1. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
1
of
15
June
10,
2015
RE:
The
City
of
Ridgefield
–
Multimodal
and
NEV
Network
Technical
Memo
(1)
TO:
Eric
Eisemann,
E2
Land
Use
Planning
Services
LLC
FM:
Todd
Boulanger,
Principal,
Urbane
Streets
Technical
Memo
(1)
assesses
the
circulation
opportunities
and
barriers
for
bicyclists,
pedestrians
and
neighborhood
electric
vehicle
(NEV)
operators
within
the
city
limits
of
Ridgefield
WA.1
Technical
memo
(2)
discusses
existing
policies
and
design
guidance
along
with
a
KMZ
file
for
Google
Earth.
The
KMZ
file
is
a
map
that
includes
layers
of
existing
conditions
and
facilities
along
with
proposed
facilities
that
may
be
integrated
in
future
network
development
for
pedestrians,
bicyclists
and
neighborhood
electric
vehicles
(NEV).
Overall
the
City
has
a
good
foundation
of
trail
facilities
but
these
are
primarily
recreational
in
function
and
design
and
do
not
yet
contribute
well
to
supporting
active
transportation
trips.
There
are
even
fewer
bike
lane
facilities
and
no
on-­‐street
NEV
facilities
as
of
yet.
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
All
Travel
Modes
The
existing
grid
of
arterial
and
local
streets
in
most
areas
of
Ridgefield
prevents
the
widespread
adoption
of
walking
and
bicycling
for
transportation
trips.
This
condition
along
with
a
lack
of
mixed
land
uses
ensures
that
traffic
must
travel
out
of
direction
to
stay
on
lower
speed
arterials
or
use
a
few
higher
speed
narrow
highways.
See
Figure
1.
1
For
purposes
of
this
memo
the
term
“electric
vehicle”
will
primarily
include
neighborhood
electric
vehicles
(NEV)
and
traditional
golf
cars
(aka
‘golf
carts’)
but
not
medium
speed
electric
vehicles
(MSV)
or
higher
speed
electric
cars
(Tesla,
Nissan
Leaf,
etc.).

2. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
2
of
15
FIGURE
01:
LOW
SPEED
ARTERIALS,
BIKE
LANES
AND
TRAILS
‘NETWORK’
MAP
Note:
GREEN
routes
are
either
low
speed
arterials
or
have
bike
lanes
and
PURPLE
routes
are
off-­‐street
paths.
Many
of
the
once
rural
highways
the
City
annexed
maintain
their
historic
posted
speed
limits.
A
higher
speed
on
arterials
is
often
not
ideal
when
combined
with
growing
suburban
traffic
volumes
and
incomplete
safety
features,
such
as
lighting,
sidewalks,
crosswalks,
center
turn
lanes,
bike
lanes
or
paved
shoulders.
This
is
as
much
of
a
problem
for
car
drivers
and
truck
drivers
as
it
is
for
pedestrians
and
bicyclists
travelling
within
the
city
limits.
Pedestrian
Travel
Mode
Walking
is
the
foundation
of
all
mobility
in
the
City,
as
almost
every
trip
begins
and
ends
with
a
walk.
The
compact
pre-­‐war
city
center
allows
many
a
trip
to
be
a
potential
walking
trip,
as
long
as
one’s
work
and
daily
needs
can
be
provided
locally.
Local
secondary
routes
often
are
not
fully
ADA
accessible
as
they
may
be
unpaved
alleys,
steep
or
unpaved
trails
or
a
sidewalk
without
ramps.

3. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
3
of
15
FIGURE
02:
DOWNTOWN
PEDESTRIAN,
ALLEY
AND
TRAILS
‘NETWORK’
MAP
Note:
not
all
trials
are
paved
and
accessible
per
the
ADA,
as
many
have
unimproved
surfaces
or
have
steep
slopes.
Arterials
missing
continuous
sidewalks,
curb
ramps,
lighting
and
conveniently
located
mid-­‐
block
marked
crosswalks
severely
limits
the
ability
to
walk
outside
of
downtown.
The
older
homes
and
businesses
along
rural
arterials
have
limited
space
to
walk
let
alone
stand
safety
or
to
cross
and
collect
mail
at
mailboxes
along
the
roadway
edge.
These
roadways
are
primarily
a
legacy
of
County
level
planning
and
design
decisions.
FIGURE
03:
TYPICAL
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES
ALONG
RURAL
ARTERIALS
Source:
Google
Streetview
image.
Location:
1034
NW
Carty
Road.

4. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
4
of
15
The
existence
of
pedestrian
network
and
ADA
barriers
is
not
only
found
in
older
areas
but
in
many
newer
emerging
residential
developments.
In
many
subdivisions
visited
there
are
often
sidewalk
gaps
along
any
parcel
without
a
home
constructed
even
though
the
motor
vehicle
facility
(“the
roadway”)
has
been
fully
constructed
curb
to
curb.
These
barriers
to
walking
are
often
expected
to
be
only
short
term
in
nature
but
can
often
last
for
years
due
to
a
depressed
real
estate
market
or
changes
in
project
financing.
Some
cities
address
this
through
the
pedestrian
circulation
element
of
a
developer
agreement
with
a
policy
to
require
sidewalk
connectivity
at
time
of
the
adjoining
road
construction.
Occasionally
some
cities
find
that
the
construction
of
long
stretches
of
gap
sidewalk
within
a
development
may
be
too
great
a
hardship
then
a
transportation
detail
for
a
temporary
ramp
with
striped
on-­‐street
walkway
to
the
next
sidewalk
section
is
developed.
This
is
one
of
the
facility
network
barriers
that
the
City
has
full
administrative
control
over
and
should
successfully
address
in
the
short
term
for
future
developments.
FIGURE
04:
NEW
DEVELOPMENT
SIDEWALK
TRANSITION
AND
ADA
BARRIERS
Left
side:
photo
of
sidewalk
gap
from
North
33
rd
Court.
Right
side:
photo
of
temporary
ramp
on
South
Sevier.
Even
the
more
recently
constructed
trails
(versus
ad
hoc)
that
exist
are
often
unpaved
loop
trails
with
woodchip
or
gravel
treatments
that
typically
do
not
connect
adjoining
subdivisions
or
to
area
schools.
All
of
the
previous
conditions
reduce
the
ability
of
these
facilities
to
attract
and
support
active
transportation
trips,
thus
currently
limiting
their
functionality
to
recreational
trips.
Bicycle
Travel
Mode
Ridgefield
residents
have
used
bicycles
for
transportation
and
recreational
use
for
over
a
century.
This
long
history
of
bicycle
use
has
primarily
shared
low
speed
urban
streets
or
low
volume
rural
highways.
Youth
riding
today
is
generally
limited
to
only
sidewalks
and
trails
within
subdivisions.
The
current
physical
size
of
Ridgefield
is
ideal
for
a
bicycle-­‐sized
city
because
no
part
of
the
city
is
more
than
five
miles
from
any
other
part
of
the
city.
Five
miles
is
often
considered
the
maximum
desirable
distance
for
most
urban
bicycle
trips.
The
older
city
center
is
well
suited
to
bicycle
transportation
because
much
of
the
public
and
retail
facilities
exist
within
the
half-­‐mile
square
core
area.

5. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
5
of
15
FIGURE
05:
BICYCLIST
SHARING
NARROW
RURAL
ROAD
WITH
HEAVY
TRAFFIC
FIGURE
06:
YOUTH
CYCLING
OFTEN
LIMITED
TO
SIDEWALKS
Many
novice
bicyclists
or
even
experienced
bicyclists
escorting
youth
may
have
difficulty
with
off-­‐street
paths
that
are
not
well
integrated
with
street
intersections.
The
combination
of
legacy
rural
highways
and
poor
trail
integration
with
these
arterials
can
often
overwhelm
novice
bicyclists
as
they
attempt
to
cross
higher
volume
roadways
for
the
first
time.
The
crossing
location
and
desirable
route
may
be
very
different
to
a
bicyclist
versus
the
route
they
drive
more
frequently
as
a
local
driver.
Both
of
these
conditions
then
may
frustrate
other
drivers
who
do
not
understand
why
a
bicyclist
may
choose
a
given
route
or
to
do
what
looks
like
a
very
unsafe
movement
but
may
be
the
safest
action
possible
given
the
state
of
the
facilities.
An
example
of
this
situation
was
seen
during
a
field
visit
in
Ridgefield
at
the
multi-­‐legged
intersection
of
Cemetery
Road,
South
9th
Street/
South
Hillhurst
and
the
South
8th
Court

6. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
6
of
15
pathway.
The
design
of
the
narrow
pathway
along
South
8th
Court
made
it
very
difficult
for
the
family
riding
into
downtown
from
South
Hillhurst.
The
three
bollards
installed
at
the
trail
head
kept
the
father
from
continuing
from
the
Hillshurst
sidewalk
to
the
trail
since
his
child
trailer
could
not
fit
easily
through
the
gap.
He
then
continued
to
ride
northward
against
traffic.
He
was
soon
followed
by
his
family
(two
children
and
a
spouse)
who
had
great
trouble
getting
down
off
of
the
elevated
sidewalk,
as
there
was
no
ramp
there
and
they
did
not
follow
the
lead
bicyclist’s
path
down
an
earlier
driveway
ramp.
After
much
shouting
to
direct
the
children
across
the
street
the
spouse
was
able
to
find
a
gap
in
traffic
and
cross
to
the
sidewalk
along
South
9th
Street.
They
then
rode
on
the
sidewalk
with
the
flow
of
traffic.
These
situations
with
deficient
facilities
can
also
be
compounded
by
the
lack
of
“good
role
models”
of
other
more
experienced
bicyclists
one
might
have
in
higher
numbers
in
an
urban
areas
with
a
more
developed
bikeway
network.
Novice
bicyclists
need
to
repeatedly
see
how
these
more
experienced
bicyclists
handle
barriers
or
complex
movements
such
as,
crossing
a
multi-­‐lane
highway
or
ride
with
the
flow
of
heavy
or
fast
traffic.
FIGURE
07:
POOR
TRAIL
INTERSECTIONS
CAUSE
CONFUSION
FOR
NOVICE
USERS
Note:
Father
leads
and
family
follows
him
through
gaps
in
traffic,
avoiding
trail
at
9
th
Avenue.
The
one
local
facility
that
comes
closest
to
the
improved
integration
of
off
street
pathway
and
arterial
intersection
would
be
the
newer
section
of
SR-­‐501
built
at
the
I-­‐5
interchange.
This
facility
has
a
wider
off-­‐street
hard
surfaced
path
with
ramps
and
well-­‐marked
intersection
crosswalks.
Its
use
for
active
transportation
trips
should
increase
as
property
redevelops
near
by
and
it
becomes
better
connected
to
the
downtown
with
WSDOT’s
planned
pavement
widening
and
bike
lanes
in
2015.
Existing
Arterials
with
Bike
Lanes
• Heron
Ridge
Drive;
• South
11th
Street
(near
South
Timm
Road);
• South
Union
Ridge
Parkway;
• South
10th
Street
(near
South
Union
Ridge
Parkway);
and
• North
85th
Avenue
(near
South
5th
Street).
Note:
only
arterials
with
bike
lanes
on
both
sides
are
included.

7. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
7
of
15
The
bikeway
facilities
above
are
designed
per
current
standard
details
and
function
within
their
isolated
network
segments.
The
Strategic
Space
of
Half-­‐Street
Improvements
Additional
bikeway
facilities
may
be
easily
added
over
the
short-­‐term
to
the
above
list
with
some
creative
and
strategic
reconfiguration
of
travel
lane
layout
and
widths
using
existing
design
details.
One
place
to
look
for
these
opportunities
is
where
a
development
driven
half-­‐street
improvement
along
one
side
has
added
road
widening
but
not
bike
lanes
and
or
sidewalks
on
both
sides.
The
effort
to
built
a
“complete
street”
within
the
limits
of
a
project
nexus
often
leads
to
additional
shoulder
or
bike
lane
space
that
is
not
well
connected.
There
may
be
operational
or
safety
advantages
to
shifting
this
space
to
the
other
side
of
the
centerline
as
part
of
a
future
“maintenance”
activity.
There
are
at
least
three
locations
to
consider
this
type
of
modification:
• North
Reiman
Road/
51st
Avenue
north
of
North
5th
Way
(convert
to
uphill
bike
lane
and
add
downhill
shared
lane
marking
with
sharrow);
• SE
5th
Street
west
of
North
85th
Avenue
(shift
bike
lane
over
to
provide
a
shared
bike
and
walking
lane
along
curbless
section
without
sidewalk);
and
• Multiple
sections
of
Hillhurst
(consolidate
and
reallocate
roadway
space
and
lane
narrowing
to
establish
bike
lanes
or
shared
bike
and
walking
lane
where
sidewalks
are
missing).
There
are
additional
safety
benefits
for
this
“temporary”
shift
in
bike
lane
to
the
undeveloped
side,
as
the
bike
lane
would
help
better
define
the
edge
of
roadway
of
the
curbless
section
in
periods
of
low
light
for
drivers.
The
change
on
SE
5th
Street
would
also
facilitate
a
longer
bike
lane
connected
route
with
NE
10th
Avenue,
but
only
in
the
counter-­‐
clockwise
direction
due
to
NE
10th
Avenue’s
longer
northbound
bike
lane.
Overall
the
shifting
of
lane
lines
and
centerline
for
these
types
of
projects
would
be
best
coordinated
with
planned
“maintenance”,
such
as
pavement
preventive
surface
treatments
(micro-­‐surfacing,
slurry
seal,
etc.)
versus
grinding
or
blacking
out
old
lane
lines.

8. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
8
of
15
FIGURE
08:
EXISTING
BIKEWAY
REGIONAL
‘NETWORK’
MAP
Note:
the
GREEN
roads
have
bike
lanes
/
shoulders
or
low
volumes.
The
PURPLE
are
off
street
bikeways.
The
Geography
of
Development,
No
Development
and
Speed
The
geography
of
the
Ridgefield
area
and
the
recent
growth
of
population
and
traffic
require
the
establishment
of
a
dedicated
off-­‐street
network
of
paths
and,
or
on-­‐street
arterial
bike
lanes
with
additional
right-­‐of-­‐way.
The
topography
of
the
west
side
will
make
bicycling
trips
physically
challenging
for
many
unless
well-­‐chosen
new
routes
minimize
steep
grades.
Ridgefield
east
of
I-­‐5
and
near
the
high
school
have
more
physical
opportunity
for
bike
lanes
because
the
topography
is
less
challenging,
traffic
volumes
are
lower
and
it
is
easier
to
target
shoulder
widening/shoulder
conversion
to
bike
lanes.
The
challenge
for
greater
bicycle
use
on
the
eastside
and
south
are
the
higher
rural
speeds
(both
posted
and
the
eighty-­‐fifth
percentile)
that
bicyclists
must
operate
with
and
the
greater
distances
between
single
land-­‐uses
until
the
roadways
can
be
reconstructed
when
areas
redevelop.
In
areas
where
half-­‐street
improvements
triggered
by
development
will
not
occur
for
a
while
other
creative
options
will
have
to
be
explored.
County’s
with
growing
numbers
of
bicycle
trips
along
such
rural
highways
are
beginning
to
develop
new
interim
bikeway
facility
designs
and
practices
that
refine
urban
street
concepts
of
shared
facilities
but
with
the
lower
volumes
and
higher
speeds
of
older
rural
roadways.
The
Washington
County
Bikeway
Design
Manual
is
a
good
regional
example
of
such
an
effort
to
provide
safer
roadways
until
more
conventional
urban
facilities
with
bike
lanes
can
be
built.
Their
manual
is
a
very
good
synthesis
of
the
best
practices
nationally.

9. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
9
of
15
The
arterials
shown
in
the
map
below
in
YELLOW
or
RED
are
higher
speed
facilities
that
need
either
bike
lanes
or
paths
for
safe
and
effective
bicycle
circulation.
The
PURPLE
arterials
are
currently
County
arterials
that
will
likely
maintain
speeds
of
35
mph
or
more
immediately
after
an
annexation.
FIGURE
09:
EXISTING
ARTERIAL
SPEED
ZONES
–
BICYCLE
ROUTE
PLANNING
Note:
MPH
=
25
(GREEN),
35
(YELLOW),
>40
(red),
and
County
(PURPLE).
FIGURE
10:
BIKE
ACCESS
BARRIERS
TO
THE
ARTERIAL
NETWORK
ROAD
FROM
TO
MPH
ADT
BIKE
LANE
NW
289/291
St.
North
Main
St.
NW
31st
Ave.
50*
Low
Needed
N
20th
St.
I-­‐5
NW
65th
Ave.
40
Low
Needed
NE
259th
St.
NE
10th
Ave.
NE
20th
Ave.
40
Medium
Needed
NE
Carty
Rd.
I-­‐5
NE
10th
Ave.
50**
Low
Needed
NW
31st
Ave.
NW
289
St.
N
10th
St.
50
Low
Needed
S
45th
Ave
SR-­‐501
S
15th
St.
40
Low
Needed
NW
Royle
Rd.
S
15th
St.
S.
Hillhurst
40
Low
Needed
Notes:
*County
“Scenic
routes
design
may
allow
reduced
design
speeds…”;
**R-­‐2
roads
have
a
speed
of
30
to
50
MPH,
assume
40
MPH
when
“rolling”
topography
and
50
MPH
in
“flat”
topography
unless
posted.
See
County
Code
40.350.030.
Bold
text:
Combined
roadway
conditions
that
would
not
allow
a
shared
lane
facility
and
instead
trigger
a
bike
lane
treatment.
See
the
Washington
County
Bikeway
Design
Manual
(2014)
Table
1:
Travel
Speed
and
Volume,
page
11.

10. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
10
of
15
Electric
Vehicle/
NEV
Mode
Electric
low
speed
vehicles
have
operational
benefits
over
bicycles
such
as
higher
operating
speeds,
higher
payload
or
passenger
capacity,
and
the
ability
to
climb
steeper
hills.
NEVs
may
also
offer
easier
adoption
as
they
operate
more
similarly
to
existing
motor
vehicles
that
most
citizens
already
use
each
day.
These
qualities
have
made
electric
vehicles
readily
adoptable
in
higher
numbers
in
many
communities
nationwide;
even
Washington
State
has
one
in
ten
registered
plug-­‐in
electric
vehicles
for
the
nation
as
a
whole.2
The
majority
of
these
vehicles
are
located
in
the
wetter
and
more
urban
areas
long
the
I-­‐5
corridor.
Smaller
cities
along
the
West
Coast
with
higher
proportions
of
retirees
are
experiencing
higher
adoption
rates,
such
as:
• City
of
Palm
Desert,
CA
• Lincoln
City,
CA
• City
of
West
Sacramento,
CA
Overall,
the
adoption
of
improved
facilities
for
NEVs
on
arterials
may
be
a
desirable
midterm
strategy
to
support
enhanced
bikeways
if
space
can
be
made
for
these
vehicles
now.
Community
support
for
NEVs
may
grow
since
many
adults
may
feel
more
comfortable
in
an
NEV
than
on
a
bicycle
when
traveling
to
a
store
or
to
work.
Wider
NEV
facilities
improve
the
level
of
service
and
safety
over
narrower
bikeways
if
shared.
Consequently,
bicyclists
may
support
improved
shared
facilities
too
if
the
volume
of
either
mode
does
not
become
so
great
as
to
cause
conflict.
Golf
cars
are
generally
not
ideal
for
use
on
higher
volume
arterials
or
higher
speed
rural
roads
due
to
their
low
operating
speeds.
The
higher
speed
differential
between
conventional
motorized
vehicles
and
lower
speed
electric
vehicles
can
make
it
very
stressful
for
such
operators
to
share
the
road.
Golf
cars
are
best
used
in
a
downtown
grid
of
lower
volume
streets.
The
existing
public
street
and
trail
network
currently
is
not
conducive
to
the
widespread
operation
of
low
speed
electric
vehicles
for
several
reasons,
including:
• A
lack
of
golf
car
lanes
or
existing
wide
bicycle
lanes
on
arterials,
• Few
district
and
regional
arterials
with
low
traffic
volumes
and
25
mph
speed
limits
for
shared
lane
operation;
or
• Separated
facilities
on
higher
speed
arterials
and
highways.
2
There
was
a
50%
increase
registrations
for
plug-­‐in
electric
vehicles
in
our
state
in
2014
versus
2013.
In
2014
there
were
12,351
plug-­‐in
electric
vehicles
in
WA
versus
118,773
in
the
US.
Washington
State
Electrical
Vehicle
Action
Plan
(2015),
pg.
9

11. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
11
of
15
NEVs
will
have
a
major
disadvantage
to
bicycles
due
to
their
wider
width
when
operating
on
many
of
Ridgefield’s
narrow
shoulder-­‐less
arterials.
Even
Ridgefield’s
lowest
volume
arterials
have
up
to
one
car
per
minute
passing
an
NEV.
Additionally
the
wider
operational
space
of
a
NEV
makes
it
almost
impossible
for
faster
traffic
to
pass
a
NEV
and
not
cross
the
centerline,
thus
causing
higher
stress
for
NEV
operators
than
similar
traffic
passing
a
narrower
slower
bicyclist.
FIGURE
11:
NEV
ARTERIAL
AND
PATHWAY
REGIONAL
‘NETWORK’
Note:
The
GREEN
roads
are
25
MPH
arterials
and
open
to
most
NEVs.
The
YELLOW
roads
are
35
mph
and
have
either
low
volumes
or
shared
space
of
a
bike
lane
or
shoulder.
The
PURPLE
are
wide
off
street
paved
paths.
There
are
additional
topographic
barriers
that
will
make
facilities
very
expensive
to
directly
connect
isolated
neighborhoods
with
creek
overcrossings
on
the
Westside,
especially
the
Gee
Creek
watershed.
Other
existing
trails
are
too
narrow
to
drive
on,
too
steep
to
walk
on,
and
do
not
have
all
weather
surfacing
for
wheeled
use
in
the
wet
winter
or
spring
seasons.
These
network
barriers
will
continue
to
slow
the
safe
and
legal
adoption
of
lower
speed
electric
vehicles.

12. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
12
of
15
FIGURE
12:
NOT
ALL
CITY
TRAILS
ARE
NEV
READY
There
are
other
areas
with
streets
were
electric
vehicles
could
easily
operate
but
are
often
isolated
islands,
such
as
the
downtown,
as
shaded
in
YELLOW
in
Figure
13.
Other
potential
zones
require
long
out
of
direction
travel
to
reach
employment
or
retail
centers.
Islands
can
also
be
created
by
urban
arterials
that
function
as
an
operational
barrier
to
crossing
due
to
being
a
legacy
highway
where
design
and
operational
jurisdiction
falls
outside
the
City
to
the
State.
Such
was
the
case
for
the
small
town
of
Ryderwood
(WA)
that
successfully
petitioned
WSDOT
for
electric
vehicle
access
to
a
state
highway
that
serves
as
its
main
street
and
divided
its
downtown.
The
City
should
study
the
requirements
for
a
similar
request
to
WSDOT
for
SR-­‐501
as
an
interim
action
item
until
the
facility
is
widened
and
NEV
facilities
are
added.
Other
arterials
need
selective
speed
reduction
and
shoulder
widening
for
successful
NEV
use,
see
Figure
14.

13. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
13
of
15
FIGURE
13:
DOWNTOWN
CIRCULATION
NETWORK
FOR
NEV
Note:
the
YELLOW
area
is
the
desirable
circulation
area
for
NEVs
in
the
Downtown,
phase
1.
FIGURE
14:
NEV
ACCESS
BARRIERS
TO
THE
ARTERIAL
NETWORK
ROAD
FROM
TO
MPH
WIDE
SHOLDER
NW
289/291
Sts.
North
Main
St.
NW
31st
Ave.
50*
No
N
20th
St.
I-­‐5
NW
65th
Ave.
40
No
SR-­‐501
Old
Pioneer
Way
S
65th
Ave.
40
Limited
Sections
NE
259th
St.
NE
10th
Ave.
NE
20th
Ave.
40
No
NE
Carty
Rd.
I-­‐5
NE
10th
Ave.
50**
No
NW
31st
Ave.
NW
289
St.
N
10th
St.
50
No
NE
10th
Ave.
NE
259th
Ave.
NE
Carty
Rd.
50
Yes
S
45th
Ave
SR-­‐501
S
15th
St.
40
No
NW
Royle
Rd.
S
15th
St.
S.
Hillhurst
40
No
Note:
*County
“Scenic
routes
design
may
allow
reduced
design
speeds…”,
so
limit
could
be
made
lower;
**R-­‐2
roads
have
a
speed
of
30
to
50
MPH,
assume
40
MPH
when
“rolling”
topography
and
50
MPH
in
“flat”
topography
unless
posted.
See
County
Code
40.350.030.
The
arterials
shown
below
in
YELLOW
or
RED
are
higher
speed
facilities
that
need
either
NEV
lanes
/
wide
shoulders
or
off
street
paths
for
safe
and
effective
NEV
circulation.
The
PURPLE
arterials
are
currently
County
arterials
that
will
likely
be
annexed
as
arterials
higher
than
25
mph.

14. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
14
of
15
FIGURE
15:
EXISTING
ARTERIAL
SPEED
ZONES
–
NEV
ROUTE
PLANNING
Note:
MPH
=
25
(GREEN),
35
(YELLOW),
>40
(RED),
and
County
(PURPLE).
Conclusions:
1. The
City’s
policies
and
staff
outlook
as
a
whole
are
very
supportive
of
active
transportation;
2. Topography,
poor
street
grid
and
lack
of
pavement
width
make
establishing
active
transportation
facilities
in
the
near
term
challenging
on
the
west
side
where
current
demand
is
greatest;
3. High
traffic
speeds,
poor
street
grid
and
dispersed
land
uses
make
establishing
active
transportation
facilities
in
the
near
term
challenging
on
the
east
side
where
current
job
growth
is
most
likely;
4. Many
of
the
off-­‐street
paths
and
sidewalks
in
newer
residential
areas
are
limited
to
recreational
use
and
are
not
good
active
transportation
facilities
due
to
poor
surfacing,
sidewalk
gaps,
and
missing
crossings
of
riparian
areas
or
other
physical
barriers;
5. The
older
narrower
sections
of
WSDOT
SR-­‐501
and
the
existing
roundabouts
with
incomplete
sidewalks
are
major
facility
barriers
for
active
transportation
and
NEV
modes
thus
separating
the
downtown
from
regional
transit
services
(the
C-­‐TRAN
park
&
ride)
and
employment
centers;
6. The
City
should
undertake
a
holistic
study
of
the
traffic
speeds
and
volume
of
its
City
wide
network
with
crash
locations
and
multimodal
facility
deficiencies
to
better
understand
how
higher
speed
County
arterials
can
be
brought
into
the
City,
new
arterials
integrated
with
the
old,
which
existing
City
roadways
can
function
with
the
new
20
mph
state
limit,
and
where
separated
facilities
are
needed
since
speed
reduction
cannot
be
done;
7. This
network
study
may
also
include
a
strategic
look
at
where
to
shift
arterial
center
lines
and
lane
locations
at
points
where
half-­‐street
improvements
created
a
spatial
opportunity
to
create
a
bike
lane
or
shared
shoulder
lane
(road
diets);

15. Technical
Memo
(1)
Page
15
of
15
8. Consider
adopting
NEV
supportive
lanes
and
off-­‐street
facilities
as
an
interim
tool
for
enhanced
bikeway
network
where
right-­‐of-­‐way
can
be
provided;
9. Institute
speed
reduction
with
shared
street
facilities
along
appropriate
rural
sections
that
will
not
experience
redevelopment
and
half-­‐street
improvements
in
the
near
term;
and
10. Integrate
the
addition
of
bike
lanes
during
the
annual
planning
of
roadway
pavement
“maintenance”
activities.