Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMadison County TMP_Final2022 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Formally Adopted by: City of Rexburg Jerry Merrill, Mayor Date Sugar City Steven Adams, Mayor Date Madison County Todd Smith, County Commissioner Chairman Date Idaho Transportation Department Wade Allen, ITD D6 District Engineer Date i Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Acknowledgements There have been many that have contributed to the input of this transportation master plan update. We thank the City of Rexburg and the members of the Madison County Rural Planning Organization (RPO). Madison County Commissioners: Todd Smith, Chairman Douglas Smith Brent Mendenhall Madison County Rural Planning Organization (RPO) Brent Mendenhall, Madison County Commissioner (Chair) Jerry Merrill, Mayor City of Rexburg Steven Adams, Mayor of Sugar City Mark Layton, Strategic Planning and Community Involvement at Idaho Transportation Department Brett Crandall, BYU-Idaho Keith Davidson, City of Rexburg Public Works Director Arlynn Jacobson, Sugar City Public Works Director Justin Beard, City of Rexburg Assistant Public Works Director Scott Johnson, City of Rexburg Economic Development Reo Jensen, Madison County Special Thanks to: Daniel Torres, City of Rexburg Gary Armstrong and Bradley Petersen, Madison County P&Z Cole Hibbard, Madison County GIS Also a special thanks to the Rexburg City Council, the Rexburg Planning and Zoning committee, and all of the City and County staff who have assisted in this effort. We would also like to thank all those members of the public who provided valuable input as this plan has come together. ii Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Executive Summary Introduction The Madison County transportation system spans a diverse landscape and serves a variety of users. Although airports and railroads serve an important role in the transportation system, roadways are the most widely used and most important feature of the transportation system. Daily commuters, farm-to- market truck haulers, recreation for local as well as regional travelers use the roadway system in Madison County every day. As we remember what the road system has been in the past and what it is today, we envision the County’s current and impending needs and look to the future. What will the transportation system be for our grandchildren and their grandchildren? Will decisions made today have a lasting impact on decisions they make to live and work in Madison County? The area is growing with a thriving University and a desire by businesses to locate in Madison County. Over the next 25 years it is anticipated that the number and mix of roadway users will continue to grow. Multimodal transportation that accommodates this growth will ensure the continuation of the strong economic vitality and exceptional quality of life which currently exists in Madison County. Existing Transportation Network The existing roadway network consists of local, collector and arterial streets as well as the SH-33 and US- 20. Each of these roadway classifications serves a different yet important function in the roadway system. Traffic volume and turning movement data was collected throughout the County to establish a baseline of existing traffic volumes. These volumes were compared to the capacity of the individual roadways in the network to determine any existing deficiencies. Level of Service (LOS) is a performance metric used by the Federal Highway Administration to categorize congestion on roadways. A letter grade A, B, and C being acceptable. LOS D, E, and F are considered unacceptable. Most roadway segments in the County are operating at an acceptable level of service. There are, however, several areas that are experiencing significant delays. These are as follows: · 2nd East (between Main Street and 7th North) · US-20 Ramps at Main Street · US-20 Ramps at University Boulevard Several bridges in the area are in need of attention according to the National Bridge Inventory Database. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) owns 32 bridges in Madison County, one of which is structurally deficient and one of which is functionally obsolete. The County owns 46 bridges, three are structurally deficient and two are eligible for federal aid with a sufficiency rating of less than fifty. The Twin Bridges are also in need of channel correction. The City of Rexburg maintains 10 bridges, of which one is structurally deficient and is federal aid eligible. The only bridge in Sugar City is functionally obsolete. In addition to roadways, the jointly owned Rexburg-Madison County airport is operational and serves primarily private and agricultural aircraft. A committee currently exists to evaluate future airport needs and the potential for relocation as an expansion becomes necessary. There are 52 miles of railroad along iii Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 the Yellowstone branch of the Eastern Idaho Railroad. This stretch moves more than 35,000 car loads per year to the Union Pacific branches. Future Conditions Future traffic patterns and the resulting operating conditions of a roadway network are directly related to land use planning and socioeconomic conditions. Socioeconomic data were gathered from the Cities, County, BYU-I and other stakeholders in the area to ensure the best available data were used. Transportation planning in the region should be a cooperative effort of state and local agencies. One of the purposes of the RPO is to coordinate this transportation planning process in Madison County. A large part of the coordinated planning process was the update of the regional travel demand model. This model will serve as a planning tool for the County and RPO for years to come. The travel demand model was the basis for the analysis of future traffic growth in the County and helped determine not only the expected problems caused by growth but also the effectiveness of the proposed solutions to those problems. The year 2048 was evaluated for this master plan update. Growth in the County is expected to continue through the years with populations reaching 98,500 by the year 2048. This growth will significantly influence the roadway network and, as shown in the no-build scenario presented in this report, will result in unacceptable congestion in the area. Several projects were identified as part of the planning process and range from signal timing projects to interchange reconstructions. Projects listed in this report seek to solve problems such as geometric deficiencies, pedestrian safety, intersection operational failure, and over congested roadways. Many projects were evaluated and modeled in the travel demand model to identify the best course of action to relieve congestion in the area. These projects include the US-20 interchanges at Main Street and University Blvd., East Parkway, 5th West Extension and US-20 overpasses at Moody Road, Poleline Road, and 7th South. These projects should be considered by the RPO as development and growth occurs. Rural Madison County Improvements Many of the improvements in and around the City of Rexburg are driven by travel demand and the projected congestion that will occur with the growth. For the rest of the County, including Sugar City, the existing system will provide an accepted Level of Service through the year 2048 with some exceptions such as the connection to East Parkway. Although not driven by travel demand, the connectivity, safety and utility of the rural part of the County has been studied. A capital improvement plan has been developed for the rural areas of the Counties and priorities have been developed based a consensus of the most pressing needs by input of the public and stakeholders. Alternative Modes of Transportation Alternative transportation modes are an important part of the overall transportation system. A complete transit system may include bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail, commuter rail, and van share facilities. Non-motorized traffic includes pedestrians, bicyclists, hikers, horseback riders, and joggers/walkers. These modes of transportation are very important and should be accommodated in a vibrant and sustainable transportation system as they become appropriate for the community. iv Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 It has long been discussed that a vibrant bus system within the community could become a vital link to expanding access to the University for students. A transit system, particularly within the City of Rexburg may be considered in the future plans of the community. The exact location and timing of the bus routes will require further study. Pedestrians and Bicyclists are an essential element to the transportation master plan. The City of Rexburg has a high volume of pedestrian activity, especially in and around the BYU-I campus. Sidewalks should be considered a priority for any new roadways or capacity improvements. Improving the sidewalk connectivity between the downtown area and the campus is essential. Regional bike plans exist and should be used to determine the most appropriate location for bike lanes and trails within the County. Where appropriate, roadway cross sections should include the ability to accommodate bicyclists either with on-street facilities such as bike lanes or “sharrows” or off-street facilities such as multi-use pathways and trails. Other Elements of the Transportation Master Plan Traffic Impact Studies Traffic Impact Studies should be required for all developments that may have a detrimental impact on the transportation network. Traffic Impact Studies give the County and Cities the ability to determine what effects a proposed development will have on the street network and how to plan accordingly. Guidelines to when and where a Traffic Impact Study is required are given in the appendix of this report. The guidelines also show the information that should be included in the study. Intelligent Transportation Systems Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) can greatly improve the function of any roadway. ITS elements include signal detection, traffic volume recorders, traffic cameras, variable message signs, and advanced warning signs. Each of these elements allow traffic engineers to monitor traffic patterns and adjust to maximize traffic flows accordingly. The ITS can also provide valuable information to the traveling public to assist in travel decisions. Access Management Access Management is a standard or set of guidelines used to control access on major roads. Controlling access improves the safety of a roadway and increases capacity. The State of Idaho has an access management program for the state roads. An access management plan is included in the main body of this report. It is recommended that both the City of Rexburg, Sugar City, and Madison County adopt this plan and commit to follow it. Each organization in the RPO must be an integral player in regional planning. The formation of the RPO has taken a large step in the right direction to accomplish this goal. The RPO must continue to work together to guarantee that transportation planning is all encompassing. Corridor Preservation Some of the projects identified in this report will not be needed for 10, 20, or perhaps 30 years. It is vital that all entities take the necessary steps now to prepare for these projects. The simplest way to make sure that these projects are still possible in the future is through Corridor Preservation. This is a technique used to preserve areas of Right-of-Way with sufficient width to accommodate a future planned roadway. v Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 As rural areas develop, the County and Cities must be proactive in procuring the necessary right-of-way for planned projects as it becomes available. Maintaining access management standards on these corridors is vital. Travel Demand Management Travel Demand Management is the practice of encouraging people to use more than just single occupancy vehicle use. Several strategies exist and could be employed by the members of the RPO including a ride share program, transit, incentives for carpooling, variable work schedules, etc. Traffic Calming and Safety Traffic Calming and Safety are also an important part of any transportation network. Ensuring the safety of motorists and pedestrians should be the highest priority on any transportation project. Traffic calming can help reduce speeds and volumes on roadways but should be used with caution and only where appropriate. A guide to traffic calming is provided in this report. Capital Facilities Plan The most important element of the TMP is the Capital Facilities Plan. This section of the report includes the recommended projects to mitigate any existing and future transportation deficiencies. The report includes the nature of each project, the timing of the project and a planning level cost estimate for each project. The cost of all the proposed capital improvement projects combined for ITD, the Cities and the County in Madison County, should be incorporated into future budgets and plans for implementation. Public Involvement In addition to multiple updates to the Madison County commissioners and the members of the Rexburg City Council, the public was invited to attend public meetings. The meetings allowed the public to express ideas and concerns related to the topics presented. The meetings were advertised via web site, newspaper, and social media. A public meeting was held on June 1st, 2022 in the City of Rexburg City Council chambers. Exhibits of the transportation master plan history, traffic modeling, study results, and proposed alternatives were presented. Many in attendance came simply to learn with no comments; others expressed comments verbally. The primary concern expressed by the majority of attendees was the congestion on 2nd East between Main Street and 7th North. The proposed improvement presented as raised median barrier for access control was met with approval by most visitors. Additionally, improvements were requested to be implemented at the connections to US-20 as soon as possible as left turns at each interchange are a challenge and pose potential safety concerns. vi Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ i Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. ii Existing Transportation Network .............................................................................................................. ii Future Conditions .................................................................................................................................... iii Rural Madison County Improvements ..................................................................................................... iii Alternative Modes of Transportation ...................................................................................................... iii Other Elements of the Transportation Master Plan ................................................................................ iv Capital Facilities Plan ................................................................................................................................ v Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ ix Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview and History ................................................................................................................................ 1 Review of 2015 Transportation Master Plan ............................................................................................ 4 Existing Roadway Network ........................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions ........................................................................................................... 6 Street System ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Roadway Cross Sections ........................................................................................................................ 8 Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ...................................................................................................... 15 Traffic Volume Data ............................................................................................................................ 15 Level of Service ................................................................................................................................... 16 Bridges .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Condition Rating.................................................................................................................................. 21 Structural Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 21 Status .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Condition Ratings: ............................................................................................................................... 22 Existing Bridge Conditions ................................................................................................................... 22 Airport ................................................................................................................................................. 23 Rail ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 Future Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Future Socioeconomic Conditions .......................................................................................................... 24 vii Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Future Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 24 Travel Model Development ................................................................................................................ 27 No Build Network ................................................................................................................................ 27 Future Roadway Network ................................................................................................................... 27 2048 Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 27 2048 No Build ...................................................................................................................................... 28 Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................................ 32 Rural Madison County Improvements ........................................................................................................ 36 US – 20 and State Highway 33 ................................................................................................................ 38 US-20 West Side Frontage .................................................................................................................. 38 US-20 East Side Frontage .................................................................................................................... 39 Intersections Improvements in the County ............................................................................................ 41 Alternative Modes of Transportation ......................................................................................................... 44 Transit ..................................................................................................................................................... 44 Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................................................ 44 Future Transit Service ......................................................................................................................... 45 Pedestrians and Bicycles ......................................................................................................................... 45 Regional Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Access Management ................................................................................................................................... 48 Principles of Access Management ...................................................................................................... 48 Roadway Network and Access Management Standards .................................................................... 50 Other Elements of the Transportation Master Plan ................................................................................... 68 Traffic Impact Studies ............................................................................................................................. 68 Intelligent Transportation Systems ......................................................................................................... 68 Traffic Signal Coordination .................................................................................................................. 68 ITD Coordination ..................................................................................................................................... 69 Corridor Preservation.............................................................................................................................. 69 Corridor Preservation Techniques ...................................................................................................... 71 Travel Demand Management ................................................................................................................. 71 Safety ...................................................................................................................................................... 71 Traffic Calming ........................................................................................................................................ 72 Types of Traffic Calming Measures ..................................................................................................... 72 Capital Facilities Plan .................................................................................................................................. 74 Transportation Needs as a Result of New Development ........................................................................ 74 viii Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Proposed Means to Meet Demands of New Development ................................................................ 76 Public Involvement Summary ..................................................................................................................... 79 List of Figures Figure 1: Madison County Population Projections ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Madison County Area Map ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3: Proposed Roadway Network ....................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4: Proposed Roadway Network ....................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5: IPLAN Classification (County View) .............................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: IPLAN Classification (City View) ................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: Classification Discrepancies ......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 8: Level of Service ............................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 9: Existing Roadway Level of Service ............................................................................................... 18 Figure 10: Madison County Land Use Plan ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 11: Madison County City General Plan Map .................................................................................... 26 Figure 12: Projected 2048 No-Build Level of Service .................................................................................. 30 Figure 13: 2048 Solutions to Problems ....................................................................................................... 31 Figure 14: Madison County Improvements ................................................................................................ 37 Figure 15: Trails, Pathways & Rapid Flash Crosswalks ................................................................................ 47 Figure 16: Mobility vs. Access by Functional Classification ........................................................................ 49 Figure 17: Functional Area of Intersections ................................................................................................ 58 Figure 18: Corner Clearance Types ............................................................................................................. 58 Figure 19: Inadequate Corner Clearance .................................................................................................... 59 Figure 20: Driveway Throat Length Examples ............................................................................................ 61 Figure 21: Maximum Change In Grade ....................................................................................................... 62 Figure 22: Auxiliary Lane Length ................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 23: Proposed ROW Preservation ..................................................................................................... 70 Figure 24: Transportation Improvement Plan Cost Estimate ..................................................................... 75 ix Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 List of Tables Table 1: Population Data ............................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Street Functional Classification ....................................................................................................... 7 Table 3: Roadway Functional Classification Characteristics ......................................................................... 8 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service ......................................................................................................... 19 Table 5: US-20 Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................................... 21 Table 6: Summary of Bridges in Madison County ...................................................................................... 23 Table 7: Intersection Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32 Table 8: Minimum Interchange Spacing Guidelines ................................................................................... 51 Table 9: Signalized Intersection Spacing ..................................................................................................... 52 Table 10: Major Intersection Spacing Based on Functional Area ............................................................... 53 Table 11: Major Intersection Spacing by Classification .............................................................................. 54 Table 12: Minor Intersection Spacing by Classification .............................................................................. 54 Table 13: Minimum Offset between Driveways on Opposite Sides of Undivided Roadways .................... 55 Table 14: Corner Clearance Criteria ............................................................................................................ 59 Table 15: Intersection/Driveway Sight Distance ......................................................................................... 64 Table 16: Safe Stopping Sight Distances on Grades .................................................................................... 65 Table 17: Deceleration Length .................................................................................................................... 67 Table 18: Reconstruction Budget Scenarios ............................................................................................... 74 1 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Introduction Overview and History Madison County, Idaho is located in the Upper Snake River Valley. Established in 1913, it has a rich heritage with roots of pioneer families that first settled in the area. These pioneers quickly began farming and cultivating the land. They built farms, roads and the first irrigation systems. Before January 1, 1914, the County was part of neighboring Fremont County. The newly established County was named for American president James Madison. Over the years there has been growth and change to the area. There are just under 53,000 people residing in Madison County as of 2021. Between the 2010 and 2021 censuses, the population grew from 37,536 to 52,913, an increase of approximately 41%. A map of Madison County is shown in Figure 2. The majority of the people living in Madison County live within the City of Rexburg, accounting for 39,409 people in 2021 (74% of the County population). There are several smaller communities in Madison County including Sugar City, Salem, Lyman, Plano, Sunnydell, Independence, Moody, Thornton, Hibbard, Burton, Edmonds and Archer. Sugar City is the largest of these Cities (1,715 population in 2021) and is located on the northern border of Madison County. Many of these towns are brought together by common schools and churches. Madison County, particularly the City of Rexburg, has experienced a significant amount of growth and development over the last several years. This growth is expected to continue in the future, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. By the year 2048 the population is projected to be approximately 98,500 people. In order to keep pace with the projected population growth, a comprehensive transportation plan must be regularly maintained. The purpose of this plan is to incorporate the goals of Madison County, the City of Rexburg, Sugar City and the Idaho Department of Transportation regarding the transportation systems within their jurisdiction. One of the key traffic generators in the County is Brigham Young University Idaho (BYU-I). Established in 1888 as Bannock Stake Academy, BYU-I has become one of the region’s premier higher eductation establishments. With a campus consisting of over 40 buildings spanning 430 acres, BYU-I serves students from over 80 countries worldwide. More than 28,000 students attend each year with over 20,000 (and growing) full-time students at any given time. 2 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table 1: Population Data Year Population 1970 13,579 1980 19,480 1990 23,823 2000 27,466 2010 37,596 2015 37,989 2021 52,913 2048 98,500 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Figure 1: Madison County Population Projections DATE 5700 E Franklin Rd,Suite 160Nampa, ID 83687(208) 463-4197 DRAWN Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend Idaho Madison County Madison County Transportation Master PlanMadison County Area Map Figure 2 $O:\!2014\IF-755-1404 City of Rexburg and Madison County TMP\Project Data\GIS\Horrocks\Mxd\Final Figure Maps\02 Madison County Area Map.mxd, 6/29/2015 8:50:07 AM, StevenL Figure 2: Madison County Area Map 4 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) contains an analysis of the existing transportation network and conditions. Any major deficiencies are itemized, and possible improvement or mitigation alternatives are discussed. An analysis of the future transportation network is also included for the horizon year 2048. Any deficiencies in the future transportation network that are expected to exist and would not be accommodated by projects that are currently planned will be discussed. A list of recommended improvements and projects will be given to aid in planning for future transportation projects within the County as well as working with other agencies such as ITD and neighboring Counties. This TMP is intended to be a useful tool to aid in planning and maintaining the overall transportation network within the County. Review of 2015 Transportation Master Plan The Madison County Transportation Plan was adopted in 2004 by the County and the Cities of Rexburg and Sugar City and was updated in 2015. Between 2015 and 2022, the Thorton Interchange and many of the smaller projects have been either completed or are underway for implementation in the near future. The interchange improvements at exits 332 and 333 are currently being designed and are scheduled for construction in 2024/2025. Over this time, the general growth within the County and around the City of Rexburg has shifted from a pattern of growth on the southwest of the City to a pattern of growth on the north and east of the City. While the location and rate of growth is ever changing, it is believed that many of the projects listed will yet be needed in the future. The priority, however, of these improvements has shifted since the 2015 update to follow the growth. The 2015 update gives the following priority to the major projects slated for beyond 2040: 1. Interchange Improvements o IC 333 Main Street (SH-33) o IC 332 University Blvd 2. Pole Line Rd. Overpass 3. Moody Rd. Overpass 4. 5th West Extension 5. East Parkway The recent growth to the north of Rexburg now brings more demand for the improvements on the north and east sides of the City. The following list gives the new priority of these projects based on this 2022 update to the master plan: 1. Interchange Improvements o IC 333 Main Street (SH-33)/US-20 DDI o IC 332 University Blvd/US-20 DDI 2. East Parkway Segment I (Segments II, III, IV and V should be integrated as growth requires) 5 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 3. 5th West Extension 4. Moody Overpass (US-20) 5. 7th South Overpass (US-20) 6. Pole line Rd Overpass (US-20) Note: Each of these improvements and the order of priority are based on the anticipated travel demand for the area. Frequent re-evaluations of model updates should be conducted before and during the planning and budgeting of these projects. There are areas of particular concern that should be assessed by the RPO as needed. Congestion and delays at the US-20 Interchanges. - There are proposed improvements and final plans being developed to convert the IC 33 Main Street (SH-33)/US-20 unsignalized diamond interchange as well as the IC 332 University Blvd/US-20 unsignalized diamond interchange in to more efficient Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI). Additionally, ITD is planning to implement signals at the existing IC 337 Salem Road/US-20 diamond interchange. Congestion on 2nd East and Main Street (SH-33). – These roadways are central to the City of Rexburg and Madison County community. A particular point of congestion is the single crossing of the Teton River. Implementation of additional crossings included with East Parkway Segment I and the 5th West extensions will provide additional crossing opportunities and will likely have significant impact on the travel patterns for many commuters. Friction (meaning approaches and intersections) should be closely monitored so as to facilitate efficient traffic flow across the Teton River. Residential development in rural Madison County. – As residential development grows in the rural Madison County areas west and north of the City of Rexburg will increase the trips crossing US-20. The current priority of US-20 overpass structures may need to be re-adjusted as the growth patterns develop. 6 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Existing Roadway Network A thorough documentation of the County’s existing conditions was performed in order to evaluate the transportation system and to address current and future needs in the area. The existing roadway network in Madison County is found in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The data collected for this TMP update include:  Key Roadway Traffic Volumes  Socioeconomic Conditions  Land Use and Zoning  Roadway Classifications/Widths/Cross Sections  Public Transit Routes  Bicycle/Pedestrian Trails This data forms the basis for analyzing the existing transportation system, as well as providing the foundation to project future traffic conditions. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions Socioeconomic data used in the transportation analysis was obtained from the City of Rexburg and Madison County. This data includes population, household size, zoning, land use, BYU-I plans, and economic development plans. Traffic analysis zones (TAZ) were originally established with the 2015 TMP update and the development of the travel demand model. With the recent census update and the planned and projected growth these TAZ numbers were updated for the update of the model. Both the City of Rexburg and the Madison County planning departments were instrumental in this TAZ update. Street System Streets provide for two distinct and very different functions: mobility and land access. Both functions are vital and no trip is made without both. In this TMP, street facilities are classified by the relative amounts of through and land-access service they provide. There are four primary classifications, with detailed descriptions in Table 2: Local Streets – Local facilities primarily serve land-access functions. Local street design and control facilitates the movement of vehicles onto and off the street system from land parcels. Through movement is difficult and is discouraged by both the design and control of this facility. Residential subdivision streets are an example of a local street. Collectors – Collector facilities, the “middle” classification, are intended to serve both through and land- access functions in relatively equal proportions. For long through trips, such facilities are usually inefficient, nevertheless they are frequently used for shorter through movements associated with the distribution and collection portion of trips. An example of a collector street is 2nd South. Arterials – Arterial facilities are provided to primarily serve through-traffic movement. While some land- access service may be accommodated, it is clearly a minor function. All traffic controls and the facility design are intended to provide efficient through movement. Main Street and 2nd East are Arterial Streets. 7 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Highways – These facilities are provided to service long distance trips between Cities and Counties, but do not have the limited access provided by freeways and expressways. US-20 is a highway. Roadway functional classification does not define the number of lanes required for each roadway. The number of lanes is a function of the expected traffic volume on the roadway and serves as the greatest measure of roadway capacity. Table 4 shows the number of lanes per street classification. Table 2: Street Functional Classification Characteristic Functional Classification Highway Arterial Collector Local Street Function Traffic movement Traffic movement, land access Collect and distribute traffic between streets and arterials, land access Land access Typical % of Surface Street System Mileage Not applicable 5-10% 10-20% 60-80% Continuity Continuous Continuous Continuous None Spacing 4 miles 1-2 miles ½-1 mile As needed Typical % of Surface Street System Vehicle- Miles Carried Not applicable 40-65% 10-20% 10-25% Direct Land Access None Limited: Major Generators Only Restricted: Some movements prohibited; number and spacing of driveways controlled Safety controls access Minimum Roadway Intersection Spacing See Access Management Section See Access Management Section See Access Management Section See Access Management Section Speed Limit 55-75 mph 40-50 mph in fully developed areas 30-40 mph 25 mph Parking Prohibited Discouraged Limited Allowed Comments Supplements capacity of arterial street system & provides high- speed mobility Backbone of Street System Provides link between Local and Arterial Network Through traffic should be discouraged 8 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Roadway Cross Sections Table 3 shows some general guidelines for each roadway type as described in the aforementioned tables. Similar classifications should be used by Sugar City and Madison County. More Typical sections should be added per the needs of each jurisdiction. For example, the City of Rexburg may need to add a typical section for a narrow residential street with parking on only one side of the street. Table 3: Roadway Functional Classification Characteristics CLASSIFICATION Right-of- Way Width (ft) Typical Section # Number of Vehicle Lanes Normal Residential Street 68 1 2 lanes + street parking on both sides Residential Street (Cul-de-sac & Very Low Traffic Volume) 68 2 2 lanes + street parking on both sides Residential Collector 79 3 3 lanes + street parking on both sides or 4 lanes with no parking Business & High-Density Residential Street 79 4 2 or 3 lanes + street parking on both sides Minor Arterial 100 5 5 lanes Minor Arterial with Bike Path 101 6 5 lanes + off street bike path Principal Arterial 118 7 7 lanes Principal Arterial with Bike path 125 8 7 lanes + off street bike path Rural Residential 2 (RR2) 68 9 2 lanes Minor Arterial 80 10 5 lanes Rural Residential 1 (RR1) 68 11 2 lanes Minor Arterial with Bike Path 90 12 5 lanes + off street bike path Freeway 2001 2 or 3 per direction 1. Based on ITD Guidelines and review of facilities in region. 9 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Preserving the correct amount of right-of-way early on in the planning process is necessary to be cost- effective and helps to avoid misplaced land development. Transportation network maps should be officially adopted as the legal foundation to preserving right-of-way. Engineering studies should be conducted in order to verify the alignment paths for proposed corridors before preserving right-of-way. After officially adopting a transportation map, right-of-way dedication, right-of-way or access rights purchase, easements, or interim use agreements can be used to preserve right-of-way. Right-of-Way preservation will be discussed in further detail later in this report. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the proposed functional classification of each of the roadways as defined by the city of Rexburg. Both figures show the same data, Figure 3, however, is zoomed in to the city to provide easier viewing. ITD also shows the functional classification of these streets on the IPLAN website (formerly ArcGIS Online). Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the functional classifications from IPLAN. Again, both figures show the same data, Figure 6, however, is zoomed in to the city to provide easier viewing as before. There are a few roadways that have been classified differently between the City of Rexburg and ITD. Figure 7 shows those roadways with different classifications and notes the discrepancies. The City of Rexburg and ITD should work together to consolidate the classification of these roads. Legend Future Roads Minor Collector Major Collector Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Local Roads Existing Roads Minor Collector Major Collector Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Highway, Freeway, or Expressway Local Roads City/County Limits Madison Rexburg Proposed Functional Class (City View) ¯ 0 11 Miles Current Extent Figure 3: Proposed Roadway Network Earthstar Geographics Legend Future Roads Minor Collector Major Collector Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Local Roads Existing Roads Minor Collector Major Collector Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Highway, Freeway, or Expressway Local Roads City/County Limits Madison Rexburg Proposed Functional Class (County View) ¯0 63 Miles Figure 4: Proposed Roadway Network Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan,METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, ITD ¯0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5Miles Date: 10/21/2022Idaho Transportation Department Figure 5: IPLAN Classification (County View) Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community, ITD ¯0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2Miles Date: 10/21/2022Idaho Transportation Department Figure 6: IPLAN Classification (City View) Whit e Owl R d E 7800 S W 3800 S S 9000 EW 9th N S 7000 EE 500 S E 2000 N E 1500 S E 2000 SN Salem HwyW 7800 S S 600 EN 9000 EW5000 S S 2000 W15 4 14 2 12 13 10 5 6 1 9 11 7 8 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90.5 Miles Madison Rexburg Roads with conflicting Functinal Class Existing Roads Comparing LHTAC and City FUNCLASS Layers 1 Minor Arterial Major Collector N Salem Hwy 2 Minor Arterial Major Collector W 9th N 3 Major Collector Minor Arterial Multiple (See Map) 4 Major Collector Local Road W 3800 S 5 Major Collector Minor Arterial S 3300 W 6 No Classification Minor Arterial W 5000 S 7 Major Collector Local Road W 5000 S 8 Minor Collector Local Road Multiple (See Map) 9 Major Collector Minor Arterial S 3000 W 10 No Classification Minor Arterial W 2600 S 11 Major Collector Minor Arterial S 2000 W 12 No Classification Minor Arterial University Blvd. 13 Major Collector Minor Arterial W 7th S 14 Major Collector Minor Arterial N 2000 W 15 Major Collector Minor Arterial N 2nd St W ReferenceNumber LHTAC_FUNCCLASS City_FUNCCLASS RoadName Figure 7: Classification Discrepancies 15 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Traffic Volumes and Level of Service An extensive data collection effort was performed in conjunction with the preparation of the TMP. This included TAZ data collected from the Cities, County, and ITD as well as new daily traffic counts and new turning movement counts. Travel volume data form the basis of the travel demand model calibration and serve to show any capacity deficiencies that may exist today. The daily counts are average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. This refers to a normal day (Tuesday-Thursday) where no special events, construction activity, or adverse weather may contribute to abnormal traffic conditions. Data for roadways where traffic counts were not collected were obtained through a custom-built Travel Demand Model. Using the existing traffic conditions based on the Travel Demand Model, existing count data, and roadway functional classification, the existing roadway capacity deficiency in the County can be measured using a measurement called Level of Service (LOS). The following sections describe the process of collecting/updating traffic volume data and calculating LOS. Traffic Volume Data Data was collected from the City, County, neighboring Counties, ITD, and new daily traffic counts were taken on many of the City and County roads. These volume data form the basis of the custom-built travel demand model calibration and show any capacity deficiencies that may exist today. 16 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a term defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to categorize the level of congestion on a roadway segment or intersection. LOS is measured using a letter grade A through F where A represents free flowing traffic with absolutely no congestion and F represents grid lock. In this TMP, LOS C is the accepted standard for the street network and intersections unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Roadway LOS is used as a planning tool to quantitatively represent the ability of a particular roadway to accommodate the travel demand. Figure 8 summarizes major roadway LOS conditions within the City. These values are based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) principles and regional experience. LOS C is approximately 70 percent of a roadway’s capacity and is a common goal for urban streets during peak hours. A standard LOS C for system streets (collectors and arterials) is acceptable for future planning. LOS C suggests that for most times of the day, the roadways will be operating well below capacity. The peak times of day will likely experience moderate congestion characterized by a higher vehicle density and slower free flowing speeds. Existing traffic volumes along with the parameters in Figure 8 were used to determine the LOS for each roadway segment in Madison County, as shown in Figure 9. ADT Range V/C Ratio ADT Range V/C Ratio ADT Range V/C Ratio ADT Range V/C Ratio ADT Range V/C Ratio ADT Range V/C Ratio Urban Collector Two Lanes < 4,725 4,726 -6,300 6,301 - 7,875 7,876 - 8,925 8,926 - 10,500 10,501 > Three Lanes < 5,850 5,851 - 7,800 7,801 - 9,750 9,751 - 11,050 11,051 - 13,000 13,001 > Four Lanes < 9,225 9,226 - 12,300 12,301 - 15,375 15,376 - 17,425 17,426 - 20,500 20,501 > Five Lanes < 11,250 11,251 - 15,000 15,001 - 18,750 18,751 - 21,250 21,251 - 25,000 25,001 > Minor Arterial Two Lanes < 5,625 5,626 - 7,500 7,501 - 9,375 9,376 - 10,625 10,626 - 12,500 12,501 > Three Lanes < 7,200 7,201 - 9,600 9,601 - 12,000 12,001 - 13,600 13,601 - 16,000 16,001 > Four Lanes < 11,700 11,701 - 15,600 15,601 - 19,500 19,501 - 22,100 22,101 - 26,000 26,001 > Five Lanes < 13,950 13,951 - 18,600 18,601 - 23,250 23,251 - 26,350 26,351 - 31,000 31,001 > Principal Arterial Two Lanes < 6,300 6,301 - 8,400 8,401 - 10,500 10,501 - 12,600 12,601 - 14,000 14,001 > Three Lanes < 8,325 8,326 - 11,100 11,101 - 13,875 13,876 - 16,650 16,651 - 18,500 18,501 > Four Lanes < 13,950 13,951 - 18,600 18,601 - 23,250 23,251 - 27,900 27,901 - 31,000 31,001 > Five Lanes < 16,650 16,651 - 22,200 22,201 - 27,750 27,751 - 33,300 33,301 - 37,000 37,001 > Six Lanes < 21,150 21,151 - 28,200 28,201 - 35,250 35,251 - 42,300 42,301 - 47,000 47,001 > Seven Lanes < 25,200 25,201 - 33,600 33,601 - 42,000 42,001 - 50,400 50,401 - 56,000 56,001 > Freeway Four Lanes < 29,050 29,051 - 45,650 45,651 - 58,100 58,101 - 74,700 74,701 - 83,000 83,001 > Six Lanes < 43,400 43,401 - 68,200 68, 201 - 86,800 86,801 - 111,600 111,601 - 124,000 124,001 > Legend Methodology to Compute Level of Service (LOS) Uncongested level of service A, B and C (when v/c ratio is between 0.60-0.70) are those corridors that generally operate in free-flow conditions, where a driver tends to be able to drive without undue delay except for when impeded by stop sign or traffic signals. During peak hours, some delay may be experienced at controlled intersections. Approaching moderate congestion level of service C is generally considered uncongested but due to heavier volumes congestion at the controlled intersections may approach those conditions similar to LOS D. A roadway that has a v/c ratio between 0.70 and 0.75 would fall into this category. Moderate congestion level of service D are those corridors where the driver can travel under free flow conditions during off peak hours, but moderate delays at the controlled intersections during peak hours are expected. Congested level of service E and F are those corridors where traffic volumes have reached or exceeded capacity and delays during the peak hour may be exessive. 1.00 > 1.00 > 1.00 > 1.00 > Level of Service (LOS) is computed by comparing the average daily traffic (ADT) volume with the estimated capacity of the roadway. The capacity is determined by a roadway's function and number of lanes and is identified as the upper limit volume of the LOS E ADT Range. For example a two-lane urban collector which has an ADT of 8,500 trips would be compared with the capacity of 10,500. The results would identify that the roadway operated at a LOS D falling within a range of 7,876 to 8,925 with a volume to capacity ratio (v/c ratio) of 0.81 (8,500/10,500 = 0.81). 0.75 - 0.85 0.75 - 0.85 0.75 - 0.90 0.70 - 0.90 0.85 - 1.00 0.85 - 1.00 0.90 - 1.00 0.90 - 1.00 0.45 - 0.60 0.45 - 0.60 0.45 - 0.60 0.35 - 0.55 0.60 - 0.75 0.60 - 0.75 0.60 - 0.75 0.55 - 0.70 < 0.45 < 0.45 < 0.35 < 0.45 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F *See BMPO 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix D * Figure 8: Level of Service 2nd East 2nd East US-20Ye l l o w s t o n e H w y Yel l o w s t o n e H w y Main St.Main St.Moody Rd.12th West*AWDT values are for reference onlyFigure 9: Existing Roadway Level of Service 19 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 The large majority of roadway segments in the County are operating better than LOS C. LOS D and E is experienced near the north Rexburg interchange. LOS C and D is experienced for travelers on Main Street between US-20 and 2nd West and also on 2nd East between Main Street and 4th North. This same area, as well as the area of 2nd East North of 4th North, does however experience excessive delays during the peak times of day due to failing intersections. Roadway segment LOS and intersection LOS differ in the way they are measured. Roadway segment LOS relates directly to the number of lanes in the segment and is determined by a volume/capacity ratio. Where the number of vehicles traveling on a roadway exceeds the number of vehicles that can be reasonably accommodated without undue speed reduction, the roadway is defined as LOS F. For intersections, LOS is related to the length of time the average vehicle will have to wait at a signal before being able to proceed through the intersection. Table 4 below shows level of service based on delay from Chapter 3 of the FHWA Traffic Signal Timing Manual. Table 4: Intersection Level of Service LOS Delay per Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 B 10-20 C 20-35 D 35-55 E 55-80 F > 80 Intersection and roadway segment LOS problems must be solved independently of each other as the treatment required to mitigate the congestion is different in each case. Roadway segment LOS can be mitigated with geometry improvements, additional lanes, two-way-left turn lanes, and access management. Intersection problems may be mitigated by adding turn lanes, improving signal timing, and improving corridor signal coordination. Signal timing is an operational improvement that should be evaluated frequently. Two areas of the County are currently operating over capacity. These areas are at the US-20 interchanges at Main Street and University Boulevard. Both interchanges are traditional diamond interchanges with unsignalized ramps. During the pm peak hours in particular, the westbound left turning lanes from Main Street onto 20 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Southbound US-20 experience severe congestion. This is a result of opposing eastbound traffic, which prevents the left turning vehicles from accessing the highway ramp. A similar situation occurs at University Boulevard during the peak times of the day and especially as the high school west of US-20 lets out or a special event such as graduation or a sporting event takes place. Again, the eastbound traffic flow does not create enough gaps for the left turning vehicles to access the freeway ramps. The east and west traffic also severely inhibits cars turning left off the ramps at both intersections. Both intersections are currently being redesigned as Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI) and will be discussed in further detail in this report. Signalizing the interchange ramps will mitigate the existing failures and allow for better access to the highway, especially during the peak times. Table 5 shows the LOS of the highway ramp intersections under the existing conditions during the pm peak hour and the expected LOS when the ramps are signalized. 21 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table 5: US-20 Intersection Level of Service Intersection Unsignalized Signalized Intersection LOS Intersection LOS US-20/Main Street (West) F B US-20/Main Street (East) B B US-20/University (West) F B US-20/University (East) B A Bridges In total there are 89 roadway bridges in Madison County. 32 of the existing bridges are owned by ITD, 46 by Madison County, 10 by the City of Rexburg and one by Sugar City. The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Database provides a methodology to determine the condition of roadway bridges based on the following conditions. A complete list of bridges within Madison County (other than ITD bridges) and their respective ratings can be found in the appendices. Condition Rating Bridge conditions are rated based on a scale of 1-10 for various factors. The four main factors which determine the condition are: deck, superstructure, substructure, and scour. A rating of 4 or less for the deck, superstructure, or substructure means the bridge is in poor condition. A scour rating of 4 or below means that the bridge already scour critical or that action is required to protect exposed foundations. Structural Evaluation Structural Evaluation is an appraisal rating that describes an overall rating of the condition of the bridge structure. This is a summary of the separately rated conditions of the structural components of a bridge. This is the most accurate measure according to the NBI for the structural fitness of a bridge. Status Functionally Obsolete Functionally Obsolete is a status used to describe a bridge that is no longer, by design, functionally adequate for its task. Reasons for this status include an insufficient number of lanes to accommodate the traffic flow, a drawbridge on a congested highway, or not enough space for emergency shoulders. Functionally Obsolete does not communicate any structural aspects. A Functionally Obsolete bridge may be perfectly safe and structurally sound but may contribute to traffic jams or not have a high enough clearance to allow an oversized vehicle to pass under the structure. Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient is a status used to describe a bridge that has one or more structural defects that require attention. This status does not indicate the severity of the defect, but rather that a defect is present. For further details please see the Structural Evaluation and the Condition ratings of each bridge Deck, Substructure, and Superstructure of the nature and severity of the defect(s). 22 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Condition Ratings: Deck A bridge deck is the supporting surface of the bridge. It may or may not be covered with a wear surface such as asphalt. The bridge deck is often steel-reinforced concrete and is supported by the Superstructure. Superstructure The bridge Superstructure includes the structural elements that support the bridge deck. These may include steel beams, a concrete frame or culvert, steel cables and a floor beam system as used in a suspension bridge, or a steel truss. Substructure The bridge Substructure is essentially the bridge's foundation supporting the Superstructure. This includes abutments and piers. Existing Bridge Conditions Of the 89 bridges in Madison County, two are functionally obsolete, five are structurally deficient, and three are eligible for federal aid funding with a condition rating of 4 or less. Table 6 summarizes the condition of the existing bridges in Madison County. See the appendix for a complete list of bridges in Madison county. The State of Idaho conforms to the national standards for bridge ratings and evaluations. Within this standard a bridge is defined as a structure that spans a distance greater than 20 feet. By this definition, any structure that spans less than 20 feet is considered a culvert. Those structures that are considered culverts are not inspected and monitored as closely as those that are considered bridges. Consequently, an accurate inventory of the condition of the culverts is not often recorded. The culvert near the intersection of 2000 W and 3000 N is high on the priority list for Madison County crews. It will likely be a full replacement with a three-sided stiff- leg box culvert. Additionally, improvements to the bridge over the Warm Slough is also required. Improvements may include a full replacement but should include guardrail upgrades as a minimum. Culvert near int. of 2000W and 3000N 23 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table 6: Summary of Bridges in Madison County Jurisdiction Functionally Obsolete Structurally Deficient Federal Aid Eligible Other Total ITD 1 1 0 - 32 Madison County 0 3 2 Twin Bridges in Need of Channel Correction 46 City of Rexburg 0 1 1 - 10 Sugar City 1 0 0 - 1 Airport The Rexburg-Madison County Airport is located in Rexburg. It is jointly owned and operated by the City of Rexburg and Madison County. It serves primarily private and agricultural aircraft. The majority of the use comes from private planes that have private hangars located on site. There is a single asphalt runway approximately 75 feet in width and 4,200 feet in length. A full-length taxiway with several smaller taxiways provide access to the general aviation hangars and facilities. The City and County have continued to look toward the future by working in committees to discuss the future needs of the airport. As growth occurs, the potential for a greater air service need in Rexburg will grow. The airport configuration in Rexburg is currently landlocked and the ability to grow and expand is limited. Committees have discussed alternatives for possible relocation and expansion. Airport consulting experts have been consulted and a feasibility study for moving the airport has been completed and submitted to FAA for review and approval, however there are no defined plans at this time. Results from this study should be reviewed in conjunction with this report. Rail The 52 mile long Yellowstone Branch of the Eastern Idaho Railroad (EIRR) passes through Madison County between Idaho Falls and Ashton. The railroad runs parallel to the Old Yellowstone Highway and follows the general path similar to US 20. The Eastern Idaho Railroad started running as a collection of two disconnected clusters of the former Union Pacific branches. EIRR is owned by Watco Inc. and moves more than 35,000 carloads per year to the Union Pacific with interchanges at Idaho Falls on the northern segment and Minidoka on the Southern segment. Railcars currently operate Monday through Friday twice per day (one north and one south). 24 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Future Conditions Future traffic patterns and the resulting operating conditions of a roadway network are directly related to land use planning and socioeconomic conditions. Socioeconomic data were gathered from the Cities, the County, BYU-I and other stakeholders in the area to ensure the best available data were used. Future Socioeconomic Conditions The majority of the projected socioeconomic data used in this study comes from the City and County economic development group. This data was supplemented and verified using the data provided by the City and County in the form of the adopted Land Use Plan (see Figure 10). The information given is considered the best available for predicting future travel demand. However, land use planning is a dynamic process and the assumptions made in this report should be used as a guide and should not supersede other planning efforts particularly when it comes to localized intersections and roadways. Transportation planning in the region should be a cooperative effort of state and local agencies. One of the purposes of the RPO is to coordinate this transportation planning process in Madison County. Future Land Use In the Land Use Plan, the County has sites planned for agriculture, commercial, industrial, town sites, master planned communities as well as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, and Idaho Department of Lands. Figure 11 shows the latest Land Use Designation Map (updated Jan 26, 2021) for Madison County. The most current version can be found at https://www.rexburg.org/gis/page/printable-pdf-maps. Moody Burton Sunnydell Plano Targhee National Forest Teton Archer Thornton Lyman Jefferson County Salem Sugar City Jefferson County Fremont County Bonneville County Teton County Teton County Rexburg Newdale Hibbard F r emont County Ca ny o n C reek Canal N M o o dy C r eekMoody Cr e e kHenry's ForkSnake River Moody CreekT e t o n Riv e r Cany o n Creek Lyon Cr e e kW a r m Cr eekSouth Fork Teto n R iv erLo n g H ol low Cres s Cre ekR 38 E R 42 E R 43 E T 07 N R 39 E R 40 E R 41 E T 06 N T 05 N T 04 N W Hwy 33 W 7000 N W 5000 N E 2000 S E 5000 S E 8000 S E 2000 N W 3800 S E 10000 S N 6000 EN 11000 EN 15000 EEas t Butte RdW 3000 N Forest 2 1 8 R dFore s t 2 18 RdS Canyon Creek RdE White Ow l RdM u d Spr i n g s Rd S Sna k e River R d E Hwy 3 3 S 5600 ES 3000 EN 6000 WS 1100 EUS Highway 20S 2000 WS 600 ES 2600 ES 5000 W0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles * * * * * The Sensitive Lands Overlay includes a 200-foot buffer from all streams, rivers, and waterways as illustrated on the Madison County Land Use Designation Map. In addition, the Overlay applies to areas of steep slope, heavy vegetation, critical wildlife habitat, floodplain and riparian areas, wetlands, and other sensitive lands not graphically illustrated on the Map. These areas will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and added to the Map as they are geographically identified. * * * * * Updated: January 26, 2021 Adopted: December 15, 2008 The information contained in this map is for reference purposes only. Madison County and the City of Rexburg cannot be held responsible for misuse of the data. Madison County Comprehensive Plan for Land Use Designation Madison County Comprehensive Plan for Land Use Designation Ag Land Rural Cluster Retail Industrial Townsite Federal Land State Land Sensitive Lands Overlay Ag / Rec Overlay Rexburg Sugar City Impact Area Highway Public Road Private Road Alley US Forest Service Idaho Fish & Game Service Road Figure 7: Madison County Land Use Plan Figure 10: Madison County Land Use Plan Parkinson Cany o n Creek Can al Moody N M o o d y C re e kMoody C r eek Burton Walker Herbert Sunnydell Webster Butte Plano Hinckley Targhee National Forest Teton Dam Teton Menan Buttes Twin Bridges ParkHenry's ForkBeaver Dick Park Archer Dalby Byrne Thornton Summers Butte S nake River Moody CreekLyman Jensen Jefferson County Salem Sugar City Jefferson County Fremont County T e t on Riv e r C anyon C reek Ly o n C r e e k W a r m CreekBonneville County Teton County Teton County South Fork Teto n R iverRexburg Independence Bear World Table Rock Campground Prospect Peak Kelly Canyon Heise Newdale Canyon Creek ButteRPD RangePublic RangeMCSO RangeBitter's Butte White Owl Butte Moo dy M e a d o w s Clement Corral Lo n g H ollow Bybee Dugwa y 2 Miles to Menan Moody Swamp Bowans Cabin (Warminghut) Lorenzo Bridge Squires Dugway Cellars Luthy Corral Cress C re ekRocky Hollow Fish e r s Past u r e Windy Ridge MuskratRoost Woods Cross Hibbard Neeley Res F r e mont Count y CellarsKirkham Hollow Bear Creek Danny Su m m e r s Spud Ce l l a r s Snowmo b i l e T r a i l H e a d CorralsGreen Canyon Hot Springs Relay Ridge LDS Campground Dry Farm s Elbow Pocock Corner Lloyd's Store Big Judd's Rexburg Cemetery Burton Cemetery Sugar City Cemetery Teton-Newdale Cemetery Sutton Cemetery Plano Cemetery White Pine St W 4313 N W 4407 N W 4217 N Lombardy St Red Cedar RdN 3102 WCody St N 500 EWisteria St Woodland DrO u t la w P a s sCrossdr aw TrlOutlaw PassRidge Run RdC r o ss d ra w L o opRustle r's Tr lRustler's TrlHa n g ma n's L o o pW 4294 N Cedar C oveDriftwood Dr Sequoia Ct Redwood CtRiver Rock DrE 3500 N N 125 ECresce nt DrHickory C tWarm Sl ough RdHartcrest Ln W Highway 33 E 1500 S S 3000 WS 5000 WE 2000 S S 4100 EW 5000 N E 11000 S E Highway 33 E 7000 S W 6000 N N 16200 EE 1000 N Mud Springs RdN 5500 WS 3000 ES M i l lho l low RdEast Butte RdRattlesnake RdS 700 0 WS 6000 WW 2700 S W 4000 S S 6100 WTwin Butte Rd Desert Rock Dr S 4000 WW 2000 S Wagon Tr a il Rd Cotto n wood D r W 1000 S N 2000 WLake Lorene DrH irschi Loop Haven Loop Diamond H Ln Little Town DrHendricks Cir Ferris Ln Robison Dr Sunrise StMcJon Ln W 3400 S S 1371 WS 700 WS 2935 WW 6960 S Garden Gate RdB a r n ey D a iry Rd Partrid ge Ln E 8th NRussell RdE 9th NN 9th EN 16th EE Peterson Ln E Stoddard Ln S 7th EE 2513 N S 6000 E S 7000 EFore st R d 2 17 F o rest Rd 2 18Browns RdM u d Springs Rd N 13500 EW ar m Cre ek Rd W ri ght Creek RdN 19000 EE Highway 33N 15000 EN 3701 WN 4000 WM ou ntain V iew Dr W 1000 NN 2582 WN 2700 WW 14th NN 35 7 5 WW 4 0 00 N N 3000 WN 3441 WWalker S id ing RdS 1700 ES 3800 ES 600 ES 5600 ES 6000 EE 9000 S S 6200 ES 5600 ES 8000 EW 8000 SN 5817 WE 10000 SS 2810 WS 5500 WN 11000 EE 3375 N E 5000 N E 5400 S W 440 S W 6000 SS 3100 WTimberline RdS 1650 WW 5500 S E 8750 SN 375 EN 740 WS 2750 WN 12250 EW 3500 N Heritage RdS 2600 EW 6450 S E 5000 N N 6000 ES 3300 WOrrin Ln W 4000 N E 7000 SN 4458 WW 4650 N E 3000 N Pine Tree Rd E Moody Rd S 3450 W W 2870 S S Heise Rd W 4950 S S 1100 ES 10000 WN 17500 EParadiseAveCameron LnBaseline RdN 4000 WW 7800 S E 500 N E 3625 N W 2000 N W 3200 S S 400 WS 1400 WJuniper AveE 3749 N W 3800 S E 2000 N N 13750 EE 6000 SN 5200 WW 3000 S W 7000 S Homestead St S 5500 WW 4000 N S 6000 WS 3926 WN 2190 EW 3000 N S 4300 WN 1000 WW 4000 N W 3800 S E 3250 N S 3818 WE 7800 S W 5000 N W 4200 N W 5350 S W Moody Rd W 4557 N W 5000 S N 125 EBluegrass LnW 4500 N Cedar Butte RdE 5000 S Browns RdS 5700 WE 5750 N S 550 WE Poleline RdW Poleline Rd E 3375 N E 2000 S S 1700 ES 400 WFrontage StHansen Ln Jud StW 9000 S S 200 EW 4200 S S 16200 EE 8000 SN 5000 WE 8200 S E 3500 S N 7000 EMolly DrE 750 N W 8200 S W 7200 SS 3300 WS 3421 WN 5631 WW 2600 S W 6200 S E 5000 N Spring Creek Dr W 6300 S E 3750 N S 1800 WN 12000 EN 3000 WW 2250 N W 7600 SN 6000 WT w in B u tte Rd N 6000 WW 3000 N W 7000 N N 3000 EW 5500 S N 9000 ES 2140 WW 3200 S E 4000 N N 5725 WW 3200 S N 5000 ES 2785 WE 500 N Porter Ln N 18000 EN 375 WE 500 S E 10000 S E 4000 N N 8000 ES 15000 EW 5200 S S 2626 WSagebrush Ave W 4300 S S 200 WW 6800 S S Fo rk Ci rN 250 EIsland St Country RdE 2278 SClements LnS 5000 ES 4413 WE 9000 S W 5000 S W 4700 S W 5200 S Cottonwood LnHoneysuckle St Cobblestone AveCricket StRiver RunN 250 ES 6252 WE 2618 N N Cany on Creek RdBaseline Rd Pony Creek Rd S Canyon Cre ek RdE Whit e Owl RdWal ker Si d i ng RdS Snak e R i ver Rd W 3600 S S Highway 191W 6200 S Ruby St Ross StS 7067 W S Butte R d Taylor Ln W Moran View RdN 3839 WN 5th WJeppese n RdMud Springs RdWhite Owl RdE 3 6 36 S W Wh it e Owl Rd E 4 5 00 SLong H oll ow Rd E Long Hollow Rd W L o ng Hollo w R dE Long Hollow RdS 8150 EE 2278 S Mud Spri n gs RdDoug Killi an Rd F orest Rd 258F or e st R d 222 Fo r est Rd 25625 1 R dF ore s t F ore st Rd 256Graham Holl ow RdForest Rd 232Forest Rd 40323 2 AFish Cr e ek Loop S Mood y RdW Long Hollow RdFore st Rd 218343 K i rkham Hollow R d G r over B r ow nin g RdCrapo R dFo r e st R d 2 1 8 Fo r est Rd 651 Fo r e st Rd 2 13 For est Rd 3 42Forest Rd 2 1 8 F orest R d 31 8F o rest Rd 318 F orest Rd 885Fo re st R d 88 6Fo re s t Rd 887 Fo rest Rd 8 81 Ly ons C reek Rd L yon s C re e k R dGrant Bowen RdBro w n s Rd E 103 0 0 SE 10900 S S 5600 EE 1 2 00 0 S S 4200 ES Heis e RdE H e i s e R d E Kell y Canyon R d E 960 0 SLexington AveR 38 E R 42 E R 43 E T 07 N R 39 E R 40 E R 41 E T 06 N T 05 N T 04 N Updated: January 26, 2021 Madison County ZoningMadison County Zoning The information contained in this map is for reference purposes only. Madison County and the City of Rexburg cannot be held responsible for misuse of the data.0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles Agriculture Transitional Agriculture Commercial Industrial-Light Industrial-Heavy Residential Bureau of Land Management US Forest Service Idaho Department of Lands Ag / Rec Overlay Sensitive Lands Overlay Highway Public Road Private Road USFS Road Railroad City Limit Impact Area Figure 11: Madison County City General Plan Map 27 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Travel Model Development One of the primary outcomes of the Transportation Master Plan was to develop a regional Travel Demand Model for the entire County. This model is intended to be a living model in that it can be run and maintained to project future travel demand for years to come. There are several travel demand modeling software packages available on the market, but the model chosen for Madison County was TransCAD. A travel demand model was developed in 2015 that is compatible with the surrounding jurisdictions, including Bonneville County and the BMPO. This model has been updated for this study. The input data came from observed traffic counts, trip lengths and types from the BMPO and BTPO, socioeconomic information from the City of Rexburg and Madison County Community Development Department as well as information from the US census, and BYU-I. The model was calibrated to existing roadway conditions and a root mean squared error calculated. Typically, an acceptable calibration yields an RMSE error less than 40%. The Madison County model RMSE was less than 30% in the existing conditions. Once this calibration was achieved, several model alternatives were processed to get an idea for the traffic conditions that can be expected in the future and then determine the best solutions to solve any potential deficiencies in the roadway network. No- build and build scenarios were developed for the design year 2048. No Build Network A no-build scenario is intended to show what the roadway network would be like in the future if no action was taken to improve the County roadway network. Typically, the no-build scenario acts as a guide for roadway capacity inefficiencies that will need to be improved for each planning year. Future Roadway Network The goal of the TMP is to provide a transportation network which will provide as much relief as possible from the predicted congestion in 2048. To accomplish this, several roadway improvement projects will need to take place. The following improvements are recommended (in order of priority) and are discussed in further detail in this report: 1. Interchange Improvements (currently under design) o IC 333 Main Street (SH-33)/US-20 DDI o IC 332 University Blvd/US-20 DDI 2. East Parkway · Key #23330 (Barney Dairy Rd to 7th North) 3. 5th West Extension 4. Moody Overpass (US-20) 5. 7th South Overpass (US-20) 6. Poleline Rd Overpass (US-20) 2048 Conditions With a projected population of 98,500 in 2048, there is significant growth expected in Madison County. Much of this growth is expected in the north and east areas of Rexburg. This new growth will cause volumes on the major roadways in the City to increase and in some cases exceed the allowed capacity. 28 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 2048 No Build Figure 12 shows the projected traffic volumes and LOS on the Madison County roadways if no roadway improvements are made before the year 2048. Projected Deficiencies With no roadway improvements, several areas of the City of Rexburg are likely to experience failing conditions in 2048. Main Street from 12th West to 5th West and University Blvd. from 12th West to 5th West are expected to reach a failing condition. 2nd East from Main Street to 7th North and some portions of 2nd East from Moody Rd. to 3000 North are also expected to reach a failing condition. Sections of 7th South, 2nd South and many other road segments are expected to reach a LOS D, E, and F. Solutions to Projected Problems Areas which are experiencing LOS C should be monitored regularly as they push the limits of acceptability and care should be taken that travel demands do not exceed the roadway capacity. The following paragraphs describe the solutions proposed to mitigate the projected traffic congestion in 2048, as graphically represented in Figure 13. US-20 Interchanges As previously discussed, the two main interchanges of US-20 in Rexburg, Main Street and University Boulevard, will see great increases in traffic volume over the next 25 years. This increase in traffic will unlikely be handled by the traditional diamond interchange configurations that currently exist, even with signalized on and off ramps. Both of these intersections are currently being redesigned as Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI). The new DDI design provides a dedicated “crossover” lane to facilitate better left-turn movements instead of waiting for oncoming traffic to stop. It also reduced the number of conflict points and opportunities for head-on collisions. Both of the interchanges will also have multiple traffic signals, including signals at the northbound and southbound exit ramps and also at the left-turn “crossover” locations. The DDI design will reduce the delay time at the University Blvd interchange from 319.3 seconds to 44.3 seconds, and 255.5 seconds to 49.7 seconds at the Main Street interchange. Construction of the new interchanges are slated for construction in 2024/2025. East Parkway East Parkway has been studied extensively over the past few years as an essential regional transportation project. The timing of East Parkway will depend solely on development along its proposed route. As an alternative to Main Street and 2nd East traffic, East Parkway does not completely solve congestion problems along 2nd East but provides an additional route connecting the south end of town with Sugar City. As development occurs to the east of Rexburg, this arterial facility will be needed to connect the growing development to US-20. The full East Parkway Corridor study is provided as an appendix to this report for reference. 5th West Extension The 5th West extension project from Main Street to Moody Road has been on the planning radar for a number of years and was explored as an option to help alleviate traffic in 2nd East. Travel demand modeling results indicated that this project would not have a significant effect on 2nd East traffic to be a viable solution to that problem. It is, however, very likely that a collector type roadway which includes an 29 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 additional bridge over the Teton River will be needed to connect Main Street to Moody Road on the west side of town as development occurs close to US-20. This project will provide relief to 2nd East projected congestion during peak times as well as special events. It will also serve to provide needed connections on the north side of town as future development increases. The timing of the need for this project will depend largely on development on the north and west sides of town. Moody Overpass (2000 North and US-20) The 2000 North/Moody Road crossing would connect the east and west sides of US-20 on the north end of Rexburg with a two or three-lane overpass. This will allow residents of existing communities northwest of Rexburg to access the commercial hubs in town without using US-20 and the interchanges. This area is currently experiencing a large amount of growth. This new crossing will connect to the proposed 5th West extension and provide efficient north-south access as well. 7th South Overpass 7th South currently consists of dead ends on both sides of US-20. The road is therefore a good candidate for a crossing between University Boulevard and Main Street. There is a great deal of development expected west of US-20 in this area of town around the high school. A 7th South crossing will also allow travelers access to local facilities without the need to go through the interchanges. There may need to be some widening of 7th South to accommodate left-turning traffic. Improvements in the 7th South area near the railroad crossing and the Yellowstone Highway are currently under construction. Poleline Rd. Overpass (2000 South and US-20) Growth in the rural areas south and west of Rexburg is anticipated both as planned and potential improvements. Improvements to the US-20 frontage roads on the east and west sides will encourage and facilitate more commercial and residential growth. Traffic is expected to increase due to these developments. As the county sponsored West Frontage Road and East Frontage Road projects are implemented, the effects on traffic patterns should be re-evaluated. Construction of an overpass at or near 2000 South/Poleline Road should be anticipated to be in the future of the area for facilitating the crossing of US-20. Additionally, 2000 South/Poleline Road is south of University Boulevard and is a popular road for cyclists. Providing a crossing in this location will encourage cyclists as well as passenger car vehicles on the south end of Rexburg to avoid the University Boulevard interchange. 2048 No Build AWDT0 1,000 2,000 3,000Feet12/03/21PM V/C Ratios0.0 to 0.70.7 to 0.80.8 to 0.90.9 to 1.01.0 to 999Greater than 1.0Flow2000 1000 500Flow©2013 HERE14423,56424,03023,03 11,908,5034,11419,909 904 2,023 9011,85827,579 3,1323,98806,7234,18313,56016,71627,749 33,548 37 781 1,51689 1,3 316,4806,604 2,953 4,3474,673 1342,256 135133279 34,9208 1,157 2,538 3,073 16,3574,47622,9701933,028 1,7462,4731,0222,1566,1371 ,037 12,0903,146 30,05423432,4454,01433,6023,975 3,12827,9032,180 ,7934,40028,8582,02629,28527,8542,959544 266879 46320,919499 2,0831,6361701,9902,5991,780 3851,1533,5021,1591,072 137 1,2028241,65998 1,7847,2749,3219,219 3,469 2,095 9377,00816,6561,064,41678604,442941 4,60123,9621,2832,0146,1127,577 853 8,2197,6832,917 3638723,539301,3421,942 2,91623,2263,377 8,5393,710 7,7723,4721,561262779,389,460735349 13,512 408,76613,480715 13,552 460 3,778528 5,468 5,5812,927 8,8715,1331,42838,141 4,36734712,2485,26828612,0845,25537813 1,18711,1841,765 3,17010,9193,321 1,288 7,8242,073 37,5291,9591,2176,293382215348153 1,4846,59932,346 306 139 10,0151,7515,285739 510 38,217 4,1824,56836,182 2,502 2,6286,7 843 4,8329,9142048 No Build AWDT0 1,000 2,000 3,000Feet12/03/21PM V/C Ratios0.0 to 0.70.7 to 0.80.8 to 0.90.9 to 1.01.0 to 999Greater than 1.0Flow2000 1000 500Flow1,50832,18331,36513,57411,8013 1,601111,804 2,39111,83314,95311,6082,5551,7751,1734921,2484,0593,537 70070727 70129,92617,12716,72918,1515 918 29,00921,69531,066,1409,2015,39,8762nd East2nd EastUS-20Yellowstone HwyYellowstone HwyUniversity Blvd.1000 SouthMain St.Main St.Moody Rd.12th West*AWDT values are for reference only*AWDT values are for reference onlyFigure 12: Projected 2048 No-Build Level of Service 2048 AWDT - Combined Scenarios0 1,500 3,000 4,500Feet12/03/21PM V/C Ratios0.0 to 0.70.7 to 0.80.8 to 0.90.9 to 1.01.0 to 999Greater than 1.0Flow2000 1000 500Flow©2013 HERE21,95822,48422,122 11,2277,8923,67518,749 687 1,806 8771,40527,261 3,4522,9064476,2793,95211,45618,23527,218 31,313 3 630 1,5158 1 15,8585,559 2,220 3,8824,323 4081,655 914113241,352 7 0 0 1,6271,212 2,647 1,915 15,0062,92321,3153952,276 1,4852,4109862,0515,8989 98 9,6783,796 26,94728,8184 4,041 22,73525,8062,161 1,7244,30826,4131,88726,7793,17325,7532,507563 3071,270 40320,104478 1,9758341281,9361,261 2,8392,095 2791,179 3051,2531,9671,2971,121 132 1,6405657948577165 1,7847,7027,4697,321 3,041 1,970 9356,40915,9068893,5366664,410828 4,426 2,90222,3711,2761,8055,7287,174 1,173 7,9347,3482,708 4278721,846301,3092,262 2,63021,7493,311 7,5233,493 7,1473,0431,1262607245,1101,45111 747361 1,240 12,916 508,15912,888711 12,940 438 3,326507 4,401 4,5232,209 7,0003,28691735,340 4,0513239,8883,8202589,5753,78032740 1,2668,376742 3,5068,0953,321 1,389 6,6831,035 34,4891,9509743,38222420730179 1,3403,73731,290 356 138 8,3181,8573,464698 549 35,584 4,2824,86133,705 1,848 1,9683, 660 4,7249,5345,78231,23330,31914,5823,113,8090 2 7 2,47712,930 1,94714,84715,42511,2121,5241,85312,5316794761,1704,5284,373 14,85211,755521 ,3 2 1,060 10,05622,65917,78917,95818,665778 1,027 21,63214,87423,9101,2519,38310,5586 4,6912048 AWDT - Combined Scenarios0 1,500 3,000 4,500Feet12/03/21PM V/C Ratios0.0 to 0.70.7 to 0.80.8 to 0.90.9 to 1.01.0 to 999Greater than 1.0Flow2000 1000 500Flow2nd East2nd EastUS-20Yellowstone HwyYellowstone HwyUniversity Blvd.1000 SouthMain St.Main St.East ParkwayMoody Rd.12th West*AWDT values are for reference only*AWDT values are for reference onlyFigure 13: 2048 Solutions to Problems 32 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Intersection Improvements Any type of potential intersection improvement, including additional turn lanes on existing roadways, traffic signals, roundabouts, and geometrical improvements should be considered. The City and County must approve the recommended improvements on streets prior to creating any specific improvements. This plan indicates the places where intersection improvements may be made but does not specify the type of improvement. Multiple options will likely be feasible at each location and each location should be studied and analyzed individually. Right-of-way requirements and widening will depend on the type of treatment selected for each intersection. As a part of this TMP, all types of intersection improvements, such as traffic signals, roundabouts, and stop-controlled intersections will be discussed. In 2015, several intersections were analyzed based on existing pm peak hour traffic counts and were modeled to determine the current operating level of service. The same intersections were studied under a projected future scenario to determine any future likelihood for deficiencies. Again, the pm peak hour was used for analysis and the measure of performance was level of service. Table 7 shows the results of the intersection analysis and identifies several intersections that should be monitored in the future as candidates for improvements. The Appendix contains a more detailed report from this study. Table 7: Intersection Analysis Major Street Minor Street Control Type 2048 Mitigation 2nd East Moody Road SIGNAL Realign Yellowstone Highway Moody Road STOP Signalize/realign East side 2nd East Yellowstone Highway SIGNAL 2nd East Teton River Village SIGNAL Signal Timing 2nd East Valley River Drive STOP 2nd West 1st North STOP Main Street US-20 West Ramp STOP New Interchange/signal Main Street US-20 East Ramp STOP New Interchange Main Street 12th West SIGNAL Dual Left Turns 2nd South 1st West SIGNAL 4th South 5th West STOP Restrict left turns Yellowstone Highway Trejo Street STOP 7th South 5th West STOP Roundabout or Signal 33 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Major Street Minor Street Control Type 2048 Mitigation University Boulevard 12th West STOP (SIGNAL PLANNED FALL 2022) Signalize University Boulevard US-20 West Ramp STOP New Interchange/signal University Boulevard US-20 East Ramp STOP New Interchange University Boulevard 5th West STOP 2nd East Old Walmart Main Entrance STOP (SIGNAL HAS BEEN REMOVED) Main Street 5th West SIGNAL 2nd East 2nd South STOP Signal 7th South 2nd West SIGNAL 2nd East 7th North SIGNAL Realign Ensuring safe and efficient operation of signalized intersections will become increasingly important along the 2nd East roadway. In order to maximize the vehicle roadway capacity to serve the growing demand for travel, it is imperative that traffic signal timing and traffic progression be monitored as growth occurs. Appropriate signal spacing is needed to preserve efficient traffic flow and progression on the urban roadways. The signal at Mountain River was recently removed to improve progression. The City of Rexburg and ITD should closely monitor the effects of the signal removal and adjust as needed. Additionally, the intersections of 3rd N and 4th N are very close together. Aligning the two intersections may not be possible with the current development. If in the future it becomes necessary to signalize one of these intersections to accommodate side-street traffic, the City of Rexburg and ITD should consider the impacts of signal timing and traffic progression. Interconnecting signals to ensure that the signal clocks remain in synch and do not drift will help to maintain traffic flow. Traffic Signals as Intersection Improvements Traffic signals may be warranted at the intersection of any two roadways depending upon the signal warrants outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The design of the traffic signal depends primarily on the amount of traffic passing through the intersection during the peak times of day. Design parameters that are essential to a well-designed signalized intersection include lane configuration, turn radii, turn pocket lengths and taper lengths. Each of these parameters are a function of the road classification, peak hour volume, and design speed. The following section discusses the guidelines for installing new traffic signals. 34 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Traffic Signal Warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices The need for new traffic signals will be based on warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and any additional warrants established by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Traffic progression is important in determining the location of a new signal. Generally, a minimum spacing of one-half mile for all signalized intersections should be maintained. The one-half mile spacing is usually desirable to achieve decent speed, capacity, and optimum signal progression. The one-half mile signal spacing standard may be relaxed on lower volume collector streets where an engineering study shows traffic progression can be maintained. The signal cycle split assumptions must consider pedestrian movements and clearance. To provide flexibility for existing conditions and to ensure optimum two-way signal progression, an approved traffic engineering analysis must be made to properly locate all proposed access points that may require signalization. The section of roadway to be analyzed for signal progression will be determined by the City and will include all existing and future signalized intersections. ITD is currently analyzing intersections along SH-33. A traffic control signal should only be installed if and when the warrant criteria outlined in Chapter 4C of the MUTCD are met. It is possible to predict where traffic control signals may be warranted in the future based on projected traffic volumes and roadway functional classifications. A traffic control signal may be warranted at intersections containing at least one arterial and one collector street. They are rarely warranted where two collector streets meet and almost never warranted where local streets connect. Traffic signals are typically not warranted when other traffic control devices such as modern roundabouts are recommended. Signal Timing One method that will need to be maintained regularly is traffic signal timing. As traffic volumes continue to increase, the signal timing can be improved to optimize the performance of the traffic signal. Since many of the signals in the area are ITD owned and operated, coordination with ITD is essential to assure that all traffic signal timing is updated regularly to maintain adequate traffic flow. Queuing Analysis A 95th percentile (using Poisson’s distribution) queue length will be used as the basis of storage length design and verification of the adequacy of existing storage lengths. Alternative methodologies, such as the Synchro 95th percentile length calculations may be used with City approval. At signalized intersections, a background cycle length of 120 seconds will be assumed. Green times for specific movements will be based on the movement’s proportion of the critical lane volume, subject to phase minimums. Minimum green times will be assumed to be 10 seconds for through movements and 4 seconds for left turns. Yellow change and red clearance intervals will be assumed to be 3 seconds and 1 second, respectively, for left turn movements and 4 seconds and 1 second, respectively, for through movements. For lane groups that have multiple lanes, a lane utilization factor, in accordance with the HCM methodology, shall be applied to the calculation of queue lengths. Deceleration Lanes for Right Turning Vehicles A right turn deceleration lane is required when any one or more of the following criteria is met:  Where the design hour volume of the right turn into the access is more than five and the outside lane volume exceeds 250 on 45 to 55 mph roadways, 400 on 35 to 40 mph roadways, or 600 on a 35 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 25 to 30 mph roadway, a right turn lane may be required due to high traffic volumes or other unique site specific safety considerations.  When the access volume meets or exceeds 25 design hour volume for roadways with speeds of 25 to 40 mph or 20 design hour volume for roadways with speeds in excess of 40 mph, a right turn deceleration lane will be required. Roundabouts as Intersection Improvements According to FHWA, many international studies have found that one of the most significant benefits of a roundabout installation is the improvement in overall safety performance. Specifically in the United States, it has been found that single-lane roundabouts are safer for drivers than two-way stop-controlled intersections. The frequency of crashes might not always be lowered at roundabouts, but the injury rates and severity of crashes are reduced. On a planning level, it can be assumed that roundabouts will provide higher capacity and lower delays than all-way stop control, but less than two-way stop control if the minor movements are not experiencing operational problems. A single-lane roundabout may be assumed to operate within its capacity at any intersection that does not exceed peak-hour volumes warranted for signals. A roundabout that operates within its capacity will generally produce lower delays than a signalized intersection operating with the same traffic volumes and right-of-way limitations. Mini-roundabouts are a type of roundabout characterized by a small diameter and traversable islands (central island and splitter islands). Mini-roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. As with roundabouts, mini-roundabouts are a type of intersection rather than merely a traffic calming measure, although they may produce some traffic calming effects. According to the published Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) technical summary (FHWA-SA-10-007), there are three applications for mini roundabouts:  Space Constrained locations with reasonable approach speeds (30 mph or less): Since mini-roundabouts require less space than larger roundabouts, they may be a solution when a larger roundabout does not fit, provided that incoming speeds are reasonable  Residential environments: Mini-roundabouts offer a low-speed, low-noise intersection option that requires little ongoing maintenance  Intersections with high delay: A mini-roundabout can be an ideal application to reduce delay at stop-controlled intersections that do not meet signal warrants (Reference: “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067). Stop-Control as Intersection Improvements Wherever possible the City is encouraged to use roundabouts to control traffic on low to medium volume roadways. In cases where this is not feasible due to financial restraints or sight distance concerns, stop- control may be an appropriate intersection treatment. Four-way stop control should be avoided on collector streets and prohibited on arterial streets where possible. In all cases stop controlled intersections should follow the guidelines and warrants set forth in the MUTCD. Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Rural Madison County Improvements Many of the improvements in and around the City of Rexburg are driven by travel demand and the projected congestion that will occur with population growth. For the rest of the County, including Sugar City, the existing system will provide a projected level of service A through the year 2048. Although not driven by travel demand, the connectivity for the traveling public, safety for motorists as well as EMS response and commerce for farm to market and businesses of the rural part of the County has been studied. A capital improvement plan has been developed for the rural areas of the Counties and priorities have been developed based a consensus of the most pressing needs by the study and by the input of the public and stakeholders. Figure 14 below shows rural improvements proposed for Madison County in a county commissioner meeting in 2020. More detailed exhibits can be found in the Appendices. Island Ward Canal W 3000 N IdahoMedalofHonorHw y33 20 20 SYellowstoneHwyW Main St S2000WIdahoMedalofHonorHwyMark ReidCanal S2000WW5000 S Lyman Salem C analC ity o fRexburgDitch SouthFork Teton RiverWalters Gravel Pit N2ndStESRailroadAveNSalemHwyN7thEW 3000 N Id ahoM edalofHonorHwySugar City Jolley Salem Rexburg Canal W Main St S2ndWS2ndERexburg Jensen ITD-8 S-1R-16 R-4 S-2 R - 1 1ITD-5R-14 R-10R-6R-15 S-4 R-3R-13 R-8 R-12R-5 R-9 S-3R-1 R-2 R-7 ITD-1 ITD-2 ITD-3 ITD-4 ITD-6 ITD-7 Proposed Roadway Improvements Legend Install traffic signals at the interchange ramps Interchange conversion to diverging diamond IC intersection improvement overpass roundabout intersection improvement widening of the structure roads Existing Street City Limits ¯0 0.92 1.830.46 Miles Project List City of Rexburg R-1. Pioneer/7th Intersection, Roundabout intersection improvement R-2. University Boulevard/12th West, intersection improvement R-3. East Parkway Corridor Phase 1, new road R-4. University Boulevard (12th West to High School) R-5. East Parkway Corridor Phase II R-6. 5th West Extension R-7. 5th West/University Boulevard R-8. East Parkway Corridor Phase III R-9. East Parkway Corridor Phase IV R-10. 2nd E Widening R-11. 2nd S Connection to E Pkwy R-12. 7th S Extension R-13. E Pkwy to Millhollow R-14. Moody Road Extension R-15. Moody Road Widening R-16. Cemetery Road to 2nd E Idaho Transportation Department ITD-1. SH-33 (Main Street)/US-20 Interchange ITD-2. University Boulevard/US-20 Interchange ITD-3. Signals at North Interchange ITD-4. 2nd East (Closure of Gap over IC) ITD-5. 2nd East Median Installation ITD-6. Moody Road (US-20) ITD-7. 7th South/US-20 ITD-8. Poleline Road Sugar City S-1. Salem Road (3 Lane Section to Interchange) S-2. US-20 Frontage Road S-3. East Parkway Corridor Phase V S-4. 7th W to E Pkwy Figure 14: Madison County Improvements 38 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 US – 20 and State Highway 33 ITD owns and maintains US-20 and State Highway 33 within Madison County. These two facilities are the most important links within the County for north/south and east/west travel. The travel demand model study indicates that with the exception of SH-33 and the interchange ramps within Rexburg as noted previously, both of these roadways will provide adequate capacity through 2048. The corridor plans for US-20 and SH-33 have outlined plans for these roadways that limit access and promote through traffic as efficiently as possible. Continued coordination with ITD to maintain these facilities and coordinate with the goals of these plans is in the best interest of Madison County. The primary goals from the objectives of the US-20 plan elements, as they are completed that most impact Madison County, include: · Eliminate at-grade intersections on the four lane, divided portion of the corridor o Consolidate roadways into fewer points of access o Eliminate turning movements other than right turns at at-grade intersections as an interim measure o Replace the at-grade intersections that are to remain as access points with grade separated interchanges over time o Develop parallel roads or frontage roads to carry local traffic to the roads with interchanges · Access management that would prevent any additional direct access to US-20 The construction of the Thornton Interchange and the subsequent closures of the at-grade intersections between the County line and the University Blvd Interchange are recent steps in incrementing the corridor plan. Success will be achieved when active coordination between ITD, the Cities and Madison County focus on two major, common goals. These goals include 1) coordinated effort to plan for responsible access permitting and 2) a continued effort to provide connectivity to the US-20 and SH-33. 1) Access Management for the US-20 and SH-33 should maintain the standard as accepted by ITD. US-20, as a divided highway has controlled access and as future improvements occur US-20 will only be accessed at interchanges. SH-33 is a primary business arterial where direct access is very common. The ITD standard should be reviewed for each approach as re-development applications are considered. Opportunities to reduce friction in traffic flow and improve safety should be a priority to all entities as re-development applications are considered. 2) Connectivity to these major corridors will provide a vital linkage for all types of traffic within Madison County. As interchanges are implemented and at-grade facilities are removed from US- 20, connectivity to the interchange by local traffic should be evaluated and improved where necessary. As growth continues to the south and west of Rexburg the need to improve the connectivity in these areas will increase. Connectivity improvements to arterials for the foreseeable future should be focused between US-20 and the Madison County Line on the south and the University Blvd interchange. US-20 West Side Frontage The system described as the US-20 West Side Frontage consists of the arterials and collectors that connect the local roads to the highway between the High School and the Thornton Interchange to the south. Currently, the roads in this area serve primarily residential and agricultural access. However, with the 39 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 county zoning and anticipate growth, this area could also serve commercial development. The frontage road should remain a priority and anticipated development should evaluate potential effects on all roadway of the roadways in the area. West Side Frontage North Madison County is currently working with the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) to design and implement the construction of the West Side Frontage Road (North). This area is largely farm fields with clusters of houses near the community of Burton. There are also businesses that have sought out the high visibility locations along US-20. There are also various ponds and lakes as well. The Madison County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential and anticipates retail along the US-20 corridor with rural clusters surrounding the town site of Burton. Growth in this area is likely to occur as fields are developed into residential subdivisions with retail developed close to the US-20 corridor. As this occurs, the trips generated in this area will increase as well as modeled and included in the travel demand model. As the trips originate from this area, all the traffic will funnel to University Blvd on the north and to the Thornton interchange on the south. As this occurs these interchanges will become more congested, and the improvements recommended for University Blvd will increase. Additionally, the connectivity of this area will be greatly improved with the addition of an overpass at W 2000 S (Poleline Rd). For the development of this area, priority should be given to: 1) A planned collector frontage road between the soon to be constructed connections to the Thornton interchange and University Blvd. This frontage road is being planned to accommodate future improved intersections with 3800 S (Bob Frew Rd), 2000 S (Burton Oil Rd/Poleline Rd). As retail developments are proposed, the overall development of the frontage road should be a priority. 2) Widening of University Blvd west of US-20 has been in the plans, in fact, it has recently been widened to 5 lanes between the high school and 12th West. The widening should continue between 12th west and the US-20 ramp as development occurs. Congestion will increase to failing levels of service on this roadway near the intersection without the proposed widening. Additionally, extending University Blvd west to 3000W should be a consideration to provide local road connections to the west. 3) An overpass of US-20 at W 2000 S (Poleline Rd) will eventually become a need as the development occurs. Right-of-way should be preserved, and future plans should be developed. US-20 East Side Frontage The system described as the US-20 East Side Frontage consists of the arterials and collectors that connect the local roads to the highway between the City of Rexburg and the County line to the south. These two areas can further be divided as the east side frontage south of the proposed Thornton interchange and east side frontage north of the Thornton interchange. Currently, the roads in this area serve primarily residential and agricultural access. This area also includes some industrial areas, both planned and currently in use. The east side is served by the Yellowstone Highway and 2000 W (Lyman Archer Highway) as the primary arterial routes. The 2000 W (Lyman Archer Highway) serves as a primary route between the City of Rexburg and the Counties to the south. Access has traditionally been unrestricted to each agricultural and residential property owner, however some of the new residential developments have consolidated access. For both the 2000 W (Lyman Archer Highway) and the Yellowstone Highway, access 40 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 control and permitting should be a priority as future development occurs. The development of the Thornton interchange has dramatically improved the safety for the surrounding area but has also changed the use and traffic patterns. Since the interchange was constructed, all traffic accessing US-20 for the area is now funneled to the interchange, therefore increasing traffic in the residential areas surrounding Thornton. The construction of 5200 S (currently under construction) between the Thornton interchange and 2000 W will alleviate much of the concern. This will become a primary roadway that divides frontage on the east side of US-20 to East Side Frontage north and East Side Frontage South. East Side Frontage North This area has experienced growth as it has turned from less agricultural to retail, industrial and residential subdivisions. The area south of BYUI and Rexburg near the University Blvd interchange has seen tremendous growth with more anticipated as development trends southward. Consolidating access and the access management should be priority. Primary foreseeable improvements for this area should include: 1) Site vision triangles at intersections with the Yellowstone Highway. Most of the reported accidents occurring along this roadway were caused due to bad weather and icy conditions or impaired driving. However, many of the intersections along the Yellowstone Highway have acute site triangles. Because the Yellowstone Highway parallels the railroad that runs in a northeast direction and most intersecting roads run east and west, this situation runs throughout the County. This potential concern is especially prevalent in this area. Where prudent, intersections should be evaluated, and site triangles should be preserved. Crash data should be reviewed regularly to identify clusters of accidents. Left turns should be monitored for potential safety improvements at intersections. 2) As retail continues to grow, the travel demand model should be updated and re-evaluated. A center-turn lane on Yellowstone Rd between 2000 S (Poleline Rd) and University Blvd should be anticipated as retail continues to grow. 3) Provisions for the future 2000 S (Poleline Rd) overpass should be planned well in advance of the future need. East Side Frontage South The west side frontage between the planned Thornton interchange and the County line on the south is largely agricultural and residential subdivisions. The town sites of Lyman and Archer have clusters of residential neighborhoods with various retail restaurants and shops. Now that the Thornton interchange and the 5000 S roadway is constructed, the area around Thornton is expected to continue to grow and develop. There has been interest expressed in the property for potential commercial growth. The primary focus of the foreseeable improvements for this area should include: 1. Bridge preservation improvements at the Snake River Bridge on 600 E (Twin Bridge). This is a critical crossing. Failure at this structure would halt traffic on this important arterial. There are limited detours available at this location. 2. Completion of the roadway base and paving of the US-20 East Frontage Road south of 5000 S. 41 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Intersections Improvements in the County General Intersection and Roadway Improvements Outside of the urban areas the most prevalent concern driving improvement is focused at the intersections. Inclement weather, impaired drivers and inattention to driving are the cause of the majority of the crashes. Continued efforts to improve driver alertness to hazardous situations should be a continued focus for law enforcement and citizens throughout the County. However, there are four common geometric layout concerns found at intersections in the County at various locations. Because accidents directly related to the layout are relatively few, improvements to the geometry should be completed as funding becomes available and prioritized based on concerns of the citizens. These layout concerns include: 1. Free flowing 90° turn of the through traffic at four different intersections 2. Acute and oblique angles at intersections making site triangles and visibility difficult 3. Dugway geometry 4. Bridge railing and clear zone protection Free Flowing 90° turns for through traffic Currently there are intersections in the County that create a “head-on” type conflict point as the vehicle paths meet. Where speeds are higher these types of intersections cause greater concern. Four of these types of intersections should be monitored and evaluated for possible improvement. These locations are on 2000 North at the intersection with 3000 W , Archer Hwy at 7800 S and 600 E, and the intersection of Moody Road and 5000 E. There are several intersections that have similar geometry concerns throughout the state of Idaho including the neighboring Counties. Despite their prevalence there is a concerted effort to improve these types of intersections all over the state. For each of these locations, a potential of modifying the intersection to be a stop-controlled intersection or a roundabout was presented to the stakeholders and the public. Converting to a stop-controlled intersection or a roundabout for these intersections reduces the number of conflict points at the intersection. Additionally, the most concerning conflict at these existing intersections is the potential “head-on” conflict point. Eliminating this potential crash type is a priority for these intersection improvements. Also, by converting these intersections to a stop control intersection or a roundabout, the conflict points that do remain occur at lower speeds and tend to result in more “fender bender” type accidents. Each of the intersections were evaluated and presented as shown in the attached exhibits. The advantages and disadvantages include: Intersection 2000 N and 3000 W 1 Acute intersection at Center St and 7th E 42 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Stop Controlled Intersection: Advantages: More conventional to drivers, require less land to implement and to install, require less impact on surrounding residences and irrigation ditches than roundabouts. Disadvantages: Require drivers to come to a complete stop where before was free-flowing traffic. Roundabout Intersection: Advantages: conflict points are at slow moving speeds and the intersection geometry limits the conflict point to a fender bender type collision, traffic can proceed through the intersection without stopping if the driver is not required to yield to circulating traffic. Disadvantages: Generally, requires more land to install the roundabout, this type of intersection is less customary to local drivers. The intersection at 2000 West and 2000 North has recently been turned into a roundabout and has been functioning very well. Improving the intersection at 2000 North and 3000 West is high priority. This intersection has already been designed and will be going to construction as soon as possible. The intersection of Center Street (SH-33) and Digger Drive (7th E) in Sugar City has a similar geometric layout. The acute intersection angles make it difficult to get a clear vision of all of the intersecting traffic. A roundabout could be considered at this location but with the proximity of parks and schools to this intersection, pedestrian safety should be a high priority at this location. In the future when the East Parkway is implemented it is likely that there would be an increase of traffic on 7th East making safety at this intersection a higher priority. Intersection Layout The AASHTO – Geometric Design of Highways and Streets is generally accepted as the standard of design throughout the United States. This guide recommends that, “Intersection legs that operate under stop control should intersect at right angles wherever practical, and should not intersect at an angle less than 60 degrees.” This standard is especially difficult to adhere to where streets connect to the Yellowstone Highway. The visibility hazards that have previously been discussed should be evaluated continually for these intersections. While it is not practical at this time to modify the layout of all of these types of intersections, when development could potentially impact these intersections the opportunity to correct the deficiency should be considered. Acute intersection at Center St and 7th E Inefficient intersection 4000 N and 5000 W 43 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Furthermore, as growth around these intersections elevate the traffic to warrant a signal, a 90 degree intersection functions best to convert to a signalized intersection. To accommodate irrigation ditches many of these types of intersections also include an offset of the crossing street alignment. These two intersections should potentially be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Dugway Geometry Currently there are three roadways known by the locals as the “Dugway”. These roadways are 2000 S (Poleline Road), 5000 S (Bybee Dugway) and 7800 S, “the dugway to the gravel pit”. Each of these lead to the butte on the hill where there are many fields. Each of these roadways pose concerns for different reasons. The 2000 S (Poleline Road) horizontal alignment is very straight but the vertical alignment causes sight distance concerns. There are currently signs indicating blind driveways and for drivers to use caution. As more and more growth in the City of Rexburg grows southward, there will be more and more traffic in this location. There is also an interest by the community to designate this roadway as a route for bicycling. With limited sight distance, possible traffic increases and other users of the roadway, such as bicyclists and pedestrians, this roadway should be considered a candidate for wider shoulders and vertical curve improvements where possible. The 5000 S (Bybee Dugway) is a paved roadway but is not currently an overly used roadway. However, once construction on 5200 South is complete, the Thornton Interchange and 5200 South will provide an improved link between the fields on the butte and US-20. The potential for increased traffic and the need for safety improvements on this dugway should be considered. The 7800 S dugway is the shortest route for many harvest trucks carrying grain to the market in Ririe. There are also gravel trucks and other farm equipment that use this road often. The elevation difference between the butte and the roadways below makes the horizontal and vertical alignment geometry a challenge. Safety improvements should be evaluated on this roadway. The long-range connectivity of the growing population as Rexburg grows southward and as harvest equipment competes with more passenger vehicles for space on these dugway roads, the need for an improved roadway from the butte to the ITD system will continue to grow. Though it is not likely needed before the year 2040, planning for an arterial would accommodate the function of these dugways and should be reviewed with the farmers. It is likely that the preferred location for the arterial will be at the 5000 S alignment because of its direct connectivity to the Lyman Archer Highway and US- 20. 5000 S (Bybee Dugway) 44 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Bridge Railing and Clear Zone Protection The concept of developing a “forgiving” roadside environment was developed in the 1960s. The concept provided for the creation of a “clear zone” where a driver might recover control and return to the roadway or safely come to a stop before encountering a hazard. The width of this zone adjacent to the travel way by design is wider where traveling speeds are greater. In the rural parts of Madison County, providing a clear zone is not always practical. Efforts to improve the roadside including the terminals for bridge railing should be considered Deficiencies from the previous reports The 2004 and 2015 Transportation Master Plan identified potential deficiencies or improvements that should be monitored and where possible improved. These deficiencies include: 1. Intersection of 5000 E and Moody Highway (Update: discussed within this report as a potentially viable location as a stop controlled intersection or a roundabout). 2. Burton Highway (various locations) – small shoulder with steep side slopes going into ditch, creates problems for large farm vehicles. (Update: This concern still exists in this area as well as many other locations around the County. Where possible clear zones should be implemented, however there has been no significant increase in number or severity of accidents due to these roadside concerns in the Burton area). 3. Hwy 33 – West of Rexburg tight reverse curves, difficult for vehicles to negotiate curves. (Update: No changes have been made. No increase in accidents or concerns due to this geometric concern have been noted for this update). 4. 2000S – intersection with 3600 E “the Dugway” – sight distance issues, grade issues, acute intersection, and safety issues for farm trucks. (Update: No changes. The Dugway was brought up by one County resident at the public meeting as a concern. This resident however felt that the other projects presented should be a priority over improving the Dugway). 5. Intersection of Center Street and Digger Drive – Acute Intersection. During the study and in discussion with the stakeholders and public there has been no incidence or concern that would elevate any of these deficiencies on the priority list. Unless discussed in a separate section of this report, this should be monitored in the future. Alternative Modes of Transportation Alternative transportation modes are an important part of the overall transportation system. A complete transit system may include bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail, commuter rail, and van share facilities. Non-motorized traffic includes pedestrians, bicyclists, hikers, horseback riders, and joggers/walkers. These modes of transportation are very important and should be accommodated in a vibrant and sustainable transportation system as they become appropriate for the community. Transit Existing Transit Service The existing transit for the Madison County population has not yet reached the need for light rail or commuter rail. However, a bus system has long been a topic of discussion. This is especially true for the 45 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 students and faculty of the local Brigham Young University. A vibrant bus system within the community could become a vital link to expanding access to the University by students. University studies have shown that much of the on-campus student population live within walking distance of the school. It has also shown that the majority of the faculty live within Rexburg or very near the urbanized area. Improving the bus alternatives would likely expand the student housing facilities further away from the school as the population grows. Future Transit Service Local Bus Routes While a bus system would have an impact on the parking immediately adjacent to the school it is unlikely that there would be any appreciable decrease in traffic congestion. While expanding bus routes in Madison County may be in the future of the community it is not anticipated that improving the bus system will alleviate any of the traffic congestion concerns. Rexburg Transit Feasibility Study Various transit opportunities should be considered in conjunction with the members of the RPO and BYU Idaho. Details about potential or future plans are not included in this update. Pedestrians and Bicycles Pedestrians and bicycles are extremely important components to the overall transportation system. Students getting to and from school use the same corridors as the traveling cars and trucks. Where possible it is always best to separate these modes of travel from vehicles by either physical barriers such as barrier or curbing and/or distance. Sidewalks should be considered a priority where there are significant numbers of pedestrians walking to or from school. Standards found in the AASHTO – A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets as well as related reference manuals including the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be used wherever practicable. Much of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic in and around the Rexburg area is due to more leisure activity rather than commuting. Except at certain intersections, pedestrian and bicycle traffic have little to do with traffic congestion. However, a significant number of accidents have occurred within Rexburg between vehicles and pedestrians. Accident records have been reviewed for the entire County to see if there are any re-occurring accidents or High Accident Locations (HAL) where a potential improvement should be made. Only a few locations indicated a possibility where potential improvement should be considered. For each of the locations discovered there have already been improvement measures implemented by the City of Rexburg. The streets around Brigham Young University have the highest concentrations of pedestrians. Where large numbers of pedestrians are found crossing streets heavily used by vehicles, HAWK (High-intensity Activated crosswalk) signals should be considered. The HAWK signal that has been successfully included in the system on 2nd West is well used by the pedestrians. It alerts the vehicles to the pedestrians and provides a safe location for crossing the Street. 46 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Figure 15 below shows the existing and proposed HAWK and rapid flash crosswalks in the county. Regional Plan Recommended Bike Paths All of the proposed arterial and collector street cross-sections allow for the addition of bicycle lanes. Before a bicycle lane can be installed on a roadway, the roadway itself must be complete along the entire extent of the bicycle path. Missing shoulders and incomplete segments pose a serious hazard to bicyclists. Bicycle facilities are an integral part of any connected transportation system and should be encouraged where feasible. The City of Rexburg and Madison County have promoted the improvement of certain bike/ped paths. Figure 15 below shows the existing and proposed trails and pathways in the county. It is recommended that both Madison County and the City of Rexburg adopt the bicycle and pedestrian pathway maps as an amendment to their Comprehensive Plans. Implementation of these paths will provide an area for recreational walking, jogging, and biking away from vehicle traffic. As funding becomes available, the priority list as shown is based on the recommendations from the committee of paths that should be implemented. Adoption of the maps as a part of the Comprehensive Plan will allow the City and County to secure easements for future pathways when properties are developed. Adoption of the maps will also allow the City and County to require land developers to construct pathways as a Condition of Approval when a residential or commercial project is constructed in an area which has been identified for a trail or pathway segment. Idaho Parks and Recreation Department funding for the construction of trails and pathways currently requires that pedestrian and bicycle trails and pathway maps be adopted as a part of a community’s Comprehensive Plan. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend City Limits Existing Rapid Flash/HAWK Signal Proposed Rapid Flash Signal Future Roads Existing Roads On Road Bike Paths Existing Proposed Trails and Offroad Pathways Existing Planned Proposed ¯ Figure 15: Trails, Pathways & Rapid Flash Crosswalks 48 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Access Management Access management is the practice of coordinating the location, number, spacing, and design of access points to minimize site access conflicts and maximize the traffic capacity and safety of a roadway. Well planned access management provides access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity, and speed. Uncoordinated growth along major travel corridors often results in strip development and a rapid increase of access points. Numerous access points along major travel corridors create unnecessary conflicts between turning and through traffic which causes delays and accidents. The benefits of controlling the location and number of access points on a roadway include: · Improving overall roadway safety · Reducing the total number of vehicle trips · Decreasing interruptions in traffic flow · Minimizing traffic delays and congestion · Maintaining roadway capacity · Extending the useful life of roads · Avoiding costly highway projects · Improving air quality · Encouraging compact development patterns · Improving access to adjacent land uses · Enhancing pedestrian and bicycle facilities The access management concepts and standards presented in this document are consistent with guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Principles of Access Management Access management attempts to balance the need to provide good mobility for through traffic with the requirements for reasonable access to adjacent land uses. A key concept in access management that the movement of traffic and access to property is mutually exclusive. No facility can move traffic very well and provide unlimited access at the same time. Figure 16 illustrates the relationship between mobility, access, and the functional classification of streets. An example of this concept are the freeway and the cul-de-sac. The freeway moves traffic very well with few opportunities for access, while the cul-de-sac has unlimited opportunities for access, but does not move traffic very well. In many cases, accidents and congestion are the result of streets trying to serve both mobility and access at the same time. 49 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 A good access management program will accomplish the following: · Limit the number of conflict points at driveway locations. Conflict points are good indicators of the potential for accidents. The greater the number of conflict points that occur in an intersection, the greater the potential for collisions. · Separate conflict areas. Intersections created by the connection of public streets as well as driveways represent conflict areas. Proper spacing between intersections allows drivers to react to one intersection at a time. By doing this the potential for conflicts is reduced. · Reduce the interference of through traffic. Through traffic is often slowed down for vehicles entering the roadway, exiting the roadway or turning. When these types of interferences are minimized the potential for slowing of the traffic is reduced. · Provide sufficient spacing for at-grade, signalized intersections. When there is proper spacing of the signalized intersection, there is a greater potential for the proper and smooth progression of traffic through the signals. · Provide adequate on-site circulation and storage. When good internal vehicle circulation in parking areas and on local streets is provided the number of driveways that a business may need for access to the major roadway is reduced. Figure 16: Mobility vs. Access by Functional Classification Source: BMPO Access Management Plan Figure 1. Fewer direct accesses, greater separation of driveways, and better driveway design and location are the basic elements of access management. There is less occasion for through traffic to brake and change 50 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 lanes in order to avoid turning traffic when these techniques are implemented uniformly and comprehensively. With good access management, the flow of traffic will be smoother and average travel speeds higher. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), before and after analyses show that routes with well managed access can experience 50 percent fewer accidents than comparable facilities with no access controls. Roadway Network and Access Management Standards There are a number of access management techniques that can be used to preserve or enhance the capacity of a roadway. Specific techniques for managing access are discussed in this section and illustrated with examples. Some techniques are more appropriate to less developed rural areas of a city, whereas others are more appropriate in the urban areas. In the urban areas, the techniques can be applied when existing sites are redeveloped or when negotiations with landowners are successful. Therefore, it is up to the city planning board to determine what will work best based in each situation. Number of Access Points Controlling the number of access points or driveways from a site to a roadway reduces potential conflicts between cars, pedestrians, and bicycles. Each parcel should normally be allowed one access point, and shared access is required were possible. Provisions can be made in the local land use regulations to allow for more than one access point where special circumstances would require additional accesses. Incentives such as density bonuses or reduced frontage requirements can encourage developers to utilize access from existing side roads or to construct side roads rather than directly access an arterial or a collector road. Spacing of Access Points Establishing a minimum distance between access points reduces the number of points a driver has to observe, thus reducing the opportunity for conflicts. Spacing requirements should be based on the classification and design speed of the road, the existing and projected volume of traffic as a result of the proposed development, and the physical conditions of the site. Minimum spacing of access has impact on the flow of traffic and the overall function of the system. The communities within Madison County have unique requirements and characteristics. While much of it is still used primarily as agriculture, there has been a rapid increase in growth and as such there are parts of the county in and around Rexburg that should be considered urban. Consideration for future impacts and growth in traffic should be considered as the following guidelines are implemented. Interchange Spacing In an access management context, interchanges provide several important functions. Interchanges enable the signal green time to be maximized along expressways and principal arterials. They also allow access to large activity centers where such access might be precluded by traffic signal spacing criteria. 51 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Minimum interchange spacing along various roadways should be as shown in Table 8. Spacing may be closer where access is provided to or from collector-distributor roads. Privately developed interchanges should become part of a regional transportation plan to ensure they are consistent with local and regional plans. Given the importance of ramp terminal intersections, these intersections should be assumed as signalized intersections in crossroad spacing requirements even if the intersection is currently Unsignalized. Table 8: Minimum Interchange Spacing Guidelines Functional Classification Minimum Interchange Spacing for Urban/Suburban Areas (miles) Minimum Interchange Spacing for Rural Areas (miles) Freeway 1 3 Source: BMPO Access Management Plan Table 4. Grade Separations Grade separated interchange may be appropriate where the following situations occur: 1. Two expressways cross, or where an expressway crosses arterial roads; 2. Principal arterials cross and the resulting available green time for any route would be less than 40 to 50 percent; 3. An existing at-grade signalized intersection along an arterial roadway operates at level of service (LOS) F, and there is no reasonable improvement that can be made to provide sufficient capacity; 4. A history of accidents indicates a significant reduction in accidents can be realized by constructing a grade separation; (Such histories should be considered as at-grade intersections along US-20 are considered.) 5. A new at-grade signalized intersection would result in LOS E in urban and suburban settings and LOS D in rural settings; 6. The location to be signalized does not meet the signal spacing criteria and signalization of the access point would impact the progressive flow along the roadway, and there is no other reasonable access to a major activity center; 7. A major public street at-grade intersection is located near a major traffic generator, and effective signal progression for both the through and generated traffic cannot be provided; and 8. An activity center is located along a principal arterial, where either direct access or left turns would be prohibited by the access code, or would otherwise be undesirable. 52 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Signalized Intersection Spacing To ensure efficient traffic flow, new signals should be limited to locations where the progressive movement of traffic will not be impeded significantly. Uniform, or near uniform, spacing of signals is essential for the progression of traffic. As a minimum, signals should be spaced no closer than one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) unless approved by the local jurisdiction. Table 9 below show the recommended signalized intersection spacing base on roadway functional classification. Table 9: Signalized Intersection Spacing Functional Classification Typical Intersection User Typical Speeds Signalized Intersection Spacing Urban Principal Arterial Truck, Auto 35 to 45 mph 2640 feet Auto, Pedestrian 35 mph 1760 feet Rural Principal Arterial Auto, Pedestrian 40 to 55 mph 5280 feet Urban Minor Arterial Truck, Auto 35 to 40 mph 2640 feet Auto, Pedestrian 35 mph 1760 feet Rural Minor Arterial Truck, Auto 40 to 55 mph 5280 feet Source: BMPO Access Management Plan Table 5. Unsignalized Intersection Spacing Unsignalized driveways are far more common than signalized driveways. From a spacing perspective, these driveways should be treated the same as public streets. Major Intersection Spacing A major intersection is any intersection that connects two arterials, an arterial and a collector, two collectors, interchange ramps and crossroads, or an arterial and a major driveway (serving more than 5000 trips per day. Both the functional area and roadway classification of the major intersection should be considered when determining minimum spacing, hence, the minimum spacing for major intersections is the larger of the two spacing standards provided in Table 10 and Table 11. 53 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table 10: Major Intersection Spacing Based on Functional Area Posted Speed (mph) P.R. Distance (ft)1 Maneuver Distance (ft)2 Queued Veh. Length (ft)3 Distance to Centerline (ft)4 Minimum Upstream Spacing (ft)5 Minimum Downstream Spacing (ft)6 A B C D A+B+C+D 25 55 70 50 50 225 155 30 65 115 50 50 280 200 35 80 160 50 50 340 250 40 90 220 50 60 420 305 45 100 275 50 60 485 360 50 110 425 50 70 655 425 55 125 515 50 70 760 495 Source: Access Management Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2003) as applicable 1. Distance Traveled during Driver’s Perception-Reaction. 2. Desirable Maneuver Distances; includes deceleration and lane change. 3. Minimum length for two queued vehicles or one truck. Under congested conditions, queues may be longer but likely offset with lower operating speeds. 4. Distance from cross-street centerline to front of queue. 5. Minimum upstream driveway spacing, centerline to centerline. 6. Minimum downstream driveway spacing, centerline to centerline. Based on stopping sight distance after clearing half the intersection. 54 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table 11: Major Intersection Spacing by Classification Functional Classification Typical Intersection User Typical Speeds Intersection Spacing Urban Principal Arterial Truck, Auto 35 to 45 mph 660 ft Rural Principal Arterial Truck, Auto, Farm 45 to 55 mph 1320 ft Urban Minor Arterial Truck, Auto 35 to 45 mph 660 ft Auto, Pedestrian 35 mph 660 ft Rural Minor Arterial Truck, Auto 45 to 55 mph 1320 ft Urban Major Collector Auto, Pedestrian 35-40 mph 300 ft Rural Major Collector Truck Auto 45 mph 660 ft Residential Collector Auto, Pedestrian 25 mph 300 ft Source: BMPO Access Management Plan Table 7. Minor Intersection Spacing A minor intersection is any intersection that is not considered a major intersection. Minor intersections include driveway connections to public streets. Table 12 shows the recommended spacing for minor intersections. On undivided roadways, access on both sides of the road should be aligned. Where access alignment is not possible, driveways should have an offset distance based on the roadway classification. Table 12: Minor Intersection Spacing by Classification Functional Classification Intersection Spacing Urban Principal Arterial Any form of minor intersection is highly discouraged on Principal Arterials. If a minor intersection is allowed, the spacing guideline for major intersections should be used. Rural Principal Arterial In Madison County, minor intersections which are mostly driveways do exist on Principal Roadways. Future connections should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Spacing guidelines for Major intersections should be used. Urban Minor Arterial Minor intersections are discouraged on minor arterials. If a minor intersection is allowed, use the spacing guidelines for major intersections along minor arterials. Rural Minor Arterial In Madison County, minor intersections which are mostly driveways do exist on Principal Roadways. Future connections should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Spacing guidelines for Major intersections along minor arterials should be used. 55 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Major Collector For a major collector, driveways are allowed for all land uses except for individual residential lots. The spacing between two minor intersections on a major collector is based on the number of daily trips expected by the development. In addition to the guidelines below, access should be limited to one driveway for each tract of property separately owned. · Minimum Use – Less than 50 vehicle trips per day: 105-foot spacing · Minor Trip Generator – 51 to 5,000 trips per day: 175-foot spacing · Major Trip Generator – Over 5,000 trips per day: 210-foot spacing Residential Collector Driveways are allowed for all land uses on residential collectors and local streets. There is no minimum spacing for minor intersections, however, access should be limited to one driveway for each tract of property separately owned unless approved by the city engineer. Source: BMPO Access Management Plan Section 4.4 Restricted Access Restricted access movement (i.e., right-in/right-out access) can provide for additional access to promote economic development with minimum impact to the roadway facility. This type of access should be spaced to minimize traffic conflicts and provide distance for deceleration and acceleration of traffic in and out of the access. The spacing requirement of accesses is based on the functional classification of the roadway facility and is shown in Table 13. Access spacing shall be measured from center of access to center of access. The spacing of right-turn accesses on each side of a divided roadway can be treated separately; however, where left-turn at median breaks are allowed, the accesses on both sides should line up or be offset from the median break by a minimum of 300 feet. Minimum offset is measured from the center of an access to the center of the next access on the opposite side of the road. Table 13: Minimum Offset between Driveways on Opposite Sides of Undivided Roadways Functional Classification Minimum Offset (ft)* Major Arterial 600 for speed ≥ 45 mph and 300 for speeds < 45 mph Minor Arterial 220 Major Collector 200 Minor Collector 200 Commercial Local 200 Residential Local 100 Residential Sub-Local 100 *Distances in table are measured from between right-of-way lines. Note: Values are based on TRB Access Management Guidelines. 56 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Residential Driveways Residential driveways do not have a minimum spacing requirement between other residential driveways. Due to lot widths and locations, sometimes driveways can be shared or have no space between them. Roundabouts Roundabouts work well to improve intersection efficiency as well as to reduce the severity of crashes at intersections. Where intersections of local roads fall closely to a roundabout, right in/right out intersections should be considered. Raised medians may be an effective tool on the major roadway to facilitate the right-in/right-out intersections. Traffic desiring to turn left at the right-in/right-out intersection should be directed to a U-turn maneuver in the roundabout. Spacing of roundabouts should follow the same guidelines as signalized intersections on arterials. Medians Medians are used to control and manage left turns and crossing movements as well as separating traffic moving in opposite directions. They are typically used on arterial or other roadways with high volumes of traffic and four or more lanes of traffic. The use and design of a median is determined by the characteristics of the roadway such as: traffic volumes, speed, number and configuration of lanes, right-of-way width and land uses along the roadway. The need for a median can be identified through engineering review, a traffic study assessing the impact of a proposed project, and should be considered on any roadway that has a speed limit greater than 45 MPH and is located within an urban area. Medians are often used in commercial and residential developments to separate lanes of traffic and limit conflicts caused by left turns. Medians can also add to the overall aesthetics of a roadway corridor or a development by incorporating landscaping or other items of visual interest. It provides the landscape architect greater opportunity in the development of practical and efficient landscape plans. However, care should be taken to maintain sight distance around the intersection/access locations, thus, ground cover plantings be planted to not inhibit sight distance. Also, care should be taken to select landscape materials and location of the materials that will not intrude into the roadway which could result a safety problem for the motorist. Also, care should be taken in selection of trees that when mature will not be larger than a 4-inch diameter. Median Openings Median openings are provided at all signalized at-grade intersections. They are also generally provided at unsignalized junctions of arterial and collector streets. They may be provided at driveways, where they will have minimum impact on roadway flow. The spacing of median openings for signalize driveways should reflect traffic signal coordination requirements and the storage-space needed for left turns. Minimum desired spacing of unsignalized median openings at driveways shall be based on the left turn storage requirements. Median openings for left-turn 57 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 entrances (where there is no left-turn exit from the activity center) should be spaced to allow sufficient storage for left-turning vehicles. Generally, the minimum spacing of median openings on principal arterials is 660 feet. This should be evaluated with the storage requirements prior to implementation as a minimum standard. Left Turn Lanes Continuous two way left turn lanes can reduce the conflict and delays caused by vehicles turning left through on-coming traffic. Left turn lanes also reduce accidents caused by slowing vehicles and traffic going around on the right. Two way left turn lanes should only be used to retrofit areas of existing development and shall be limited to a roadway with less than 18,000 ADT. New roads that utilize other access management techniques should not need a two way left turn lane. Restricting left turning movements reduces the conflicts between through and turning traffic resulting in improved safety. Left-turn ingress or egress requires a median opening when traffic traveling in opposing directions is separated by a barrier median. Median widths commonly vary from 30 inches to over 30 feet. A 14-foot median is desirable in order to provide for an adequate left turn lane at intersections. Design elements include the median width, the spacing of median openings and the geometries of median noses at opening. Typically, median widths at intersections are 30 inches formed by two 15-inch curbs back to back with a plowable (tapered) end. Corner Clearance Corner Clearance is the distance between a driveway and an intersection. Providing adequate corner clearance improves traffic flow and roadway safety by ensuring that the traffic turning into the driveway does not interfere with the function of the intersection. Local regulations should require that driveways be located a minimum distance from an intersection based on roadway classification or speed. Any access opening shall not be located within the functional area of the intersection as shown in Figure 17. 58 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Source: BMPO Access Management Plan Figure 5. Corner Clearance shall be based on an engineering study that includes the following distances illustrated in Figure 18 and Table 14. Figure 19 shows an example inadequate corner clearance that can inhibit roadway capacity and decrease safety. The values in Table 14 represent the absolute minimums based on national data. Figure 18: Corner Clearance Types Figure 17: Functional Area of Intersections 59 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table 14: Corner Clearance Criteria Clearance Type Sample Clearance Criteria A- Approach side on the major roadway Equal or exceed the functional distance of the intersection d1+d2+d3 (based on engineering study). d1= Distance traveled during perception d2= Distance traveled while driver decelerates to a stop d3= Storage length B- Departure side on the major roadway Residential Roadways 260 feet* Collector Roadways 305 feet* Arterial Roadways 380 feet* C- Approach side on the minor roadway Shall be a minimum of 100 feet D- Departure side on the minor roadway Shall be a minimum of 120 feet * Based on a spillback rate of 15% from TRB Access Management Manual Figure 19: Inadequate Corner Clearance Source: TRB Access Management Manual 60 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Width of Access Points Uncontrolled access is a serious hazard for vehicles entering or exiting a site, vehicles passing by a site, and bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition to limiting the number of access points, the width of the access point should be restricted based on the use of the site in question. Residential driveways should be limited to a maximum width of 32 feet at the edge of pavement, including turning radii. The maximum width for a commercial or industrial site entrance with two-way traffic should be limited to 44 feet including 12’ for right out 12’ for left out with 16’ for ingress lane and two 2-foot shoulders. The width of the entrance should be determined based on the type of use for the site, the type of traffic (i.e. cars vs. 18 wheel trucks), and the projected volume of traffic. Turning Radius The turning radius of a driveway or access road affects both the flow and safety of through traffic and vehicles entering and exiting the roadway. The size of the turning radius affects the speed at which vehicles can exit the flow of traffic and enter a driveway. In general, the larger the turning radius, the greater the speed at which a vehicle can turn into a site. An excessively small turning radius will require a turning vehicle to slow down significantly to make the turn, therefore backing up the traffic flow or causing traffic to encroach into the other lane. An excessively large turning radius will encourage turning vehicles to travel quickly, thereby creating hazards to pedestrians. Either of these situations increases the potential for accidents. The speed of the roadway, the anticipated type and volume of the traffic, pedestrian safety and the type of use proposed for the site should be considered when evaluating the turning radius. Proposed uses that would require deliveries by large trucks (such as major retail establishments and gas stations) should provide larger turning radii to accommodate such vehicles. Other uses such as banks, offices or areas with high pedestrian traffic could adequately be served with smaller turning radii based on the type of traffic they would generate. Throat Length Throat Length is the length of the driveway that is controlled internally from turning traffic measured from the intersection with the road. Driveways should be designed with adequate throat length to accommodate queuing of the maximum number of vehicles as defined by the peak period of operation in the traffic study. This will prevent potential conflicts between traffic entering the site and internal traffic flow. Inadequate throat length may cause turning traffic to back up onto the road thereby impeding traffic flow and increasing the potential for accidents. The minimum throat length for an access into a minor commercial property is 50 feet. For major commercial development FHWA recommends a minimum throat length of 150’ for a major driveway entrance, with 300’ desirable. Figure 20 shows both a poor and good example of driveway throat length. 61 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Poor Throat Length Good Throat Length Figure 20: Driveway Throat Length Examples Source: TRB Access Management Manual Driveway Profiles The slope of a driveway can dramatically influence its operation. Usage by large vehicles can have a tremendous effect on operations if slopes are severe. The profile, or grade, of a driveway should be designed to provide a comfortable and safe transition for those using the facility, and to accommodate the storm water drainage system of the roadway. A maximum grade of 2 percent for a minimum of 50’ should be provided for commercial driveways. For street accesses and major traffic generators they shall be designed to meet street standards with no water ways crossing the opening. Figure 21 gives shows the maximum change in grade for approaches from ITD’s Standard Drawing No. 405-1. It is recommended that Madison County and the City of Rexburg follow similar requirements. Figure 21: Maximum Change In Grade 63 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Shared Access When practical, access points shall be shared between adjacent parcels to minimize the potential for conflict between turning and through traffic. Shared access can be used effectively for both residential and nonresidential developments. Residential Residential subdivisions located along arterial or collector roadways should be required to construct an internal road system rather than be developed along the existing roadway frontage or a single access cul-de-sac. Subdivision proposals should encourage a coordinated street network by providing rights-of-way or stubs for the extension of streets to adjacent parcels. This will prevent the proliferation of driveways on arterial and collector streets and provide for an interconnected street network. Shared driveways shall also be used to minimize the number of curb cuts in residential districts, particularly along rural arterial and collector roads. If access is necessary from an arterial or collector then shared driveways are required. Shared driveways serving more than two homes will be built to fire lane standards. Commercial Joint driveways providing access to adjacent developments, and interconnections between sites, are required for all development proposals on arterial and collector roadways. Interconnections between sites can eliminate the need for additional curb cuts, thereby preserving the capacity of the roadway. This is particularly important for commercial/industrial sites and should be used to encourage the development of internal or collector roadway systems servicing more than one parcel or establishment. Future roadway rights-of-way should also be provided to promote interconnected access to vacant parcels or to facilitate the consolidation of access points for existing developments. Pedestrian access between developments will allow people to walk between establishments, thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips. Every opportunity should be taken to provide for interconnections between existing and future developments for both vehicles and pedestrians. Alignment of Access Points Street and driveway intersections represent points of conflict for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. All modes of travel should be able to clearly identify intersections and assess the travel patterns of vehicles and pedestrians through the intersection. To minimize the potential conflicts and improve safety, intersections and driveways shall be aligned opposite each other wherever possible and intersect roadways at a 90 degree angle. Good driveway alignment will provide vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians with a clear line of sight and allow them to traverse the intersection more safely. 64 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Sight Distance Sight distance is the length of the road that is visible to the driver. A minimum safe sight distance should be required for access points based on the roadway classification. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets contains recommendations for sight distance based on the roadway design speed and grade. Providing sufficient intersection sight distance at the driveway point for vehicles using a driveway to see oncoming traffic and judge the gap to safely make their movement is essential. Vehicles should be able to enter and leave the property safely. Intersection sight distance varies, depending on the design speed of the roadway to be entered, and assumes a passenger car can turn right or left into a two-lane highway and attain 85 percent of the design speed without being overtaken by an approaching vehicle that reduces speed to 85 percent of the design speed. Table 15 gives intersection sight distance requirements for passenger cars. Sight distances should be adjusted with crossroad grade in accordance with AASHTO policies. Table 15: Intersection/Driveway Sight Distance Posted Speed Limit (mph) Sight Distance Required (ft)* 30 335 35 390 40 445 45 500 50 555 55 610 60 665 65 720 Source: A Policy on geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (Green Book), Table 9-7 *Based on a 2 lane roadway (for other lane configurations, refer to AASHTO for adjustments). Drivers’ eye setback is assumed to be 15 feet measured from the edge of traveled way. Normally, intersection sight distance will govern the required sight distance for the driveway but it is also important to verify that the main roadway have sufficient stopping sight distance. For example, a driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection should have an unobstructed view of the entire intersection including any traffic control devices and sufficient length along the intersecting highway to permit the driver to anticipate and avoid potential collisions. The safe stopping sight distance should be reviewed to make sure that the approaching vehicle has a clear view of the roadway in the area of the access. Sight distance may be more of a consideration in rural areas because of higher speeds and rolling/hilly terrain. The stopping sight distance will be greater for a roadway with a high speed and a downgrade as vehicles will take longer to stop in 65 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 such a circumstance. Table 16 gives the safe stopping sight distance that should be provided for a driver on the roadway to have a clear view of the access/driveway. When determining stopping sight distance, it should be assumed that the approaching driver’s eye is 3.5 feet above the roadway surface and that the object to be seen is 2 feet above the surface of the road. Table 16: Safe Stopping Sight Distances on Grades Design Speed (mph) Safe Stopping Sight Distance (ft) Downhill Grades Uphill Grades -3% -6% 3% 6% 25 158 165 147 143 30 205 215 200 184 35 257 271 237 229 40 315 333 289 278 45 378 400 344 331 50 446 474 405 388 55 520 553 469 450 Source: A Policy on geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (Green Book), Table 3-2 Intersection Turning Lanes Turning lanes remove the turning traffic from the through travel lanes. Left turning lanes are used to separate the left turning traffic from the through traffic. Right turn lanes reduce traffic delays caused by the slowing of right turning vehicles. Designated right or left turn lanes are generally used in high traffic situations on arterial and collector roadways. A traffic impact study will identify the need for and make recommendations on the design of turning lanes or tapers based on the existing traffic volumes, speed, and the projected impacts of the proposed use. Right-of- way needs at individual intersections are unique to each intersection. Prior to programming roadway widening projects it is important to examine the traffic operations at intersections since the right-of-way requirements are typically greater at intersections. Storage Length The storage length of the turning lane at signalized intersections shall be a minimum of 100 feet and at an unsignalized intersection it shall be a minimum length to accommodate two 25-foot vehicles based on the number of vehicles likely to arrive in a two-minute period at peak hour. For signalized intersections, the storage length shall be 1 ½ times the average number of vehicles that would queue per cycle during the peak hour based on design year volumes. 66 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Lane Width Turning lanes shall normally be a minimum of 12 feet in width. Any exception will require approval from the City Engineer. For right turn lanes, provide an additional 12 feet of pavement to accommodate the lane. Left-turn Lanes The provision of left-turn lanes is essential from both capacity and safety standpoints where left turns would otherwise share the use of a through lane. Shared use of a through lane will dramatically reduce capacity, especially when opposing traffic is heavy. Left-turn lanes should always be provided at a signalized intersection. Right-turn Lanes Right-turn lanes remove the speed differences in the main travel lanes, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of rear-end collisions. They also increase capacity of signalized intersections and may allow more efficient traffic signal phasing. Length of Auxiliary Lanes A separate turning lane consists of a taper plus a full width auxiliary lane. The design of turn lanes is based primarily on the speed at which drivers will turn into the lane, the speed to which drivers must reduce in order to turn into the driveway after traversing the deceleration lane, and the amount of vehicular storage that will be required. Other special considerations include the volume of trucks that will use the turning lane and the steepness of an ascending or descending grade. The total length of an auxiliary lane is made up of the storage length plus the distance necessary to come to a stop from the prevailing speed of the road and the taper distance (which both vary based on speed). A taper length of 50 ft for speeds below 45 mph, 75 ft for speeds of 45 to 50 mph, and 100 ft for speeds over 50 mph is typical. If a two-lane turn lane is to be provided, it is recommended that a 10:1 taper be used to develop the dual lanes. The taper will allow for additional storage during short duration surges in traffic volumes. The length needed for a vehicle to come to a stop from either the design speed or an average running speed of a roadway is shown in Table 17. These deceleration lengths assume the roadway is on a 2 percent or less vertical grade. The storage distance plus the deceleration distance and taper distance will result in the total length of an auxiliary lane (Figure 22). 67 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Table 17: Deceleration Length Speed (mph) Deceleration Length (ft)* 30 235 35 280 40 320 45 385 50 435 55 480 60 530 65 570 *Assume the roadway is on a 3 percent or less vertical grade. Source: A Policy on geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (Green Book), Table 10-6 Figure 22: Auxiliary Lane Length Source: A Policy on geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (Green Book), Section 9.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access A key aspect of access management is reducing the number of vehicle trips. This can be accomplished by providing safe and appealing pedestrian access within developments and between adjacent developments. All new development and redevelopment of existing sites should address pedestrian and bicycle access to and within the site. Sidewalks should be provided in all urban residential subdivisions and in or adjacent to commercial or industrial developments. Sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities should comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design. Crosswalks should be clearly marked and located in appropriate areas. Paint or paving materials can be used to delineate crosswalks. 68 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Parking lot designs need to address pedestrian access to the site and circulation within the site. Five foot wide sidewalks or striped pedestrian crossings should be provided from adjacent sites through parking lots to promote safe pedestrian access. Safe and appealing pedestrian circulation systems allow people to park their cars once and walk to different establishments, resulting in an overall reduction in the number of vehicle trips. Joint and cross access between developments can provide opportunities for shared parking. Other Elements of the Transportation Master Plan Traffic Impact Studies As growth occurs throughout the County, the need to evaluate the impacts of proposed developments on the surrounding transportation networks prior to giving approval to build will increase. This will be accomplished by requiring a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be performed for any development in the area based on City staff recommendations. A TIS will allow the City/County to determine the site specific impacts of a development including internal site circulation, access issues, and adjacent roadway and intersection impacts. In addition, a TIS will assist in defining possible impacts to the overall transportation system in the vicinity of the development. The area and items to be evaluated in a TIS include key intersections and roads as determined by the City Traffic Engineer on a case by case basis. Each TIS will be conducted by a qualified Traffic Engineer chosen by the developer at their cost and approved by the City/County. A scoping meeting will be required by the developer/Traffic Engineer with the City Engineer to determine the scope of each TIS. Traffic Impact Study Requirements are included in the appendix of this report. Intelligent Transportation Systems Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) refers to the increased use of technology and communication methods to improve traffic operations. Pavement detectors, traffic cameras and weather sensors are used to gather constant information about traffic flow conditions along corridors or at intersections. This information may be relayed to a traffic control center where operators can change traffic signal timing plans or post messages on variable message signs. Interconnectivity of the signal network is vital to the safe and efficient operation of the signal system. The signals in the City of Rexburg are not currently interconnected but ITD and the City of Rexburg has plans to connect these signals in the next few years. All new and existing signals that are not currently connected should be via radio or preferably fiber optic where possible. Installing a mini–Traffic Operations Center at some central location where signal operations can be monitored and adjusted where necessary is also recommended. Traffic Signal Coordination Traffic signal coordination is another ITS method that is used to improve traffic operations and efficiency. In modern coordinated signal systems, it is possible for drivers to travel long distances without encountering a red light. This coordination is done easily only on one-way streets with fairly constant levels of traffic. Two-way streets are often arranged to correspond with peak times of the day to speed 69 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 the heavier volume direction along. The traffic signals along 2nd East and Main Street should be coordinated to allow favorable progression during the peak times of the day. ITD Coordination Madison County must be an integral player in developing regional planning involving state roads and highways. US-20 and HWY-33 run through the County and the City of Rexburg. The formation of the RPO goes a long way to ensure that Madison County has a voice that is heard when it comes to state roads. In the future, the City and County must continue this collaborative relationship with ITD and coordinate planning efforts through the use of the new travel demand model and sharing of important planning information. Corridor Preservation Corridor preservation is an important transportation planning tool that agencies should use and apply to all future transportation corridors. There are several new transportation facilities that have been identified in the Transportation Master Plan. In planning for these future facilities, corridor preservation techniques should be employed. The main purposes of corridor preservation are to:  Preserve the viability of future options,  Reduce the cost of these options, and  Minimize environmental and socio-economic impacts of future implementation. Corridor preservation seeks to preserve the right-of-way needed for future transportation facilities and prevent development that might be incompatible with these facilities. This is primarily accomplished by the community’s ability to apply land use controls, such as zoning and approval of developments. Adoption of the Transportation Master Plan by the County is a commitment to citizens and future leaders in the community that the identified future corridors will be the ultimate location for transportation facilities. Perhaps the most important elements of corridor preservation are ensuring that the corridors are preserved in the correct location and that they meet the applicable design and right-of-way standards for the type of facility being preserved. As the master plan does not define the exact alignment of each future corridor, it becomes the responsibility of the City/County to make sure that the corridors are correctly preserved. This will need to be accomplished through the engineering and planning reviews done within the City/County as development and annexation requests are approved that involve properties within or adjacent to the future corridors. Figure 23 shows the proposed right-of-way widths to be preserved along the proposed corridors (and many existing corridors) within the county. Legend Future Roads 79' ROW 79' ROW 100' ROW 125' ROW Local Roads Existing Roads 79' ROW 79' ROW 100' ROW 125' ROW Local Roads 90' ROW 99' ROW City/County Limits Madison Rexburg Proposed Right of Way ¯ 0 11 Miles Current Extent Figure 23: Proposed ROW Preservation 71 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Corridor Preservation Techniques Some examples of specific corridor preservation techniques that may be most beneficial and easily implemented include the following:  Developer Incentives and Agreements – Public agencies can offer incentives in the form of tax abatements, density credits, or timely site plan approvals to developers who maintain property within proposed transportation corridors in an undeveloped state.  Exactions – As development proposals are submitted to the City/County for review, efforts should be made to exact land identified within the future corridors.  Fee Simple Acquisitions – This is a voluntary transaction full ownership of a land parcel, including the underlying title, transferred from the owner to the City/County via either purchase or donation.  Land Use Controls – This method allows government entities to use its policing power to regulate intensity and types of land use. Zoning ordinances are the primary controls over land use and the most important land use tools available for use in corridor preservation programs.  Purchase of Options and Easements – Options and easements allow government agencies to purchase interests in property that lie within highway corridors without obtaining full title of the land.  Annexation – The City may require right-of-way for roadways to be dedicated to the City during the annexation process. This becomes part of the annexation agreement and is an effective and efficient way to procure needed right-of-way for future expansion. Travel Demand Management Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs are designed to reduce the traffic volume on streets by increasing the number of occupants in a vehicle or by reducing or changing travel patterns and behavior. TDM programs use incentives and disincentives on automobile users to promote these changes in behavior. There are many myths and misconceptions about various TDM programs, what their specific goals are and how effective they may be. It is important to understand the facts behind each type of program and what each may be expected to accomplish prior to the selection and implementation of such strategies so that the benefits of the program may be maximized. Travel Demand Management measures can be divided into three categories: Improved Alternatives, Incentives and Disincentives, and Alternative Work Arrangements. The information in this section about Travel Demand Management has been summarized from a reference manual produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) called Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measure1. Safety One of the main goals of the TMP and long-term transportation planning in general is to estimate traffic growth and provide for adequate facilities as the need arises. The safe traffic operations of these future facilities are of equal importance. As a result, all of these facilities should be constructed and maintained 1 Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: A Series on TDM, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C. June 1993. 72 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 to applicable design and engineering standards such as those set forth by the City/County ordinances, AASHTO “Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,” and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This includes implementing applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and school zone treatments. Traffic Calming Traffic calming provides many benefits to pedestrians and to the creation of livable neighborhoods. Traffic calming and slower traffic enhances pedestrian safety by:  Decreasing the chances of a car-pedestrian collision  Reducing the severity of injuries should a collision occur  Making it easier and less intimidating for pedestrians to cross streets Traffic calming and slower traffic encourage more walking and bicycling by improving the ambiance of the neighborhood and more livable streets by:  Producing less traffic noise  Reducing the level of air pollution Street patterns are typically developed at the time of construction. In eastern Idaho, the history of using a grid system for planning and development purposes started with the first settlers and has proven efficient for moving people and goods throughout a network of surface streets. However, the nature of a grid system with wide and often long, straight roads can result in excessive speeds. For that reason, traffic calming measures (TCM) can be implemented to reduce speeds on residential roadways. Traffic calming is, however, still applicable to many neighborhood or local streets and may be given consideration on the City’s local and residential streets on a case-by-case basis upon request. Traffic calming may be applied to existing City streets when requested by the neighborhood but should always be considered during the development of new neighborhood streets and subdivisions. The City/County should consider the application of a Traffic Calming Program to remove the subjectivity of the decision making process when it comes to traffic calming. ITE has established a definition for traffic calming that reads, “Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.” Altering driver behavior includes lowering of speeds, reducing aggressive driving, and increasing respect for non-motorized street users. Types of Traffic Calming Measures There are several types of TCM that can be grouped into three categories, depending on the level of control or the effect on traffic flow and speeds. Several factors can influence the choice of TCM used, including the location, street classification, street geometry, adjacent land uses, public transit needs, budget, climate, aesthetics, and community preferences. Level I measures are the least restrictive, while Level II is the most dramatic. The measures used for each level are outlined below. 73 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Level I Measures Level I measures would emphasize to residents important traffic safety issues and give instructions for driving safely in accordance with the rules of the road. The following list outlines Level I measures:  Neighborhood Education Brochure  Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaign  Signage  Pavement Markings  Brush Trims  Target Enforcement  Neighborhood Speed Watch  Radar Speed Trailer Level II Measures Level II measures indicate physical measures to reduce traffic volumes and traffic speed. As a part of traffic calming practices, the following measures should not be used for traffic calming:  Stop Signs  Children at Play Signs  Rumble Strips Level II measures are separated into two categories for volume and speed control and are explained below. Volume Control Measures The primary purpose of volume control measures is to discourage or eliminate cut-through traffic. The following are volume control measures:  Half Street Closures  Median Barriers  Force Turn Islands Speed Control Measures The primary purpose of speed control measures is to reduce vehicle speed. The following are speed control measures:  Speed Cushions (Temporary Only)  Roundabouts  Traffic Circles  Center Island Narrowing  Chokers Streetscaping Streetscaping includes the planning and placement of items, such as street furniture, lighting, art, trees, landscaping, and side treatments along streets and intersections. Although streetscaping can be implemented without traffic calming, TCMs need a certain element of streetscaping to be functional. Streetscaping enhances the aesthetics of roundabouts and constrictions. Landscaping and other roadside treatments make street closures more effective and safer by highlighting the presence of the measure. 74 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Capital Facilities Plan As shown and discussed previously, the City will need to construct new roads, widen existing transportation corridors, and make spot intersection improvements to provide future residents of the City/County with an adequate transportation system. A pavement preservation program is also crucial for extending the longevity of existing roads. Pavement preservation generally comes in the form of slurry seals, chip seals, crack seals. In an ideal situation, each road segment should be on a 7-year rotation per ITD recommendation. For example, 7 years after construction the road segment would be slurry sealed. 7 years later the same road segment would again be slurry sealed. 7 years after that the entire road segment would be completely reconstructed. This type of program allows for each road segment to be reconstructed every 21 years. Table 18 shows the estimated budget need each year per entity to be able to maintain each road segment in a 7-7-7 year cycle. Based on the City of Rexburg’s current 5-year reconstruction plan, their reconstruction budget is generally between $1.1M and $1.7M. This is closer to a 35-35-35 year program. This means that many of the Rexburg City roads are likely due for reconstruction but there is not enough budget to do so. If possible, it is recommended that the City of Rexburg increase their reconstruction budget to fit at least a more frequent program cycle. A more detailed breakdown of budget calculations can be found in the Appendix. Table 18: Reconstruction Budget Scenarios Program Cycle Madison County City of Rexburg Sugar City 7-7-7 $ 19,378,367.45 $ 7,913,691.78 $ 443,463.50 10-10-10 $ 13,564,857.21 $ 5,539,584.25 $ 310,424.45 15-15-15 $ 9,043,238.14 $ 3,693,056.16 $ 206,949.63 20-20-20 $ 6,782,428.61 $ 2,769,792.12 $ 155,212.22 35-35-35 $ 3,875,673.49 $ 1,582,738.36 $ 88,692.70 Transportation Needs as a Result of New Development Figure 24 identifies the specific projects that will be necessary in the near future; however, only arterial and collector improvements were identified since any local roads would be required to be built as part of future development. All costs have not been adjusted for inflation and therefore represent 2022 costs. The cost estimates shown represent the costs of construction, right-of-way, and engineering. Figure 24 includes all projects in the City/County through the year 2048. Actual development and transportation needs should provide the final decision on project timing. Priority Ranking Project Description Estimate Likely Sponsor (Partnering Agency)Other anticipated projects 1 Pioneer/7th S. Intersection Roundabout Intersection Improvement Under Construction City of Rexburg Thomson Farms Rd crossover 2 University Blvd/2000 West Intersection Improvement Under Construction City of Rexburg 2nd East and 2nd South Signal 3 East Parkway Corridor Phase I New Road (Barney Dairy Rd. to 7th North)$6,517,000 City of Rexburg University Blvd. (2nd west to 2nd east) 4 University Boulevard (12th W to High School) New Road (roughly 600'has already been completed, the rest to be developer driven)$1,276,000 City of Rexburg Trejo Intersection 5 East Parkway Corridor Phase II New Road (Barney Dairy Rd. to 7th South)$3,322,000 City of Rexburg 2nd east widening (south of main street) 6 5th West Extension New Road $9,497,000 City of Rexburg Main street (west of US-20) 7 5th West/University Boulevard Intersection Improvement $500,000 City of Rexburg University Blvd. (Yellowstone to 5th West) 8 East Parkway Corridor Phase III New Road (University Blvd. to 2nd East)$2,517,000 City of Rexburg Barney Dairy Rd. to 2nd East connection 9 East Parkway Corridor Phase IV New Road (2nd East to 7th South)$3,676,000 City of Rexburg 10 2nd E Widening Widen to 5 lanes $722,000 City of Rexburg 11 2nd South Connection to East Pkwy New Road $4,957,000.00 City of Rexburg 12 7th South Extension New Road $1,592,000.00 City of Rexburg 13 East Pkwy to Millhollow New Road $1,405,000.00 City of Rexburg 14 Moody Road Extension New Road $6,435,000.00 City of Rexburg 15 Moody Road Widening Widening to 5 Lanes $2,585,000.00 City of Rexburg 16 Cemetery Road to 2nd East New Road $937,000.00 City of Rexburg 1 5200 South/4300 West Shoulder Improvement (Widening and slope flattening)Programmed County 2 3000 West/2000 North Intersection Improvement $1,375,000 County (Rexburg) 3 US-20 West Frontage Road New Road North Programmed County 4 2000N Bridge (Moody Road Bridge)Bridge Replacement over Teton River Programmed County 5 Salem Highway Mill and Inlay Roadway Rehabilitation $682,500 County (Sugar City) 6 Twin Buttes Road Overlay (With Jefferson Co.)Roadway Rehabilitation $2,096,250 County (Jefferson County) 7 2000W/Diamond H Ln Canal Culvert Culvert Repair(Three-sided Box)$225,000 County 8 Twin Bridges Abutment/Bridge Repair HYDRAULIC STUDY RECOMMENDED County 9 Cress Creek (Snake River Road)Widen and Pave $1,211,000 County (Jefferson County) 10 Eastside Drive New Road New Road $1,473,000 County 11 Lyman-Archer Hwy/Yellowstone Hwy Intersection Improvement (Roundabout)$1,900,000 County (Rexburg) 12 University Boulevard (High School to 3000W)New Road $1,516,000 County 13 University Boulevard (3000W to 4000 W)New Road $2,708,000 County (Rexburg) 14 5000 S (Bybee Dugway) Geometric Improvements Roadway Reconstruction $3,574,000 County 15 7800 South/600 East Intersection Improvement (Roundabout)$1,200,000 County 16 2000 North/5000 East Intersection Improvement (Roundabout)$1,200,000 County 1 SH-33 (Main Street)/ US-20 Interchange Interchange Conversion to Diverging Diamond IC Programmed ITD (Rexburg) 2 University Boulevard/US-20 Interchange Interchange Conversion to Diverging Diamond IC Programmed ITD (Rexburg) 3 Signals at North Interchange Install traffic signals at the interchange ramps $2,520,000 ITD (Rexburg) 4 2nd East (Closure of Gap over IC)(Widening of the structure)$2,520,000 ITD (Rexburg/Sugar City) 5 2nd East Median Installation Installation of center medians to restrict left-turn traffic between Main Street and Yellowstone Hwy $1,647,000 ITD (Rexburg) 6 Moody Road (US-20)Overpass $15,661,000 ITD (Rexburg/County) 7 7th South/US-20 Overpass $16,136,000 ITD (Rexburg) 8 Poleline Road Overpass $13,847,000 ITD (Rexburg/County) 1 Salem Road (3 Lane Section to Interchange)Widening to 3-Lane no C&G (Additional 12’lane and shoulder)$882,000 Sugar City 2 US-20 Frontage Road (Walmart)New Collector Roadways by Walmart $3,080,000 Sugar City (Rexburg) 3 East Parkway Corridor Phase V New Road $7,393,000 Sugar City (Rexburg/County) 4 7th W to East Pkwy New Road $691,000 Sugar City (Rexburg/County) Figure 24: Transportation Improvement Plan Cost Estimate 76 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 Proposed Means to Meet Demands of New Development All possible revenue sources have been considered as a means of financing transportation capital improvements needed as a result of new growth. This section discusses the potential revenue sources that could be used to fund transportation needs as a result of new development. Transportation routes often span multiple jurisdictions and provide regional significance to the transportation network. As a result, other government jurisdictions often help pay for such regional benefits. Those jurisdictions could include the Federal Government, the State Government or ITD. The City/County will need to continue to partner and work with these other jurisdictions to ensure the adequate funds are available for the specific improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. The City/County will also need to partner with adjacent communities to ensure corridor continuity across jurisdictional boundaries (i.e., arterials connect with arterials; collectors connect with collectors, etc.). Funding sources for transportation are essential if the Madison County recommended improvements are to be built. The following paragraphs further describe the various transportation funding sources available to the City/County. Federal Funding Federal monies are available to Cities and Counties through the federal-aid program. Because the programs for funding are continually changing, the Cities and County should regularly discuss upcoming projects with ITD and coordinate efforts to receive federal funding. Regardless of the status of the current funding mechanisms, a list of priority projects with up-to-date purpose and need statements should be maintained. In addition, those projects most likely suited for federal funding should be evaluated and where appropriate environmental protections under the federal NEPA regulations should be considered. Idaho law now allows for the solicitation and construction of transportation projects through new and innovative methods. Projects that require unique construction techniques or unique construction delivery methods may be appropriate for Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) projects. This delivery method is effective where anticipated construction challenges may warrant input from a potential contractor during the design process. Often, funding such as a RAISE grant is awarded to local agencies which require relatively quick construction schedules. Design/Build projects have been completed in Idaho and are a potential avenue for quick project delivery. Where federal funding is the most likely avenue for funding a project, Madison County, the City of Rexburg and ITD should consider the most effective delivery method and potential schedules. Environmental evaluations may be completed in advance of the design and may provide an avenue for alternative delivery of the project. The City and County should stay in contact with LHTAC/ITD and coordinate for continued funding programs to investigate any needs as they arise. Federal funding may be available through the Federal Transit Administration as well as other agencies. Specific to Madison County is a bridge structure crossing the Snake River on the south end of the County. This bridge is the Snake River Bridge often referred to as the Twin Bridges. Due to a channel change in the Snake River, the abutment of the bridge is vulnerable to erosion and potential failure. In this situation 77 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 consultation with other agencies is imperative. FEMA and USACOE should be included in planning discussions. Because of the nature of this bridge and the importance to the citizens of the surrounding areas, the agencies may be willing to participate with federal funds. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds projects for any roadway with a functional classification of a collector street or higher as established on the Functional Classification Map. STP funds can be used for both rehabilitation and new construction. The Local Highway Technical Advisory Council (LHTAC) programs a portion of the STP funds for projects around the state in urban areas. The programs include the STP Urban, the STP Rural, and the bridge program. STP urban funds are allocated for projects with urban areas of 5,000 people or greater. The local match is 7.34%. The STP Local Rural Funds are allocated for projects in rural areas, and in Cities with populations below 5,000. The STP funds can also be used for activities such as transportation planning and corridor studies. The local match requirement is 7.34% and are awarded through the Local Federal-Aid Incentive Program. The federal-aid bridge program provides funds for the replacement of bridges. This program has a limit of one project application per year per jurisdiction. The local match is again 7.34%. Funds are awarded through the Local Federal-Aid Incentive Program. To qualify the bridge must: 1) Be in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Database, which requires that the bridge be longer than 20 feet and it must carry a public road. (Recent rulings for this program have allowed for funding for bridges as long as the proposed span of the bridge exceeds 20 feet even when the existing structure span is less than 20 feet). 2) Have a sufficiency ration of less than 50 for replacement. Bridges with a sufficiency rating of less than 75 are eligible for funding for rehabilitation. 3) Be classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federally funded program aimed at reducing fatal and serious type A injury crashes on the roadway system. Beginning in 2013 LHTAC began receiving state HSIP funds. The Local HSIP program called LHSIP is based on the number of Fatal and Type A serious injury crashes per jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with the highest amount of Fata and Type A Serious Injury crashes per ITD district are identified. Eligible jurisdictions are notified each Fall. This federally funded program may require a 7.34% local match. State/County Funding The distribution of State funds is established by State Legislation and is administered by the Idaho Department of Transportation. Revenues for the program are derived from State fuel taxes, registration fees, driver license fees, inspection fees, and transportation permits. Some of these funds are kept by ITD for their construction and maintenance programs. The rest is made available to Counties and Cities. As many of the roads in Madison County fall under ITD jurisdiction, it is in the interests of the County and City that staff is aware of the procedures used by ITD to allocate those funds and to be active in requesting the funds be made available for ITD owned roadways in the City. Recent rulings by the Idaho Legislature have appropriated funding to jurisdictions within Madison County. Because of limited availability and the reoccurrence and the amount of funding is highly variable from year to year, each jurisdiction is encouraged to stay in contact with ITD. 78 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 The Local Highway Rural Investment Program (LHRIP) is a program aimed at aiding small local jurisdictions (less than 5000 people) with their roadway construction, signing upgrades and transportation plan projects. Federal funds are exchanged for state funds to be spent on projects without following the federal guidelines. City Funding Some Cities utilize general fund revenues for their transportation programs. Another option for transportation funding is the creation of special improvement districts. These districts are organized for the purpose of funding a single specific project that benefits an identifiable group of properties. Another source of funding used by Cities includes revenue bonding for projects intended to benefit the entire community. Private interests often provide resources for transportation improvements. Developers construct the local streets within subdivisions and often dedicate right-of-way and participate in the construction of collector/arterial streets adjacent to their developments. Developers can also be considered a possible source of funds for projects through the use of impact fees. These fees are assessed as a result of the impacts a particular development will have on the surrounding roadway system, such as the need for traffic signals or street widening. General fund revenues are typically reserved for operation and maintenance purposes as they relate to transportation. However, general funds could be used if available to fund the expansion or introduction of specific services. Providing a line item in the City budgeted general funds to address roadway improvements, which are not impact fee eligible is a recommended practice to fund transportation projects should other funding options fall short of the needed amount. General obligation bonds are debt paid for or backed by the City’s taxing power. In general, facilities paid for through this revenue stream are in high demand amongst the community. Typically, general obligation bonds are not used to fund facilities that are needed as a result of new growth because existing residents would be paying for the impacts of new growth. As a result, general obligation bonds are not considered a fair means of financing future facilities needed as a result of new growth. Developer Impact Fees Impact fees are a way for a community to obtain funds to assist in the construction of infrastructure improvements resulting from and needed to serve new growth. The premise behind impact fees is that if no new development occurred, the existing infrastructure would be adequate. Therefore, new developments should pay for the portion of required improvements that result from new growth. Impact fees are assessed for many types of infrastructures and facilities that are provided by a community, such as roadway facilities. According to state law, impact fees can only be used to fund growth related system improvements. To help fund roadway improvements, impact fees could be considered. These fees are collected from new developments in the city to help pay for improvements that are needed to the roadway system due to growth. Other Funding Alternatives Various other alternatives for funding exist which include Community Development Block Grants, Local Improvement Districts, EPA funding programs and USDA Rural Development programs. Other programs 79 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2022 such as Impact Fees and Local Option Vehicle Registration Fees are alternatives that should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. Public Involvement Summary In addition to multiple updates to the Madison County commissioners and the members of the Rexburg City Council, the public was also invited to a public meeting. The meeting allowed the public to express ideas and concerns related to the topics presented. The meeting was advertised via web site, newspaper, and social media. The public meeting was held on June 1st, 2022 in the City Council Commissioners chambers. Exhibits of the transportation master plan history, traffic modeling, study results, and proposed alternatives were presented. Many in attendance came simply to learn with no comments. Others expressed comments verbally and in writing. The primary concern expressed by the majority of attendees was the congestion at the US-20 Interchanges and on 2nd East between Main Street and 7th North.