many more of these could be made by walking or biking. A-11

127 Recommended Actions: Promote Complete Streets and Safe Routes to Schools policies and implementation for appropriate arterials and collectors within urban growth areas. Promote bicycling and walking as viable transportation options and as a means to improve public health and maintain environmental quality by identifying and addressing multimodal system gaps, such as sidewalk or trail connections. WASHINGTON STATE BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS PLAN Washington State Department of Transportation s Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan for establishes the following goals: Double the percentage of total trips made primarily by bicycling and walking in Washington within the next 20 years; and Simultaneously reduce the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured in traffic crashes by five percent each year. If these goals are to be realized statewide, total trips made by walking and bicycling would need to increase from six to twelve percent while reducing collisions from 400 to 150 per year. In order to achieve these goals the state plan has established objectives and implementations steps for each of the state s five transportation policy areas (as established in RCW ) including: Preservation, Safety, Mobility, Environment and Stewardship. Note that the five policy areas in the RCW and the five WTP Guidelines vary by a single component: The WTP includes Economic Vitality while the RCW includes Stewardship. In 2010, the legislature amended RCW to include Economic Vitality as a transportation policy area. Preservation Objective: Ensure no net loss in pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. WSDOT Implementation Steps: 2-5 year Implementation WSDOT will work with local agencies, transit providers, and developers to identify additional funding for projects not yet in design or construction to develop the entire project including elements addressing bicycle and pedestrian safety. WSDOT will implement a project development process, specifically scoping guidance for pedestrian and bicycle projects as well as a roadway improvement and bridge replacement projects, to include routine consideration of bicycle and pedestrian needs in addition to roadway needs. Review state trail design and operations standards. Safety Objective: Target safety investments toward known risk factors for pedestrians and bicyclists. WSDOT Implementation Steps: 2-5 year Implementation A-12

128 WSDOT and WTSC will collaborate to implement safety education programs and legal enforcement mechanisms for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. WSDOT will expand technical training to engineers and planners, law enforcement officials, and education officials. WSDOT, regional and local agencies will address known risk locations on the roadway and bridge system to help ensure safe access by bicyclists and pedestrians. Mobility Objective: Increase bicycling and pedestrian transportation choices. WSDOT Implementation Steps: 5-10 year Implementation WSDOT and other state agency plans, policies, and standards will recognize bicycling and walking as viable modes of transportation and as being supportive of tourism and economic development in Washington. Bicycle and pedestrian mobility will be considered in all WSDOT transportation plans and corridor studies; from the project level to the programmatic level. WSDOT will work with local agencies, transit providers, and developers to identify additional funding for projects not yet in design or construction to ensure development of the entire project including elements addressing bicycle and pedestrian mobility. WSDOT will implement a project development process, specifically scoping guidance for pedestrian and bicycle projects as well as roadway improvement and bridge replacement projects, to include routine consideration of bicycle and pedestrian needs in addition to roadway needs. WSDOT will partner with local agencies and developers to reduce short motor vehicle trips (both commute and non-commute trips) and related CO2 emissions by increasing biking and walking. In Washington State, over half of all trips are under three miles, yet 80 percent of these trips are made by car (National Household Travel Survey). WSDOT will initiate a new training program for all transportation engineers (state and local) focused on bicycle and pedestrian design and funding programs. WSDOT will benchmark and track statewide bicycle and pedestrian system users in a database. WSDOT and other state agencies will continue to partner with state agency representatives that play a role in improving bicycling and pedestrian mobility Health and Environment Objective: Increasing walking and bicycling will be part of Washington State s strategy to improve public health and address climate change. WSDOT Implementation Steps: 5-15 year Implementation WSDOT will participate in and conduct research to better understand the relationship between public health and the transportation system. A-13

129 WSDOT will promote bicycling and walking, not only as a viable means of commute transportation, but as an important strategy to improve public health and maintain environmental quality. WSDOT will consider stormwater management strategies that maximize resources by serving multiple functions, such as bio-retention areas serve as buffers for sidewalks or refuge islands and pervious surfaces. WSDOT and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations will include bicycling and walking in transportation modeling and climate change evaluations as part of applicable transportation plans and projects. WSDOT will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of the State s strategy for reducing VMT and CO2 generated from the burning of fossil fuels. Stewardship Objective: Improve the quality of the transportation system by improving transportation access for all types of pedestrians and bicyclists, to the greatest extent possible. WSDOT Implementation Steps: year Implementation WSDOT will raise awareness of the importance of accessibility and design that strives to provide access to as many people as possible through training for state, regional, and local engineers, planners, and other transportation professionals and interested parties. WSDOT will require greater involvement of bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility experts on transportation committees and project advisory teams. STATE LAWS WASHINGTON STATE BICYCLE LAWS With more people riding bicycles, following the rules of the road is especially important. A bicycle is a legal road vehicle, just like a car. This means that bicycle riders have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers. Here are some laws to be aware of whether you are biking or driving a motor vehicle: Bicycle Helmets - Currently, there is no state law requiring helmet use. However, some cities and counties do require helmets. See Localities Requiring Bicycle Helmets. Riding on the Road - When riding on a roadway, a cyclist has all the rights and responsibilities of a vehicle driver (RCW ). Cyclists who violate traffic laws may be ticketed (RCW ). Roads Closed to Bicycles - Some designated sections of the state's limited access highway system may be closed to bicycles for safety reasons. See State Highway Sections Closed to Bicycles for more information. In addition, local governments may adopt ordinances banning cycling on specific roads or on sidewalks within business districts. A-14

130 Children Bicycling - Parents or guardians may not knowingly permit bicycle traffic violations by their ward (RCW ). Riding Side by Side - Cyclists may ride side by side, but not more than two abreast (RCW ). Riding at Night - For night bicycle riding, a white front light (not a reflector) visible for 500 feet and a red rear reflector are required. A red rear light may be used in addition to the required reflector (RCW ). Shoulder vs. Bike Lane - Cyclists may choose to ride on the path, bike lane, shoulder or travel lane as suits their safety needs (RCW ). Note that many of the above highlights of bicycle laws reference RCW Rules of the Road. The chapter of the RCWs may be found at: SELECTED STATE LAWS REGARDING BICYCLES F76CAA1264D3/0/TrafficSafetyRCW2002.pdf WASHINGTON STATE PEDESTRIAN LAWS Here is a summary of some of Washington's pedestrian laws: Traffic signals -Pedestrians must obey traffic signals and traffic control devices unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer (RCW ). Sidewalks - Drivers and bicyclists must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks and in crosswalks (RCW ). Pedestrians on roadways - Pedestrians must use sidewalks when they are available. If sidewalks are not available, pedestrians must walk on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic (RCW ). Bolting into traffic - No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb and move into traffic so that the driver can not stop (RCW ). Drivers exercise due care - Every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary (RCW ). Stop for pedestrians at intersections - Vehicles shall stop at intersections to allow pedestrians and bicycles to cross the road within a marked or unmarked crosswalk (RCW ). See Washington's Crosswalk Law for more information. Yield to vehicles outside intersections - Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway (RCW ). A-15

131 Note that all of the above highlights of pedestrian laws reference RCW Rules of the Road. The chapter of the RCWs may be found at: DESIGNING FOR BICYCLES Must bicycle facilities be included in all projects? Both FHWA and WSDOT require that bicycle and pedestrian facilities be included in new roadway construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas absent exceptional circumstances FHWA Policy What design standards apply to projects? The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities or equivalent guides developed with State and local officials are to be used to provide uniform minimum standards and criteria for the design and construction of bicycle facilities funded through federal aid projects. WSDOT has endorsed the NACTO Urban Bikeways Design Guide for use by our agency and our partner agencies. In addition, FHWA has published guidance for separated bike lanes. AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Other Resources Context Sensitive Design Executive Order (pdf 58 kb) When City Streets are Part of State Highway System Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge & Municipal Construction Rumble Strip Guidance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ADA Design Standards Accessibility for Outdoor Developed Areas Accessible Public Rights-of-way Planning and Design for Alterations Cost Estimates Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure ImprovementsSafety Bicycle Lanes Verses Wide Curb Lanes (pdf 2.8Mb) Safety Benefits of Bike Lanes A-16

132 Innovative Roadway Markings (pdf 299 kb) Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Streets Engineer Bicycle Facilities: National Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Bicycle Boulevards Guidelines for Bicycle Parking Design Urban Street Design Innovations Trails FHWA Design Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part 1 FHWA Design Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part 2 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Education WSDOT Training for Local Agencies DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Must pedestrian facilities be included in all projects? Both FHWA and WSDOT require that bicycle and pedestrian facilities be included in new construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas absent exceptional circumstances FHWA Policy What design standards apply to projects? The FHWA Federal-Aid Policy Guide provides that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or equivalent guides developed in cooperation with State and local officials, to provide uniform minimum standards and criteria for the design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. WSDOT has endorsed the National Association of City Transportation Professionals (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide and some local jurisdictions have adopted their own standards that add to the AASHTO Guidance. LAG Manual, Chapter 42 - City/County Design Standards (pdf 840kb) AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) WSDOT Pedestrian Design Guidance for State Highways (outside cities) WSDOT Pedestrian Design Guidance (pdf 2.0Mb) WSDOT Shared-Use Path Design Guidance (pdf 860kb) WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge & Municipal Construction A-17

133 Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook (pdf 6.6Mb) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ADA Standards FHWA Design Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part 1 FHWA Design Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part 2 Accessibility for Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report Accessible Public Rights-of-way Planning and Designing for Alterations Design Treatments Pedestrian Design Guidance National Pedestrian & Bicycle Info Center Innovative Roadway Markings The City of Kirkland WA In-Pavement Flashing Crosswalks Safety Assessing Pedestrian Risk Locations Pedestrian Safety Tool Pedestrian Safety & Transit Corridors (pdf 3.3Mb) Pedestrian Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (pdf 3.2Mb) WSDOT Collision Report WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESIGN MANUAL Bikeway and walkway design is guided primarily by the Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual and by national guidelines from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration. Appendix D contains a listing of those relevant documents. Another consideration in facility design is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that public and private developments provide access to all people. Furthermore, facilities should be designed to allow access by maintenance and emergency vehicles. Excerpts of the WSDOT Design Manual as it pertains to bicycle and pedestrian facilities are linked below. A-18

134 CHAPTER PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES CHAPTER SHARED-USE PATHS CHAPTER ROADWAY BICYCLE FACILITIES A-19

135 APPENDIX C REGIONAL FUNDING FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND AND DETAIL A-20

136 This appendix presents historical data for Benton-Franklin Council of Governments RTPO member jurisdictions and funding sources associated with active transportation: the WSDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Grant Program and Safe Route to Schools Grant Program; and the Federal Transportation Enhancement ( )/Transportation Alternatives Program ( ) funding process. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Grant and Safe Route to School Grant Programs are administered by WSDOT and involve both state and federal funds. The TE/TAP grant programs involve Federal funds and were administered regionally in Benton and Franklin Counties by the BFCG. The history of TE/TAP funds distribution is detailed in this appendix. The Active Community Environments (ACES) Program has grant funds available to assist regional and local agencies efforts integrate complete streets, transportation, and health objectives. Areas of focus for grant recipients are listed. A-21

137 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY & SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAMS PROJECT APPLICATIONS FROM JURISDICTIONS IN THE BENTON-FRANKLIN RTPO Background In 2005, the Governor and Washington State Legislature increased the state s role in improving conditions for biking and walking by providing a grant program and related technical assistance services. Some federal funding has also been dedicated to these programs since the passage of SAFETEA-LU in The grant program supports pedestrian and bicycle safety projects such as pedestrian and bicycle paths, sidewalks, providing safe routes from residential areas to schools and transit on state highways, city streets and county roads. The program is two-fold: 1) Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety to address the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrian and bicycles each year; and 2) Safe Routes to School to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety near schools. The following pages detail the history of RTPO jurisdictions applications for both programs. As was referenced in Chapter Six, RTPO jurisdictions have been less than successful in receiving these grants PILOT PROJECTS There were 10 pilot projects statewide. Richland School District - Badger Mountain Elementary School Project: Constructed sidewalks. Total Grant Amount: $66,500 Education/Encouragement: The project incorporated a safety curriculum by the Badger Mountain school teachers. It included school-wide bike rodeos and helmet fittings and encourage children to become physically active through the Great Body Shop health curriculum. PEDESTRIAN and BICYCLE SAFETY & SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAMS PROJECT APPLICATIONS Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant Program The department received 83 eligible grant proposals totaling $23,948,220. The first 17 projects represent the most cost effective and highest accident locations, representing a total of 3,894,850 in funding. 21. Richland: Queensgate Drive Trail - Project improvements include the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail. $231, West Richland: Keene Road Pathway - Project improvements include construction of a separated pedestrian/bicycle path. $132,200 A-22

138 77. Pasco: SR 395 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass - Project improvements include construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge. $800,000 Safe Routes to School Program The department received 42 eligible proposals totaling $7,281,598 from schools and school districts. The first 8 projects were funded, representing a total of $1,105,150 in grants. No SRTS applications were submitted from the RTPO in this funding cycle. PEDESTRIAN and BICYCLE SAFETY & SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAMS PROJECT APPLICATIONS For the biennium, approximately $18 million was available for the two programs: $11 million of state funds and $7 million of Safe Routes to School federal funds Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program The department received 88 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety projects totaling approximately $39.5 million. 25 projects were completely or partially funded, representing a total of $10,480,230 in grants. 20. Kennewick: 4th Avenue Pedestrian Signal at Amistad Elementary - The project includes pedestrian activated flashing beacons, signs, opening day event at project completion, multi-lingual information brochures targeting residents and students and increased emphasis patrols. Cost: $75,000 Requested: $65,000. This project was funded. 50. Benton City: Kiona-Benton High School Sidewalk/Bike Lane Improvement - The project includes sidewalk, curb and gutter, striping a bike lane, expanding the school district's driver safety curriculum to include pedestrian and bicycle safety and increased emphasis patrols. Cost: $97,600 Requested $58, Richland: Queensgate Drive Trail - The project includes a shared use path and outreach through the local newspaper, City website, local community groups, brochures and maps. Cost: $260,500 Requested $247, Richland - SR 240 Trail, Van Giesen to Stevens Drive - The project includes a shared use path and outreach through the local newspaper, City website, local community groups, brochures and maps. Cost: $326,500 Requested: $306, Richland Richland Urban Greenbelt Trail - Phase I - The project includes a shared use path, outreach through the local newspaper, City website, brochures and maps and emphasis patrols. Cost: $76,592 Requested: $65, Richland Wellsian Way/Aaron Drive Pedestrian-Bike Trail - The project includes a shared use path, sidewalk, curb and gutter and outreach through the local newspaper and brochures. Cost: $230,280 Request: $159,000 A-23

139 88. Pasco - State Route 395 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass - The project includes a pedestrian overpass. Cost: $900,000 Request: $400, Safe Routes to Schools Grant Program The department received 101 Safe Routes to Schools project applications totaling approximately $39.5 million. 18 projects were completely or partially funded, representing a total of $6,847,255 in grants. 26. Prosser - South Prosser Sidewalk: The project includes sidewalk, bicycle lanes, public service announcements, community mailings, safety education program, school district crossing guards and radar speed feedback signs - $595, West Richland Paradise Street/South 38th Avenue Pathway: The project includes a shared use path and walking school bus program. $74, West Richland Bombing Range Road/Norma Street Pathway: The project includes a shared use path and walking school bus program. $29, Richland - Jadwin/Catskill Crossing Improvements: The project includes flashing beacons, safety promotion events and increased emphasis patrols. $31, Kennewick - 10th Avenue Pedestrian Signal: The project includes flashing beacons, signs, safety promotion events and information and increased emphasis patrols. $75, Kennewick - 4th Avenue Pedestrian Signal: The project includes flashing beacons, signs, safety promotion events, information in multiple languages and increased emphasis patrols. $75, Richland Humphreys Street Sidewalk Improvements: The project includes sidewalk and safety promotion program. $12, Richland - Sanford Street Sidewalk Improvements:: The project includes sidewalk, project information, events, safety promotion materials and increased emphasis patrols. $91,750 PEDESTRIAN and BICYCLE SAFETY & SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAMS PROJECT APPLICATIONS For the biennium, approximately $11 million in state funding is available for the two programs and a total of $82 million in requests were received Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program The department received 92 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety projects from 65 agencies and organizations totaling approximately $35 million. 16 projects representing a total of $7,175,084 in grants were completely or partially funded. 6. Richland - SR 240 Shared Use Path: One fatal and multiple pedestrian/bicycle crashes within the project area. The project includes a shared use path and fencing. Cost: $580,000; Requested: $412,000. This project was funded. A-24

140 24. Richland - Richland Urban Greenbelt Trail: One fatal and multiple pedestrian/bicycle crashes within the project area. The project includes a shared use path. $374,907; $308, Richland - Keene Rd Trail: One pedestrian/bicycle crash within the project area. The project includes a shared use path, a grade separated crossing, benches, and landscaping. $384,000; $300, Safe Routes to Schools Grant Program The department received 112 Safe Routes to Schools projects from 86 agencies and organizations totaling approximately $47 million. 12 projects were completely or partially funded, representing a total of $3,480,855 in grants. 59. Prosser - South Prosser Sidewalks: The project includes sidewalk, bicycle lanes, pedestrian and bicycle safety education and events, and a radar speed feedback trailer. $631,452; $631, Connell - Old Railroad Right-of-Way Pedestrian Path Paving: The project includes a shared use path. $199,648; $90,000 PEDESTRIAN and BICYCLE SAFETY & SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAMS PROJECT APPLICATIONS For the biennium, approximately $20 million in funding was awarded for the two programs and a total of $58 million in requests have been received. The Department received 124 Safe Routes to Schools projects from 97 agencies and organizations totaling approximately $43 million Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program The Department received 35 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety projects from 26 targeted agencies and organizations totaling approximately $15 million. 24 projects were completely or partially funded, representing $9,655,095 in grants. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety program followed a more strategic approach for fiscal years funding cycle by switching to invitation only. This was a change from the open call for projects used in the past three biennia, and was made to ensure that grants targeted known risk locations with proven solutions addressing the circumstances. Similar to WSDOT s Highway Safety Improvement Program, only agencies contacted with an invitation to apply for funding were eligible to apply. Projects submitted by agencies that had not been contacted were not considered. 32. Richland - SR 240 Shared Use Path: One fatal and multiple pedestrian/bicycle crashes within the project area. The project includes a shared use path and fencing. Cost: $580,000 Requested: $412,000 A-25

141 2011 Safe Routes to Schools Grant Program The Department received 124 Safe Routes to Schools projects from 97 agencies and organizations totaling approximately $43 million. 29 projects were completely or partially funded, representing $11,374,450 in grants Kennewick - Desert Hills Middle School: Crosswalk Safety Improvements The project includes pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK), advance stop bars, signage, pedestrian and bicycle safety events and materials, and vehicle speed feedback signs. $75, Kennewick - Park Middle School: Crosswalk Safety Improvement The project includes flashing beacons, advance stop bars, signage, pedestrian and bicycle safety events and materials, and speed feedback signs. $65,500 PEDESTRIAN and BICYCLE SAFETY & SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAMS PROJECT APPLICATIONS For the biennium, approximately $26 million in funding was awarded for the two programs and a total of $160 million in requests were received Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program The department received 146 Pedestrian and Bicycle projects from 120 agencies and organizations totaling approximately $100 million. 14 projects were completely or partially funded representing a total of $12,354,310 in grant funding. No projects were submitted from the RTPO for this funding cycle Safe Routes to Schools Grant Program The department received 124 Safe Routes to Schools projects from 97 agencies and organizations totaling approximately $60 million. 32 projects were completely or partially funded representing a total of $14,052,575 in grant funding. Richland - Marcus Whitman Elementary: Street reconstruction, 1105 linear feet of 5 feet wide sidewalk, curb ramps, bike and pedestrian safety education program (3rd to 5th grades), replace bikes, bike trains, walking school buses, poster contest, upgrade and use of speed feedback trailer, and deployment of decoy cars. Cost: $126,000, Request: $96,000 Prosser - Safe Routes to Keene-Riverview Elementary: Road widening by 10 feet, 6.5 feet concrete sidewalks, curb, gutter, retaining wall, pedestrian activated illuminated crosswalks, pedestrian field trips, assembly, mileage program expansion, bike rodeo, safety education in city newsletter, local paper, website, Facebook and twitter, 2 data-recording speed feedback signs and targeted emphasis patrols. Cost: $836,788, Request: $836,788 A-26

142 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY & SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAMS PROJECT APPLICATIONS For the biennium, approximately $21 million in funding was anticipated to be awarded for the two programs and a total of $101 million in requests were received Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program The department received 109 Pedestrian and Bicycle projects totaling approximately $57 million. 30 projects were completely or partially funded representing a total of $10,206,209 in grant funding. 28. Kennewick - Columbia Park East Bike/ Pedestrian Enhancements: Project includes pavement markings, pathway lights and bike racks. Cost: $355,000, Requested: $320,000 This project is funded. 34. Richland - Swift Boulevard Improvements: Project includes travel lane reduction, landscaped median, curb extensions, sidewalk, street lights, and shared-use path improvements. Cost: $1,375,000; Requested: $1,109, Franklin County - Basin City Alternative Transportation Route Improvements Phase 2: Project includes sidewalk, crosswalk markings, signs, and curb ramps. Cost, Requested: $130, Richland- Vantage Highway Pathway- Phase 1: Project includes a shared-use path. Cost: $720,000; Requested: $680, Safe Routes to Schools Grant Program The department received 87 Safe Routes to Schools projects totaling approximately $44 million. 28 projects were completely or partially funded representing a total of $13,015,441 in grant funding. No projects were submitted from the RTPO for this funding cycle. A-27

143 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ( )/ TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ( ) GRANTS As discussed in Chapter Six, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 enacted significant changes to Federal transportation policy and programs that expanded consideration of and eligibility for bicycling and walking projects in a program titled Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. Following ISTEA, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998 and the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005 continued these provisions as outlined in ISTEA. In 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) combined the TE, SRTS and RTP programs into one Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), and in December 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or "FAST Act", became law, superseding MAP-21. The FAST Act eliminates the MAP-21 TAP program and replaces it with a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for transportation alternatives. These set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP. TE/TAP Programs were administered regionally in Benton and Franklin Counties by the BFCG, as will the STBG funds. The history of TE/TAP funds distribution is detailed below. A-28

144 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan A-29

145 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan A-30

146 2016 Regional Active Transportation Plan A-31