HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix_Final
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Appendix Items
· Speed Limit Guidelines
· Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
· Traffic Calming Program and Toolbox
· Intersection Analysis Report
· RS 2477 Right of Ways Map
· Access Management Program (IDAPA)
· Roadway/Intersection Concept Designs
· Madison County Bridges
· Mayor’s Letter
· Madison Trails Maps
· Pavement Preservation Program
· Rural Madison County Projects
· Public Open House Figures
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Speed Limit Studies
Setting a speed limit in a community can be a polarizing issues. Often, residents in a single neighborhood
will have differing opinions on how high or low a speed limit should be. The purpose of setting a speed
limit is to balance mobility and safety with the primary emphasis placed on safety. Setting of speed limits
is rarely effective when an arbitrary speed limit is set based on anecdotal evidence or like facilities in
another area of town. This sometimes default approach results in either unsafe conditions and resident
complaints when speed limits are set too high, or unsafe conditions and driver non-compliance to posted
limits when speed limits are set too low. This document gives the City and County guidance to when and
how to appropriately set the maximum speed limit for roadways within their respective jurisdictions.
Types of Speed Limits
Speed limits may be classified as default/statutory regulations, or speed zoning regulations established
on the basis of engineering studies. In all cases, a speed limit must be legislated (i.e. established by
legislative authority).
Statutory Speed Limits
Statutory limits are based on the concept that uniform categories of highways can operate safely at certain
maximum speeds under ideal conditions. State motor vehicle laws specify speed limits on specific
categories of streets and highways. For example, a vehicle code might limit speeds to 25 mph in residential
areas, in business districts, and 55 mph on all other roads. Generally, statutory limits apply throughout a
political jurisdiction. Statutory speed limits allow for speed limits to be in effect even when it is not
practical to post them.
Speed Zones
Where statutory limits do not fit specific road, traffic, or land uses conditions, most road authorities have
the power to establish speed zones to reflect the safe maximum reasonable speed. These alternative
speed limits may be higher or lower than those prescribed by the statutory limits of the jurisdiction.
Alternative maximum legal speed limits are established by legislating the speed zone, typically founded
on the basis of an engineering study, and becoming effective when the limits are posted and properly
recorded. Agencies process resolutions, traffic control orders, or other formal documents to properly
record the legal speed limit. To encourage compliance and effectively manage risk, many agencies set
speed limits to reflect the “reasonable and prudent” behavior of the majority of motorists acting in an
appropriate manner. This encourages drivers to obey the posted speed limit and travel at a reasonable
speed. It also targets limited enforcement resources at the occasional violator who disproportionately
contributes to crash risk. The concept of a rational speed limit involves a formal engineering review, during
which drivers’ free-flowing speeds are observed. The assumption is that by reflecting actual driver speeds,
most people will consider the speed limit appropriate. Such speed limits are desirable because they
encourage public compliance, reduce speed differences among drivers, and offer a defensible
enforcement tool.
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Setting Speed Limits
This section describes the main objectives and guiding principles of setting speed limits and provides a
detailed description of the principal available methods.
Speed limits are set to inform motorists of appropriate driving speeds under favorable conditions. Drivers
are expected to reduce speeds under certain conditions (e.g., poor visibility, adverse weather, congestion,
warning signs, or presence of bicyclists and pedestrians). Legislation and statutes generally reflect this
requirement. All speed control regulations provide the legal basis for adjudication and sanctions for
violations of the law. Road authorities may also post advisory speed signs, which do not have the force of
law but warn motorists of suggested safe speeds for specific conditions at a particular location (e.g., a turn
or an intersection approach). Having stated the above, however, a motorist exceeding an advisory speed
could still be cited under the basic speed rule (i.e., driving too fast for the prevailing conditions).
The primary purpose of the speed limit is to advise drivers of the maximum reasonable and safe operating
speed under favorable conditions. It provides a basis for enforcement and ought to be fair in the context
of traffic law.
Methodologies for setting speed limits typically are designed to result in recommended speed limits that:
• Are related to crash risk;
• Provide a reasonable basis for enforcement;
• Are fair in the context of traffic law; and
• Are accepted as reasonable by a majority of road users.
The selected methodology is generally applicable on all road types and capable of being implemented
with existing resources.
Factors that affect safe speeds along roadways, and also influence the speed selected by motorists,
include:
• A vehicle’s mechanical condition and characteristics;
• Driving ability/capabilities;
• Traffic volume: vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles;
• Weather and visibility;
• Roadway design elements, including:
Road function/purpose;
Lane and shoulder width;
Horizontal and vertical curves;
Available sight distances;
Driveways with restricted visibility and other roadside developments;
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
High driveway density;
Rural residential or developed areas; and
Paved or improved shoulders.
• Pavement conditions; and
• Crash frequency and severity.
All of these factors should be considered when designing appropriate speed limits at locations where the
speed limits need to be varied from the statutory limits. Special situations also exist that necessitate
nighttime, school zone, work zone, minimum and variable speed limits or advisory speeds.
The above-mentioned factors to be considered in selecting a speed limit are also heavily influenced by
geometric design features of the road and roadside development/activity. This is largely because drivers
tend to select operating speeds based on the visual scene presented to them. Therefore, the speed limit
and design of the road must work in concert if desired operating speeds are to be achieved.
Due to the lack of specific guidance and procedures from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) and other documents, engineers often rely on their experience and judgment when considering
factors that affect decisions about setting appropriate speed limits. The use of subjective procedures by
decision-makers with various levels of experience, and the use of different procedures across jurisdictions,
may lead to inconsistencies in how speed limits are set in different jurisdictions.
Methods of Setting Speed Limits
There are four recommended methods of setting speed limits in the engineering community:
Engineering Approach: A two-step process where a base speed limit is set according to the 85th percentile
speed, the design speed for the road, or other criterion. This base speed limit is adjusted according to
traffic and infrastructure conditions such as pedestrian use, median presence, etc. Within the engineering
approach there are two approaches; 1) Operating Speed Method and 2) Road Risk Method.
Expert system approach: Speed limits are set by a computer program that uses knowledge and inference
procedures that simulate the judgment and behavior of speed limit experts. Typically, this system contains
a knowledge base containing accumulated knowledge and experience (knowledge base), and a set of rules
for applying the knowledge to each particular situation (the inference procedure).
Optimization: Setting speed limits to minimize the total societal costs of transport. Travel time, vehicle
operating costs, road crashes, traffic noise, and air pollution are considered in the determination of
optimal speed limits.
Injury Minimization or Safe System Approach: Speed limits are set according to the crash types that are
set according to the crash types that are likely to occur, the impact forces that result, and the human
body’s tolerance to withstand these forces.
The Engineering Approach is the most widely used method in North America, and is the recommended
approach for setting speed limits in Madison County.
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
The following section detail the steps to setting speed limits using the Engineering Approach.
Engineering Approach
The steps in the engineering approach to setting speed limits include planning, coordination, data
collection and analysis, and finally, determination of the speed limits. A traffic engineering study is the
observation and analysis of road and traffic characteristics to guide the application of traffic engineering
principles. The study of speed limits includes the following:
· Review the road’s environment, features, and condition and traffic characteristics.
· Observation and measurement of vehicle speeds at one or more representative spots along the
road in ideal weather and under free-flowing traffic conditions.
· Analysis of vehicle speeds to determine the 85th percentile speed and other characteristics.
· Review the road’s crash history.
· Review of any unusual conditions not readily apparent.
Setting speed limits is complex and often controversial. The engineering approach requires the use of
engineering judgment based on the engineering and traffic investigation. Quality data and good
documentation provides support for the judgments that are made.
Within the engineering approach to setting speed limits there are two basic methods: the operating speed
method and the road risk method. Each of these is detailed below.
Operating Speed Method
Most engineering approaches to speed limit setting are based on the 85th percentile speed—the speed
at which 85 percent of free-flowing traffic is traveling at or below. The typical procedure is to set the speed
limit at or near the 85th percentile speed of free-flow traffic. Adjustments to either increase or decrease
the speed limits may be made depending on infrastructure and traffic conditions.
Setting a speed limit based on the 85th percentile speed was originally based on safety. Specifically,
research at the time had shown that traveling at or around one standard deviation above the mean
operating speed (which is approximately the 85th percentile speed) yields the lowest crash risk for drivers.
Furthermore, crash risk increases rapidly for drivers traveling two standard deviations or more above or
below the mean operating speed. Therefore, the 85th percentile speed separates acceptable speed
behavior from unsafe speed behavior that disproportionately contributes to crash risk.
The 85th percentile speed method is also attractive because it reflects the collective judgment of the vast
majority of drivers as to a reasonable speed for given traffic and roadway conditions. This is aligned with
the general policy sentiment that laws (i.e., speed limits) should not make people acting reasonably into
law-breakers. Setting a speed limit even 5 mph below the 85th percentile speed can make almost half the
drivers illegal; setting a speed limit 5 mph above the 85th percentile speed will likely make few additional
drivers legal.
Under the operating speed method of setting speed limits, the first approximation of the speed limit is to
set the speed limit at the 85th percentile speed. The MUTCD recommends that the speed limit be within
5 mph of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. The posted speed limit shall be in multiples of
5 mph.
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
While the MUTCD recommends setting the posted speed limits near the 85th percentile speed, and traffic
engineers say that agencies are using the 85th percentile speed to set speed limits, in reality the speed
limit is often set much lower. At these locations, the 85th percentile operating speeds exceed the posted
speed limits; and, in many cases, the 50th percentile operating speed is either near or exceeds that posted
speed limit as well. Many agencies deviate from their agency’s written guidelines and instead post lower
speed limits. According to an ITE Engineering Council Technical Committee survey, these reduced speed
limits are often the result of political pressures. The 85th percentile speed can be adjusted on the basis
of engineering and traffic investigation.
The following are typical adjustments made by several States:
• Adjustments made for roadway factors and/or crash data may be lower than the 85th percentile
speed, but normally no more than 7 mph lower.
• Adjustments for roadway factors may reduce the 85th percentile speed by as much as 10 mph
below the 85th percentile speed based on sound and generally accepted engineering judgment
that includes consideration of the following factors:
o Narrow roadway pavement widths (20 feet or less, for example).
o Horizontal and vertical curves (possible limited sight distance).
o Driveways with restricted visibility and other developments (possible limited sight
distance).
o High driveway density (the higher the number of driveways, the higher the potential for
encountering entering and turning vehicles).
o Rural residential or developed areas (higher potential for pedestrian and bicycle traffic).
Narrow shoulder widths (constricted lateral movement).
• If the crash rate for a two-year period is much higher than the average for other highways of
similar classifications, adjustments are considered.
• Adjustments can be made based on crash data when enforcement agencies will assure a degree
of enforcement that will make the speed zone effective.
• A 12 mph (20 km/h) reduction for locations where roadway factors and crash rates are higher
than the statewide average.
After the 85th percentile speeds and zone lengths have been selected, some jurisdictions recommend
that several test runs be made through the area in both directions driving at the selected speeds. This
should show any irregularities in the zoning that need correction before the speed zone is implemented.
The last step in the analysis process for the operating speed method is to draw conclusions based on the
observed data and to prepare a report. The report can be elaborate or very basic depending on why the
study was performed and how the results will be used.
The use of the 85th percentile speed as the primary criterion for selecting a suitable speed limit is founded
on the following fundamental concepts deeply rooted in government and law:
• Driving behavior is an extension of social attitude, and the majority of drivers respond in a safe
and reasonable manner as demonstrated by their consistently favorable driving records.
• The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.
• Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of unreasonable behavior
on the part of individuals.
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
• Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and voluntary compliance of the public
majority.
The operating speed method has the added advantage that a properly set speed limit will provide
residents, businesses, and pedestrians with a realistic expectation of actual vehicular speeds on the street.
Criticisms of the operating speed method of setting speed limits are largely targeted at the use of the 85th
percentile speed as the starting point for establishing the speed limit. They include:
• This criterion assumes that motorists are aware of and select the safest speed.
• Drivers are generally bad at accounting for the externalities of their driving.
A further criticism that has been leveled against the 85th percentile speed as a primary determinant of
the speed limit is that this practice may lead to an upward drift or creep in average operating speeds over
time.
The engineering approach to setting speed limits has manifested itself in North America as the setting of
“rational” speed limits. The premise is that speed limits based on a formal, analytical review of traffic flow,
roadway design, local development, and historical crash data will result in a high percentage of drivers
complying with the speed limit and traveling at about the same speed.
Despite wide-spread use of the operating speed method for setting speed limits in North America, there
are few jurisdictions that have quantitative criteria for the adjustments to the 85th percentile speed. For
example, how much should a speed limit be reduced if there is a high volume of pedestrian traffic on the
street? For the most part, the analyst is to use “engineering judgment” to make such valuations. Two
notable exceptions to the qualitative procedures are the Policy on Establishing and Posting Speed Limits
on the State Highway System by the Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Northwestern
Speed Zoning Technique (which is a procedure used by several municipalities).
The Illinois procedure considers access, pedestrian traffic, curbside parking, and safety performance, in
addition to existing speed profile to establish the recommended speed limit. Specific numerical
adjustments are specified in the procedure for each of the above criterion. The Illinois procedure is
described later in this report.
The Northwestern Speed Zoning Technique is similar to the Illinois DOT procedure mentioned above, but
it considers a wider range of traffic and infrastructure factors including presence of a median, lane width,
vertical alignment, etc. Again, numerical direction is provided concerning the adjustments that are
required for different road features, making the process repeatable and reliable. The Northwestern Speed
Zoning Technique is detailed later in this report.
Road Risk Method
Another method of setting speed limits using an engineering approach is the road risk method in which
the speed limit is determined by the risks associated with the physical design of the road and the expected
traffic conditions. This method has numerous guises, but the core methodology is to set the speed limit
according to the function or classification of the road (which also tends to dictate the design of the road),
and then to adjust the speed limit based on the relative risk introduced by various road and roadside
design features. This method is currently employed by Canada and New Zealand.
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
The road risk method is the same as the operating speed method in that a selected base speed limit is
adjusted by various factors to determine the recommended speed limit. The main difference between the
two engineering methods is that the operating speed method uses the 85th percentile speed as the base
speed limit, and the road risk method uses a base speed limit that is predicated on the functional
classification of the road and its setting.
Under the road risk method to setting speed limits the level of roadside development and the function of
a road are the primary determinants of the appropriate speed limit. Although road geometry is also a
factor in determining a speed limit, it is secondary to roadside development. In situations where the road
design encourages users to travel at a higher speed than the speed limit determined by roadside
development, engineering techniques should be used to lower vehicle speeds. When a road in a built-up
area primarily serves through traffic, engineering and access control techniques should be used to provide
safety at the higher speeds that will prevail.
By using the land use and functional classification of the road as the primary determinants of the desirable
speed limit, road authorities that use the road risk method are attempting to reconcile the legislated
speed of the road with the function of the road.
The road risk method used in New Zealand sets out the method for calculating the speed limit for a section
of road from the following information:
• The existing speed limit;
• The character of the surrounding land environment (e.g., rural, fringe of city, fully developed);
• The function of a road (i.e., arterial, collector, or local);
• Detailed roadside development data (e.g., number of houses, shops, schools, etc.);
• The number and nature of side roads;
• Roadway characteristics (e.g., median divided, lane width and number of lanes, road geometry,
street lighting, sidewalks, cycle lanes, parking, setback of fence line from the road);
• Vehicle, cycle, and pedestrian activity;
• Crash data; and
• Speed survey data.
The road risk method employed in New Zealand is detailed in Appendix E and includes a working example.
Despite the fact that the road risk method downplays operating speed as a factor in developing the speed
limit, it is noted that the road risk method should recommend speed limits that are consistent with
operating speeds.
Conclusion
Setting speed limits or adjusting speed limits on roadways is a controversial topic and should be as
subjective as possible. The use of the Engineering Method of setting speed limits is the most widely used
and recommended method for determining a speed limit on a particular roadway. This method requires
an engineering study be performed by a licensed professional engineer with traffic engineering expertise
and all elements of the study including data collection and analysis should follow the best practices and
recommendations of the Institute or Transportation Engineers (ITE). The City and County intend to
respond to requests for speed limit adjustments by following these guidelines.
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Traffic Impact Studies
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is a specialized study of the impacts that a certain type and size of
development will have on the surrounding transportation system. A TIS is essential for many access
management decisions, such as spacing of driveways, traffic control devices, and traffic safety issues. It
is specifically concerned with the generation, distribution, and assignment of traffic to and from new
development. The purpose of this section is to establish uniform guidelines for when a TIS is required
and how the study is to be conducted.
When Required
The governmental agency will determine when a complete TIS is required. A TIS is generally required if
any of the following situations are proposed:
1. All new developments in or changes to existing developments that are expected to generate more
than 100 net new peak-hour vehicle trips (total in and out vehicular movements).
2. Development that generates less than 100 net new peak-hour trips may require a TIS under
unique circumstances. Examples include high accident locations, currently congested areas, areas
of critical local concern, or significant changes in direction distribution of site traffic.
3. All applications for rezoning or annexation (unless exception approved by local jurisdiction).
4. When the original TIS is more than 2 years old, access decisions are still outstanding, and changes
in development have occurred in the site environs.
5. When development agreements are necessary to determine “fair share” contributions to major
roadway improvements.
Study Category and Horizon Years
The study category is determined based on the net new number of peak hour trips generated by the
development. The governmental agency's representative will confirm the study category and horizon
years after the initial work activity
· CATEGORY I TIS- Developments which generate less than 500 peak hour trips. The study horizon
should include both the opening year of the development and five years after opening.
· CATEGORY II TIS- Developments which generate 500 or more peak hour trips. The study horizon
should include both the opening year of the development, five years after opening, and ten
years after opening.
Initial Work Activity
For a proposed development, a developer, or their agent, should first estimate the number of vehicular
trips to be generated by the proposed development. This will determine if a TIS is required, and if so, the
applicable category. The governmental agency’s representative must give concurrence on the number of
trips to be generated by the proposed development. The developer may, if desired, request that the
governmental agency’s representative assist in estimating the number of trips for the purpose of
determining whether a TIS is required for the proposed development.
The initial work of the TIS should include a technical memorandum which should contain the following
information:
· Site plan, land uses, and proposed access locations
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
· Table outlining calculations for net new trips generated by the site
· Proposed study horizon years
· Proposed peak hour periods to study
· Proposed trip distribution for site traffic
· Proposed study intersections, including major off-site intersections impacted by 30 or more new
trips during the PM peak hour.
The study area should include the site access points and nearest most likely utilized arterial or collector
intersection, at a minimum. Additional intersections may be included at the discretion of the
governmental agency's representative. The limits of the study area should be based on the size and
extent of the proposed development, and an understanding of existing and future land use, as well as
traffic conditions in and around the site. The governmental agency's representative, after possible
consultation with other affected jurisdictions, will make the final determination of the study area limits.
After approval of the TIS scope by governmental agency's representative, the actual TIS work activities
may begin.
Analysis Approach and Methods
The traffic study approach and methods should be guided by the following criteria.
Study Area
Based on the initial work activity, the study area should be determined. The governmental agency’s
representative may enlarge or decrease the extent of the study area.
Analysis Time Periods
Based on the initial evaluation of the development, both the morning and afternoon weekday peak hours
should be analyzed. However, if the proposed project is expected to generate no trips, or a very low
number of trips, during either of the peak periods, the requirement to analyze one or both of these
periods may be waived by the governmental agency's representative.
Where the peak traffic hour in the study area occurs during a different time period than the normal
morning or afternoon peak travel periods (for example mid-day), or occurs on a weekend, or if the
proposed project has unusual peaking characteristics, these additional peak hours should also be
analyzed.
Seasonal Adjustments
Under the direction of the governmental representative, the traffic volumes for the analysis may be
adjusted for the peak season if seasonal traffic data is available.
Data Collection
All data should be collected according to the latest edition of the ITE Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies,
or as directed by the governmental representative. This data includes:
· Turning movement counts. Manual turning movement counts should be obtained for all
existing cross-street intersections to be analyzed during the morning and afternoon peak
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
periods. Counts at other times should be performed as required by the governmental
representative. Available turning movement counts may be extrapolated a maximum of two
years with the concurrence of the governmental representative.
· Daily Traffic Volumes. The current and future daily traffic volumes should be presented in the
report. If available, daily count data from the local agencies should be extrapolated a maximum
of two years with the concurrence of the governmental agency's representative. Where daily
count data is not available, mechanical counts should be performed at locations agreed upon by
the governmental agency's representative.
· Accident Data-Traffic accident data should be obtained for the most current three-year period.
· Roadway and intersection geometrics- Roadway geometric information should be obtained.
This includes, but is not limited to, roadway width, number of lanes, turning lanes, vertical
grade, location of nearby driveways, and lane configuration at intersections.
· Traffic control devices- The location and type of traffic controls should be identified.
Trip Generation
The latest edition of ITE's Trip Generation should be used for selecting trip generation rates. Other rates
may be used with the approval of the governmental agency's representative in cases where Trip
Generation does not include trip rates for a specific land use category, or includes only limited data, or
where local trip rates have been shown to differ from the ITE rates.
Site traffic should be generated for daily, AM, and PM peak hour periods. Adjustments made for "pass-
by" and "mixed-use" traffic volumes should follow the methodology outlined in the latest edition of ITE’s
Trip Generation Handbook. A proposed "pass-by" traffic volume discount should be compared to the
volume of adjacent street traffic for reasonableness.
A trip generation table should be prepared showing proposed land use, trip rates, and vehicle trips for
daily and peak hour periods and appropriate traffic volume adjustments, if applicable
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Projected trips should be distributed and added to the projected non-site traffic on the roadways and
intersections under study. The specific assumptions and data sources used in deriving trip distribution and
assignment should be documented in the report.
Future traffic volumes should be estimated using information from transportation models, or by
applying an annual growth rate to the baseline traffic volumes. The future traffic volumes should be
representative of the horizon year for project development. If the annual growth rate method is used,
the governmental agency's representative must give prior approval to the percentage used. In addition,
any nearby approved but unbuilt development projects should be taken into consideration when
forecasting future traffic volumes.
The site-generated traffic should be assigned to the street network in the study area based on the
approved trip distribution percentages. The site traffic should be combined with the forecasted traffic
volumes to show the total traffic conditions estimated at development completion. A figure should
show peak period turning movement volumes for each traffic study intersection. An additional figure
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
should show the baseline volumes from site-generated traffic added to the street network. This figure
should represent site specific traffic impacts to existing conditions.
Capacity Analysis
Level of Service (LOS) should be computed for signalized and unsignalized intersections in accordance with
the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual or as directed by the governmental representative. The
intersection LOS should be computed for each of the following conditions:
· Existing peak hour traffic volumes
· Future horizon year traffic volumes not including site traffic
· Future horizon year traffic volumes including site traffic
A table should be provided which should show the LOS results for each of the study periods. It should
show the intersection LOS conditions with corresponding vehicle delays for signalized intersections, and
LOS conditions for the critical movements at unsignalized intersections. If individual approaches or
movements at signalized intersections are above LOS standards or problematic, they should be noted in
the report.
If the new development is scheduled to be completed in phases, the TIS should, if directed by
governmental agency's representative, include an LOS analysis for each separate development phase in
addition to the TIS for each horizon year. The incremental increases in site traffic from each phase should
be included in the LOS analysis for each preceding year of development completion. A figure should be
made for each horizon year of phased development.
Traffic Signal Needs
A traffic signal needs study should be conducted for all new proposed signals for the base year. If the
warrants are not met for the base year, they should be evaluated for each future horizon year.
Accident Analysis
An analysis of three-year accident data should be conducted to determine if the level of safety will
deteriorate due to the addition of site traffic. If the governmental agency's representative knows that
accident records should not indicate a concern, this requirement may be waived.
Speed Considerations
Vehicle speed is used to estimate safe stopping and cross corner sight distances. In general, the posted
speed limit is representative of the 85th percentile speed and may be used to calculate safe stopping and
cross corner sight distances.
LOS Standards and Improvement Analysis
The roadways and intersections within the study area should be analyzed, with and without the proposed
development, to identify any projected impacts regarding LOS and safety. 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
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
the intersection. The table below shows level of service based on delay from Chapter 3 of the FHWA Traffic
Signal Timing Manual.
LOS Delay per Vehicle (seconds)
A ≤ 10
B 10-20
C 20-35
D 35-55
E 55-80
F > 80
LOS C is the accepted standard for the street network and intersections with LOS D being acceptable with
approved by the City Engineer. The traffic impact of the development on the roadways and intersections
within the study area should be mitigated to LOS standards set forth above, or LOS conditions without
site traffic, whichever is worse.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Considerations
The study should explain how pedestrians and bicyclists will access and travel within the traffic site. The
types of non-motorized transportation facilities provided by the proposed development and nearby off-
site facilities should be noted. The route pedestrians or bicyclists would likely use to reach major
destinations such as parks, schools, and transit stops should be described. Major gaps or barriers should
be described.
On-Site Traffic Circulation
The study should explain vehicular and non-motorized transportation routes within the site. Any potential
on-site capacity concerns, especially those that may impact traffic on the surrounding transportation
network, should be noted.
Consistency with Adopted Transportation Plans
The ways in which this project is consistent with adopted vehicular and non-motorized transportation
plans should be explained.
Certification
The TIS should be sealed and signed by the Professional Engineer under whose direction it has been
conducted and prepared.
MADISON COUNTY
&
CITY OF REXBURG
GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
PREPARED BY
i
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 Principles of Traffic Calming .......................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Problem Identification .............................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Problem Characterization ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3 First Consider Major Road Network Improvements ................................................................. 2
1.4 Minimize Access Restrictions .................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Target Passenger Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 2
1.6 Temporary Implementation ...................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Neighborhood Involvement ...................................................................................................... 3
1.8 Monitor Conditions ................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Traffic Calming Process ................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Initiation ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Project Development ................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Project Approval........................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Project Implementation ............................................................................................................ 6
3.0 Traffic Calming Measures ............................................................................................................. 7
3.1 Non-Physical Measures ............................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Volume Control Measures ........................................................................................................ 8
3.3 VErtical Speed Control Measures .............................................................................................. 8
3.4 Horizontal Speed Control Measures ......................................................................................... 9
3.5 Narrowing Measures ................................................................................................................. 9
3.6 Combined Measures ................................................................................................................. 9
Appendix I: Process Documentation .......................................................................................................... 10
Traffic Calming Program Instructions ......................................................................................................... 11
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11
ii
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
2 Implementation Process/Time Frame ............................................................................................ 11
3 traffic calming request .................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Establishing A Neighborhood REpresentative ........................................................................ 12
3.2 Request for Traffic Calming ..................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Minimum Qualifying Criteria................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Neighborhood Petition ........................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Review and Ranking ................................................................................................................ 13
3.6 Selecting Measures ................................................................................................................. 14
3.7 Approval and Implementation ................................................................................................ 14
3.8 Construction ............................................................................................................................ 14
3.9 Evaluation................................................................................................................................ 14
Request for Traffic Calming......................................................................................................................... 15
Petition ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Scoring......................................................................................................................................................... 16
1
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
INTRODUCTION
The concept of traffic calming perhaps originated in the 1960s with the publication of Traffic in Towns
by Sir Colin Buchanan. This volume described the potential damages to society and neighborhood
livability caused by the motor car and ways to mitigate these impacts. These policies helped shape the
development of urban landscape in many countries over the next few decades.
Since the mid 1990s the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has seen traffic calming as an institute
priority and the industry at large has seen dozens of programs implemented to address the issue of traffic
calming. In 1999 ITE along with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published: Traffic Calming:
State of the Practice. This became the authority of traffic calming methods and practices. A second,
more recent publication: U.S. Traffic Calming Manual , was released in 2009 by the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American Planning Association (APA) as a companion volume to Traffic
Calming: State of the Practice.
Today traffic calming programs have been adopted by agencies throughout the United States as it has
become increasingly important to the public, agencies and other interested parties in order to develop
effective neighborhood environments that adequately accommodate motor vehicles, pedestrians and
bicyclists. Madison County is interested in applying appropriate traffic calming with goals of improving
neighborhood safety and livability while maintaining traffic circulation and overall user mobility.
ITE defines traffic calming as follows:
Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other
physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and / or cut-through volumes, in the interest of
street safety, livability, and other public purposes.
In other words, traffic calming is a methodology to influence motorist behavior and prevent undesirable
driving practices. Traffic calming is generally achieved with physical measures that reduce speeds, reduce
traffic volumes, discourage cut-through traffic on local streets, minimize conflicts between street users,
and enhance the environment.
This document presents recommended traffic calming guidelines for use within Madison County. The
guidelines are applicable for use on existing streets as well as in new developments. This document
presents a comprehensive program for addressing the traffic calming needs of the City including
responding to citizen requests, prioritizing traffic calming needs, selecting the most appropriate type of
traffic calming, installing traffic calming measures, and evaluating the effectiveness of traffic calming
already in use.
An extensive literary search was conducted of the state-of-the-practice by other agencies and
organizations to gather information on the best practices for designing neighborhood traffic calming
programs. This information was utilized to develop guidelines for Madison County.
2
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
1.0 PRINCIPLES OF TRAFFIC CALMING
There are several principles of traffic calming that should be considered when implementing traffic
calming measures. The following principles are intended to provide guidance and direction for users of
this document:
1.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Identifying the real traffic problem for a neighborhood roadway is not always easy. Sometimes the
perceived nature of a traffic problem is very different from the real problem. For example, residents often
mention both “traffic volume” and “speeding” as problems on their streets, but in many cases the traffic
problem is one or the other. It is important to identify the real traffic problem in order to select the
appropriate mitigating measure.
1.2 PROBLEM CHARACTERIZATION
In order to ensure that the appropriate traffic calming measures are implemented, it is essential that the
extent of problems be characterized and quantified. Roadway information such as width of roadway and
intersection dimensions should be collected. Diagrams can also be made to show such items as traffic
volumes, speeds, peak hours of travel, turning movement counts, historical crash information, transit
routes, bicycle routes, and pedestrian volumes.
1.3 FIRST CONSIDER MAJOR ROAD NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Before implementing any traffic calming measures for unwanted through movements on neighborhood
roadways, the reason for these movements need to be determined. Sometimes congestion on adjacent
arterials encourages motorists to shortcut through the neighborhood. There are a wide range of low-cost
options available to improve operations on the major street network, including fine-tuning signal timings,
adding turn pockets, and implementing prohibitions and parking restrictions.
1.4 MINIMIZE ACCESS RESTRICTIONS
Residents, businesses, and others who live and work in the community will be more supportive of traffic
calming measures that do not restrict their access into and out of a neighborhood. Problems should be
addressed with other less restrictive traffic calming measures when possible.
1.5 TARGET PASSENGER VEHICLES
The purpose in implementing traffic calming measures is to affect passenger vehicles and not other modes
of traffic. Designs for traffic calming measures should take into account transit buses, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and emergency service vehicles.
3
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
1.6 TEMPORARY IMPLEMENTATION
When possible, inexpensive temporary measures should be installed to ensure traffic calming measures
will achieve the intended results prior to constructing permanent measures. A temporary installation also
provides an opportunity to alter the geometrics of a measure or make other changes prior to permanent
installation. Temporary measures should resemble permanent measures as much as possible.
1.7 NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT
Residents, businesses and others who live and work in the community should be involved in developing
traffic calming. Their input is essential in identifying problems and in selecting traffic calming solutions.
Involving the neighborhood builds support for traffic calming plans, and enhances the credibility of a plan.
1.8 MONITOR CONDITIONS
Traffic patterns change and consequently it is important that traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, crashes, and
other indicators of potential traffic problems are recorded and analyzed on an on-going basis. Much of
this information is already collected and can be stored in a Geographic Information System (GIS) or other
easy to manage database. Traffic patterns should be monitored a continual basis.
2.0 TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS
A successful traffic calming program consists of four basic phases: project initiation, project development,
project approval, and project implementation. Each phase has several tasks associated with it. This
section describes the steps in the process of implementing traffic calming in new developments and
existing neighborhoods. FIGURE 1 presents the typical traffic calming process.
Figure 1: Traffic Calming Process
The four basic phases along with their associated tasks are described in the following paragraphs.
Phase 1: Project
Initiation
Traffic Calming
Request
City Staff Response
Review
Petition
Phase 2: Project
Development
Public Involvement
Selecting Measures
Phase 3: Project
Approval
Resident Feedback
Elected Officials
Priority Ranking
Phase 4: Project
Implementation
Design
Trial Installation
Permanent
Installation
Evaluation
4
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
2.1 PROJECT INITIATION
The first phase in the traffic calming process is project initiation. This phase begins when a resident,
business owner, neighborhood group, or proactive city or county employee identifies a potential problem
area.
TRAFFIC CALMING REQUESTS
Upon identifying a potential traffic problem, the concerned party then submits a formal request for traffic
calming. This request can come from any concerned individual or group who sees a possible need for
traffic calming.
For new developments, local jurisdictions will review development plans to identify potential traffic
problems such as speeding or cut-through traffic. Often traffic problems can be predicted and prevented
by properly reviewing roadway and lot plans for new developments.
For existing neighborhoods, the concerned party should make their concern known to the local
engineering department. The concerned party should identify the location and exact nature of their
primary concern such as vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, congestion, speeding, noise, or cut-through
traffic. This information should be submitted in written form via the REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
FORM found in APPENDIX I, available from the engineering department or accessible via download from
the city or county website. Requests may also be submitted via website.
STAFF RESPONSE
Upon receipt of a traffic calming request, the City or County staff will have 30 days to respond to the
applicant. During this time staff will identify the problem area and whether a request has already been
previously submitted for the request location. If this is the case, the applicant will be notified that a study
is already underway and will be put in contact with the previous applicant upon their authorization.
REVIEW
If no study is currently in process, staff will identify the limits of the study and the eligibility of the roadway
for traffic calming. The STUDY AREA should include all streets that may be affected by traffic calming
treatments and should generally be bounded by features such as roadways, topography or land use
changes. The process of determining eligibility will include a review of the roadway functional type as
well as meetings with key stakeholders within the area. Key stakeholders may include but not be limited
to the following:
Mayor
City Council
County Commissioner
5
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
Emergency Response Personnel
City Administrator
Streets Superintendent
Public Works Director
Police and Fire Chief
Bike & Pedestrian Coordinator
City Engineer
Road Department
PETITION
Upon notification of the study area and determination that the roadway is eligible for traffic calming, the
applicant must distribute a PETITION to the residents/property owners in the study area for support of
the traffic calming request. At least 50% of the residents/property owners in the study area must sign
the petition in order to proceed with the traffic calming process.
2.2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Once a request passes through phase 1 and is deemed suitable for traffic calming based on the criteria
outlined, staff begins the process of selecting an appropriate traffic calming measure and involving the
community. It is at this stage in the process where budget and resource restraints are identified.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Early in the project development phase the City and/or County will hold a widely advertised public
meeting. At this meeting, staff will present the process used to develop, approve, and implement
neighborhood traffic calming plans. The public is encouraged to identify and discuss the traffic problems
in the study area. Staff should provide a brief tutorial on traffic calming and encourage the residents to
volunteer for the COMMUNITY TRAFFIC COMMITTEE (CTC) and select a NEIGHBORHOOD
REPRESENTATIVE. The CTC should consist of residents and business owners residing in the immediate
vicinity of the study area as well as any surrounding affected areas. The neighborhood representative
may or may not be the original applicant. Staff act as technical advisors to the CTC throughout the process.
The CTC is essential to the process as they provide a contact for feedback to the city and can aid in data
collection and public involvement. Data should be collected regarding traffic volume, roadway geometry,
speeds, crashes, neighborhood comments, etc.
SELECTING MEASURES
Based on the character of the traffic problem and the data that has been collected possible traffic calming
solutions will develop. The solutions shall be evaluated to determine if they meet the required goals and
objectives.
6
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
Once the measures have been selected they should be discussed with the CTC to solicit feedback and
address any concerns or comments from the community. At this point a preferred alternative should be
selected by the City and/or County staff and the CTC.
2.3 PROJECT APPROVAL
Once a preferred alternative has been selected it must be presented to the affected residents and
approved by elected officials.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK
A public meeting will be held by the CTC where the preferred alternative is presented to the neighborhood
residents and all other interested parties. A standard drawing design of the proposed traffic calming
measure as well as maps showing the approximate location of the preferred alternative may be presented.
The CTC with the help of the technical advisors should respond to questions and concerns from the general
public at this time. Any concerns should be taken into consideration before proceeding to the next step.
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Once a final solution has been developed, the traffic calming measures will be presented to the key
stakeholders for their final input before it is presented to the local jurisdiction. THE APPROVAL OF
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THE LOCAL JURISDICITON. As part of the
solution, a plan should also be included for implementation of the traffic calming measure. The plan
should detail the design and construction costs.
PRIORITY RANKING
Due to budget planning, a priority ranking of the particular project may be performed. Founded on a
point system, the solution will receive points based on various data including speed, volume, crash data,
pedestrian use, and proximity to schools, hospitals, and care facilities. Projects requiring funding will be
prioritized in the next fiscal year budget and only those projects with sufficiently high rankings will be
implemented.
Costs can also be shared with the neighborhood. For instance, if a community requests a speed hump,
which is then approved, yet it is of low priority, the community can share the burden of the cost in order
for the construction to go forward. Costs not only include construction but also maintenance of
landscaping. Costs shall be discussed as part of a public meeting.
2.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Project implementation is the final phase in the traffic calming process. After the local jurisdiction has
approved and funding has been allocated, the plan to implement the traffic calming measure can be put
in place.
7
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
DESIGN
Using the guidelines discussed in this documents companion volume MADISON COUNTY & CITY OF
REXBURG – TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX, the selected traffic calming measure will be designed. The
final design will be in accordance to the guidelines (e.g. geometric, landscaping, safety, etc.) presented in
said document.
TRIAL INSTALLATION
At the discretion of local jurisdiction, a temporary traffic calming measure that closely resembles the
proposed solution may be installed to evaluate the effectiveness of the permanent measure. Trial
installations should be evaluated after 6 months of operation.
PERMANENT INSTALLATION
Once the decision has been made to proceed with permanent installation of the traffic calming measure,
construction will be scheduled and will commence according to the schedule and funding restrictions.
Care must be taken that permanent installations will be effective and are supported by the community.
EVALUATION
If after evaluation of the temporary measure, the desired results are not achieved, the permanent traffic
calming measure may not be installed and the process should return to the project development phase.
Each project will be eligible for a return to the project development phase one time only.
3.0 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
This section introduces the six main categories of traffic calming measures and presents their studied
effectiveness at mitigating traffic problems. For a more detailed description of each of the measures
listed, please see the companion document MADISON COUNTY & CITY OF REXBURG – TRAFFIC
CALMING TOOLBOX.
3.1 NON-PHYSICAL MEASURES
Non-Physical Measures are measures such as signage or speed enforcement that do not require any
construction or physical modifications to the roadway. These items can be attempted first since they can
be economical and easy to remove if they do not solve the problem.
3.1.1 Effectiveness of Non-Physical Measures
Some measures such as speed enforcement signs or trailers have temporary effectiveness. Other
measures have inconclusive effectiveness and may not significantly reduce speeds.
8
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
3.1.2 Specific Non-Physical Measures
· Speed Enforcement
· Radar Speed Signs
· Lane Striping
· Signage
· Speed Legends
· Raised Pavement Markings
· Angled Parking
3.2 VOLUME CONTROL MEASURES
Volume Control Measures reduce the quantity of vehicles that use the roadway. They use barriers to
restrict one or more movements at an intersection. Their primary purpose is to divert traffic away from
the trouble area thus reducing cut-through traffic.
3.2.1 Effectiveness of Volume Control Measures
Volume control measures are effective in reducing traffic volume by 30-40%. They have also been found
to reduce travel speeds by up to 19%.
3.2.2 Specific Volume Control Measures
· Full Closure
· Half Closure
· Diagonal Diverter
· Median Barrier
· Forced Turn Island
3.3 VERTICAL SPEED CONTROL MEASURES
Vertical Speed Control Measures are usually raised segments of the roadway that vary in height and width.
These are designed to force a vehicle to slow down in order to comfortably navigate them.
3.3.1 Effectiveness of Vertical Speed Control Measures
Vertical speed control measures can reduce traffic volumes up to 22% and speeds up to 25%.
3.3.2 Specific Vertical Speed Control Measures
· Speed Hump
· Speed Lump
· Speed Table
9
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
· Raised Crosswalk
· Raised Intersection
3.4 HORIZONTAL SPEED CONTROL MEASURES
Horizontal Speed Control Measures are segments of roadway where the straight line of travel has been
altered to cause a vehicle to change direction and slow down.
3.4.1 Effectiveness of Vertical Speed Control Measures
Horizontal speed control measures may reduce traffic volumes as much as 20% and vehicle speeds up to
14%.
3.4.2 Specific Horizontal Speed Control Measures
· Traffic Circle
· Roundabout
· Chicane
· Lateral Shift
3.5 NARROWING MEASURES
Narrowing Measures are usually short segments of the roadway that have been narrowed to restrict the
pavement surface.
3.5.1 Effectiveness of Narrowing Measures
Narrowing has been found to result in an approximate 4% decrease in travel speed and a 10% decrease
in traffic volume.
3.5.2 Specific Narrowing Measures
· Neckdown
· Choker
· Center Island
3.6 COMBINED MEASURES
Sometimes one traffic calming measure may not sufficiently address specific traffic problems like excess
speeding. Combined Measures are a combination of two or more of the previously mentioned measures
that are installed concurrently to accomplish the design goals.
10
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
APPENDIX I: PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
11
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONS
1 INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the traffic calming program! These instructions outline the steps in the traffic calming
request process. Please read and understand these instructions before filling out the Traffic Calming
Request for Review form or Petition.
2 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS/TIME FRAME
The implementation process and time frame depend on the number of traffic calming requests running
concurrently and the complexity of the traffic analyses. The time frames shown here represent the
estimated maximum time taken from neighborhood request to installation. Madison County and the City
of Rexburg will accept traffic calming requests at any time throughout the year. Requests will be
processed in the order they are received. However, in order for traffic calming measures to be properly
budgeted the timeframe from petition to project implementation may vary.
Request submitted in person or online.
City/County to accept and review request: 1
month
Petitioner completes petition: 2 months
City/County reviews petition and confirm signatures: 2
months
City/County accepts petition and performs traffic study: 4
months
City/County presents calming options to neighborhood
and presents recommendations: 4 months
Temporary measures installed: *3-5 months
Permanent installation if temporary measures
are deemed effective: *2-6 months
POSSIBLE TOTAL TIME FRAME: 18-24 MONTHS
*Some traffic calming measures may be beyond the budget of the traffic calming program and require the project to
be added to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This could extend the project timeline by 12 months in order to
be considered in the next fiscal year’s CIP funding.
3 TRAFFIC CALMING REQUEST
Request
Submitted to
City
City Review/
Neighborhood
Petition
Selecting
Measures
Public
Meeting
Approval and
Temporary
Implementation
Evaluation/
Public
Feedback
Final
Implementation
12
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
3.1 ESTABLISHING A NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE
Communication with the City and/or County will be through a “Neighborhood Representative” and
neighborhood meetings.
The neighborhood representative MUST BE A HOME OWNER, 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, LIVING
ON THE STREET WHERE TRAFFIC CALMING IS BEING REQUESTED. Endorsement from other
neighborhood residents is NOT required for someone to initiate a traffic calming request and become the
neighborhood representative. The neighborhood representative fills out the REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC
CALMING form and will work with his/her neighbors to sign the TRAFFIC CALMING PETITION.
3.2 REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
The REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING form (request form) establishes communication between the
City and/or County and the neighborhood representative. The request form is to be completed by the
neighborhood representative and needs to be filled out completely in order for review. Please attach any
other supporting pictures and/or drawings as needed to explain your traffic calming request. Written
forms should be returned to the Madison County Public Works Department at:
Madison County Road Department
529 Airport Road
Rexburg, ID 83340
Or
Rexburg City Hall
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83340
3.3 MINIMUM QUALIFYING CRITERIA
Once the request form is completed and submitted, the City and/or County will confirm that the request
meets the following minimum criteria:
a. The study street is classified as a neighborhood street.
b. The roadway must front residential, park, and/or schools over 66% of its length.
c. The posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph.
d. The street is NOT a major emergency response route as determined by emergency response
agencies and the City.
e. The longitudinal grade of the roadway or intersection approaches does not exceed 5%.
13
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
For assistance, please contact the Madison County Road Department (208-356-3101) or the City of
Rexburg Public Works (208-359-3020).
Once it is determined that the above minimum criteria are met, the neighborhood representative will be
informed to proceed with the petition process.
3.4 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION
The purpose of the TRAFFIC CALMING PETITION is to establish minimum neighborhood support to
proceed with the Madison County traffic calming program. One petitioner per household may sign the
petition and petitioners must reside on the street where traffic calming is requested. A minimum of ten
(10) signatures are required to perform a traffic study and start reviewing traffic issues on the study street.
A completed petition doesn’t necessarily ensure that calming measures will be installed on the study
street, but it does allow the City and/or County to continue with a traffic study and scoring process. Traffic
petitions are accepted at any time during the year and are processed on a first-come first-served basis.
The neighborhood representative should be the first to sign the petition and is the liaison between the
City and/or County and the neighborhood. The neighborhood representative is responsible for obtaining
the required minimum number of signatures (ten) for the traffic calming request to be accepted by the
City.
3.5 REVIEW AND RANKING
3.5.1 Traffic Study
Petition signatures will be verified, and a traffic analysis performed to evaluate neighborhood concerns.
Depending on the traffic issues in the neighborhood various traffic study components may include: traffic
volumes, travel speeds, signing and striping, circulation, vehicle queuing, intersection operations, driver
sight distance, accidents, proximity to sensitive facilities, pedestrian safety, etc.
3.5.2 Scoring
The purpose of the scoring process is to determine which neighborhood traffic calming project has the
most need. If there are multiple traffic calming requests being processed concurrently a scoring and
ranking system will be used to prioritize projects. Scoring will be performed after the traffic analysis is
complete.
3.5.3 Ranking
Once the traffic study is complete and the request has been scored, projects are ranked. The highest
ranked projects will be accommodated first depending on the availability of funding resources.
14
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
3.6 SELECTING MEASURES
Based on the character of the traffic problem and the collected data, possible calming measures will be
developed. Public neighborhood meetings will be held to discuss the appropriate measure. The
neighborhood representative, original petitioners, other impacted residents, homeowner association
representatives, police, fire, etc., shall be in attendance. Certain measures may affect more residents
than the original petitioners. If this is the case, the affected residents will be notified, and an additional
public meeting may be required.
The affected neighborhood residents will then vote on whether the chosen measure and location is
acceptable. SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT (75%) or more of the residents need to approve the recommended
measure in order to proceed with submittal to the local jurisdiction. In instances where there a temporary
measure is to be installed, FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of affected residents must approve a temporary
measure and SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT (75%) are needed to approve permanent installation.
3.7 APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
The selected traffic calming measure will then be presented to the local jurisdiction for approval. Large
traffic calming projects may be required to be included in the next years Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
3.8 CONSTRUCTION
Some measures may require temporary installation in order to evaluate the effectiveness and impact to
an area prior to final design. Other measures may be able to be installed permanently without a trial
period.
3.9 EVALUATION
After the traffic calming measure has been constructed, the City and/or County may evaluate the
effectiveness of the installed traffic calming device. If ineffective, it may be decided to remove the traffic
calming measure or in the case of temporary installation it may be decided not to install a permanent
measure.
15
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
Please read “Traffic Calming Program Instructions” before starting the traffic calming request process!
Date:______________ Neighborhood Representative:________________________________________
The neighborhood representative will serve as the liaison between the neighborhood and Madison
County or the City of Rexburg and is responsible for obtaining the appropriate petition signatures.
Daytime Phone Number:_________________________ Alternate Phone Number:__________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Name and phone number of Home Owners Association Representative if applicable:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Neighborhood Name: _________________________________________________________________
Council Representative: _________________________________________________________________
Please indicate traffic issues that concern the residents in your neighborhood.
Speeding Traffic Volumes
Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Accidents
Blocked Line of Sight Access/Traffic Operations
Other (explain):
Description/Location of Problem
Return to: Madison County Public Works, 134 E Main, Rexburg, ID 83440
16
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
PETITION
Please read “Traffic Calming Program Instructions” before starting the traffic calming request process!
Come Now, the residents on ________________________________________________ (street) located
between __________________________________________________________________ (cross street)
and ____________________________________________________________ (cross street), hereinafter
referred to as the “Petitioners”, hereby petition to consider the installation of traffic calming measures to
mitigate traffic issues on our above referenced street and detailed on the submitted “Request Form”.
Petitioners must be at least 18 years of age and reside in separate households. By signing this petition you agree
to allow traffic calming measures to be installed on your street that may permanently restrict access or parking
along your street. There must be a minimum of ten petitioners to process this request.
Signature Printed Name House # Phone #
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Return to: Madison County Road Department, 529 Airport Road, Rexburg, ID 83440
or if within city limits return to: Rexburg City Hall 35 North 1st East, Rexburg, ID, 83440
17
Madison County & City of Rexburg – Guidelines for Traffic Calming
SCORING
85th Percentile Speed (20 points maximum) __________pts
The 85th percentile speed represents the speed, at or below which, 85 percent of the free flowing vehicles are traveling.
Points will be assigned based on the difference between the posted speed limit and the 85th percentile speed as follows:
0 points, less than or equal to 5 mph difference or (30 mph)
5 points, greater than 5 mph and less than or equal to 7 mph or (32 mph)
10 points, greater than 7 mph and less than or equal to 9 mph or (34 mph)
15 points, greater than 9 mph and less than or equal to 11 mph or (36 mph)
20 points, greater than 11 mph or (37 mph+)
Traffic Volume (25 points maximum) __________pts
Average Daily Traffic (20 points maximum) ___________pts
Points for Average Daily Traffic (ADT) will be assigned as follows:
0 points, less than 800 ADT
5 points, 801 ADT to 1,500 ADT
10 points, 1,501 ADT to 2,500 ADT
15 points, 2,501 ADT to 3,500 ADT
20 points, more than 3,500 ADT
Peak Hour Volume (5 points maximum) ___________pts
The percent of the daily traffic occurring during the peak hour will be assigned points as follows:
0 points, peak hour traffic is less than 10% of Average Daily Traffic
5 points, peak hour traffic is equal to or greater than 10% of Average Daily Traffic
3-year Crash Data (20 points maximum) __________pts
0 points, less than 7 crashes over the last 3 years
10 points, 7 to 12 crashes over the last 3 years
20 points, more than 12 crashes over the last 3 years
Pedestrian Facilities (5 points maximum) __________pts
0 points, sidewalks are present and continuous on BOTH sides of the street throughout the project limits
2 points, sidewalks are discontinuous or do not exist on ONE side of the street throughout the project limits
5 points, sidewalks are discontinuous or do not exist on BOTH sides of the street throughout the project limits
Sensitive Facilities (30 points maximum) __________pts
Sensitive facilities include schools, senior centers, libraries, community centers, and sites with significant pedestrian activity.
0 points, no sensitive facilities or pedestrian crossings
10 points, roadway is within High School Safe Route to School boundary or other sensitive facility
20 points, roadway is within Middle School Safe Route to School boundary
30 points, roadway is within Elementary School Safe Route to School boundary
Total Points Maximum (100) Total Score __________pts
MADISON COUNTY
&
CITY OF REXBURG
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
PREPARED BY
i
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 Non-Physical measures ................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Speed Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Radar Speed Sign ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Lane Striping.............................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Signage ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Speed Legend ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.6 Angled Parking .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Volume Control Measures ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Full closure ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Half closure ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Diagonal Diverter .................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Median Barrier ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.5 Forced Turn Island................................................................................................................... 12
3.0 Vertical Speed Control Measures ............................................................................................... 13
3.1 Speed Hump ............................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Speed Table ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Raised Crosswalk ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Raised Intersection.................................................................................................................. 16
4.0 Horizontal Speed control Measures ........................................................................................... 17
4.1 Traffic Circle ............................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Roundabout ............................................................................................................................ 18
4.3 Chicane .................................................................................................................................... 19
ii
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
4.4 Lateral Shift ............................................................................................................................. 20
5.0 Narrowing Measures ................................................................................................................... 21
5.1 Neckdown ............................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Choker ..................................................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Center Island ........................................................................................................................... 23
6.0 Appropriateness of Traffic Calming Measures ............................................................................ 24
7.0 General Design Principles ........................................................................................................... 27
7.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 27
7.2 Application Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 27
7.3 Geometry ................................................................................................................................ 29
7.4 Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix I: Standard Drawings ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Radar Trailer Device ...................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Radar Speed Sign ........................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Bike Lane Narrowing ..................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4: Typical Signage .............................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 5: Speed Legend ................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 6: Angled Parking .............................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 7: Full-Street Closure Diagram .......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 8: Full-Street Closure ......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 9: Half Closure .................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 10: Half Closure Diagram ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 11: Diagonal Diverter ...................................................................................................................... 10
iii
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
Figure 12: Diagonal Diverter Diagram ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 13: Median Barrier Diagram............................................................................................................ 11
Figure 14: Median Barrier .......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 15: Forced Turn Island ..................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 16: Forced Turn Island Diagram ...................................................................................................... 12
Figure 17: Temporary Speed Lumps .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 18: Speed Hump .............................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 19: Temporary Speed Table ............................................................................................................ 14
Figure 20: Raised Crosswalk ....................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 21: Raised Intersection.................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 22: Traffic Circle .............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 23: Roundabout .............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 24: Chicane ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 25: Lateral Shift ............................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 26: Neckdown ................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 27: Choker ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 28: Center Island ............................................................................................................................. 23
1
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
INTRODUCTION
The process of selecting suitable traffic calming measures involves, first, identifying the nature and
location of the traffic problem i.e. speeding, congestion, and then selecting the appropriate traffic calming
measure capable of solving the identified problems. The traffic calming measures should be selected from
a “toolbox” of possible alternatives that describes the possible measures with their application and
effectiveness at solving specific traffic problems.
This document, designed as a companion to MADISON COUNTY CITY – GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC
CALMING describes the traffic calming measures that may be considered by Madison County City as
alternatives to solving traffic problems. In this document the following five groups of traffic calming
measures will be described in detail:
· Non-Physical Measures
· Volume Control Measures
· Vertical Speed Control Measures
· Horizontal Speed Control Measures
· Narrowing Measures
Specific measures within each group will be identified and their application, cost and effectiveness
described. In addition, a summary of the appropriateness of each type of traffic calming measure in
dealing with different traffic problems will be presented. Finally an overview of the design principles that
should be applied in designing each type of traffic control measure will be explained. In some cases it may
be appropriate to combine two or more specific types of traffic calming method to either enhance the
effectiveness of one or the other or to potentially address two separate problems. A scenario such as this
one should be identified and analyzed on a case by case basis.
2
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
1.0 NON-PHYSICAL MEASURES
Non-Physical Measures are measures such as signage or speed enforcement that do not require any
construction or physical modifications to the roadway. These items can be attempted first since they can
be economical and easy to remove if they do not solve the problem. Non-physical measures have been
shown to have negligible success when used as traffic calming measures.
1.1 SPEED ENFORCEMENT
For areas where speed has been determined as being excessive (generally an 85th percentile speed 7 mph
above the posted speed limit), speed enforcement can be a temporary traffic calming measure.
TARGETED SPEED ENFORCEMENT can be attempted on areas where speeding is observed be
neighborhood residents and/or agency representatives. Limited personnel can be cost-effectively
deployed on major roadways. For low volumes streets, periodic daytime speed enforcement is the best
option. Because of the expense to maintain increased levels of police enforcement, targeted speed
enforcement should only be used temporarily and/or in conjunction with other new traffic calming
measures to help drivers become aware of new restrictions.
Another available enforcement option is a RADAR TRAILER
DEVICE, which measures and displays a vehicles speed as it
approaches. The posted speed limit is shown in clear view next
to the digital readout showing the actual speed of the oncoming
vehicle. This reminds drivers to slow to the appropriate speed
and often it comes as a surprise to the driver to see how fast they
are travelling. These devices can be easily transported and
deployed at different locations.
Effectiveness: Negligible
Advantages Disadvantages
Inexpensive if used temporarily Expensive to maintain for a long period
Does not require time for design Trailer subject to vandalism
Does not slow trucks and emergency vehicles
Figure 1: Radar Trailer Device
3
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
1.2 RADAR SPEED SIGN
The RADAR SPEED SIGN is very similar in nature to the
radar trailer device. The notable difference between
this device and the radar speed trailer is that the radar
speed sign in not portable. The device can also have
the ability to store data over time to provide speed
data to the City. This device measures and records a
vehicles speed and displays it next to the posted speed
limit sign reminding vehicles to slow to the appropriate
speed
Effectiveness: Negligible
Advantages Disadvantages
Can mount to existing poles Has not been shown to significantly reduce speeds
Does not require much time for design High cost of long-term maintenance
Does not slow trucks and emergency vehicles
Figure 2: Radar Speed Sign
4
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
1.3 LANE STRIPING
LANE STRIPING can be used to create formal
bicycle lanes, parking lanes and/or edge lines.
The striping “narrows” the travel lane for
vehicles and may encourage drivers to lower
their speeds.
Effectiveness: Negligible
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Inexpensive Increases regular maintenance
Can be used to create bicycle lanes or delineate
on-street parking
Has not been shown to significantly reduce
travel speeds
Does not require much time for design
Does not slow trucks and emergency vehicles
Figure 3: Bike Lane Narrowing
5
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
1.4 SIGNAGE
SIGNAGE such as speed limit and various restriction type signs can be
used as a traffic calming measure. Speed limit signs should only be
placed after an engineering study is performed. Restriction type signs
include: NO TRUCKS, CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP, NO RIGHT TURN,
NO LEFT TURN, NO THRU TRAFFIC.
Effectiveness: Negligible
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Inexpensive Ineffective if not accompanied by enforcement
Turn restrictions can reduce cut-through traffic
Speed must be set at a reasonable value for
drivers to follow
Does not slow trucks and emergency vehicles
Has not been shown to significantly reduce
travel volume or speeds
Figure 4: Typical Signage
6
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
1.5 SPEED LEGEND
SPEED LEGENDS are numbers painted on the
roadway indicating the current speed limit. These are
usually painted near the speed limit signposts. Speed
legends may be useful for reinforcing speed reduction
between different roadway segments (e.g., from one
functional class to another or at major residential
entry points).
Effectiveness: Negligible
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Inexpensive
Has not been shown to significantly reduce
travel speeds
May help reinforce a change in speed limit
Does not require much time for design
Does not slow trucks and emergency vehicles
Figure 5: Speed Legend
7
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
1.6 ANGLED PARKING
ANGLED PARKING can be used to reduce the
width of a travel lane, which will likely reduce
vehicle speeds. Angled parking may also
increase the number of parking spaces
available on a roadway. Angled parking
changes the parking position from parallel to a
30°-60° angle.
Another option available is called Reverse
Angled Parking. Like parallel parking, the
driver enters the stall by stopping and backing
up. In contrast to standard angled parking,
the visibility with exiting reverse angle stalls is
much improved. When exiting, the driver
does not blindly back the rear half of the vehicle into the travel, rather they are able to pull forwards out
of the parking stall.
Effectiveness: Negligible
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Reduces speeds by narrowing travel lanes Does not allow for bike lanes
Increases the number of parking spaces
Ineffective on roadways with frequent
driveways
Makes parking maneuvers easier than parallel
parking Potential safety concerns when backing out
Favored by businesses and multi-family
residences
Figure 6: Angled Parking
8
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
2.0 VOLUME CONTROL MEASURES
VOLUME CONTROL MEASURES reduce the quantity of vehicles that use the roadway. They use barriers
to restrict one or more movements at an intersection. Their primary purpose is to divert traffic away from
the trouble area thus reducing cut-through traffic. Typical volume control measures are full street
closures, half street closures, diagonal diverters, median barriers, and forced turn islands. Volume Control
Measures are typically applied only after other measures have failed or been determined inappropriate.
Pedestrian and bicycle traffic can usually be accommodated. Volume Control Measures are often used in
sets to make travel through neighborhoods more circuitous, and are typically staggered internally in a
neighborhood, which leaves through movement possible but less attractive than alternative (external)
routes. Volume Control Measures have also been used as a crime prevention tool.
2.1 FULL CLOSURE
FULL STREET CLOSURES are barriers are placed across a street to completely close the street to through-
traffic, usually leaving only sidewalks open. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic are usually unrestricted. Typical
barriers include: landscaped islands, walls, gates, side-by-side bollards, posts, etc. The barrier should be
designed to eliminate vehicles (e.g. passenger cars) from entering.
Effectiveness: Average 44% decrease in traffic volume
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Able to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access
Cause indirect routes for local residents and
emergency vehicles
Does not adversely affect access by children May limit access to businesses
Very effective in reducing traffic volumes May be expensive
Figure 8: Full-Street Closure Figure 7: Full-Street Closure Diagram
9
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
2.2 HALF CLOSURE
HALF CLOSURES are barriers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on otherwise two-way
streets; they are sometimes called partial closures, entrance barriers, or one-way closure. Typical barriers
include: landscaped islands, walls, gates, side-by-side bollards, posts, etc.
Effectiveness: Average 42% decrease in traffic volume
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Able to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access Cause indirect routes for local residents
Does not affect emergency vehicles May limit access to businesses
Effective in reducing traffic volumes May be expensive
Drivers can circumnavigate barrier
Figure 9: Half Closure Figure 10: Half Closure Diagram
10
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
2.3 DIAGONAL DIVERTER
DIAGONAL DIVERTERS are barriers placed diagonally across an intersection, blocking through and/or
turning movements; they are sometimes called full diverters or diagonal road closures. Typical barriers
include: landscaped islands, walls, gates, side-by-side bollards, posts, etc.
Effectiveness: Average 35% decrease in traffic volume
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Able to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access
Cause indirect routes for local residents and
emergency vehicles
Effective in reducing traffic volumes May be expensive
May require construction of corner curbs
Figure 11: Diagonal Diverter Diagram Figure 12: Diagonal Diverter
11
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
2.4 MEDIAN BARRIER
MEDIAN BARRIERS are raised islands in the centerline of a street and continuing through an intersection
that block the left turn movement from all intersection approaches and the through movement at the
cross street.
Effectiveness: Average 31% decrease in traffic volume
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Can improve safety at intersection by
prohibiting dangerous turning movements May require right-of-way acquisition
Can reduce traffic volumes on a cut-through
route that crosses the major street
Limits turns to and from side street for local
residents
May limit access for emergency vehicles
Figure 13: Median Barrier Figure 14: Median Barrier Diagram
12
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
2.5 FORCED TURN ISLAND
FORCED TURN ISLANDS are barrier islands that block certain movements on approaches to an
intersection. Designs can vary significantly depending on the installation location. Forced turn islands are
best when used on residential streets at intersections with larger streets. The larger street can
accommodate the diverted and will cut down on the number of vehicles that might attempt to
circumnavigate the measure. Occasionally additional center line barriers or channelization required to
keep drivers from circumnavigating islands.
Effectiveness: No Data
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Can improve safety at intersection by
prohibiting dangerous turning movements
May simply divert traffic problem to a different
street
May limit access for local residents
Figure 15: Forced Turn Island Figure 16: Forced Turn Island Diagram
13
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
3.0 VERTICAL SPEED CONTROL MEASURES
VERTICAL SPEED CONTROL MEASURES are usually raised segments of the roadway that vary in height
and width. These are designed to force a vehicle to slow down in order to comfortably navigate them.
Typical vertical speed control measures include speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks and raised
intersections.
3.1 SPEED HUMP
SPEED HUMPS are raised rounded devices usually constructed from asphalt that is placed across the
roadway. Speed humps are usually 3 to 4 inches in height and are parabolic or sinusoidal in shape. They
extend fully across the roadway but are tapered on each side to allow unimpeded water flow in a curb
and gutter system. The design speed for a speed hump is approximately 15-25 mph.
One modification to the speed hump is the speed lump. Speed lumps are essentially the same as speed
humps except they do not extend the full width of the road. Speed lumps are split into three lumps with
approximately one foot spacing between each one. They are specifically designed to accommodate the
axle width of emergency vehicles.
Effectiveness: 22% reduction in 85th percentile travel speed. 11% reduction in accidents.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Relatively Inexpensive Causes a rough ride for drivers
Relatively easy for bicyclists to cross at taper if
designed correctly Slows and may damage emergency vehicles
Very effective at slowing travel speed Increase noise and air pollution
Poor aesthetics
Figure 17: Speed Hump Figure 18: Temporary Speed Lumps
14
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
3.2 SPEED TABLE
A SPEED TABLE is a raised flat-topped device,
which is placed across the roadway. Speed
tables are usually 3 to 4 inches in height. The
flat-top is approximately 22 feet in the direction
of travel and each ramp is 6 feet long. The flat-
top is usually constructed of asphalt, concrete,
brick, or other textured materials. The ramps
are parabolic in shape and are usually made of
asphalt. Speed tables extend fully across the
roadway but are tapered on each side to allow
unimpeded water flow in curb and gutter
systems. The design speed for a speed table is
approximately 30 mph, which is a safe and
comfortable speed for passenger vehicles.
Effectiveness: 18% reduction in 85th percentile travel speed. 45% reduction in accidents.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Relatively Inexpensive Poor aesthetics if no textured material is used
Smoother on large vehicles than speed humps Some textured material can be expensive
Effective at lowering travel speeds Increased noise
Slows and may damage emergency vehicles
Figure 19: Temporary Speed Table
15
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
3.3 RAISED CROSSWALK
RAISED CROSSWALKS are speed tables with
crosswalk markings and signage. The only
geometric difference between them is the
raised crosswalk extends from curb to curb
and the raised crosswalk may be longer and
higher than a typical speed table.
Effectiveness: 18% reduction in 85th
percentile travel speed. 45% reduction in
accidents.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Relatively Inexpensive Poor aesthetics if no textured material is used
Smoother on large vehicles than speed humps Some textured material can be expensive
Improves safety for pedestrians Increased noise
Effective at lowering travel speed Slows and may damage emergency vehicles
May change or restrict drainage
Figure 20: Raised Crosswalk
16
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
3.4 RAISED INTERSECTION
RAISED INTERSECTIONS are like speed tables
that cover an entire intersection. Ramps are
present on all approaches. The flat-top area is
usually a textured material. Raised
intersections usually rise to sidewalk level or
slightly below to provide an edge for the
visually impaired. If there is a concern about
loss of on-street parking, raised intersections
are a more acceptable traffic calming
measure.
Effectiveness: 1% reduction in 85th percentile
travel speed.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles Some textured materials can be expensive
Can calm two streets at same time Increased noise
Less effective at reducing travel speeds
May change or restrict drainage
Figure 21: Raised Intersection
17
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
4.0 HORIZONTAL SPEED CONTROL MEASURES
HORIZONTAL SPEED CONTROL MEASURES are segments of roadway where the straight line of travel
has been altered to cause a vehicle to change direction and slow down. Typical horizontal speed control
measures include chicanes, traffic circles, roundabouts, and lateral shifts.
4.1 TRAFFIC CIRCLE
A TRAFFIC CIRCLE is a raised island placed in
an intersection which traffic circulates.
Generally, traffic circles are circular in shape
and have some type of landscaping in its
center. Also, traffic circles have outer rings
(truck aprons or lips) that are mountable so
large vehicles can circumnavigate the small
radius traffic circle.
Effectiveness: 11% reduction in 85th
percentile travel speed. 29%-73% reduction in
accidents.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Provides increased access to street from side
street Landscaping must be maintained
Breaks up sight-lines on straight street
Difficult for large vehicles (e.g. fire truck) to
circumnavigate
Effective at lowering travel speeds Potential loss of on-street parking
May require modifications to curb, gutter and
sidewalks
Figure 22: Traffic Circle
18
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
4.2 ROUNDABOUT
A ROUNDABOUT is similar to a traffic circle.
It also has a raised island placed at an
intersection with circulating traffic. However,
there are differences. Roundabouts generally
are much larger than traffic circles and thus
need more land for construction.
Roundabouts are used at intersections with
higher traffic volumes and are designed for
higher speeds. Roundabouts generally have
raised splitter islands that direct traffic to the
right, this helps form gaps in traffic.
Roundabouts may also have flared entry
lanes, which increase the capacity of the
intersection. Roundabouts may also have
bypass lanes to allow driver to travel through the area without entering the intersection at all.
Effectiveness: 29% reduction in accidents.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Enhanced safety compared to traffic signal Landscaping must be maintained
Minimizes queuing at approaches
May require major reconstruction and extensive
right-of-way
May be effective at slowing travel speed Potential loss of on-street parking
Increase pedestrian distance and travel time on
crosswalks
Figure 23: Roundabout
19
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
4.3 CHICANE
CHICANES are curb extensions or edge islands
that alternate from one side of roadway to the
other. These curb extensions or edge islands
give the roadway more ‘winding’ attribute.
Curb extensions or edge islands can be semi-
circular, triangular or squared off. Trapezoidal
islands have been found to be more effective
at reducing speeds than semi-circular shapes.
Curb extensions or edge islands should have a
vertical element to draw attention to them.
Trees and other landscape materials are an
option. For low speed roadways or roadways
that lack right-of-way, mountable curbs are
also an option to allow larger vehicles to
maneuver through the chicanes.
Chicanes can also be formed by alternative on-street parking from one side of the roadway to the other.
Parking bays can be created using striping or by installing landscaped islands at each end.
Effectiveness: No Data
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Discourages high speeds by forcing horizontal
deflection Landscaping must be maintained
Negotiable by large vehicles (e.g. fire truck)
Require major reconstruction and extensive
right-of-way
Potential loss of on-street parking
Figure 24: Chicane
20
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
4.4 LATERAL SHIFT
A LATERAL SHIFT is like a chicane, however
the roadway alignment only shifts once. It is
only one curb extension or edge island rather
than a series of alternating curb extensions or
edge islands. Because the road alignment
shifts only once, the crossing speed is
approximately 5 mph higher than a series of
chicanes. A higher speed means that lateral
shifts can be placed on higher functional
classification roadways (collectors and
arterials) .
Typical lateral shifts incorporate a landscaped
center island to separate opposing traffic. This
prohibits drivers from veering into the opposite
lane.
Effectiveness: No Data
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Can accommodate higher traffic volumes Potential loss of on-street parking
Negotiable by large vehicles (e.g. fire truck) May require additional design effort
Figure 25: Lateral Shift
21
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
5.0 NARROWING MEASURES
NARROWING MEASURES are short roadway segments that are narrower than the typical roadway
section. Typical narrowing measures are neckdowns, chokers, and island narrowing.
5.1 NECKDOWN
NECKDOWNS are curb extensions at an
intersection. These neckdowns reduce the
roadway width from curb to curb and provide
shorter pedestrian crossing distances and
times. The short curb return radius also
reduces the speeds of turning vehicles.
Effectiveness: 7% reduction in 85th percentile
speed.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Improves pedestrian comfort and safety
Effectiveness may be limited because there is
no vertical or horizontal deflection
Through and left turn movements are
negotiable by large vehicles (e.g. fire trucks)
Right turn not easily negotiable by large vehicles
(e.g. fire trucks)
Can create protected on-street parking Potential loss of on-street parking
May reduce speeds and traffic volumes
May bring bicycle lanes in closer proximity with
travel lanes
May change or restrict drainage
Figure 26: Neckdown
22
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
5.2 CHOKER
CHOKERS are curb extensions at mid-block
that narrow the roadway by widening the
sidewalk, planting strip, or centerline. A
typical two-lane choker is 20 feet from curb to
curb. One-lane chokers narrow the roadway
to just one travel lane. This is similar to a one-
lane bridge condition. The constricted length
in the direction of travel varies but should be
kept short enough not to block the driveways
or accesses.
Effectiveness: 7% reduction in 85th percentile
speed.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Negotiable by large vehicles (e.g. fire trucks)
Effectiveness may be limited because there is
no vertical or horizontal deflection
May reduce travel speeds and volumes
May bring bicycle lanes in closer proximity with
travel lanes
Can have positive aesthetic value Potential loss of on-street parking
One-lane choker can only be used on extremely
low volume roadways without causing safety
concerns or traffic congestion
May limit driveway access
Figure 27: Choker
23
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
5.3 CENTER ISLAND
CENTER ISLANDS are raised barriers in the
center of the roadway that narrow the travel
lanes. The center island should be large
enough to draw attention (e.g. 6 feet wide by
20 feet long). The center island can also be
offset to the left from the perspective of
approaching traffic. They are often
landscaped and can be used as refuge for
pedestrians crossing the roadway. Center
islands create intermittent left turn areas
rather than a continuous median. Center
islands placed at intersections or entrances to
neighborhoods are often called gateways.
Effectiveness: 7% reduction in 85th percentile
speed.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Increases pedestrian safety
Effectiveness may be limited because there is
no vertical or horizontal deflection
May reduce travel speeds and volumes Potential loss of on-street parking
Can have positive aesthetic value
If center island is too long, channelized traffic
may increase travel speed
Plants and irrigation must be kept to a
minimum due to pavement deterioration from
water runoff
Figure 28: Center Island
24
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
6.0 APPROPRIATENESS OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
After identifying and characterizing the traffic problem, one can select the appropriate traffic calming
measure to be implemented. The major types of traffic problems are:
· Speed – vehicle speeds are too high.
· Traffic Volume – vehicle usage levels are too high and are affecting level of service.
· Safety – vehicles have excessive level of risk (e.g. accident history). Pedestrians and bicyclists are
at unnecessary risk due to vehicles.
· Pollution – vehicles cause excessive levels of noise, vibration, and air pollution.
Besides the traffic problem types, there are other issues such as location and traffic constraints that can
be investigated. The following TABLE 1 and TABLE 2 present each traffic calming measure and its
appropriateness versus problem type, location type and traffic constraints. The appropriateness is an
assessment derived from the literature search of the state of the industry and results from other agencies.
25
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
Table 1: Traffic Calming Measures versus Traffic Problem Type
Traffic Calming Measure Traffic Problem Type
Speed Traffic Volume Safety Pollution
1.0 Non-Physical
1.1 Speed Enforcement · · · ·
1.2 Lane Striping · · · ·
1.3 Signage · · · ·
1.4 Speed Legend · · · ·
1.5 Raised Pavement Marker · · · ·
1.6 Angled Parking · · · ·
2.0 Volume Control
2.1 Full Closure · · · ·
2.2 Half Closure · · · ·
2.3 Diagonal Diverter · · · ·
2.4 Median Barrier · · · ·
2.5 Forced Turn Island · · · ·
3.0 Vertical Speed Control
3.1 Speed Hump · · · ·
3.2 Speed Table · · · ·
3.3 Raised Crosswalk · · · ·
3.4 Raised Intersection · · · ·
4.0 Horizontal Speed Control
4.1 Traffic Circle · · · ·
4.2 Roundabout · · · ·
4.3 Chicane · · · ·
4.4 Lateral Shift · · · ·
5.0 Narrowing
5.1 Neckdown · · · ·
5.2 Choker · · · ·
5.3 Center Island · · · ·
Legend:
· Strongly Appropriate; · Moderately Appropriate; · Moderately Inappropriate; · Inappropriate
26
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
Table 2: Traffic Calming Measure versus Location Type
Traffic Calming Measure
Traffic Problem Type
Residential Non-Residential
Mid-Block Intersection Mid-Block Intersection
1.0 Non-Physical
1.1 Speed Enforcement · · · ·
1.2 Lane Striping · · · ·
1.3 Signage · · · ·
1.4 Speed Legend · · · ·
1.5 Raised Pavement Marker · · · ·
1.6 Angled Parking · · · ·
2.0 Volume Control
2.1 Full Closure · · · ·
2.2 Half Closure · · · ·
2.3 Diagonal Diverter · · · ·
2.4 Median Barrier · · · ·
2.5 Forced Turn Island · · · ·
3.0 Vertical Speed Control
3.1 Speed Hump · · · ·
3.2 Speed Table · · · ·
3.3 Raised Crosswalk · · · ·
3.4 Raised Intersection · · · ·
4.0 Horizontal Speed Control
4.1 Traffic Circle · · · ·
4.2 Roundabout · · · ·
4.3 Chicane · · · ·
4.4 Lateral Shift · · · ·
5.0 Narrowing
5.1 Neckdown · · · ·
5.2 Choker · · · ·
5.3 Center Island · · · ·
Legend:
· Applicable; · Applicable in Some Cases; · Not Applicable
27
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
7.0 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The following are general design principles that should be considered before and after traffic calming
measure implementation.
7.1 DATA COLLECTION
One of the initial steps that should be considered prior to traffic calming measure implementation is data
collection. The following data items can be collected:
1. Twenty-four (24) hour directional approach volumes for each leg of an intersection should be
obtained to identify the heaviest eight hours.
2. Twenty-four (24) hour directional volumes for the roadway should be obtained to identify the
heaviest eight hours.
3. Percentage of large trucks that would be using the roadway or intersection.
4. Posted speeds for all roadways.
5. 85th percentile speed for all intersection approaches and roadways.
6. Miscellaneous data, such as existing roadway geometry, drainage information, area population,
land uses, distances to intersections, and intersection control treatments.
7. Bicycle and pedestrian counts for intersections and midblock locations.
8. Detailed accident data to analyze the frequency and types of collisions occurring at intersections
or along roadways.
9. Community considerations should be investigated, including the need for parking, the landscaping
character of the area and existence of other existing traffic calming measures.
10. Transit routes and frequencies in the study area.
7.2 APPLICATION GUIDELINES
Criteria that should be considered are listed below for the different physical traffic calming measures.
7.2.1 VOLUME CONTROL
The following criteria should be considered when installing volume control measures:
1. Roadway segments with daily traffic volumes less than 5,000 vehicles per day.
2. Intersections with only one lane per approach.
3. 25% of traffic is non-local traffic.
7.2.2 VERTICAL SPEED CONTROL
The following criteria should be considered when installing vertical speed control measures:
28
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
1. Daily traffic volume less than 7,500 vehicles per day.
2. Speed humps should be considered if the daily traffic volume is less than 4,000 vehicles per day.
3. Posted speed limit is 25 mph or less.
4. Approach or street grades of less than 5%.
7.2.3 HORIZONTAL SPEED CONTROL
The following criteria should be considered when installing horizontal speed control measures:
1. All roadway functional classes.
2. Traffic circles and chicanes should only be considered if the daily entering traffic volume is less
than 5,000 vehicles per day.
3. Traffic circles should be considered on intersections where there is one lane per approach.
4. Low volumes of buses and trucks (less than 2%).
5. Posted speed limit of 25 mph or less.
6. Roundabouts should only be considered where the grade on the approach streets is less than 5%.
7.2.4 NARROWING CONTROL
The following criteria should be considered when installing narrowing control measures:
1. All roadway functional classes.
2. One lane chokers should only be considered if the daily entering traffic volume is less than 3,000
vehicles per day.
3. Posted speed limit of 25 mph or less.
4. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic should be accommodated in design.
7.2.5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The following are other considerations that are applicable to all traffic calming measures:
1. Community sentiment.
2. Number and types of accidents.
3. Presence of pedestrian crosswalks.
4. Presence of curb and gutter.
5. Drainage.
6. Presence of parking.
7. Location within roadway network (e.g., minimum distance from other intersections).
8. Emergency vehicles, bus routes, snow plowing routes.
9. Previously attempted traffic calming measures (e.g., targeted speed enforcement, painted speed
legends etc.).
29
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
7.3 GEOMETRY
The following are general criteria that should be considered when installing traffic calming measures.
1. Examine as-is geometry of roadway or intersection.
2. Check physical feasibility of installing traffic calming measure.
3. Determine desired crossing speed (i.e., design speed) at slow points of traffic calming measure.
a. For vertical speed control measures (e.g., speed humps), the typical design speed is 25 to
30 mph. Speed versus vertical curvature relationships can be found in ITE’s Traffic
Calming State of Practice.
b. For horizontal speed control measures, (e.g., traffic circles and roundabouts), the center
islands and circular perimeters need to be determined. Speed versus horizontal curvature
relationships can be found in AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets.
7.4 SPECIFIC GEOMETRIC DETAILS ARE PROVIDED IN ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.
SAFETY
As part of installing any traffic calming measure, signing and pavement markings should be incorporated
as well. Agencies use the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as general guidance;
however, the MUTCD is not specific on any traffic calming measure.
1. Signage and pavement markings shall be designed using the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) as guidance. The following items should be considered:
· Warning signs need not be used where hazards are self-evident.
· Signs must be legible, which requires high visibility, lettering or symbols of adequate size
and short legends for quick comprehension.
· Sign lettering must be in upper-case letters of the type approved by the City and FHWA.
· Signs must be reflectorized or illuminated to show the same shape and color by day and
night.
· Signs are ordinarily placed on the right-hand side of the road, where the driver is looking
for them.
· Signs are ordinarily mounted separately, except where one sign supplements another, as
advisory speed plates supplement warning signs.
· Before any street is opened to traffic, all hazardous conditions must be signed and
marked.
· Signs should be used conservatively.
· Symbol signs are preferred to word signs when an appropriate symbol exists.
· New symbols not readily recognizable should be accompanied by educational plaques.
· Analogous signs shall be used for new situations similar to those for which standard signs
already exist.
2. Signs should be limited to minimize confusion.
3. Signs should be placed in advance to warn drivers. Placement of advance warning signs should
conform to guidance provided in the latest MUTCD.
30
Madison County & City of Rexburg– Traffic Calming Toolbox
4. Check sight distances by visiting sight before and after traffic calming measure installation.
5. Depending on the characteristics of the intersection, pedestrian crosswalk signs and pavement
markings may be needed and should follow guidance provided in the latest MUTCD (Section 3B.17
& Section 2C.37).
6. Depending on the characteristics of the intersection, bicycle lane signs and pavement markings
may be needed and should follow guidance provided in the latest MUTCD.
7. If sidewalk ramps are needed, they should be constructed according the latest City standards and
be ADA compliant.
8. Depending on the characteristics of the intersection, “no parking” signs may be needed as well as
red painted curbs to properly mark the intersection.
9. Lighting should be installed to provide safe illumination. The following items should be
considered:
· Good illumination should be provided on the approach nose of the splitters islands, the
conflict area where traffic enters the circulating stream and places where traffic streams
separate at points of exits.
· If applicable, pedestrian crossing areas should be illuminated.
1
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Introduction
As part of the Madison County Transportation Master Plan Update, the City of Rexburg requested that
several intersections be analyzed to determine what if any improvements could be made to improve
traffic operations and safety. The intersections studied are listed below in Table 1. The intersections are
also shown in Figure 1.
Table 1 Study Intersections
Number Major Street Minor Street Control Type
1 2nd East Moody Road SIGNAL
2 Yellowstone Highway Moody Road STOP
3 2nd East Yellowstone Highway SIGNAL
4 2nd East Teton River Village SIGNAL
5 2nd East Valley River Drive STOP
6 2nd West 1st North STOP
7 Main Street US-20 West Ramp STOP
8 Main Street US-20 East Ramp STOP
9 Main Street 12th West SIGNAL
10 2nd South 1st West SIGNAL
11 4th South 5th West STOP
12 Yellowstone Highway Trejo Street STOP
13 7th South 5th West STOP
14 University Boulevard 12th West STOP (SIGNAL PLANNED FALL 2022)
15 University Boulevard US-20 West Ramp STOP
16 University Boulevard US-20 East Ramp STOP
17 University Boulevard 5th West STOP
18 2nd East Old Walmart Main Entrance STOP (SIGNAL HAS BEEN REMOVED)
19 Main Street 5th West SIGNAL
20 2nd East 2nd South STOP
21 7th South 2nd West SIGNAL
22 2nd East 7th North SIGNAL
2
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Figure 1 Study Intersections
3
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Analysis
Existing Conditions
Data were collected at each intersection regarding roadway geometry, PM peak hour traffic volumes, and
overall traffic patterns. These data were used to determine any deficiencies which currently exist at the
intersections. Geometric deficiencies were analyzed using best practices for intersection design, capacity
deficiencies were identified using the HCM Level of Service methodology. 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 report, LOS C is the accepted
minimum standard for the intersections. LOS is related to the length of time the average vehicle will have
to wait at an intersection before being able to proceed. The LOS criteria for each intersection type is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 LOS Criteria
LOS
Signalized Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Stop Sign Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A < 10 < 10
B 10 – 20 10 – 15
C 20 – 35 15 – 25
D 35 – 55 25 – 35
E 55 – 80 35 – 50
F > 80 > 50
Capacity
The existing LOS for each failing intersection is shown below in Table 3. The intersections which are not
experiencing capacity failure today are left out of this portion of the report. The existing problems in the
City are confined to HWY-33 (Main Street, 2nd East, Yellowstone Highway) and the US-20 ramps. The 4
stop controlled intersections are experiencing excessive delays due to a lack of available gaps in the
uncontrolled directions. This prohibits vehicles from safely making left turns from the minor street to the
major street. For the 2 signalized intersections on 2nd East at Teton River Village and the Walmart main
entrance, the problem was simply a signal timing issue where not enough time is allocated to the through
movement and too much time is allowed for the side street and the signals are not coordinated. The signal
at 2nd East and the old Walmart entrance has recently been removed. This location should be monitored
and adjusted as needed.
4
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Table 3 Existing LOS
Number Major Street Minor Street Control
Type
Existing
LOS
Failing
Approaches
4 2nd East Teton River
Village SIGNAL E NB/WB/SB
5 2nd East Valley River Drive STOP F EB/WB
7 Main Street US-20 West Ramp STOP F SB
12 Yellowstone
Highway Trejo Street STOP D EB
15 University Boulevard US-20 West Ramp STOP F SB
Proposed Capacity Solutions
The proposed solutions to mitigate the existing capacity deficiencies at the intersections are listed below:
4 – 2nd East and Teton River Village
· Time the signal to allow more green time for northbound and southbound traffic.
5 – 2nd East and Valley River Drive
· Monitor operations after the signals north and south have been coordinated to determine if more
gaps are created and conditions improve OR
· Install a traffic signal which is coordinated with the adjacent signals provided MUTCD warrants
are met.
7 – Main Street and US-20 West Ramp
· Install a traffic signal (programmed).
· Install a traffic signal at the US-20 East Ramp for AM peak hour movements and coordination.
12 – Yellowstone Highway and Trejo Street
· Restrict left turn from the minor street (traffic volumes are not high enough to warrant a signal).
15 – University Boulevard and US-20 West Ramp
· Install a traffic signal (programmed).
· Install a traffic signal at the US-20 East Ramp for AM peak hour movements and coordination
(programmed).
Table 4 shows the expected level of service if the recommendations listed above are implemented.
5
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Table 4 Mitigated Level of Service
Number Major Street Minor Street Control Type Existing LOS
4 2nd East Teton River Village SIGNAL C
5 2nd East Valley River Drive SIGNAL A
7 Main Street US-20 West Ramp SIGNAL B
12 Yellowstone Highway Trejo Street STOP B
15 University Boulevard US-20 West Ramp SIGNAL B
Geometry
Geometric deficiencies were identified at the following locations listed in Table 5. 2nd East and Moody
road is an offset intersection, the minor streets do not line up. Yellowstone Highway and Moody Road is
skewed below the maximum recommended skew of 60 degrees. The minor approach of 2nd West and 1st
North, and 4th South and 5th West intersects the major approach on a curve. In addition, 4th South and 5th
West is too closely spaced to the Yellowstone Highway and Trejo Street Intersection.
Table 5 Geometric Deficiencies
Number Major Street Minor Street Geometric Deficiency
1 2nd East Moody Road Offset Roadways
2 Yellowstone Highway Moody Road Excessive Skew (East Side)
11 4th South 5th West On Curve/Spacing
12 Yellowstone Highway Trejo Street Spacing
20 2nd East 2nd South Pedestrian Conflict
22 2nd East 7th North Misaligned Lanes
Proposed Geometric Solutions
The proposed solutions to mitigate the existing geometric deficiencies at the intersections are listed
below:
1 – 2nd East and Moody Road
· Realign the minor street approaches to remove offset.
2 – Yellowstone Highway and Moody Road
· Realign the east side of Moody Road to intersect Yellowstone Highway at 90 degrees.
11 – 4th South and 5th West
· Evaluate restricting left turns at intersection.
6
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
12 – Yellowstone Highway and Trejo Street
· Evaluate Trejo Street access spacing. Potential solution is to close the access and create new
access with better spacing (such as a new 5th South/Yellowstone connection).
20 – 2nd East and 2nd South
· Install a HAWK signal to improve pedestrian safety provided warrants are met.
22 – 2nd East and 7th North
· Full reconstruction of the intersection to align the east and west approaches is recommended but
is very impactful to the corner properties, especially on the northwest corner. In lieu of a full
reconstruction the following minor changes could be incorporated:
o Restripe the westbound leg of the intersection approximately 8 feet to the south. This
will help with the misalignment.
o Move the curb line on the north side of 1000 North (eastbound leg of the intersection) 5
feet to the North. This will allow the through movement from west to east to line up. The
east to west movements will still be aligned.
Future Conditions (2048)
Traffic conditions were projected out to 2048 using the travel demand modelling performed in
conjunction with the Transportation Master Plan. This analysis focuses on operational concerns as all
geometry concerns that exist currently would remain in the future and no additional geometric
deficiencies should be created. It was assumed that the capacity and geometric improvements outlined
in the previous section were implemented prior to the future condition analysis.
Capacity
The expected future LOS for each failing intersection is shown below in Table 6. The intersections which
are not expected to experience capacity failure are again left out of this portion of the report.
Table 6 Projected LOS
Number Major Street Minor Street Control Type Projected
LOS
Failing
Approaches
2 Yellowstone
Highway Moody Road STOP F EB/WB
7 Main Street US-20 West Ramp SIGNAL F SB/WB
8 Main Street US-20 East Ramp SIGNAL D NB
9 Main Street 12th West SIGNAL F ALL
13 7th South 5th West STOP D SB
14 University
Boulevard 12th West
STOP (SIGNAL
PLANNED FALL
2022)
F ALL
7
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Number Major Street Minor Street Control Type Projected
LOS
Failing
Approaches
15 University
Boulevard US-20 West Ramp STOP F SB/WB
16 University
Boulevard US-20 East Ramp STOP D NB
Proposed Capacity Solutions
The proposed solutions to mitigate the existing capacity deficiencies at the intersections are listed below:
2 – Yellowstone Highway and Moody Road
· Signalize intersection.
7&8 – Main Street and US-20 Interchange
· Upgrade to Diverging Diamond Interchange (planned 2024)
9 – Main Street & 12th West
· Install protected dual left turns.
13 – 7th South and 5th West
· Evaluate installation of roundabout or signal if warranted.
14 – University Boulevard and 12th West
· Install a signal (planned for Fall 2022).
15&16 – University Boulevard and US-20 Interchange
· Upgrade to Diverging Diamond Interchange (planned 2024)
Table 7 shows the expected level of service if the recommendations listed above are implemented.
Table 7 Mitigated Level of Service
Number Major Street Minor Street Control Type Projected
LOS
2 Yellowstone Highway Moody Road ROUNDABOUT B
7&8 Main Street US-20 NEW INTERCHANGE (DDI) C
9 Main Street 12th West SIGNAL w/ DUAL LEFTS C
13 7th South 5th West ROUNDABOUT A
14 University Boulevard 12th West SIGNAL C
8
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
15&16 University Boulevard US-20 NEW INTERCHANGE (SPUI) C
21 7th South 2nd West SIGNAL B
9
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Summary
· The study intersections were analyzed during the PM peak hour, typically the busiest hour of the
day.
· Each intersection was studied under existing conditions using count data collected as part of the
TMP.
· Operational as well as geometric deficiencies were identified.
· Mitigations for failure conditions were provided under each scenario see Table 8.
Table 8 Intersection Summary
Number Major Street Minor Street 2048 Mitigation
1 2nd East Moody Road Realign
2 Yellowstone Highway Moody Road Signalize/realign
East side
3 2nd East Yellowstone
Highway
4 2nd East Teton River
Village Signal Timing
5 2nd East Valley River
Drive
6 2nd West 1st North
7 Main Street US-20 West
Ramp
New
Interchange/signal
8 Main Street US-20 East
Ramp New Interchange
9 Main Street 12th West Dual Left Turns
10 2nd South 1st West
11 4th South 5th West Restrict left turns
12 Yellowstone Highway Trejo Street
13 7th South 5th West Roundabout or
Signal
14 University Boulevard 12th West Signalize
15 University Boulevard US-20 West
Ramp
New
Interchange/signal
16 University Boulevard US-20 East
Ramp New Interchange
17 University Boulevard 5th West
18 2nd East Old Walmart
Main Entrance
10
Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City
Transportation Master Plan Update 2022
Number Major Street Minor Street 2048 Mitigation
19 Main Street 5th West
20 2nd East 2nd South Signal
21 7th South 2nd West
22 2nd East 7th North Realign
Zero-Based Regulation Review – 2023 for Rulemaking and 2024 Legislative Review
IDAPA 39 – IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Division of Highways
39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Who does this rule apply to?
The rule applies to landowners seeking direct access to state highways.
• Individual property owners;
• Developers; and
• Business owners
What is the purpose of this rule?
The purpose of this rule is to regulate the access to the State Highway System, so the access
matches the intended traffic function designation of each highway and corridor. The rule
establishes standards and guidelines for encroachments on state highway rights-of-way;
including but not limited to: definitions, safety, maintenance, applications, permits, access
spacing, design standards, turnouts and unauthorized/nonstandard encroachments.
What is the legal authority for the agency to promulgate this rule?
This rule implements the following statutes passed by the Idaho Legislature:
Highways and Bridges -
Idaho Transportation Board:
•40-310, Idaho Code – Powers and Duties — State Highway System
•40-311, Idaho Code – Powers and Duties — Property
•40-312, Idaho Code – Powers and Duties — Rules and Regulations
•40-313, Idaho Code – Powers and Duties — Beautification and Information
Motor Vehicles -
General:
•49-221, Idaho Code – Removal of Traffic Hazards
Who do I contact for more information on this rule?
Idaho Transportation Department
Monday – Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
P.O. Box 7129
Boise, ID 83707-1129
3311 West State Street
Phone: (208) 334-8000
itd.idaho.gov
Page 2
Table of Contents
39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
000. Legal Authority. ................................................................................................ 3
001. Scope. .............................................................................................................. 3
002. Administrative Appeal. ...................................................................................... 3
003. -- 009. (Reserved)............................................................................................... 3
010. Definitions. ........................................................................................................ 3
011. -- 099. (Reserved) ............................................................................................... 9
100. General. ............................................................................................................ 9
101. -- 199. (Reserved)............................................................................................. 10
200. Applications And Permits. .............................................................................. 10
201. Permit Compliance And Expiration. ................................................................ 11
202. -- 299. (Reserved)..............................................................................................11
300. General Regulations For Approaches. ........................................................... 11
301. -- 399. (Reserved)............................................................................................. 12
400. Location And Design Standards For Approaches. ......................................... 12
401. Medians. ......................................................................................................... 18
402. Auxiliary Lanes. .............................................................................................. 18
403. -- 499. (Reserved)............................................................................................. 19
500. Location And Design Standards For Utilities. ................................................. 19
501. -- 599. (Reserved)............................................................................................. 20
600. Location And Design Standards For Other Encroachments. ......................... 20
601. -- 699. (Reserved)............................................................................................. 22
700. Application Fees. ............................................................................................ 22
701. – 799. (Reserved) ............................................................................................. 24
800. Unauthorized And Nonstandard Encroachments. ......................................... 24
801. Prohibitions. .................................................................................................... 24
802. -- 999. (Reserved)............................................................................................. 25
Section 000 Page 3
39.03.42 – RULES GOVERNING HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ENCROACHMENTS ON STATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY
000. LEGAL AUTHORITY.
The Idaho Transportation Board adopts this rule under the authority of Sections 40-310, and 40-312, and per the
requirements of Sections 40-311, 40-313, 49-202(19), (23) and (28), and 49-221, Idaho Code.(3-31-22)
001. SCOPE.
This rule establishes standards and guidelines for encroachments on state highway rights-of-way. (3-31-22)
002. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
01. Commencement. Applicants may appeal denied permits, or permits granted with conditions that
the applicant believes to be unreasonable, in writing to the Department’s District Engineer within thirty (30) days of
receipt of written notification of the denial or grant of the permit. The appeal process commences on the date the
Department’s District office receives written notification of appeal from the applicant.(3-31-22)
02. Process Hold. If at any time during the appeal process it is determined that insufficient
documentation was submitted with the appeal, all parties shall be notified that the appeal process is placed on hold
until the necessary documentation is supplied.(3-31-22)
03. Appeal Process. The District will have thirty (30) working days to review the appeal. If the District
Engineer does not rule on the appeal within the thirty (30) day period, the denial of the permit shall be deemed
overturned and the permit shall be issued, or the contested permit conditions stricken. Notice of the decision of the
District Engineer shall be issued by certified mail within seven (7) days of the ruling. Otherwise, if the District
Engineer does not overturn the original denial or strike the contested provisions from the permit, upon receipt of a
written request from the applicant within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the denial of the appeal, it shall be
forwarded to the Department’s legal section to initiate an appeal to the Idaho Transportation Board. The appeal will
be processed in accordance with the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act and IDAPA 04.11.01, “Idaho Rules of
Administrative Procedure of the Attorney General.”(3-31-22)
003. -- 009. (RESERVED)
010. DEFINITIONS.
01. Shall/Will, Should, May. The use of “shall” or “will,” “should,” and “may” denote the following
conditions:(3-31-22)
a.Shall/Will. A mandatory condition or requirement.(3-31-22)
b.Should. An advisory or recommended condition, or usage, but not mandatory. (3-31-22)
c.May. A permissive condition. No requirement is mandated.(3-31-22)
02. Access. The ability to enter or leave a public highway or highway right-of-way from an abutting
private property or another public highway or public highway right-of-way.(3-31-22)
03. ADT. Average Daily Traffic. The total volume of traffic during a given time period in whole days
greater than one (1) day and less than one (1) year divided by the number of days within that time period. (3-31-22)
04. Applicant. Agency, owner, or an authorized representative of the property owner, or utility facility
applying for a permit to encroach within state highway rights-of-way.(3-31-22)
05. Appraisal. A written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser
setting forth an opinion of monetary value for a specific property based on a specific use, as of a specific date,
supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information.(3-31-22)
06. Approach. A connection between the outside edge of the shoulder or curb line and the abutting
property at the highway right-of-way line, intended to provide access to and from said highway and the abutting
property. An approach may include a driveway, alley, street, road or highway.(3-31-22)
07. Approach Flare. The approved radius connecting the edge of the approach to the edge of the
highway. The term “approach radius” is interchangeable with “approach flare.”(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 010 Page 4
08. Approach Transition. The area from the edge of an urban approach sloped to match the curb and
border area elevations. The term “approach apron” is interchangeable with “approach transition.” (3-31-22)
09. Approach Skew Angle. For all approaches, the angle of deflection between a line perpendicular to
the highway centerline and the approach centerline.(3-31-22)
10. Approach Width. The distance between the outside edges of the approach measured perpendicular
to the approach centerline along the curb line or the edge of pavement, excluding flares, transitions and radii.
(3-31-22)
11. Authorized Representative. Any applicant, other than the property owner, having notarized
written verification signed by the owner giving authorization to act on the owner’s behalf.(3-31-22)
12. Auxiliary Lane. The portion of the roadway adjoining the traveled way used for speed change,
turning, storage for turning, weaving, truck climbing, and other purposes supplementary to through-traffic movement.
(3-31-22)
13. Board. The Idaho Transportation Board, as established by Title 40, Chapter 3, Idaho Code.
(3-31-22)
14. Border Area. The area between the outside edge of the shoulder or back of curb and the highway
right-of way line.(3-31-22)
15. Boulevard Approach. A two-way approach intended for high ADT volumes of large commercial
vehicles, having a maximum width of eighty-four (84) feet in which opposing traffic is separated by a raised four (4)
foot wide non-traversible median.(3-31-22)
16. Capacity. The maximum number of vehicles that can reasonably be expected to travel along a lane
of a highway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions.(3-31-22)
17. Clear Zone. An area outside the traveled way, auxiliary lanes and shoulders that is constructed and
maintained as free from physical obstructions as practical, for use as a recovery area by errant vehicles. (3-31-22)
18. Commercial Approach. An approach serving a business or businesses.(3-31-22)
19. Conduit. A tube or trough for receiving and protecting utility-related structures including, but not
limited to, electrical wires, fiber optic cable, and fluids.(3-31-22)
20. Construction. The building of new facilities or the modification of existing facilities. Does not
include maintenance.(3-31-22)
21. Corner Clearance. The distance along the curb line or outside edge of the shoulder measured from
the beginning or end of the intersecting roadway flare to the nearest edge of the adjacent approach, excluding flares or
transitions.(3-31-22)
22. Department. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).(3-31-22)
23. Distance Between Approaches. The distance measured along the curb line or outside edge of the
shoulder between the nearest edges of adjacent approaches, excluding the flares, transitions or radii. (3-31-22)
24. District. An administrative and maintenance subdivision of the Idaho Transportation Department
encompassing a particular geographical region of the state of Idaho, per Section 40-303, Idaho Code. (3-31-22)
25. District Engineer. The administrator of an Idaho Transportation Department administrative
district, or a delegated representative.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 010 Page 5
26. District Route. A state highway that accommodates trips of limited mobility and provides high
levels of access to communities, to include distributing trips to geographical areas and serving major commercial and
industrial districts. District routes may provide intra-community continuity and connection, to include local bus
routes, but should not be used to provide direct access to residential lots.(3-31-22)
27. Economic Opportunity. Facilitate the increase in Idaho Gross Domestic Product, job creation,
increased business, revenue; improve the efficiency in which goods are transported; and reduction in travel times for
commuting, commerce, recreation, and tourism.(3-31-22)
28. Emergency. Any unscheduled work required to correct or prevent a hazardous situation that poses
an imminent threat to life or property.(3-31-22)
29. Encroachment. Any authorized or unauthorized use of highway right-of-way or the air space
immediately above the highway right-of-way.(3-31-22)
30. Encroachment Permit. Written authorization from the Department to use state highway right-of-
way or the airspace above it under the conditions set forth in the permit.(3-31-22)
31. Expressway. A segment of a highway designated by the Idaho Transportation Board for use as a
through highway, with partially controlled access, accessible only at locations specified by the Idaho Transportation
Department, and characterized by medians, limited at-grade intersections, and high speeds. An existing segment of
state highway may only be designated as an expressway if payment is made to adjacent property owners for the
restriction of existing access rights.(3-31-22)
32. Farming. Any activity associated with crops, including seed.(3-31-22)
33. FHWA. The Federal Highway Administration, a division of the U. S. Department of
Transportation.(3-31-22)
34. Fiber Optic Cable. A cable containing one (1) or more glass or plastic fibers that has the ability to
transmit light along its axis.(3-31-22)
35. Field Approach. An approach that serves only non-residential agricultural property, including
farmyards.(3-31-22)
36. Flare Tangent Distance. The distance of the approach radius measured along the edge of
pavement.(3-31-22)
37. Freeway. A segment of a highway designated by the Idaho Transportation Board for use as a
through highway, with fully controlled access, accessible only by interchanges (ramps), and characterized by
medians, grade separations at cross roads, and ramp connections for entrance to and exit from the traveled way. An
existing non-Interstate segment of state highway may only be designated as a freeway if payment is made to adjacent
property owners for the restriction of existing access rights.(3-31-22)
38. Frontage Road. A road auxiliary to and located to the side of the highway for service to abutting
properties and adjacent areas for the purpose of controlling access to the highway.(3-31-22)
39. Frontage Boundary Line. A line perpendicular to the highway centerline that begins at the point
of intersection of the abutting property line and the highway right-of-way line.(3-31-22)
40. Full Control of Access. Any section of a highway system where access is prohibited except for
interchange connections.(3-31-22)
41. Government Agency. As used in these rules, the term includes federal, state, county, city, or local
highway jurisdictions.(3-31-22)
42.Highway Right-of-Way. Property used for highway purposes, open to the public, and under the
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 010 Page 6
jurisdiction of a government agency. Such property may be owned by the government agency in fee simple or be
subject to an easement for highway purposes.(3-31-22)
43. Imminent Threat. Includes major traffic control deficiencies or safety situations that are likely to
result in serious injury or loss of life.(3-31-22)
44. Interstate Highway. As identified by federal code, a segment of the Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways consisting of an FHWA-approved freeway. (3-31-22)
45. Joint-Use Approach. An approach constructed at a common boundary between adjacent
properties that abut the highway. A joint-use approach is equally owned and shared as common access by both
property owners.(3-31-22)
46. Landscaping. Any action taken to change the features or appearance of the highway right-of-way
or abutting property with plants, soil, rock and related material.(3-31-22)
47. Loaded Payroll Rate. A rate of compensation that includes hourly wages plus the associated
employer overhead and benefit costs.(3-31-22)
48. Local Highway Agency. Any city, county, highway district or other local board or body having
authority to enact regulations, resolutions, or ordinances relating to traffic on the highways, highway rights-of-way
and streets within their respective jurisdiction.(3-31-22)
49. Local Road. A city, county or highway district highway whose primary function is to provide
access to adjacent properties.(3-31-22)
50. Median. The portion of a divided highway or approach that separates opposing traveled ways.
Medians may be raised, flush, or depressed relative to the roadway surface, and may be landscaped or paved.
(3-31-22)
51. Median Opening. A paved area bisecting opposite directions of a divided roadway that is designed
to permit traffic to cross at least one (1) direction of travel.(3-31-22)
52. MUTCD. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, latest
edition, as adopted by the Idaho Transportation Board in accordance with Section 49-201(3), Idaho Code. A manual
written by the Federal Highway Administration that sets national minimum standards for signing, striping, and traffic
control devices.(3-31-22)
53. Non-Standard Approach. Any approach that does not meet Department standards. (3-31-22)
54. Performance Bond. A statutory bond, issued by a surety company authorized to do business in the
state of Idaho, that guarantees performance of work in accordance with permit requirements.(3-31-22)
55. Permittee. Person or persons, utility facilities, and other agencies granted permission to encroach
within the highway right-of-way for authorized purposes other than normal travel.(3-31-22)
56. Private Approach. Every privately owned traveled way that is used for ingress to and egress from
the highway right-of-way and an abutting property.(3-31-22)
57. Property Line Clearance. The distance measured along the curb line or outside shoulder edge
from the frontage boundary line to the nearest edge of the approach width, excluding flares, transitions and radii.
(3-31-22)
58. Public Approach. Any approach that serves the public without restriction and is maintained by a
government agency.(3-31-22)
59. Public Highway. Any highway open to public use and maintained by a government agency.
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 010 Page 7
(3-31-22)
60. Public Highway Agency. The state transportation department, any city, county, highway district,
or any other state agency, or any federal or Indian reservation, which has jurisdiction over public highway systems
and highway rights-of-way.(3-31-22)
61. Regional Route. A state highway that accommodates trips of moderate length with a lower level of
mobility than a Statewide Route and that provides moderate access to communities, to include providing mobility for
people and freight through and between communities and major activity centers of the region.(3-31-22)
62. Roadside. Any area beyond the main traveled way that may or may not be within the highway
right-of-way.(3-31-22)
63. Roadway. That portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel,
exclusive of sidewalks, shoulders, berms and other portions of the rights-of-way.(3-31-22)
64. Rural. State highway rights-of-way and right-of-way corridors outside the limits of Urban and
Transitional areas.(3-31-22)
65. Setback. The horizontal distance between the highway right-of-way line and permanent fixtures,
including but not limited to gas pump islands, signs, display stands and buildings, measured at right angles to the
highway centerline.(3-31-22)
66. Shoulder. The portion of the right-of-way contiguous with the traveled way that accommodates
stopped vehicles, emergency use, and lateral support of the sub-base, base, and surface courses. (3-31-22)
67. Signal Spacing. The distance between signalized intersections measured from the center of
intersection to the center of intersection.(3-31-22)
68. Slope. Slope is expressed as a non-dimensional ratio between vertical and horizontal distance. For
side slopes, the vertical component is shown first, then the horizontal.(3-31-22)
69. Speed. The rate of vehicular travel as measured in miles per hour. All speeds used in this document
shall be the eighty-fifth percentile speed as determined by an engineering study. (3-31-22)
70. State Highway System. The principal highway corridors in the state, including connections and
extensions through cities and roads to every county seat in the state, as approved by the Idaho Transportation Board
and officially designated as a state highway.(3-31-22)
71. Statewide Route. A state highway that provides the highest level of mobility and speeds over long
distances. Access from a statewide route to communities and major activity centers should be by way of public roads
with spacing that supports mobility and speed.(3-31-22)
72. Stopping Sight Distance. The sum of:(3-31-22)
a.The brake reaction distance, which is the distance traveled by the vehicle from the instant the driver
perceives an object necessitating a stop, to the moment the brakes are applied; and (3-31-22)
b.The braking distance, which is the distance the vehicle travels from the moment the brakes are
applied until the vehicle comes to a complete stop.(3-31-22)
73. Structure. Includes, but is not limited to, bridges, culverts, siphons, headwalls, retaining walls,
buildings and any incidental construction not otherwise defined herein.(3-31-22)
74. Subdivision. A division of real property into three (3) or more separately platted parcels. (3-31-22)
75. Temporary Encroachment. Any encroachment that is not approved as a permanent placement
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 010 Page 8
within the highway right-of-way.(3-31-22)
76. Traffic. Pedestrians, bicycles, animals, vehicles, streetcars, buses and other conveyances, either
singly or together, that use the highway right-of-way for the purpose of travel.(3-31-22)
77. Traffic Control Device. Any marking or device whether manually, electronically, or mechanically
operated, placed or erected by an authority of a government agency or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of
regulating, warning or guiding traffic.(3-31-22)
78. Traffic Impact Study. A comprehensive analysis of the anticipated transportation network
conditions with and without an applicant’s proposed new or modified access, including an analysis of mitigation
measures.(3-31-22)
79. Transitional. State highway rights-of-way and right-of-way corridors within the area of city
impact of any incorporated city, or areas designated as an area of city impact by city or county comprehensive plans.
(3-31-22)
80. Traveled Way. The portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders.
(3-31-22)
81. Travel Lane. That portion of the traveled way designated for use by a single line of vehicles.
(3-31-22)
82. Trenching. A method in which access is gained by excavation from ground level to the required
underground depth for the installation, maintenance, removal, or inspection of a cable, casing, conduit or pipe. The
excavation is then back filled with approved material and the surface is then returned to a condition specified by the
Department.(3-31-22)
83. Turnouts. Roadside areas immediately adjacent to highways which may be utilized by vehicles for
purposes of short-term parking or turning. They are extensions of the traveled way.(3-31-22)
84. Unauthorized Encroachment. Any encroachment that has been placed, modified, or maintained,
or removed within the highway right-of-way without authorization by the Department.(3-31-22)
85. Urban. State highway rights-of-way and right-of-way corridors within the limits of any
incorporated city.(3-31-22)
86. Utility Facility. All privately, publicly or cooperatively owned systems used for the production,
transmission, or distribution of communications, cable television, power, electricity, light, heat, petroleum products,
ore, water, steam, waste, irrigation, storm water not connected with highway drainage, and other similar items,
including communication towers, guy wires, fire and police signal systems, and street lighting systems, that directly
or indirectly serve the public or comprise part of the distribution systems which directly or indirectly serve the public.
(3-31-22)
87. Utility Locating Service. Any locally or regionally recognized service that locates and maintains
records of existing utility facilities.(3-31-22)
88. Vehicle. Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or
drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon rails or tracks.(3-31-22)
89. Vision Triangle. An area delineated by extending perpendicular lines along the face of curb or
edge of pavement from their point of intersection forty (40) feet in either direction and by a height between three (3)
feet and ten (10) feet above the existing centerline highway elevation.(3-31-22)
90. Volume. The number of vehicles estimated to use a certain type of travel lane during a twelve-
month period. A highway with “high” volumes is at or near capacity; a highway with “medium” volumes is at or near
fifty percent (50%) of capacity.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 100 Page 9
91. Warrant. An evaluation of need based on an engineering study.(3-31-22)
92. Working Day. Any day except for Saturday, Sunday and any holiday as defined in Section 67-
5302(15), Idaho Code.(3-31-22)
011. -- 099. (RESERVED)
100. GENERAL.
01. Access Control.(3-31-22)
a.The Department shall retain the authority to issue all encroachment permits on the State Highway
System.(3-31-22)
b.No change may be made to the control of access on any Interstate Highway without the approval of
the Idaho Transportation Board and FHWA.(3-31-22)
02. Safety Requirements.(3-31-22)
a.It is the permittee’s responsibility to provide for safe, efficient passage and protection of vehicles,
pedestrians, and workers during any permitted work within the highway right-of-way.(3-31-22)
b.The permittee shall submit, for Department approval, a traffic control plan for the installation,
maintenance, or removal of any state highway right-of-way encroachment. The permittee shall provide advance
notification to the Department prior to implementing any traffic control.(3-31-22)
c.During the progress of the work, barricades, signs and other traffic control devices shall be erected
and maintained by the permittee in conformance with the current “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.” The
permittee shall be required to meet the minimum requirements of the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), as adopted by the Department.(3-31-22)
d.All flaggers working on the State Highway System shall be certified in or recognized by the state of
Idaho. They shall carry on their person a current flagger identification card that is recognized by the state of Idaho.
All traffic control devices used on the State Highway System shall comply with current FHWA crash criteria.
(3-31-22)
e.When required, a striping plan for the placement of temporary and permanent pavement markings
shall accompany the approved permit to use the right-of-way. Materials, placement, and removal of all pavement
markings shall conform to current Department specifications and standards.(3-31-22)
03. Maintenance of Encroachments. Once an encroachment has been constructed by the permittee to
Department standards, maintenance of the encroachment, unless otherwise provided, shall be as follows: (3-31-22)
a.Paved public approach - State maintains to the right-of-way line.(3-31-22)
b.Paved private approach - State maintains to end of radii, permittee maintains beyond the radii.
(3-31-22)
c.Gravel public approach. State installs an asphalt wedge sufficient to protect the roadway pavement
edge (three (3) to six (6) feet back from the edge of road for the width of the approach). It is desirable to pave the
approach to the right-of-way line when the road is reconstructed. State maintains to the right-of-way line. (3-31-22)
d.Gravel private approach. The permittee maintains beyond the wedge.(3-31-22)
e.Gravel turnouts. State maintains turnouts, other than mailbox turnouts, to the right-of-way line. The
permittee maintains mailbox turnouts.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 200 Page 10
f.Maintenance of all other encroachments shall be the responsibility of the permittee. (3-31-22)
101. -- 199. (RESERVED)
200. APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS.
01. Required. To help preserve the highways as constructed and provide responsible growth where
allowed, any individual, business, or other entity planning to add, modify, change use, relocate, maintain, or remove
an encroachment on the state highway or use highway right-of-way for any purpose other than normal travel, shall
obtain a permit to use state highway right-of-way. Encroachment permits approved by the Department are required
for private and public approaches (driveways and streets), utilities and other miscellaneous encroachments.(3-31-22)
02. Work Prior to Approval. No activities shall be allowed on State highway rights-of-way until an
approved permit has been issued by the Department or a delegated local highway agency. In an emergency, that
effects highway operations and motorist safety, approval may be given by the Department or a delegated highway
agency in advance of processing the permit.(3-31-22)
03. Local Highway Agency Authority. The department may delegate authority to a local highway
agency to issue permits to use state highway rights-of-way if adequate local ordinances are in place and are
enforceable. The Department shall retain final approval for all permits issued by a local highway agency on the State
Highway System.(3-31-22)
04. Administration. Permitting process shall be administered by the Department or their delegated
representative, within the representative’s respective jurisdiction. Department District offices are located in Coeur
d’Alene, Lewiston, Boise, Shoshone, Pocatello and Rigby.(3-31-22)
05. Application Forms. All applications to use State highway right-of-way shall be made on approved
Department forms.(3-31-22)
06. Applicant to Be Informed. Applicants shall be informed of Department policies and regulations
concerning encroachments.(3-31-22)
07. Payment for Impacted Highway Features. Applicants shall pay for any changes or adjustments
of highway features or fixtures brought about by actions, operations or requirements caused by the applicant.
(3-31-22)
08. Encroachment Conflicts. Conflicts between proposed encroachments and highway maintenance
or construction projects, utilities or other encroachments shall be resolved before an application is approved.
(3-31-22)
09. Review Process. The review process shall commence on the day the applicant submits the signed
application and makes payment of the initial application fee(s). If the Department determines there is insufficient
documentation to process the application, the process will be placed on hold until such documentation has been
received. All applications for encroachment permits shall be reviewed and evaluated for current access control
requirements, deed restrictions, safety and capacity requirements, design and location standards, or an approved
variance of these standards, environmental impacts, location conflicts, long-range planning goals, and the need for an
appraisal. A time table for the review process is available at the Idaho Transportation Department Headquarters
Office or any District Office.(3-31-22)
10. Department Held Harmless. In accepting an approved permit, the permittee, their successors and
assigns, shall agree to hold harmless and defend, regardless of outcome, the state from the expenses of and against all
suits or claims, including costs, expenses and attorney fees that may be incurred by reason of any act or omission,
neglect or misconduct of the permittee or its contractor in the design, construction, maintenance or operation of the
encroachment.(3-31-22)
11. Permit Requirements. All permits shall specify approach location and use, and be accompanied
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 201 Page 11
by approved traffic control plans, design details and specifications that address dust control, site reclamation,
environmental protection and work site safety. The applicant shall be required to submit construction plans stamped
by an engineer licensed in the state of Idaho to the Department for approval.(3-31-22)
12. Void Application. Once an application is submitted, if the permitting process is not completed
within one (1) year as a result of inactivity on the applicant’s part, the application shall be considered void. (3-31-22)
13. Denial of Application. Applications for encroachments not allowed shall be verbally denied. If the
applicant insists on proceeding with the application, the non-refundable fee shall be accepted and a permit denial
issued by certified letter. Upon receipt of the denial letter, the applicant can appeal the Department’s action.
(3-31-22)
201. PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND EXPIRATION.
01. Permitted Work. If work does not begin immediately, the permittee shall notify the Department or
local highway agency five (5) working days prior to commencing such work. Local highway agency shall promptly
notify the Department, when applicable.(3-31-22)
02. Work Site Documents. The permittee or contractor for the permittee, shall maintain a copy of the
approved permit, all special provisions and any related documents, at the work site while work is in progress.
(3-31-22)
03. Completion of Work. All permitted work shall be completed and available for final inspection
within thirty (30) days after construction begins, unless otherwise stated in the special provisions of the permit. If the
permitted work is not completed within one (1) year of permit issuance, the permit shall be considered void. At the
discretion of the Department, a one-time extension not to exceed six (6) months may be granted if requested in
writing by the permittee prior to permit expiration. New applications shall be required for additional work following
permit expiration.(3-31-22)
04. Temporary Encroachments. Temporary encroachment permits shall have an effective time period
not to exceed one (1) calendar year and shall be removed within ten (10) days following permit expiration. (3-31-22)
202. -- 299. (RESERVED)
300. GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR APPROACHES.
01. Required. All new or additional approaches, or the modification in design or use, relocation or
removal of existing approaches require an approved State highway right-of-way use permit and shall meet all access
control requirements that correspond to the state highway being affected.(3-31-22)
02. General. Requests for approaches shall be reviewed and considered for approval based on the
needs of the total development, regardless of the number of individual parcels it contains.(3-31-22)
03. Joint-Use Approach. Only an owner of property abutting the state highway right-of-way, or their
designated representative, can apply for access. Applications for a joint-use approach that serves two (2) or more
abutting properties sharing common boundary lines shall be accompanied by a legal recorded joint-use access
agreement and shall be signed by all deeded owners or authorized representatives.(3-31-22)
04. Applicable Standards. The location, design, and construction of all approaches shall comply with
Department standards. Information regarding applicable standards is available at Department headquarters and all
District offices listed in Subsection 003.01.(3-31-22)
05. Approach Locations. Approaches shall be located where the highway alignment and profile meet
approved geometric standards, where they do not create undue interference with or hazard to the free movement of
normal highway or pedestrian traffic, and where they do not restrict or interfere with the placement or proper function
of traffic control signs, signals, lighting or other devices.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 400 Page 12
06. Denial of Approach Application. Failure to comply with these requirements may be sufficient
cause for the Department to deny an approach application, prohibit specific approach usage, or remove an existing
approach.(3-31-22)
07. New Approaches in Highway Construction. Applications for an encroachment located within a
state highway construction project shall be processed by the Department.(3-31-22)
08. Modification of Approaches by Department. The Department reserves the right to make any
modifications, additions, repairs, relocations, or removals to any approach or its appurtenances within the highway
right-of-way, when necessary for maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction or relocation of the highway and/or to
provide proper protection of life and property on, or adjacent to, the highway.(3-31-22)
09. Modification of Approaches by Permittee. Modifications of approach use, construction, or
design shall include but not be limited to width, grade, surface type, landscaping, and drainage. Such modifications
by the permittee require Department approval.(3-31-22)
301. -- 399. (RESERVED)
400. LOCATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR APPROACHES.
01. Required. Location, design, construction and operations of all approaches shall comply with
current Department geometric standards and design principles.(3-31-22)
02. Guidelines. The following access management guidelines shall be considered on all approach
applications:(3-31-22)
a.Design approaches for current and future property access requirements; and (3-31-22)
b.Reduce conflicts associated access points through the application of channelization, auxiliary lanes,
joint-use approaches, frontage and other local roads, restricted on-street parking and off-street traffic circulation.
(3-31-22)
03. Signal and Approach Spacing. In order to maintain system capacity, safety and efficiency,
maximize signal progression and minimize delays to the traveling public, all approaches and signals shall be spaced
in accordance with the following standards:(3-31-22)
a.All traffic signal locations shall meet Department signal warrant requirements and a signal
operational analysis;(3-31-22)
b.Location preference shall be given to State highways that meet or may be reasonably expected to
meet signal warrants within five (5) years; and (3-31-22)
c.Minimum recommended distances between approaches and signals are as follows:
TABLE 1 – ACCESS SPACING*
HIGHWAY
TYPE AREA TYPE
Signalized
Road
Spacing
Public
Road
Spacing
(A)
Driveway
Distance
Upstream From
Public Road
Intersection
(B)
Driveway
Distance
Downstream
From
Unsignalized
Public Road
Intersection (C)
Distance
Between
Unsignalized
Accesses
Other Than
Public Roads
(D)
Interstate All Accessible only by interchanges (ramps) and requires approval by the Board
and Federal Highway Administration.
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 400 Page 13
(3-31-22)
Freeway All Accessible only by interchanges (ramps).
Expressway All Accessible only at locations specified by the Department.
Statewide
Route
Rural 5,280 ft 5,280 ft 1,000 ft 650 ft 650 ft
Transitional 5,280 ft 2,640 ft 760 ft 500 ft 500 ft
Urban >35 mph 2,640 ft 1,320 ft 790 ft 500 ft 500 ft
Urban ≤35 mph 2,640 ft 1,320 ft 790 ft 250 ft** 250 ft**
Regional
Route
Rural 5,280 ft 2,640 ft 1,000 ft 650 ft 650 ft
Transitional 2,640 ft 1,320 ft 690 ft 360 ft** 360 ft**
Urban >35 mph 2,640 ft 660 ft 660 ft 360 ft** 360 ft**
Urban ≤35 mph 2,640 ft 660 ft 660 ft 250 ft** 250 ft**
District Route
Rural 2,640 ft 1,320 ft 760 ft 500 ft 500 ft
Transitional 2,640 ft 660 ft 660 ft 360 ft** 360 ft**
Urban >35 mph 1,320 ft 660 ft 660 ft 360 ft** 360 ft**
Urban ≤35 mph 1,320 ft 660 ft 660 ft 250 ft** 250 ft**
*Distances in table are minimums based on optimal operational and safety conditions such as adequate sight dis-
tance and level grade. Definitions of spacing designated by (A), (B), (C), and (D) are represented on Figure 1.
** Where the public road intersection or private access intersection is signalized, the distances in the table are for
driveways restricted to right-in/right-out movements only. For unrestricted driveways the minimum distance shall
be 500 feet from a signalized intersection.
TABLE 1 – ACCESS SPACING*
HIGHWAY
TYPE AREA TYPE
Signalized
Road
Spacing
Public
Road
Spacing
(A)
Driveway
Distance
Upstream From
Public Road
Intersection
(B)
Driveway
Distance
Downstream
From
Unsignalized
Public Road
Intersection (C)
Distance
Between
Unsignalized
Accesses
Other Than
Public Roads
(D)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 400 Page 14
Figure 1:
(3-31-22)
d.The District Engineer shall have the authority to deny an encroachment permit or require the
applicant to provide a Traffic Impact Study when an on-site review indicates that the optimal conditions (such as sight
distance and queue length) assumed in Table 1 do not exist, and that operational or safety problems may result from
the encroachment spacing.(3-31-22)
e.The District Engineer shall have the authority to approve a decrease in the minimum access spacing
distances set forth in Table 1, provided that the basis for any exception is justified and documented. The basis for the
exception may include overriding economic opportunity considerations. For any exception that would result in a
decrease in access spacing of more than ten percent (10%) of the distances set forth in Table 1, a Traffic Impact Study
will be required in order to determine whether auxiliary lanes or other appropriate mitigation must be included in the
permit’s conditions.(3-31-22)
f.Unless the requirement is waived by the District Engineer, a Traffic Impact Study shall also be
required when a new or expanded development seeks direct access to a state highway, and at full build out will
generate one hundred (100) or more new trips during the peak hour, the new volume of trips will equal or exceed one
thousand (1000) vehicles per day, or the new vehicle volume will result from development that equals or exceeds the
threshold values in Table 2. If the District Engineer waives the requirement for a Traffic Impact Study, the basis for
such waiver shall be justified and documented.(3-31-22)
g.When required, the Traffic Impact Study shall document access needs and impacts and whether any
highway modifications are necessary to accommodate the new traffic volumes generated by the development. Such
modifications could include, for example, turn lanes, additional through lanes, acceleration or deceleration lanes,
medians, traffic signals, removal and/or consolidation of existing approaches, approaches limited to right-in/right-out
access only, etc.(3-31-22)
h. If a District Engineer denies an encroachment permit application and the denial is appealed to the
board, the board or its delegate shall have the authority to approve exceptions to the access and signal spacing
distances in Table 1 if, in the judgment of the board, overriding economic considerations cause the exceptions to be in
the best interests of the public.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 400 Page 15
(3-31-22)
04. Corner Clearance.(3-31-22)
a.Approaches should be located as far as practical from intersections: to preserve visibility at the
intersection, to permit safe vehicle movement, and to accommodate the installation of traffic signs, signals and
lighting where required.(3-31-22)
b.Approach transitions or flares shall not encroach upon curbs or pavement edges forming the corner
radii of the intersection.(3-31-22)
c.Minimum corner clearances between signalized and unsignalized urban and rural intersections
shall comply with current Department standards.(3-31-22)
05. Approach Alignment. Whenever possible, all new or relocated approaches shall intersect the state
highway at right angles and shall be aligned on centerline with existing approaches to facilitate highway safety and
the development and use of turn lanes and/or signals. Approach skew angles shall be in conformance with current
Department standards.(3-31-22)
06. Width and Radius.(3-31-22)
a.An approach shall be wide enough to properly serve the anticipated type and volume of traffic.
Minimum widths should be used only when space limitations apply.(3-31-22)
b.An approach that is adjacent to a public alley may include the alley as part of the approach if
approved by the local jurisdiction, however, the width of the combined approach shall not exceed forty (40) feet.
(3-31-22)
c.Commercial approaches with volumes exceeding fifty (50) vehicles per hour during a total of any
four (4) hours per day should be designed to public road standards.(3-31-22)
d.A Boulevard Approach may be required to improve operation and/or aesthetics of commercial
approaches and some public highways, when warranted, by a combination of vehicle length and higher traffic
volumes. The approach shall be designed to serve the traffic with a right-turn lane, a left-turn lane, a median, and one
(1) or more entrance lanes.(3-31-22)
e.Minimum and maximum recommended approach widths and radii are as follows:
Table 2
LAND USE TYPE THRESHOLD VALUE
Residential 100 Dwelling Units
Retail 35,000 square feet
Office 50,000 square feet
Industrial 70,000 square feet
Lodging 100 rooms
School (K-12)All (Sections 67-6508 & 67-
6519, Idaho Code)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 400 Page 16
(3-31-22)
07. Property Line Clearance.(3-31-22)
a.In curbed sections, there shall be a minimum property line clearance of six (6) feet to accommodate
approach transitions. Approaches shall be constructed so that all approach flares and any extensions of the approach
remain within applicant’s property.(3-31-22)
b.In rural or uncurbed sections, property line clearances shall be equal to approach radius.
Approaches shall be constructed so that all approach radii remain within applicant’s property.(3-31-22)
c.Approach transitions or radii may be allowed to abut the adjacent property line when required for
proper utilization of property. Joint-use approaches shall be required whenever property frontage is insufficient to
include full width of the approach, including both radii.(3-31-22)
08. Setback.(3-31-22)
a.Improvements intended to serve patrons on private property adjacent to state highway right-of-way
shall be setback from the highway right-of-way line so that stopping, standing, parking or maneuvering of vehicles on
the right-of-way is not necessary. A minimum setback of fourteen (14) feet from state highway right-of-way line is
recommended, unless a greater minimum is established by an engineering study. When an ordinance requires a
certain number of parking spaces per square footage of building, the parking spaces shall not be included within state
highway right-of-way.(3-31-22)
b.Traffic movements into and out of a business shall be designed, whenever possible, to utilize
existing local roads. Existing approaches along traveled way should serve as exits only from the business onto the
state highway. Entrance to the property should be made from a local road.(3-31-22)
09. Sight Distance. Any encroachment, including but not limited to hedges, shrubbery, fences, walls,
or other sight obstructions of any nature, that constitutes a traffic hazard within the “vision triangle” of vehicle
operators at the intersection of roads with other roads, private approaches, alleys, bike or pedestrian paths, or railroad
APPROACH USE
< 35 MPH ≥ 35 MPH RADII
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Single Residential,
Farmyard, Field 12ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 30ft
Multiple
Residential 28ft 40ft 28ft 40ft 20ft 30ft
Commercial
(One-Way)15ft 30ft 20ft 30ft 30ft 40ft
Commercial
(Two-Way)25ft 40ft 25ft 40ft 30ft 40ft
Boulevard
Approach 84ft 84ft 84ft 84ft Contact Department
Joint-Use
Residential/Farm 25ft 40ft 25ft 40ft 20ft 30ft
Joint-Use
Commercial 12ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 30ft 40ft
Public Highways 28ft N/A 28ft N/A 30ft 50ft
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 400 Page 17
crossings shall be removed.(3-31-22)
10. Transitions and Flares.(3-31-22)
a.In curb and gutter sections, the transition connecting the edge of the approach to the curb shall meet
minimum Department standards.(3-31-22)
b.In sections not having a curb and gutter, approach flares should connect the outside edge of the
approach to the outside edge of the roadway shoulders and shall meet minimum Department standards. The approach
flare tangent distance should not exceed twenty (20) feet unless a larger radius is warranted by an engineering study.
(3-31-22)
c.The distance between approaches shall be such that the curb approach transition or radii of the one
(1) approach does not encroach upon the transition or radii of the adjacent approach.(3-31-22)
11. Grade .(3-31-22)
a.If the maximum allowable slope is not great enough to bring the approach to the level of the
sidewalk or back of curb, a depressed sidewalk should be installed, when required. If sidewalks exist, the connection
between the original sidewalk and the depressed sidewalk shall be made through a transition area with a slope no
steeper than twelve horizontal to one vertical (12:1) from the longitudinal grade of the original sidewalk. All new
curbs or sidewalks should be constructed to the line and grade of the existing curb or sidewalk with every effort to
construct a sidewalk that is uniformly graded and free of dips.(3-31-22)
b.To accommodate emergency service vehicles, the Department recommends a maximum approach
grade of plus or minus ten percent (±10%).(3-31-22)
12. Border Area.(3-31-22)
a.Border area work (including grading, seeding and landscaping) shall insure that adequate sight
distance, proper drainage, desirable slopes for maintenance operations, and a pleasing appearance are provided. The
border area shall be free of encroachments and designed as needed to prevent vehicular use through the incorporation
of appropriate methods such as ditching, special grading, use of concrete or bituminous curbs, fencing, guard rail, and
guide posts. The design or devices should not impair adequate sight distance or constitute a hazard to pedestrians,
bicycles, or vehicles.(3-31-22)
b.The maximum slope beyond the outside edge of shoulder, back of curb, or back of sidewalk to the
right-of-way line shall meet minimum Department standards. The creation of ponds, pools, or drainage/evaporation
swales within the highway right-of-way shall be prohibited.(3-31-22)
13. Drainage.(3-31-22)
a.All approaches shall be graded so that private properties abutting the highway right-of-way do not
drain onto the traveled way, do not impair the drainage within the right-of-way, alter the stability of the roadway
subgrade or materially alter the drainage of areas adjacent to the right-of-way. Post-development drainage flows shall
not exceed predevelopment drainage flows.(3-31-22)
b.Culverts and drop inlets shall be installed where required and shall be the type and size specified by
the Department. Where the border area is regraded, landscaped or reclaimed (seeded), it shall have sufficient slope,
ditches, culverts, and drop inlets for adequate drainage. Slopes, where practical, should be a six-horizontal-to-one
vertical (6:1) maximum.(3-31-22)
14. Base and Surfacing.(3-31-22)
a.It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to supply, place and properly compact the approach fill
and base material. All base and surfacing materials and compaction requirements shall meet minimum Department
design and construction standards.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 401 Page 18
b.All rural private, commercial and public approaches shall be paved to the right-of-way line or to the
back of the approach radius. Farmyard and field gravel approaches that are occasionally used shall be paved a
minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of pavement.(3-31-22)
c.In curb and gutter areas, approaches shall be paved to the right-of-way line.(3-31-22)
401. MEDIANS.
01. Median Placement. The placement of medians shall meet the following considerations: (3-31-22)
a.Where a traffic engineering study indicates that medians would be beneficial to control access,
maintain street capacity, and improve traffic safety.(3-31-22)
b.When medians are selected, non-traversable medians are the preferred median type; however,
traversable medians in urban areas may be considered to accommodate emergency vehicles.(3-31-22)
c.Pedestrian/bicycle safety shall be given consideration in the choice and design of medians in areas
that are frequently used by pedestrians/bicycles.(3-31-22)
d.construction requirements for all new or modified public approaches to the state highway right-of-
way, including private approaches to subdivisions and businesses, shall be reviewed for the need to place medians on
the state highway.(3-31-22)
e.Channelization formed by raised curbs, solid painted islands, left turn lanes, or other traffic control
installations may be required to create a mandatory right-in/right-out and/or left-in/left-out approach condition.
(3-31-22)
02. Median Openings. Median openings shall be as follows:(3-31-22)
a.Placed on multi-lane state highways at all signalized intersections, at locations which currently
meet the criteria for a signal warrant and fulfill traffic signal coordination requirements, at locations that are
anticipated to meet future traffic signal considerations, and at locations where there will be no significant reduction in
safety or operational efficiency.(3-31-22)
b.Designed with a left turn lane and sufficient storage for left turning traffic.(3-31-22)
c.Median openings allowing U-turns shall be provided only at locations having sufficient roadway
width.(3-31-22)
402. AUXILIARY LANES.
Review Required. Reviews shall be conducted to determine the need to provide turn lanes, deceleration lanes and
acceleration lanes on the state highway prior to issuing an approach permit. Consideration of auxiliary lanes shall
meet the following conditions:(3-31-22)
01.Traffic Engineering Study. A traffic engineering study shall be made that considers highway
operating speed, traffic volumes, projected turning movement volumes, availability of passing opportunities, sight
distance, and collision history.(3-31-22)
02.Auxiliary Lanes to Enhance Roadside Business. Auxiliary lanes shall not be constructed to
enhance a new roadside business, unless the applicant is willing to pay the full cost.(3-31-22)
03.Auxiliary Lanes Required by Planned Development. Auxiliary lanes required as a result of a
planned development, shall be paid for by the developer. When the need for an auxiliary lane exists prior to an
application for a planned development, the developer may not be required to pay for the lane unless such construction
precedes the Department’s construction schedule.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 500 Page 19
403. -- 499. (RESERVED)
500. LOCATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES.
01. Approved Permit Required. An approved right-of-way encroachment permit shall be required for
all utility encroachments, including new utility installation and the relocation, maintenance, modification, or removal
of existing utility facilities prior to the initiation of any work within the state highway right-of-way. (3-31-22)
02. Utility Locations. Final utility locations shall be identified on the appropriate roadway and bridge
plans.(3-31-22)
03. Interstate Highways. As addressed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, longitudinal placement
of telecommunication utilities in any Interstate right-of-way shall require a permit approved by the Department for
the installation of utilities. Longitudinal placement of all other utilities in Interstate right-of-way shall require a utility
permit approved by both the Department and the FHWA.(3-31-22)
04. Utility Maintenance and Emergency Repair. Right-of-way encroachment permits, approved
annually by the Department, shall be required for all maintenance or emergency repairs of utility facilities. The utility
shall notify the Department in advance of any work that affects the traveling public.(3-31-22)
05. Conduits Under the Roadway.(3-31-22)
a.Conduits crossing under highways that carry utility structures including, but not limited to, water,
sewage, chemicals, electrical wire, and communications cables, shall be installed by jacking, driving or boring unless
trenching can be justified. Acceptable justification would only be poor soil conditions, such as rock or boulders,
inadequate room for a boring pit, or conflicts with other utility lines which cannot be located accurately (gas lines,
multiple telephone conduits). If gravel or boulders prevent boring or jacking on the first attempt, at least two (2) other
documented attempts should be made at different locations before contacting the District about an alternate
installation method, unless the utility can provide documentation from a qualified agency or engineer that indicates
the strata is not conducive to boring, driving or jacking. Normally installation of conduit twenty-four (24) inches or
less outside diameter should be attempted by jacking, driving or boring before consideration of trenching as an
alternative.(3-31-22)
b.The applicant is required to submit for review and approval, a set of construction plans stamped by
an engineer licensed in the state of Idaho. The plans shall show all details on casing, conduits, bulkheads and
placement, vertical and horizontal dimensions of the pit and shoring, method of installing the conduit, drainage, void
filling, and traffic control devices. Sluicing or jetting shall not be allowed. If required by the engineer, casings should
be installed from highway right-of-way line to highway right-of-way line to allow for servicing of the utility facility
with minimal disruption to traffic flows. Casings should be installed wherever feasible to allow for placement of
multiple conduits.(3-31-22)
c.Conduits under interstate highways shall not be installed by cutting through the pavement under
any circumstance.(3-31-22)
06. Conduits Attached to Structure. Conduits attached to any structure shall meet the following
requirements:(3-31-22)
a.A set of construction plans showing all details and calculations of a crossing or proposed
attachments, stamped by an engineer licensed in the state of Idaho, shall be submitted to the Department for review
and approval at the time of permit application. A copy of the existing structure plans shall also be submitted that are
marked to show the proposed structure modifications.(3-31-22)
b.Reinforcement shall be located prior to the placement of threaded inserts to suspend utilities using a
method approved by the Department.(3-31-22)
c.All attaching hardware shall be galvanized or coated as directed by the Department. (3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 600 Page 20
d.Bolts for the attachment clamps shall be a minimum of one-half (1/2) inch in diameter. (3-31-22)
e.Slip joints shall be installed as directed by the Department.(3-31-22)
f.Drilling of any bridge structural element shall be prohibited without approval from the Department.
(3-31-22)
g.Utilities shall be attached to bridges in an interior bay, unless interior attachment is not practical
due to the bridge diaphragm or end beam construction.(3-31-22)
h.Placing brackets along or around the structure rail is prohibited.(3-31-22)
i.The installing utility shall relinquish exclusive rights to future use of a hanger system, once
installed. However, the responsibility for required maintenance shall remain with the installing utility until the hangar
system is placed into a joint-use system. At that time, the responsibility for maintenance shall become a shared
responsibility.(3-31-22)
j.A set of “as-built” plans for all conduit or utility crossings and structure attachments shall be
submitted to the Department and the local utility locating service with all details of construction within thirty (30)
days of the work completion. All “as-built” plans are required to be stamped by an engineer licensed in the state of
Idaho.(3-31-22)
501. -- 599. (RESERVED)
600. LOCATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OTHER ENCROACHMENTS.
01. Approved Permit Required. An approved right-of-way encroachment permit shall be required for
all portable objects or signs, memorials, urban improvements, landscaping, farming, irrigation or drainage, mailbox
stands or turnouts, recreational parking facilities, park-and-ride lots, school bus turnouts, or structures within the state
highway right-of-way other than those authorized or installed by the Department, or those which the government
entity deems necessary for regulating, warning, and guiding of traffic.(3-31-22)
02. Benches, Planters, and Other Urban Structures. Structures, including protrusions and
overhangs, shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches behind the face of curb. When a structure is within a sidewalk
area, at least four (4) feet of unobstructed space shall be available for pedestrians.(3-31-22)
03. Overhanging Displays, Canopies and Marquees. In a curb section, encroachments shall not
extend closer than eighteen (18) inches behind face of curb. In a non-curb section, encroachments supported by a
building shall not extend more than twelve (12) inches into right-of-way. Signs or displays shall be no lower than
twelve (12) feet above the sidewalk or ground level. Canopies and marquees shall be no lower than eight (8) feet.
(3-31-22)
04. Landscaping, Farming and Associated Irrigation. Repair of landscaping in the state highway
right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the permittee, and the Department will not be responsible for, or participate
in, any repair or maintenance costs. All requests for landscaping, farming and irrigation shall require a review of
current access control records for restrictive covenants. Applications may be approved provided the following
conditions are met:(3-31-22)
a.Landscaping, farming, and irrigation systems shall maintain the structural integrity of the state
highway right-of-way. No undercutting of the present highway fill and ballast section nor shall access to a state
highway from unprotected bare soil be allowed.(3-31-22)
b.Unless otherwise specified, the degree of landscaping will be limited to what is necessary to insure
that the appearance of the state highway right-of-way is compatible with the appearance of the surrounding area and
shall not interfere with public safety and overall maintenance operations.(3-31-22)
c.Landscaping, farming, and irrigation systems shall not disturb, obstruct, or add to the normal
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 600 Page 21
drainage patterns of the state highway right-of-way. No new ditches shall be constructed without prior approval.
(3-31-22)
d.Landscaping, farming, and irrigation systems shall not interfere with utility installations, removals,
or operations.(3-31-22)
e.Provisions shall be established for the responsibility of future maintenance.(3-31-22)
f.Only planting of forage plants, grasses, flowers, and shrubs with a mature height not to exceed
three (3) feet will be allowed within the clear zone of the state highway right-of-way. Type and size of grasses,
flowers, and shrubs will be determined by the Department.(3-31-22)
g.No trees shall be allowed within the clear zone of the state highway right-of-way. (3-31-22)
h.All work within the highway right-of-way shall be required to return the right-of-way to either
original condition or to the requirements of the encroachment permit as approved by the Department. (3-31-22)
i.Irrigation systems shall be no closer than five (5) feet from the pavement edge and shall be adjusted
so water does not cover any portion of the highway pavement.(3-31-22)
j.No grading, excavation or other ground disturbing activities will be performed during rainy
periods. If work cannot be avoided during rainy periods, the permittee will install check dams or other approved
device(s) or structure(s) in drainage channels and provide a sediment retention basin to avoid discharging sediment
containing runoff into the drainage system, or any wetlands, or water bodies (streams, rivers, lakes and ponds). No
work shall be performed in or adjacent to any wetland or water body without providing the Department with copies of
the appropriate permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Idaho Department of Water Resources, and the Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality.(3-31-22)
k.All areas within the state highway right-of-way disturbed by construction shall be returned to its
original condition and reclaimed (re-seeded, fertilized and mulched) as directed by the Department or delegated local
highway agency.(3-31-22)
l.Appropriate best management practices to temporarily control erosion and resulting sediment shall
be used. Typical soil surface protection practices include erosion control blankets, tacified mulches of straw, wood
fiber, paper fiber, soil amendments, or rock mulch. Typical sediment control practices may include silt fences, fiber
wattles, rock check dams, sediment basins/ponds, inlet culvert risers, and inlet rock filters. For further information on
best management practices, contact the Department.(3-31-22)
m.Travel lanes shall be kept reasonably free of dirt, rocks and other debris resulting from construction
or maintenance of landscaping, farming, or irrigation.(3-31-22)
05. Recreational Parking and Park-and-Ride Lots.(3-31-22)
a.Parking areas shall be designed to safely accommodate an adequate number of parking spaces as
determined by the Department.(3-31-22)
b.Access points shall be located so that adequate sight distance is maintained for the safety of
approaching traffic and so that minimal interference with the normal flow of traffic on the traveled way results.
(3-31-22)
c.Approaches shall be constructed in accordance with Department standards.(3-31-22)
d.Installation of fencing and delineation should be considered to restrict ingress and egress locations
and widths.(3-31-22)
e.Unrestricted drainage shall be provided and shall comply with Department standards. (3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 700 Page 22
f.Construction and maintenance of parking areas, including snow removal shall be the responsibility
of the permittee.(3-31-22)
06. Mailbox Turnouts.(3-31-22)
a.Mailbox turnouts in rural areas may be combined with an adjacent approach or may be independent
of the approach. For safety reasons, the mail carrier should be able to stop out of the traveled way whenever possible.
The applicant should be required to construct a mailbox turnout at the same time a mailbox is installed. (3-31-22)
b.Mailbox turnouts and mailbox supports shall be constructed in accordance with Department
standards. The box-to-post attachments shall resist separation when struck by a vehicle. No massive metal, concrete,
stone or other hazardous supports shall be allowed. Owners of mailboxes that do not meet minimum installation
requirements shall be notified that correction is required.(3-31-22)
07. School Bus Turnouts.(3-31-22)
a.School bus turnouts shall be constructed with sufficient length and width to accommodate bus
length and turning maneuvers as determined by the Department.(3-31-22)
b.Turnouts shall be located so adequate sight distance is maintained for the safety of approaching
traffic and so that minimal interference with the normal flow of traffic on the traveled way results. (3-31-22)
c.All permitted school bus turnouts shall include approved advance warning signs installed at
Department expense.(3-31-22)
601. -- 699. (RESERVED)
700. APPLICATION FEES.
01. Fee Administration. Fees for applications for permits shall be based on the Department’s cost to
produce the permit and administer the program. Fees for permits are not refundable in the event of denial of the
permit or in the event the permittee fails to comply with the permit. Applications shall not be processed until all
applicable permit fees are received.(3-31-22)
02. Fee Schedule. The permit application fees shall be as follows:(3-31-22)
a.Approaches:
Land Use Category Permit Application Fee
Residential, < 100 units (includes
farm and field approaches)$50
Residential, ≥ 100 units $100
Retail, < 35,000 sq. ft.$50
Retail, ≥ 35,000 sq. ft.$100
Office, < 50,000 sq. ft. $50
Office, ≥ 50,000 sq. ft. $100
Industrial, < 70,000 sq.ft.$50
Industrial, ≥ 70,000 sq.ft.$100
Lodging, < 100 rooms $50
Lodging, ≥ 100 rooms $100
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 700 Page 23
(3-31-22)
b.Encroachments other than approaches: fifty dollars ($50).(3-31-22)
c.Utility Permits:(3-31-22)
i. Non-interstate: new, modify, relocate with no prior easement rights, fifty dollars ($50). (3-31-22)
ii. Interstate: fees will be addressed at the time of application.(3-31-22)
iii. Interstate and non-interstate: maintenance or emergency repairs with no prior easement rights - No
Charge (3-31-22)
iv. Interstate and non-interstate: new, modify, relocate with prior easement rights within an ITD State
highway project) - No Charge.(3-31-22)
03. Miscellaneous Costs. In addition to the application fee, the Department may require payment of
costs associated with the following:(3-31-22)
a.Study or appraisal review; or (3-31-22)
b.Appraisal fees required to establish the value of property for new, additional, modification in
design or use, or relocation of approaches or other encroachments in a controlled access highway. (3-31-22)
c.Inspection fees may be charged at the discretion of the District Engineer when substantial
inspection time will be required to monitor and accept work done within the right-of-way. This includes wages,
travel, subsistence and other expenses incurred. The intent is to recover only Department costs. When the inspection
fee is to be assessed, it shall be stipulated under the application’s special provisions. Travel time in excess of one (1)
hour, a loaded payroll rate, vehicle rental cost, subsistence, and other expenses incurred. If additional inspections are
required, the permittee will be billed a flat fee as determined by the Department at the time the permit is issued.
(3-31-22)
d.A performance bond may be required of an applicant at the discretion of the Department. The
purpose of this bond is to guarantee completion of the work in accordance with the requirements of the permit. The
bond amount should be large enough to cover costs to correct potential damage that might be caused by the permittee.
The bond shall be executed by a surety company authorized to conduct business in Idaho.(3-31-22)
e.Construction of highway modifications or improvements, including but not limited to signals,
illumination, signs, pavement markings, delineation, guardrail, and culverts;(3-31-22)
f.Changes or adjustments made to highway features or fixtures; or (3-31-22)
g.Expenses relating to photocopying highway plans, permits or related documents. (3-31-22)
04. Waivers. Permit fees may be waived and the justification included with the application for:
(3-31-22)
a.Approaches resulting from right-of-way negotiations that are included in plans and completed
during construction of a highway project.(3-31-22)
b.Government agencies.(3-31-22)
c.Agricultural uses of the right-of-way as included in the right-of-way agreement. (3-31-22)
School (K-12)$100
Land Use Category Permit Application Fee
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 800 Page 24
d.Approaches and other encroachments where direct benefit to the Department is gained. (3-31-22)
e.Utility adjustments or relocations per project utility agreement, or requested by the Department, or
utility maintenance and emergency repairs.(3-31-22)
701. – 799. (RESERVED)
800. UNAUTHORIZED AND NONSTANDARD ENCROACHMENTS.
01. Compliance. District Engineers shall ensure compliance with all applicable laws and Department
policies relating to the removal or correction of unauthorized and non-standard encroachments in accordance with
Department rules and policies.(3-31-22)
02. Prohibition. Approaches and other encroachments on state highway rights-of-way that are
installed without an approved state highway right-of-way permit, or not constructed in accordance with the
Department requirements as stated in the permit, or are naturally occurring adjacent to the state highway right-of-way
line and create a hazard, are prohibited, may be removed or their use may be suspended until corrective action is
taken. The application process shall be immediately initiated when applicable or the encroachment removed when
such a permit cannot be approved.(3-31-22)
03. Nonstandard Encroachment. When a permitted encroachment does not meet Department
standards, the applicant or permittee shall be given one (1) month to upgrade the encroachment to the encroachment
standards. Encroachments may be removed by the Department and legal action initiated to collect the removal cost.
(Section 40-2319, Idaho Code) The one (1) month period may be shortened if an imminent or immediate threat to the
safety of the traveling public is present. Time extensions may be granted by the Department or delegated local
highway agency. However, if the permittee does not comply, the permit shall be revoked and the encroachment
removed.(3-31-22)
04. Encroachment Removal. Any person or entity maintaining an unauthorized encroachment of any
kind upon state highway right-of-way shall be served, according to law, with a notice to remove the same. Failure to
remove the encroachment within forty-eight (48) hours shall be followed by a certified letter from the Department
requesting removal within ten (10) days. If the encroachment is still not removed, the Department shall institute
appropriate legal action to have it removed. The Department may take immediate corrective action if an imminent or
immediate threat to the safety of the traveling public is present.(3-31-22)
05. Liability of Applicant. The applicant may be held liable for injury or damages caused by the
unauthorized or non-standard encroachment. The Department shall make no reimbursement for removal of
unauthorized or non-standard encroachments nor shall compensation be made for any losses that may arise from their
removal. The Department may initiate legal action to recover costs for the removal of unauthorized or non-standard
encroachments.(3-31-22)
801. PROHIBITIONS.
01. Prohibited Uses. The use of the highway right-of-way or any portion thereof for any of the
following uses or purposes shall be prohibited:(3-31-22)
a.Mobile stores, mobile lunch wagons or similar businesses that stop vehicles to offer for sale or sell
their wares.(3-31-22)
b.Solicitation or sale of any goods or services, attempts to serve, distribute, petition or recruit, and all
associated stopping, standing or parking of vehicles (except Department-approved vending privileges in safety rest
areas.(3-31-22)
c.The storage of any substance, equipment or material, including but not limited to logs, lumber,
supplies or aggregates.(3-31-22)
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 39.03.42 – Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way
Idaho Transportation Department Encroachments on State Rights-of-Way
Section 801 Page 25
d.The abandonment of vehicles or other large objects.(3-31-22)
e.Servicing, refueling and repairing of vehicles, except for emergencies.(3-31-22)
f.The placement of portable objects or signs (material or copy), displays, or other unapproved
highway fixtures.(3-31-22)
g.Permanent, temporary or mobile structures, manned or unmanned.(3-31-22)
h.Any obstruction that creates a traffic hazard, including trees, shrubbery, fences, walls, non-standard
mailbox stands, or other appurtenances.(3-31-22)
i.Signs or displays that resemble, hide or because of their color, interfere with the effectiveness of
traffic signals and other traffic control devices.(3-31-22)
02. Modification of Rule. The Department may modify this rule for emergency, temporary
installations for the benefit to the highway user.(3-31-22)
03. Encroachment Hazards. Encroachments shall not interfere with the safety of the highway or the
visibility and effectiveness of traffic control devices, form a wall or building support, obstruct crosswalks or
wheelchair ramps, or force pedestrians into the highway.(3-31-22)
04. Board Jurisdiction. The Board, by and through the Department, may consummate agreements
with cities and villages whereby they may exercise their police powers on those matters within their jurisdiction.
(3-31-22)
802. -- 999. (RESERVED)
RETAIN EXISTINGIMPROVEMENTSUNIVERSITY BLVDEXTENSIONYELLOWSTONEHWYUS-20 SOUTH BOUNDUNIVERSITY BLVD2000 SUS-20 NORTH BOUND3000 W2000 WNEW DDIINTERCHANGE
INTERSECTION
STOP CONTROL
MOODY BAKER
NO RIGHT OF WAY
IMPACTS REQUIRED
600 E / 5000 E STOP CONTROL
GEOMETRY CONCEPT
2000 N (MOODY RD)5000 E
ROUNDABOUT
MOODY BAKER
RIGHT OF WAY
IMPACTS REQUIRED
600 E / 5000 E ROUNDABOUT
GEOMETRY CONCEPT
2000 N (MOODY RD)5000 E
INTERSECTION
STOP CONTROL
ARCHER
NO RIGHT OF WAY
IMPACTS REQUIRED
600 E / 7800 S (LYMAN ARCHER
HIGHWAY) STOP CONTROL
GEOMETRY CONCEPT
7800 S
600 E (ARCHER HWY)
ROUNDABOUT
ARCHER
RIGHT OF WAY
IMPACTS REQUIRED
600 E / 7800 S (LYMAN ARCHER
HIGHWAY) ROUNDABOUT
GEOMETRY CONCEPT
7800 S
600 E (ARCHER HWY)
(15 MPH)
INTERSECTION
ROUNDABOUT
3000 WEST
PARKING
CONFIGURATION
MODIFICATIONS
REQUIRED
3000 W / 2000 N
ROUNDABOUT GEOMETRY
CONCEPT
(15 MPH DESIGN SPEED)
2000 N
3000 W
2000 WEST ST
US-20
HWY 191
2000 SOUTH ST
2000 SOUTH ST
US-20
US-20 OVERPASS OR
UNDERPASS
2000 SOUTH GEOMETRY
CONCEPT
YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY2000 S
2000 W2000 WEST ST2000 WEST ST
US-20 OVERPASS
REQUIRED
US-20 OVERPASS
REQUIRED
US-20US-20 OVERPASS
REQUIRED
US-20
7TH SOUTH ST
7TH SOUTH ST
COUNTRYSIDE AVE
CASPER AVE
PIONEER RD
2000 WEST STUS-20 OVERPASS OR
UNDERPASS
7th SOUTH GEOMETRY
CONCEPT
ALIGNMENT SHIFT
ANTICIPATED
Roundabout Currently
Under Construction
Moody Road Overpass ConceptMoody Rd.5th WestUS-20US-20 Overpass
2nd East Extension Concept2nd EastEast ParkwayShoshone Ave
7th South Connection to East Parkway ConceptEast Parkway7th South2nd East
KEY # FEATURE NAME LOCATION
ADMINISRATION
JURISDICTION FUNCTIONAL CLASS
SPAN LENGTH
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft) DECK WIDTH (ft) YEAR BUILT ADT DECK SUPER SUB SCOUR Status
32970 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG;W. 2ND S. ST City of Rexburg 17 Urban Collector 23 23 49.9 1978 1800 6 6 7 8 A Open, no restriction
32973 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG; W 1ST S ST City of Rexburg 19 Urban Local 22 22 68 2019 800 6 6 8 8 A Open, no restriction
32975 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG;W.1ST N.ST City of Rexburg 19 Urban Local 23 23 54 1976 2690 5 5 6 8 P Posted for load
32980 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG;W.2ND N.ST City of Rexburg 19 Urban Local 34 34 54.1 1977 260 6 6 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32985 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG;W.3RD N.ST City of Rexburg 19 Urban Local 23 23 45.9 1977 380 5 5 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32990 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG;N. 2ND W. ST City of Rexburg 07 Rural Mjr Collector 23 23 53.8 1978 870 5 5 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32995 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG;N.1ST E.ST City of Rexburg 19 Urban Local 26 26 60 1977 930 5 5 6 8 A Open, no restriction
33000 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG;BARNEY DAIRY City of Rexburg 19 Urban Local 25 25 49.9 1980 800 5 5 6 8 A Open, no restriction
33005 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG City of Rexburg 19 Urban Local 25 25 49.9 1980 1300 5 5 5 U A Open, no restriction
33008 REXBURG CANAL IN REXBURG City of Rexburg 16 Urban Minor Arterial 27 27 70 2009 2600 6 6 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32855 SALEM CANAL IN SUGAR CITY;3RD N.ST City of Sugar City 09 Rural Local 23 23 56.1 1978 260 6 6 7 8 A Open, no restriction
20920 S.FK.TETON RIVER 1.5 W. 0.7 N. REXBURG Madison County 16 Urban Minor Arterial 52 108 37.7 1977 5000 6 7 7 5 A Open, no restriction
20925 N.FK.SNAKE R.;HIBBARD BR 3.0 W. 4.2 N. REXBURG Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 43 131 37.7 1968 790 6 6 5 3 A Open, no restriction
20930 WARM SLOUGH 3.3 W. 4.7 N. REXBURG Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 43 88 37.7 1969 790 6 6 5 4 A Open, no restriction
20966 S. FORK SNAKE RIVER 0.6 E. 3.5 N. RIRIE Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 80 163 32.9 1999 1400 6 7 5 5 A Open, no restriction
20970 REID CANAL 1.3 E. 2.7 S. THORNTON Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 33 33 33.7 1960 2200 6 6 5 8 A Open, no restriction
20985 N.FK.TETON RIVER 4.8 N. 0.6 E. REXBURG Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 85 87 37.7 1976 3600 6 7 7 8 A Open, no restriction
21020 S.FK.TETON R.OVERFLOW 1.2 S. 0.7 E. SUGAR CITY Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 23 23 38.1 1974 1400 6 6 7 8 A Open, no restriction
21025 S.FK.TETON RIVER 1.2 S. 1 E. SUGAR CITY Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 35 70 26.5 1959 1400 5 6 5 3 A Open, no restriction
32785 COMBINED SNAKE RIVERS 5.1 S. 9.6 W. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 105 340 29.9 1968 270 6 7 5 4 A Open, no restriction
32790 N.FK.TETON RIVER 4.6 N. 3.6 E. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 76 78 31.8 1976 70 7 7 7 8 A Open, no restriction
32795 TETON ISLAND CANAL 0.4 S. 0.5 E. SUGAR CITY Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 23 26 49.2 1959 790 6 5 5 8 P Posted for load
32800 REID CANAL 0.3 N. 1.5 W. ARCHER Madison County 09 Rural Local 22 23 26 1961 150 6 6 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32805 TEXAS SLOUGH CANAL 0.6 E. BURTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 23 25 26.6 1955 330 6 6 5 8 A Open, no restriction
32810 TETON ISLAND CANAL 4.4 N. 3.6 E. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 44 45 32.2 1977 110 7 7 7 8 A Open, no restriction
32820 TETON ISLAND CANAL 0.3 N. 1.0 W. TETON Madison County 09 Rural Local 45 47 28.2 1977 110 6 6 5 8 A Open, no restriction
32831 N. FK. TETON RIVER 4.2 N 1.6 E REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 68 71 45 2015 730 7 8 8 8 A Open, no restriction
32835 N.FK.TETON R;NW.TETON BR 0.5 N. 1.0 W. TETON Madison County 09 Rural Local 51 52 28.2 1977 70 6 6 5 U A Open, no restriction
32840 FARMERS CANAL 4.0 N. 0.3 W. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 22 22 28 1977 80 7 7 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32845 MOODY CREEK 2.1 N. 4.6 E. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 21 21 29.9 1977 540 7 7 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32850 WARM SLOUGH 3.8 N. 4.2 W. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 70 72 29.9 1968 50 7 7 5 4 A Open, no restriction
32858 SALEM CANAL 0.060 W. SUGAR CITY Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 63 63 115 2001 1300 N N N 8 A Open, no restriction
32861 INDEPENDENT CANAL 6.0 N. 3.0 W. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 21 21 25.9 2002 50 7 7 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32871 LIBERTY PARK CANAL 1.7 S. 0.5 E. THORTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 27 27 32.5 2001 140 5 5 5 8 A Open, no restriction
32875 TETON ISLAND CANAL 2.5 N. 2.2 E. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 23 25 24.3 1964 60 6 6 5 U P Posted for load
32880 TEXAS SLOUGH;SE.THORNTON 1.0 S. 0.2 E. THORNTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 36 36 29.9 1978 70 6 6 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32890 S.FK.TETON R;NE REXBURG 1.3 N. 2.6 E. REXBURG Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 46 96 31.8 1980 790 7 8 6 5 A Open, no restriction
32895 S.FK.TETON R.;W.REXBURG 2.4 W. REXBURG Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 71 73 30.1 1977 570 6 5 5 U A Open, no restriction
32900 S.FK.TETON RIVER 0.2 S. 2.2 E. SUGAR CITY Madison County 09 Rural Local 88 90 33.7 1988 70 7 8 7 7 A Open, no restriction
32905 TETON ISLAND CANAL 2.4 N. 1.6 E. REXBURG Madison County 06 Rural Minor Arterial 22 22 29.9 1977 210 6 6 7 8 A Open, no restriction
32911 TEXAS SLOUGH 2.6 N 2.0 W THORNTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 38 42 30 2012 150 8 8 8 8 A Open, no restriction
32915 N.FK.TETON RIVER 4.1 N. 1.5 W. REXBURG Madison County 08 Rural min Collector 58 60 31.8 1977 50 7 7 7 8 A Open, no restriction
32920 LYONS CREEK 10.0 S. 2.3 E. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 62 69 30.2 1972 80 6 6 7 U A Open, no restriction
32926 REID CANAL 0.1 N. 1.5 W. ARCHER Madison County 09 Rural Local 24 24 25.2 1997 80 5 5 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32930 CANYON CREEK 2.5 S. 17.5 E. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 26 27 28.2 1975 50 6 6 6 U A Open, no restriction
32935 TEXAS SLOUGH;NW.THORNTON 2.2 N. 2.5 W. THORNTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 38 40 29.9 1977 50 6 7 6 8 A Open, no restriction
32940 CANYON CREEK 6.5 S. 16.4 E. REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 29 30 16 1970 60 6 6 6 U P Posted for load
32945 TEXAS SLOUGH;W.THORNTON 0.1 S. 0.3 W. THORNTON Madison County 07 Rural Mjr Collector 49 52 33.8 1981 390 7 8 7 8 A Open, no restriction
32950 TEXAS SLOUGH AT THORNTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 38 40 29.5 1938 120 5 5 5 8 A Open, no restriction
33010 N.FK.TETON RIVER 1.5 N. SUGAR CITY Madison County 09 Rural Local 89 92 33.7 1976 600 7 8 7 8 A Open, no restriction
36180 TEXAS SLOUGH CANAL 1.68 N THORNTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 26 27 28 1972 50 7 7 7 U A Open, no restriction
36185 REID CANAL 1.28 SW ARCHER Madison County 09 Rural Local 31 35 20 1960 20 6 6 6 8 A Open, no restriction
36190 TEXAS SLOUGH CANAL 5.34 SW REXBURG Madison County 09 Rural Local 24 26 26.3 1970 50 6 6 7 8 A Open, no restriction
36195 ST ANTHONY CANAL 0.22 W PLANO Madison County 09 Rural Local 21 21 24 1990 10 7 7 7 8 A Open, no restriction
36200 ST ANTHONY CANAL 0.58 SW PLANO Madison County 09 Rural Local 23 23 26.2 1992 10 6 6 7 8 A Open, no restriction
36205 LIBERTY PARK CANAL 0.5 W 1.0 S THORNTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 23 23 52 2021 70 9 9 9 8 A Open, no restriction
36210 TEXAS SLOUGH 0.3 W 0.8 S THORNTON Madison County 09 Rural Local 35 35 48 2021 70 9 9 9 8 A Open, no restriction
*ITD bridges not included
Bridges in Madison County*
Years Improvement Type Madison Rexburg Sugar Slurry Seal 1.67$ per SY
7 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ Chip Seal 2.58$ per SY
7 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ HMA 100.00$ per ton
7 Reconstruct 353,039,513.50$ 145,012,499.69$ 8,203,194.78$ Aggregate 25.00$ per ton
19,378,367.45$ 7,913,691.78$ 443,463.50$ HMA 148 lb/cf
AGG 143 lc/cf
HMA 1.998 ton/CY
Years Improvement Type Madison Rexburg Sugar Agg 1.9305 ton/CY
10 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ HMA 3 " thick
10 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ Agg 6 " thick
10 Reconstruct 353,039,513.50$ 145,012,499.69$ 8,203,194.78$
13,564,857.21$ 5,539,584.25$ 310,424.45$
Percentage miles Funcional Class
76% 391 Local Roads
Years Improvement Type Madison Rexburg Sugar 7%34 Major Collector
15 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ 6% 29 Minor Collector
15 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ 1%5 Principal Arterial
15 Reconstruct 353,039,513.50$ 145,012,499.69$ 8,203,194.78$ 7%34 Minor Arterial
9,043,238.14$ 3,693,056.16$ 206,949.63$ 4%18 Unclassified
total 512
Years Improvement Type Madison Rexburg Sugar
20 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ Percentage Miles Funcional Class
20 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ 100% 13 Local Roads
20 Reconstruct 353,039,513.50$ 145,012,499.69$ 8,203,194.78$ 0%0 Major Collector
6,782,428.61$ 2,769,792.12$ 155,212.22$ 0%0 Minor Collector
0%0 Principal Arterial
0%0 Minor Arterial
Years Improvement Type Madison Rexburg Sugar 0%0 Unclassified
35 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$ total 13
35 Pavement Preservation 26,953,101.45$ 10,587,513.84$ 554,769.34$
35 Reconstruct 353,039,513.50$ 145,012,499.69$ 8,203,194.78$
3,875,673.49$ 1,582,738.36$ 88,692.70$ Percentage Miles Funcional Class
85%177 Local Roads
5%10 Major Collector
Functional Class Pavement Width (ft)0%0 Minor Collector
Local Roads 44 5% 10 Principal Arterial
Major Collector 55 5%10 Minor Arterial
Minor Collector 55 0%0 Unclassified
Principal Arterial 94 total 207
Minor Arterial 70
City of Rexburg
Agency CostsPavement Program Cycle
Assumed Roadway Dimmensions
Madison County Roads
Sugar City
Agency Costs
Agency CostsPavement Program Cycle
Pavement Program Cycle Agency Costs
Average Yearly Budget Needed
Average Yearly Budget Needed
Average Yearly Budget Needed
Average Yearly Budget Needed
Average Yearly Budget Needed
Pavement Program Cycle
Pavement Program Cycle Material AssumptionsAgency Costs
HORROCKS.COM
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
The City of Rexburg, Local Highway Technical Assistance Council
(LHTAC) and Horrocks Engineers have been;
- Gathering traffic data
- Updating TAZ (traffic analysis zone) estimates
- Updating the Travel Demand Model
- Developing Projected Traffic Models
- Conceptualizing future improvements
(Madison County, Sugar City, and ITD have contributed a great deal of information for this work)
The goal of the open house is to update the public and receive comments
about the study findings and discuss the next steps in the future of
transportation in the City of Rexburg and Madison County.
HORROCKS.COM
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
A transportation plan update grant was
submitted by the City of Rexburg for
the urban area for the update.
The purpose of this planning study update is to assist
city/county in defining needed infrastructure
modifications to manage surface traffic for the study
period. An LHTAC funded transportation plan was
completed by Madison County in 2004 that was updated
again in 2015. The proposed study will update traffic
and transportation system conditions, define current and
near-term transportation system improvements, and
recommend, rank and develop capital improvements to
facilitate anticipated current and future traffic problems.
The study to be developed is being funded with local
funds and federal funds for the current urban area of
Rexburg and Sugar City.
HORROCKS.COM
2015 MASTER PLAN PROJECTIONS
Last plan update was in 2015:
- Developed with the best estimates and
information available at that time.
- Growth projected primarily in South
Rexburg
- Growth and development plans are
ever changing and require updates
- Regular updates are anticipated every
5 years (delays were due to COVID 19
and the delay in the census projections)
2015 Study Priority List:
1. US-20 Interchanges 332
& 333 reconfiguration
2. Pole Line Rd. Overpass
3. Moody Rd. Overpass
4. 5th West Extension
5. East Parkway Corridor
County Population
2015 Projected Population = 39,000
2020 Projected Population = 46,000
2040 Projected Population = 64,000
HORROCKS.COM
2022 MASTER PLAN UPDATE
- Growth projected
primarily NW and NE
of Rexburg
2021 Existing Level of Service
2021 City of Rexburg Population 39,409
Total County Population = 52,913
2048 No Build Level of Service
Projected Total County Population = 98,500Legend:
Uncongested
Approaching Moderate Congestion
Moderate Congestion
Congested
Excessive Congestion
AWDT = Average Weekday
Daily Traffic
V = Volume C = Capacity
2nd East AWDT = 23,200
2nd East AWDT = 38,100
HORROCKS.COM
2022 Proposed System Improvements
Proposed Improvements Priority List*:
1. Interchange Improvements
- IC 333 Main Street (SH-33)/US-20 DDI
- IC 332 University Blvd/US-20 DDI
2. East Parkway
3. 5th West Extension
4. Moody Overpass (US-20)
5. 7th South Overpass (US-20)
6. Poleline Rd Overpass (US-20)
*Modeling is based on forecasted development. Priority of the
improvements is subject to change depending on actual development.
Moody Overpass
5th West
IC 333
IC 332
7th South Overpass
Poleline Rd. Overpass
East parkway
HORROCKS.COM
2022 MASTER PLAN UPDATE
- Improvements to the
transportation system help relieve
congestion and provide alternative
routes when congestion is heavy.
2048 No Build Level of ServiceLegend:
Uncongested
Approaching Moderate Congestion
Moderate Congestion
Congested
Excessive Congestion
AWDT = Average Weekday
Daily Traffic
V = Volume C = Capacity
2nd East AWDT = 38,100
2048 Improved Level of Service
Moody Overpass
5th West
IC 333
IC 332
7th South Overpass
Poleline Rd. Overpass
East parkway
Moody Rd.
5th West
IC 333
IC 332 7th South
Poleline Rd.
2nd East AWDT = 35,300
HORROCKS.COM
Future Planning for Right of Way Needs
Proposed Pathways/TrailsProposed Right of Way Preservation
HORROCKS.COM
Potential 2nd East Access Management
Saint George Blvd. Access
Management Benefits:
- Saint George Blvd. ADT = 42,000
(5 lanes)
- Increased capacity/reduced
congestion & delay
(up to 20%-40% travel time reduction,
up to 35% emissions reduction)
- Reduced conflicts - number, type &
severity
(up to 35% reduction in crashes)
- Aesthetic opportunities
- Economic benefits
Saint George Blvd. Access Management2nd East Existing Condition
East Parkway Corridor Plan | i
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss
Section 1 – Introduction 1
Section 2 - Purpose and Need 4
For the East Parkway Corridor ..................................................................................... 4
For the Corridor Plan ................................................................................................... 6
Section 3 - East Parkway Alternatives Development 6
Step 1 - Identify a Wide Range of Alternatives ....................................................... 6
Step 2 - Refine Alignment Suggestions ................................................................... 6
Step 3 - Select Alignments For Further Study.......................................................... 8
Alternatives Description ............................................................................................ 12
Segment 1 – (Common to Both Alternatives) ....................................................... 12
Segments 2 and 3 – (1000 East Alternative) ......................................................... 12
Segment 4 – (2000 East Alternative) .................................................................... 13
Segment 5 – (Common to Both Alternatives) ....................................................... 13
Segment 5, Step 4 - Alternatives Development .................................................... 14
Elements of the Proposed East Parkway Cross Section ............................................... 14
Section 4 - Alternatives Evaluation 18
Right-of-Way Effects on Adjacent Land Use ............................................................... 18
Land Use Data ..................................................................................................... 18
Right-of-Way Impacts Comparison....................................................................... 19
Comparison of Transportation Benefits ..................................................................... 23
Transportation Data ............................................................................................ 23
Transportation Benefits Comparison ................................................................... 24
Alternatives Evaluation – Summary and Conclusions ................................................. 27
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 28
Section 5 – Conceptual Plan 29
Design Parameters .................................................................................................... 30
Grades ...................................................................................................................... 31
Special Alignments and Cross Sections ....................................................................... 31
East Parkway Corridor Plan | ii
South 2nd East Intersection Area ......................................................................... 31
East Parkway North of Barney Dairy Road ........................................................... 32
East Parkway north of East 7th North Street ........................................................ 32
East Parkway / 1000 East Connector Intersection ................................................. 33
Section 6 – Project Cost Estimate and Implementation Priorities 34
Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................ 34
Implementation Priorities ......................................................................................... 34
Sections .............................................................................................................. 34
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Right-of-Way Impacts by Corridor Alternative
Segments 1 through 4 .................................................................................. 20
Table 2 Summary of Right-of-Way Impacts for Optional Alignment Within
Alternatives, Segments 1 through4 ................................................................ 12
Table 3 Comparison of Right-of-Way Impacts for Segment 5, Alignments A-D ....... 22
Table 4 Design Parameters for Concept Layout ....................................................... 30
Table 5 Project Segment Construction Priorities ..................................................... 38
Figures
Figure 1 Study Corridor ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 East Parkway Alternatives as Evaluated in Traffic Model .............................. 5
Figure 3 Public Meeting Opportunity to Suggest East Parkway Alternatives ............. 7
Figure 4 Plausible Alignment Segments ....................................................................... 9
Figure 5 Alignment Segments Eliminated from Further Consideration ................... 10
Figure 6 Final Alignment Segments Organized into Two Basic Alternatives ............. 11
Figure 7 Segment 5 Alternative Alignments .............................................................. 15
Figure 8 Example Cross Sections and Right-of-Way Requirements .......................... 16
Figure 9 Visual Comparison of Traffic Flow Changes Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives ............................................................................ 25
Figure 10 Numerical Comparison of Key Traffic Parameters Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives ........................................................................... 26
Figure 11 Implementation Sections ............................................................................. 36
Drawings
Drawing 1-4 Conceptual Roadway Layout
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 1
EEaasstt PPaarrkkwwaayy CCoorrrriiddoorr PPllaann
Section 1 - Introduction
This report presents the East Parkway Corridor Plan. The study was jointly funded by a
grant from the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC), with the local share
split between Madison County, the City of Sugar City, and the City of Rexburg.
Conceptually, the East Parkway is intended to be a new, continuous route connecting
Rexburg and Sugar City. See Figure 1. The East parkway is intended to expedite travel
between Sugar City and Rexburg (especially Brigham Young University – Idaho in
Rexburg), serve future growth east of Rexburg and south of Sugar City, and reduce
traffic pressure on the already congested 2nd East commercial corridor.
From south to north, the route would begin at the eastern extent of University
Boulevard south of Rexburg. The route extends east about 1 ½ miles before turning
north for the next four miles. This section would skirt the east side of Rexburg, before
crossing the South Fork of the Teton River (Teton River SF) and reaching areas south of
Sugar City. From there, it is intended that the East Parkway extend northward
approximately 1 ½ miles to a connection with SH 33.
At the beginning of this study the location of the south terminus was fixed as connecting
to University Drive. However, the general routing of the connection between areas
south of Sugar City and SH 33 was not known. The intention of the East Parkway
Corridor Plan was to identify a single preferred alignment between the termini at
University Boulevard and at SH 33. Key areas of study included:
- The location of the crossing of the Teton River SF including but not limited to
initial alternatives of crossings at 1000 East and 2000 East,
- Identification of alternative alignments connecting to SH 33 in the vicinity of
Sugar City, and
- Identification of alignments and intersection layouts where the East Parkway
will cross existing major roadways.
The result of this study is an alignment plan in sufficient detail so as to allow governing
agencies to take actions to preserve right-of-way along the corridor as development
pressures build. Factors considered during the identification of the alignment included:
- Evaluation of multiple alignment options as suggested by participating
agencies, the general public, and the study team;
- Comparison of effects to the man-made and natural environments for the
alternative alignments ultimately defined; and
- Evaluation of the number of vehicles estimated to use the proposed facility
and its impact to operations of the surrounding transportation system.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 2
Figure 1
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Study Corridor
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 3
Road Names
Road names used in this report can be confusing as the north -south roadways can be referred
to by as many as three different names, depending on the prevailing jurisdiction. The
convention used in this report is as follows:
- Where a roadway or alignment has multiple names: the County grid location (1000
East, 2000 East, etc.) is used.
- When a roadway or alignment is mentioned totally within the context of either
Rexburg or Sugar City, the community name is used.
Some roadway naming equivalences are shown below. The names in bold are the names most
commonly used in this report.
Roadway Alignment Equivalence
County Rexburg Sugar City
Salem Rd (0 E/W) 2nd East n/a
1000 East N 9th East S 7th West
2000 East N 16th East S 7th East / Digger Rd
The following is a history of significant events leading up to this study:
• An arterial roadway south and east of Rexburg is shown on the state Functional
Classification Map approved in 2003 (and identified in even earlier planning
documents).
• Construction of the southwestern segment - the 3.3 mile “South Rexburg
Arterial” (University Boulevard) was completed in 2008.
• The “Madison County Transportation Plan (2004)” supported the “East Parkway”
concept to benefit traffic circulation within the county.
• The Transportation Plan was adopted by Madison County, Rexburg and Sugar
City.
• Madison County, Rexburg, and Sugar City made the “East Parkway” their mutual
#1 priority.
• In 2006, Madison County, Rexburg, and Sugar City received funding grant
through LHTAC for this study.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 4
Section 2 - Purpose and Need
For the East Parkway Corridor
As evidenced by the history presented above, there has been a long held view that a
new north-south roadway located generally along the east side of Rexburg between
Rexburg and Sugar City was necessary. Factors supporting this addition to the
circulation system included:
• Growing travel between Sugar City and the BYU-Idaho Campus,
• The need for an additional crossing of the Teton River SF to relieve
congestion on 2nd East Street, and
• The prospects of new development on the east side of Rexburg and in
areas south of Sugar City.
Currently 2nd East is the only river crossing within Rexburg. The next closest crossings
are US 20, a freeway, located about 1.5 miles west of 2nd East; and 2000 East, a
traditional 2-lane county grid road, located two miles to the east of 2nd East. The
existing congestion on 2nd East is due to the combined effects of having “the only bridge
in town” and the concentration of commercial/retail establishments along 2nd East.
The traffic related benefits of an “East Parkway” facility were confirmed in the 2004
Madison County Transportation Plan. A traffic forecasting model was developed and
used to test the value of several “East Parkway” alternatives inserted into the traffic
network as shown in Figure 2. This study found that, depending on the alignment
selected, the East Parkway would carry up to 16,600 vehicles per day (vpd) and would
reduce traffic on 2nd East by up to 8,400 vpd in the 2022 forecast year.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 5
Figure 2
East Parkway Corridor Plan
.Figure 2 East Parkway Corridor Plan East Parkway Alternatives as Evaluated in Traffic Model
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 6
For the Corridor Plan
The 2004 Transportation Plan validated the transportation system need and
effectiveness of an East Parkway. However, although the links inserted in the model
implied a general location for the several alternatives tested, the Transportation Plan
did not identify specific roadway alignments that would be necessary to effect the traffic
links entered into the model, nor did the Plan compare alternatives on any basis other
than the effects on forecast traffic volumes.
The purpose of this corridor planning study was to accomplish the following:
• Decide what the East Parkway will look like (cross section),
• Determine the East Parkway location (alignment),
• Identify the location of primary intersections (access),
• Identify proposed right-of-way needs, and
• Identify a logical sequence of interim construction projects.
The needs for this corridor planning study are:
• Provide for long-term traffic circulation needs and regional benefits,
• Provide mechanism for all users to provide input,
• Allow affected property owners to plan for the future,
• Provide guidance for decision makers necessary to protect the identified
corridor, and
• Allow local jurisdictions to fund manageable sized projects.
Section 3 - East Parkway Alternatives Development
The process of alternatives development was carried out as a joint effort between the
study team, members of the public, and sponsoring agencies. A series of three steps
were involved.
Step 1 - Identify a Wide Range of Alternatives
Step one took place at the first Public Meeting. All in attendance were presented with
an aerial map showing Rexburg, Sugar City and adjoining County areas. See Figure 3.
The mapping showed the general location of the alternatives tested in the traffic model
as part of the 2004 Madison County Transportation Plan. Four “nodes” were drawn
along the East Parkway corridor representing logical decision points. Participants were
asked to draw their preference for alignments between one or more nodes. By the end
of the meeting the participants had drawn more than 20 segments.
Step 2 - Refine Alignment Suggestions
Following the public meeting, all of the segments submitted were used as the basis for
developing geometrically correct roadway alignments representing the intentions of the
hand drawn segments. During this process, all suggestions were included, although
some suggestions were combined into a single alignment and others were “shaped” to
achieve buildable geometry or to reflect the influence of property lines and other
natural features.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 7
Figure 3
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Public Meeting Opportunity to Suggest East Parkway Alternatives
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 8
The result was a large set of “plausible” alignment segments based on public comment.
These are shown in Figure 4.
Step 3 - Select Alignments For Further Study
After the plausible alignments were developed from the suggestions of the public, the
study team went on to select alignment segments recommended for further study.
Alignment segments were included for further study if:
• The segment fostered primary traffic improvement goals:
- Fundamentally enhances the existing circulation system,
- Best serves 20-year forecast traffic, and
- Reduces congestion on 2nd East Street and other existing streets.
• A segment represents / responds to options described by the public ,
• A segment represented true advantages or tradeoffs, not simply a relocation of
impacts, or
• A segment’s alignment was more easily incorporated into the existing roadway
system.
The results of Step 3 were shown to the public via Figure 5, which shows the reasons
why various suggested alignment segments were not selected for further study.
Figure 6 shows only the alignment segments selected for further study and how they
were combined to define the two primary alternatives that remained for consideration.
The two alternatives are referred to as the 1000 East Alternative and the 2000 East
Alternative; the defining characteristic being the locations of the Teton River SF
crossings.
Because the location of the Teton River SF crossing would have a major effect on
shaping the alignment of the East Parkway, it is reasonable to believe that this study
would investigate other locations in addition to the two crossing locations implied in the
Transportation Plan (1000 East and 2000 East) and generally endorsed by the public
participation. The study team did try to find a feasible crossing point located between
1000 and 2000 East. None could be found that would compare favorably with the two
crossings under consideration. Locating a crossing anywhere between 1000 East and
2000 East would result in taking of homes along Barney Dairy Road, a wider crossing of
the Teton River SF, and increased potential for impact to wetlands and wildlife habitat
adjoining the river.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 9
Figure 4
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Plausible Alignment Segments
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 10
Figure 5 East Parkway Corridor Plan Alignment Segments Eliminated from Further Consideration
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 11
Figure 6
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Final Alignment Segments Organized into Two Basic Alternatives
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 12
Alternatives Description
The descriptions of the 1000 East and 2000 East alternatives are presented in a south to
north direction and refer to segment numbers as shown in Figure 6.
Segment 1 – (Common to Both Alternatives)
The south terminus of both alternatives is located at the easternmost point of University
Boulevard, before it turns north along the alignment of S 2nd West. Segment 1 is
proceeds easterly from the south terminus, before turning north along the 1000 East
alignment and ending approximately 1,500 feet south of Barney Dairy Road. Two sub-
alternatives (1a and 1b) for the curve from the eastward alignment to the northward
alignment were evaluated. These sub-alternatives reflect differing field split impacts to
areas currently under irrigated crop use. Elsewhere in Segment 1, the alignments are
straight and follow property lines or observed lines of differing land use.
The north end of Segment 1 is defined by the point of decision between the 1000 East
and 2000 East alternatives.
Segments 2 and 3 – (1000 East Alternative)
Segment 2 proceeds north, intersecting with Barney Dairy Road before traversing a new
crossing of the Teton River SF. Segment 2 ends at N 9th East Street. Approaching Barney
Dairy Road, the alignment is shifted to the west. This shift is intended to provide
adequate spacing between the proposed East Parkway and the existing Partridge Lane
intersections on Barney Dairy Road, and minimize impacts to the Quailhollow
Subdivision.
Segment 3 begins at N 9th East, and starts by shifting the north-south alignment east
approximately 1,200 feet. The intent of this alignment shift is to maintain 1000 East as a
local road and limit access points to the East Parkway. Widening along 1000 East would
also entail expensive power and irrigation utility relocation.
Two sub-alignment alternatives are shown to accomplish the eastward shift in the
Segment 3 alignment. The more northerly alignment (3A) is thought to reduce impacts
to adjacent properties but create more challanges in integrating the East Parkway with
the local roadway system. The converse is true for the more southern alignment (3B).
The north-south section of the Segment 3 alignment located 1200 feet east of 1000 East
would impact what is now primarily irrigated crop land. The route selected best avoids
existing structures and follows apparent breaks in existing field use as much as possible.
Segment 3 proceeds north about one half mile north of Moody Highway. At this point
the alignment of Segment 3 turns eastward for about 0.8 miles, ending at an
intersection with 2000 East. As part of the corridor plan, a connection would also be
made to 1000 East. This would create a new east-west connection between 1000 East
and 2000 East to serve expected development south of Sugar City.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 13
The intersection of the 1000 East alternative with 2000 East Road is the north common
point between the two primary alternatives.
Segment 4 – (2000 East Alternative)
At the end of Segment 1, the alignment of the 2000 East Alternative (Segment 4) turns
east for one mile before turning northward following the existing 2000 East roadway
alignment. The Teton River SF would be crossed at the existing location of 2000 East
crossing; with a new, wider bridge. The east-west extension traverses farmland south of
Barney Dairy Road. The northward section extends about two miles along the
alignment of 2000 East Road until reaching the northern common point where the 1000
East Alternative intersects with 2000 East Road.
Segment 4 contains two sub alignments to accomplish the alignment shift between
1000 East and 2000 East. The north sub-alignment (4A) would be a more direct route
and was intended to minimize the impact on farm fields. The southern sub-alignment
(4B) would increase the distance between the East Parkway and existing homes along
Barney Dairy Road and perhaps result in a more usable land area north of the
alignment.
Segment 5 – (Common to Both Alternatives)
Segment 5 extends north from the common intersection of Segments 3 and 4 on 2000
East to the intended north project terminus – an intersection with SH 33. The evolution
of an alignment within Segment 5 proved to be more challenging than that for the other
segments and would require an additional step in the alternatives development process.
As with all other segments, an alignment was selected in Step 3 of the Alignment
Development process previously described. A single alignment as shown in Figure 6 was
selected for further study and alternatives comparison purposes. The alignment
extended north from the end point of Segments 3 and 4, approximately 900 feet east of
existing 2000 East until reaching SH 33. Sub-alignment alternatives were included on
the south end of the segment to allow for differences in connecting to either Segment 3
or Segment 4. This alignment was selected in response to various comments to avoid
proximity to the existing Sugar City High School located along 2000 East. This alignment
would also avoid impacts to adjacent properties located along 2000 East within Sugar
City and avoid multiple existing access points along 2000 East that would be inconsistent
with the East Parkway concept.
The alignment of Segment 5 as shown in Figure 6 was shown at the second public
meeting. Many comments from stakeholders ranging from sponsoring agencies to
individual property owners were received after this meeting; resulting in a need to
reevaluate an expanded range of alternatives for Segment 5. This is described below.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 14
Segment 5, Step 4 - Alternatives Development
Through a series of discussions with stakeholders that would be directly affected by
Segment 5 alignments a total of five alignment alternatives were developed and
evaluated. These alternatives, labeled A through E are shown in Figure 7 and described
below.
Alternative 5A – would follow the existing alignment of 2000 East to the intersection
with SH 33. This alternative was intended to minimize impacts to properties east of
2000 East by following the existing roadway alignment.
Alternative 5B – is the initial Segment 5 alignment as shown in Figure 6 and at the
second public meeting. It was intended to avoid proximity to the high school and
existing access issues as noted above. The Alternative 5B was offset about 900 feet
from 2000 East to allow enough width for economical development of the area between
2000 East and Alternative 5B, and to pass through an open lot on the north side of 3000
North.
Alternatives 5C, 5D, and 5E – were a family of alternatives generally progressing farther
eastward; each one minimizing the impacts of splitting existing properties. All of these
alternatives end up running along a property line and irrigation channel about ½ mile
east of 2000 East.
Elements of the Proposed East Parkway Cross Section
The alternatives development process was carried a conceptual understanding of the
right-of-way width required for the corridor. The required right -of-way is dependent on
the desired cross section elements. These range from absolute needs (i.e. four 12-foot
travel lanes, left turn lanes, sidewalks) to optional/aesthetic elements (e.g. bicycle lanes,
recreational paths, wide landscaped medians, landscaped buffer zones between the
roadway and adjacent land use).
The forecast traffic volume of 16,600 vehicles per day would exceed the efficient
operating capacity of a two-lane or three-lane roadway. It was thus determined that
fundamental capacity needs required that the new roadway be planned with two travel
lanes in each direction with a minimum median width of 14 feet to accommodate left
turns. Beyond this lay a series of options regarding facilities for pedestrians and
bicyclists, buffer zones and open or closed drainage that would directly affect right-of-
way needs. Figure 8 shows several different combination of cross section elements,
illustrating a full range of right-of-way requirements. The example cross sections show
required right-of-way widths ranging from 85 to 160 feet. The public was asked to
comment on the various cross section options and associated width requirements. The
response from the public could best be described as “minimalist”, with a noted
emphasis of cost considerations over “amenities”.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 15
Figure 7
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Segment 5 Alternative Alignments
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 16
Figure 8
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Example Cross Sections and Right-of-Way Requirements
Boulevard
Landscaped Parkway
(Drainage Swale Option)
Landscape Strip
(Detached Walkways)
Minimum Section
(Attached Walkways)
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 17
Several general issues were thought to influence the public reaction at that time:
- There is no identified funding source,
- The public was generally pessimistic about funding due to the initial
onset of the current economic downturn,
- Although growth continues to occur in Rexburg due to the expansion of
BYU Idaho, private development along the East Parkway corridor had
slowed – reducing the general urgency for the project, and
- Many of those commenting would be affected by one or more
alternatives and thus were inclined to support a minimum width /
minimum impact approach.
For the purposes of measuring and evaluating right -of-way impacts, the study team
elected to based alignment planning and comparisons on a nominal right-of-way width
of 130 feet. This is consistent with the right-of-way width for the extension of
University Boulevard (typically either 125 or 135 feet wide). In terms of cross section
elements, 130 feet would allow design flexibility for open or closed drainage and
provide for the possibility of separate recreation paths, roadway bicycle lanes and other
amenities. Although selection of a 130 foot nominal right-of-way width would preclude
the highest levels of roadway aesthetics, it would allow full flexibility in planning for
turning lanes, bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities. It is desirable to maintain this
flexibility at this level of roadway planning/development process. As the project is
further developed, it will be easier to redu ce the roadway footprint than to enlarge it.
Finally, a wider right-of-way is consistent with broader community goals to facilitate
bicycle use and corridor level path continuity as set forth in County and City
comprehensive plans.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 18
Section 4 - Alternatives Evaluation
The fundamental goal of the East Parkway is to improve traffic circulation within
Madison County and specifically between the communities of Sugar City and Rexburg.
Significant criteria in meeting that goal include:
Reduced congestion on 2nd East;
Serving future travel demands from anticipated growth east of Rexburg, areas
between Rexburg and Sugar City, and in southern Sugar City; and
Providing an effective alternative to 2nd East for emergency vehicles.
In the case of the East Parkway alignment alternatives, the effects on traffic circulation,
and thus the ability of a given alternative to meet the primary goals of this project , are
NOT the same. This conclusion is relatively intuitive given the following characteristics
of the alternatives:
- The primary north-south corridors of the 1000 East and 2000 East
alternatives are one mile apart – a significant distance considering that
existing Rexburg is only about 2 ½ miles wide.
- One alternative adds a crossing of the Teton River SF. The other alternative
would utilize an existing crossing location (with a new structure) that
currently has low traffic volumes.
Because of this, the selection of a favored corridor requires consideration of the physical
effects of the right-of-way needed for the corridor as well as the resulting traffic
benefits.
Right-of-Way Effects on Adjacent Land Use
Although formal environmental studies were not performed as part of this study,
sufficient data was developed to understand the general magnitude of effects and
support a valid comparison of the effects of alternatives. From the information
obtained and the evaluations performed it is reasonably certain that formal
environmental studies would not be likely to produce information that would change
the conclusions of this study.
Land Use Data
Fifteen different measured values were developed to quantify the physical effects of
each of the two primary alternative routings for the East Parkway. These data were
developed by coding the centerline of the proposed alignment alternatives into GIS
software. The GIS software was then used to sum areas or objects that could be
affected by the 130-foot wide right-of-way corridor selected for this evaluation. The
following GIS formatted data was used:
• Aerial Photo – Source: www.insideidaho.org
• Parcel Data – Source: Madison County, updated 1-18-08
• Land Use and Stream Data – Source: ITD GeoDatabase Shape Files
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 19
- View 1 Shape File – ImageryBaseMapsEarthCover
- View 2 Shape File - Strm24k_dlg_cff-idl
- View 2 Shape File - Wetlands_24k_rlcd_usgs
- View 2 Shape File - Prim_frm_lnd_24k_ssurgo_nrcs
The environmental and land cover data is generalized information developed at a scale
of 1 in = 2000 ft. It is useful in developing preliminary level comparisons as are
presented here.
Right-of-Way Impacts Comparison
A quantification was made of various relevant right-of-way impact elements including:
- General Measures: Length, area, and owners affected
- Houses and outbuildings taken or located close to the roadway
- Other Sensitive Uses (cemetery, school, church)
- Natural Environment: wetlands, water crossings, farmland
The data for Segments 1 through 4 are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 compares the
total estimated impacts for the two primary alternatives. Table 2 provides comparison
data for sub-alignments within the primary alternatives. Data comparing the five
alignment considered in Segment 5 are shown in Table 3. In all cases the larger the
quantity of a measured value the greater the impact would be. These data are
summarized briefly below.
The 1000 East Alternative has the larger value in eight of the 16 categories quantified
for this comparison: Corridor Area
Corridor Length
Land Owners Affected
Housing Within 100 Feet
Acres of Wetland
Acres of Low Intensity Developed Land
Acres of Pasture / Hay Land Use
Acres of Cultivated Cropland
The 2000 East Alternative has larger values in five of the categories:
Housing Takes
Housing within 25 Feet
Adjacent To Sensitive Land Use - Cemetery
Surface Water Crossings
Width of Floodplain at Teton River SF Crossing
Acres of Developed Open Space
There was no difference in two categories:
Outbuildings Taken
Adjacent To Sensitive Land Use – Church, school
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 20
Table 1
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Summary of Right-of-Way Impacts by Corridor Alternative
Segments 1 through 4
Community Impacts Housing Affected Outbuildings
Alternative /
Comparison
Segments 1 thru 4 Corridor Area (acres)Length (feet)Land Owners AffectedTakenWithin 25'Within 100'TakenChurchCemetery1000 East 109 37,400 103 1 1 13 1 1
2000 East 100 34,300 75 4 4 11 1 1 1
1000 E Greater by 9 3,100 28 2
2000 E Greater by 3 3
Natural Environment - Land Cover (acres)
Alternative /
Comparison
Segments 1 thru 4 Surface Water CrossingsFloodplain at Teton River CrossingWetland (acres)Developed, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityPasture/ HayCultivated Crops1000 East 9 1,060 ft 0.66 4.2 0.6 15.4 87.8
2000 East 12 3,770 ft 0.64 16.3 0.3 4.3 78.5
1000 E Greater by 0.02 0.3 11.1 9.3
2000 E Greater by 3 2,710 ft 12.1
1
Sensitive Uses
Within 50 Ft
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 21
Table 2
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Community Impacts Housing AffectedOutbuildings Natural Environment - Land Cover (acres)Alignment ChoiceCorridor Area (acres)Length (feet)Land Owners AffectedTakenWithin 25'Within 100'TakenChurchCemeteryWetland AcresSurface Water CrossingsDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityPasture/ HayCultivated Crops1A4315,50020411.80.341.41B4716,60022422.10.344.7Difference41,100210.33.3Community Impacts Housing AffectedOutbuildings Natural Environment - Land Cover (acres)Alignment ChoiceCorridor Area (acres)Length (feet)Land Owners AffectedTakenWithin 25'Within 100'TakenChurchCemeteryWetland AcresSurface Water CrossingsDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityPasture/ HayCultivated Crops3A103,400 2420.02.15.92.13B124,200 2510.60.47.24.8Difference2800 110.61.71.32.7Community Impacts Housing AffectedOutbuildings Natural Environment - Land Cover (acres)Alignment ChoiceCorridor Area (acres)Length (feet)Land Owners AffectedTakenWithin 25'Within 100'TakenChurchCemeteryWetland AcresSurface Water CrossingsDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityPasture/ HayCultivated Crops4A217,000 5320.94B258,400 8325.1Difference41,400 304.2Within 50 FtSensitive UsesWithin 50 FtWithin 50 FtSensitive UsesTable 2 East Parkway Corridor Plan Summary of Right-of-way Impacts for Optional Alignments Within Alternatives Segments 1 through 4
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 22
Table 3
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Natural EnvironmentTransportationCommunity Impacts HousingLand Cover (acres)ElementsAlignment / Comparison Segment 5Area of Segment (acres)Alignment Length (feet)Land Owners AffectedParcel SplitsProximity to High SchoolTakenHomes within 100 ft of ROWWetlands (acres)Surface Water CrossingsPrime Farmland (acres)Access Management (# of driveways)Connection to Center StreetAlignment A237,810 30010110.029.216EasyAlignment B258,410 690000.0225.00EasyAlignment C279,180 640010.0127.30SkewedAlignment D289,230 640010.0127.00SkewedAlignment E299,590 620001.6125.20EasyTable 3 East Parkway Corridor Plan Comparison of Right-of-Way Impacts for Segment 5, Alignments A through D
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 23
There are relevant observations with regard to the data presented in Tables 1 and 2.
• Overall, neither of the alternatives can be said to have undue negative effects on
the surrounding environment for a corridor of this length. One of the more
sensitive effects, Housing Takes, would involve a maximum of four homes (with
the 2000 East Alternative). An important environmental concern, effects to
wetlands, would involve less than 0.7 acres regardless of alternative selected. Of
the 25 Surface Water Crossings identified for the two alternatives 23 involve
routine crossings of irrigation channels. The other are the Teton River SF
crossings associated with the two alternatives.
• The comparison data also shows that the differences between alternatives in the
more sensitive comparison categories is also relatively low. In the most extreme
example, it can be said that “the 2000 East Alternative takes 4 times more
houses than does the 1000 East Alternative”. However, the actual magnitude
involved is 4 houses taken vs. 1 house taken. Other comparison factors may be
larger in magnitude (e.g. Acres of Cultivated Crops) but differ much less between
alternatives (about 10 percent for Cultivated Crops) or are often considered less
important.
• The information comparing Segment 5 alignments indicates that the various
choices involve clear trade-offs not just in the magnitude of right-of-way effects,
but also in the type of effects as well. Alignment A would create proximity
effects to residences and other land uses adjacent to existing 2000 East through
Sugar City. Alternatives B through D would not have development effects, but
have significant parcel splits affecting current farming operations. There are also
effects to transportation benefits due to the different alignments and the
differences in adjacent land uses. The trade-offs between effects that are not
directly comparable (magnitude vs. type) are discussed under
Comparison Summary and Conclusions and the end of this section.
Given the above observations, it is suggested that with the exception of Segment 5 the
right-of-way effects on surrounding land use are either low enough in overall magnitude
or do not vary enough between the alternatives so as to provide a compelling reason for
selection of one alternative over the other.
Comparison of Transportation Benefits
As noted earlier, the location of the two alternatives relative to the core activities within
Rexburg and the location of the proposed crossing of the Teton River SF suggests that
the two alternatives under consideration would affect existing and future traffic in
different ways.
Transportation Data
A traffic forecasting model capable of comparing the traffic effects of significant
additions or improvements to the existing roadway network was developed as part of
the 2004 Madison County Transportation Plan. Area-wide growth in traffic demand was
estimated based on future population and employment forecast to the year 2022.
Growth of population and employment was distributed throughout the Madison County
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 24
to identify changes in the spatial distribution of future trips as growth fills in and
expands from existing development. A significant amount of growth was forecast to
occur to the east of Rexburg, south of Sugar City, and in the predominantly agricultural
areas located between currently developed Rexburg and Sugar City.
Data comparing the benefits of the East Parkway alternatives derived from studies made
during the development of the 2004 Transportation Plan are presented below.
Numerous model runs were made to evaluate different combinations of improvements
throughout Madison County – three of which were crafted to compare he benefits of
new or improved roadway corridors generally following the current 1000 East and 2000
East alternatives.
Transportation Benefits Comparison
Figure 9 presents a graphical depiction of the model results for changes in forecast
travel volumes using three different roadway networks studied to determine the effects
of an East Parkway Corridor. The first two cases represent the 1000 East Alternative and
the 2000 East Alternative. The third case represents a “South 2000 East Corridor”
where the East Parkway corridor would shift to the 2000 East alignment at the south
end of the corridor following the University Boulevard alignment, rather than further
north near Barney Dairy Road.
Figure 9 shows roadway links in the traffic model on which traffic increased as purple.
The links where traffic decreased are shown in green. The width of the color band
corresponds to the magnitude of the change. The larger the purple band on the links
representing the East Parkway alternatives indicates the amount of traffic using that
alternative. Green bands on roadway links other than those representing East Parkway
alternatives indicate reductions in traffic volumes on the existing system as a result of
including the East Parkway in the traffic network. Thus the most effective alternative
will have the widest bands of purple (traffic using the East Parkway alternative) and the
widest bands of green (decrease in traffic on existing roadways).
Inspection of Figure 9 shows that the 1000 East Alternative would attract the largest
number of vehicle trips; and result in the greatest decrease in traffic volume on the
existing roadway system – particularly on the important 2nd East Street. The forecast
traffic reduction on 2nd East Street resulting from the 2000 East Alternative is less than
one third that of the 1000 East Alternative.
Figure 10 presents numerical comparisons of the model results for East Parkway
alternatives. A series of four charts presents the following alternatives comparison data
based on 2022 traffic model forecasts. In all cases, the alternative with the largest value
would be considered to be the most effective in meeting project goals. The
comparisons are follows:
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 25
Figure 9
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Visual Comparison of Traffic Flow Changes Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 26
1000 East
15,600
2000 East
8,400
2000 S
4,800
-
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
Future Daily TrafficAlignment Alternative
1000 East
8,400
2000 East
2,600 S 2000 E
1,600
-
4,000
8,000
12,000
Future Daily TrafficAlignment Alternative
1000 East
51,100
2000 East
35,100
S 2000 E
35,300
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Vehicle Miles of Travel Alignment Alternative
Maximum Volume on Alternative River Crossings
Traffic Reduction Daily Travel on Alternative
1000 East
16,600
2000 East
8,800
S 2000 E
5,600
-
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
Future Daily TrafficAlignment Alternative
Maximum Volume On Alternative
Figure 10
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Numerical Comparison of Key Traffic Parameters Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives
Maximum Volume on Alternative – shows the maximum daily traffic volume
found anywhere on the East Parkway alternatives. The maximum forecast daily
volume on the 1000 East Alternative (16,600 vpd) would be almost double that
of the 2000 East Alternative.
River Crossings – As noted earlier, 2nd East Street river crossing is currently
heavily traveled because its location is central to major activity centers including
retail/commercial development along 2nd East Street, the Rexburg City Center,
Madison Memorial Hospital, and the BYU-Idaho campus. It is heavily congested
under existing conditions, resulting in routine driver inconvenience and
potentially serious delay to emergency vehicles approaching the hospital from
the north. Thus, the amount of forecast traffic using an alternative for crossing
the Teton River SF is an important indicator of the effectiveness of an East
Parkway alternative. The forecast number of river crossings on the 100 East
Alternative (15,600 vpd) would be almost double the number of crossings made
via the 2000 East Alternative.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 27
Traffic Reduction – The reduction of future traffic volume on 2nd East Street with
the addition of the 1000 East Alternative (8,400 vpd) would be over three times
that achieved by the 2000 East Alternative.
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel - shows the total amount of travel along the length
of the East Parkway alternatives. The 1000 East Alternative would attract almost
50 percent more vehicle miles of travel than would the 2000 East Alternative.
Alternatives Evaluation – Summary and Conclusions
The results of the right-of-way impacts analysis and the traffic benefits analysis support
the following observations:
• The right-of-way impacts evaluation indicated very little difference between the
two alternatives.
- Perhaps the most severe impact, residential takings, would be four houses
for the 2000 East Alternative and one house for the 1000 East Alternative.
- With the respect to the location of the Teton River SF crossing, there are
trade-offs regarding the right-of-way impacts to environmentally sensitive
issues at the alternative crossing points. There does appear to be some
advantage to a crossing at 1000 East because the width of the floodplain at
that location is about one third that of 2000 East. However, crossing at an
existing location/disruption is often favored over creating a new
crossing/disruption. There does not appear to be a clear advantage of one
crossing point over the other at this level of evaluation.
- Other crossing sites were sought, but all would incur far more right-of-way
impacts due to existing housing development along Barney Dairy Road and
the increased width of sensitive areas adjoining the Teton River SF.
• The comparison of transportation benefits strongly favors the 1000 East
Alternative.
- The right-of-way impacts evaluation indicated very little difference between
the two alternatives.
- All traffic measures indicate that the 1000 East Alternative would attract the
most use.
- The 1000 East Alternative would effect the largest shift of traffic from the
most congested roadways within the County.
- Comparing the 2000 East Alternative with the South 2000 East corridor
indicates that as the location of the alignment moves east, fewer traffic
benefits will result from the East Parkway.
- A key element of the 1000 East Alternative is the location of the Teton River
SF crossing. This location is more convenient to key destination points
including retail/commercial areas north of the river, the Rexburg City Center,
and the BYU – Idaho Campus.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 28
- The 1000 East Alternative crossing would provide a more direct, congestion
free path for emergency vehicles serving a greater amount of existing and
future growth north of the river.
• The selection of an effective alignment in Segment 5 requires clear trade-offs
and balancing of effects that are not directly comparable.
- Transportation benefits would be better served by avoiding sub-alignment A
which follows existing 2000 East to SH 33. The functionality of the East
Parkway Corridor would be compromised by the number of existing access
points to be accommodated and the reduced right-of-way width available
due to existing development adjacent to 2000 East. By moving to a new
alignment, the remaining alternatives would allow design concepts
consistent with the inter-city arterial functionality intended for the East
Parkway. Effects to existing adjacent development including increased
trafficand noise, property encroachments, and proximity to the existing high
school would all result from sub-alignment A.
- Sub-alignments B to D would avoid all of the issues of existing development,
but at the expense of splitting properties of land through which the various
sub-alignments would travel. As seen in Table 3, the parcel splits and effect
on existing farming operations generally decrease as the various alternatives
move eastward. Sub-alignment B was as initially proposed by the study
team. However, it would have the most detrimental effects to existing
farming operations. Sub-alignments C, D, and E were developed based on
suggestions from the affected property owners. All three of these
alignments would reduce property impacts. However, compared to
sub-alignment B, sub-alignments C and D would make it geometrically
awkward to develop a connection to Center Street in Sugar City because
these alignments are shifting to the east at the point where the extension of
Center Street would intersect. Sub-alignment E clearly minimizes the
property splits. However, complications could arise from the loss of 1.6 acres
of wetland associated with sub-alignment E. It is likely that the drawbacks of
sub-alignments C, D, and E can be reduced or overcome with further
refinement. Thus all alignments remain valid at this level of project
development.
Conclusions
Given the above, it is suggested that the 1000 East Alternative (Segments 1 to 3) best
meets the transportation goals of the East Parkway without a meaningful difference in
right-of-way impacts. With respect to choices in Segment 5, from a pure transportation
benefits point of view, sub-alignment B would be favored. It is more direct, would
match the East Parkway design concept, easily connects with Center Street, and has no
interference with “environmentally sensitive” land issues.
However it is clear that an alignment decision for Segment 5 cannot be based on
transportation benefits alone. Sub-alignment A moves all of the effects to adjacent
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 29
properties from one set of property owners to another and changes the nature of the
effects from splitting large parcels to affecting properties fronting on an existing
roadway. Sub-alignment C, D, and E all have fewer property splits than would sub-
alignment B, but introduce other issues as noted above.
On November 13, 2012, the Madison County Board of Commissioners met and
approved the 1000 East Alternative (Segments 1,2,3) as the East Parkway Corridor
alignment. Minutes of this meeting are excerpted below:
Commissioner Smith made a motion that the corridor continue north to
the T shown on the attached map approximately ½ mile north of Moody
Road by the canal, hence West to 1000 East or East to Digger Drive, with
the recommendation that it be revisited in the future considering growth
patterns at that time. Included in the file for consideration at that time
will be the City of Sugar City and Sugar Salem School Board
recommendation of Alternate E. Commissioner Weber seconded and
voting was unanimous.
A decision regarding a Segment 5 alignment that would extend the East Parkway
Corridor north to a junction with SH 33 was deferred, pending additional study and
continued discussions between the city, county, and land owner stakeholders.
Section 5 – Conceptual Plan
Drawings 1 through 4 present a conceptual plan for the selected East Parkway roadway.
The figures show a suggested roadway layout within the nominal 130-foot right-of-way.
The layout typically shows two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction and a 14-foot
median, centered within the right-of-way. Except when used for left turning vehicles,
the median could be either a raised median or a flush median – depending on the
desired level of access control and/or the desired level of landscaping. There are three
locations where the typical section described above has been modified to better
accommodate local right-of-way constraints or geometric considerations. These are
discussed at the end of this section.
The concept plans show typical East Parkway intersection approaches as having a total
of six lanes – two away lanes, a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane.
The typical cross roads are shown with three approach lanes – one away lane, a
left/through lane, and a right turn lane. The configuration described is applicable to
intersections with two-way stop control on the minor roadway. Different control types
as may be necessary at the time the roadway is constructed would require modified
intersection approach lane configurations as follows:
- For four-way stop control it would be necessary to eliminate the left and right
turn lanes on the East Parkway approaches since stop control does not work well
with more than two approach lanes.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 30
- For signalized operation it would be necessary to reconfigure the cross road
approaches to have an exclusive left turn lane and a combined through/right
turn lane to allow separate phasing for left turns.
The drawings also show possible locations of sidewalks, and cross walks at the
intersection. The surrounding sidewalk areas reflects clearances needed to fit in
appropriate pedestrian ramps. This is important as these issues directly affect the
amount of right-of-way necessary in the quadrants of the intersections. Sidewalks are
shown as five feet wide except on one side of the East Parkway where a ten-foot wide
sidewalk (matching an assumed recreational trail) is shown.
The sidewalks are shown close to the roadway in the vicinity of the intersections to keep
the stop bars as close to the intersection as possible. This best reflects the minimum
footprint of the intersections and sidewalks. Sidewalks and the recreation trail may be
located farther away from the roadway away from the intersections; right-of-way
permitting.
Design Parameters
Table 4 shows the design parameters used in developing the East Parkway concept
layout. The values selected are consistent with an urban collector roadway and are
presented with the following comments:
Table 4
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Design Parameters for Concept Layout
Design Elements - East Parkway Value
Design Speed 35 mph
Superelevation Rate 0.04
Horizontal Curves
Minimum Radius 530 ft
Radii used to promote
Route Continuity
1000 to
1200 ft
Maximum Grade 6%
Intersection Turn Lanes
Storage Length 100 ft
Additional Decel/Maneuver Length 100 ft
Taper Length 120 ft
Total Turn Lane Length 320 ft
Design Elements - Cross Roads Value
Design Speed 25 mph
Intersection Turn Lanes
Storage Length 100 ft
Additional Decel/Maneuver Length 20 ft
Taper Length 100 ft
Total Turn Lane Length 220 ft
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 31
- The design speed of 35 miles per hour reflect the current trend to embrace
“Practical Design” where the economies of lower design speeds are emphasized.
The effect of this parameter are reflected in lower earthwork costs neces sary to
accommodate grades in Segments 1 and 2; and reduced turn lane lengths due to
reduced maneuvering and deceleration distance requirements.
- The maximum superelevation rate of .04 was selected as this is typically used in
urban areas (the future condition assumed for this roadway) and simplifies
design of grade breaks when access points must be located on curves.
- The minimum curve radius associated with a design speed of 35 mph and a
superelevation rate of .04 is 530 feet. However, the minimum radius i s not used
on this alignment (is used only once on the concept layout - that being the
through the Segment 3 intersection with the connector road to 1000 East. In all
other locations radii were selected in the 1,000 to 1,200 feet range. This was
done to promote traffic flow along the East Parkway as a continuous roadway
from beginning to end despite the several turns in the alignment.
Grades
There are two instances of significant grades traversed by the East Parkway. The first
begins at the south end of the corridor just beyond the start of the alignment at the
University Boulevard/2nd West Street intersection. An ascending grade of 6.0 percent
over a distance of 1,800 feet is required to climb the bluff prior to the intersection with
South 2nd East Street. In Segment 2, a 5,000 foot, 5.1 percent descending grade is
required to intersect with Barney Dairy Road and cross the Teton River SF.
Special Alignments and Cross Sections
There are three places where a modified cross section is appropriate to meet special
circumstances. These are located at the intersection with South 2nd East, on either side
of and at the Teton River SF crossing, and through the 1000 East connector intersection
where the northward East Parkway alignment turns to an eastward align ment. These
conditions are described below.
South 2nd East Intersection Area
The East Parkway crosses South 2nd East at station 37+50 (See Drawing 1) on an
alignment that is coincident with existing Sunrise Drive. Sunrise Drive has been
constructed as a 60 foot wide street with five foot sidewalks beginning at about station
27+00. This width continues for about 600 feet, at which time the roadway width is
reduced to 36 feet, within a right-of-way of less than 50 feet. The north right-of-way is
constant. The south right-of-way line narrows when it reaches the property of the LDS
ward building located in the southwest corner of Sunrise Drive and South 2nd East.
For the East Parkway to fit through this section it will be necessary to narrow the typical
cross section twice. The first change is to reduce the median from the typical 14 feet to
12 feet to match the existing Sunrise Drive. There would be 5 foot sidewalks on both
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 32
sides. Where the right-of-way narrows at the LDS property, the roadway cross section
would narrow from 60 feet (five 12-foot lanes) to 55 feet (five 11-foot lanes). There
would be no eastbound right turn lane at 2 nd East. This will minimize the width of
encroachment into the LDS parcel. It will leave sufficient property on the nort h side of
the LDS parcel so as not to interfere with parking and circulation drives located on the
north side of the ward building.
There is sufficient right-of-way on Sunrise Drive east of South 2nd East to allow for the
typical East Parkway section. However the East Parkway would start with a modified
section to limit the amount of lane line shift across the South 2nd East intersection to a
maximum of 1.5 feet. The centerline of the a 58 -foot wide East Parkway approach on
the east leg of the South 2nd East intersection would be aligned with the centerline of
the 55 foot wide approach on the west leg. The east leg would have five lanes in a 12’-
11’-12’-11’-12’ configuration. This will not match the alignment of the existing Sunrise
Drive construction. Thus several hundred feet of existing roadway alignment will have
to be modified. After the narrow east approach, it would be expected that the East
Parkway would transition back to the typical 62-foot roadway width configuration (12’-
12’-14’-12’-12’).
East Parkway North of Barney Dairy Road
The East Parkway alignment is shifted 94 east feet beginning 400 feet north of Barney
Dairy Road. (See Drawing 3 , station 190 to 210) This shift aligns the centerline of the
East Parkway 40 feet west of the back property lines of the Quailhollow subdivision; or
as close as possible given a planned width of the Teton River SF bridge. This shift is
accomplished by means of reverse curves with a radius of at least 1,900 feet; barely
noticeable at the design speed of 35 mph.
The roadway width of the East Parkway Teton River SF Bridge is narrowed by reducing
the median width from 14 feet to 4 feet to minimize the width of the bridge. The total
width of the bridge would be 76 feet; including four 12-foot lanes, a 4-foot median, two
10-foot sidewalks, and 2-foot parapets. The transition to this section would occur
through the curves used to shift the alignment eastward as described above. The full
median width would be restored after the river crossing to accommodate the “T”
intersection with East 7th North about 800 feet north of the river (station 200 to 208)
The right-of-way could be narrowed to as little as 90 feet (depending on the height of
the bridge deck above the surrounding terrain) for 200 feet south and 100 feet north of
the river crossing.
East Parkway north of East 7th North Street
The East Parkway will intersect East 7th North Street about 800 feet north of the Teton
River SF. Within this distance the East Parkway alignment will shift 40 feet to the west.
This will position the centerline of the East Parkway 80 feet west of the centerline of
existing 1000 East, allowing the new East Parkway to parallel the existing 1000 East
roadway for ½ mile between East 7th North and East 9th North Streets. This was done to
allow this section of 1000 East to provide local access to approximately 10 properties
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 33
along the east side of 1000 East. Through this section the East Parkway right-of-way
would be 65 feet wide west of the centerline and 55 feet wide east of the centerline.
The east right-of-way line would abut the existing 1000 East right-of-way. The spacing
between the East Parkway face of curb and 1000 East edge-of-pavement allows for a
6.5-foot buffer, a 10-foot recreation path, and a 20-foot buffer to the edge of the 1000
East pavement.
Shifting the East Parkway alignment 80 feet east south of the Teton River SF bridge and
then 40 feet west north of the bridge could be simplified if the location of the bridge
were shifted to the west. This was not proposed for several reasons:
- Moving the location of the bridge west would significantly increase the length of
the bridge due to a pronounced bend in the river just west of the proposed
location.
- It is likely that the East Parkway will be built in stages, and the Teton River SF
crossing is likely to be one of the early stages. At its proposed location, the new
river crossing could easily be a part of an inexpensive “temporary connection”
between Barney Dairy Road on the south and existing 1000 East on the north.
- The reverse curves used in the final geometry of the East Parkway are mild
enough to support a design speed in excess of 60 mph; and thus should not
result in operational issues on this 35 mph facility.
Once past East 9th North Street, the East Parkway alignment swings to the east and the
right-of-way would expand to the 130 foot typical width for the corridor.
East Parkway / 1000 East Connector Intersection
At about station 286 the alignment of the East Parkway makes a 90 degree turn from a
northward heading to an eastward heading. See Drawing 4. A 1,200-foot long east-
west connection road between the East Parkway and 1000 East will intersect the East
Parkway at this curve. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to use a “T”
intersection configuration. However, a “T” intersection would compromise the desired
route continuity of the East Parkway. Thus, the proposed intersection with the 1000
East connector was shaped around a curve with a design speed of 35 mph for vehicles
following the East Parkway.
Through this curve, the median width is increased to 40 feet past the point of
intersection with the 1000 East Connector. The widening allows safer left turns to be
made from the connector by providing sufficient space to allow cars and single unit
trucks to “sit” in the median. This allows a “two-stage” left turn to be made requiring a
gap in East Parkway traffic in only one direction at a time. Turning lanes and larger
radius curves are provided for right turns to and from the 1000 East Connector to
minimize speed differentials between turning and through traffic around the curve.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 34
Section 6 – Project Cost Estimate and Implementation Priorities
Cost Estimate
A concept level opinion of costs to construct the East Parkway as presented in this
report (using 2013 costs) was developed for programming purposes. The estimate
included not only the cost of construction (contractor’s bid) but also programmatic costs
necessary to complete the project. These include preliminary engineering and
environmental studies, final design, and field inspection during construction. These
costs account for about 25 percent of the estimate. The 2013 concept level opinion of
costs to design and construct the East Parkway is $31,400,000. This total cost is further
subdivided into estimates for six logical sections in Table 5 included in the following
section on implementation priorities. Also note that the right -of-way costs are not
included in this estimate due to the volatility of costs depending on future land uses and
the potential for dedicated right-of-way as developments are platted within the
corridor.
Implementation Priorities
It is unlikely that a project of this magnitude will be implemented as a single project
from end to end. However, the full plan enables the cities and county to protect the
corridor right-of-way through planning and zoning actions and enter into right-of-way
donation/acquisition agreements as development progresses. T he East Parkway will be
constructed in stages as funding is available and growing development/traffic demand
increases pressure for implementation of certain sections. A suggested implementation
sequence is described below.
Sections
It is logical that the East Parkway be implemented in sections that begin and end at
primary intersections with the existing system. The East Parkway can be divided into six
sections from south to north as illustrated in Figure 11 and described below:
• Section A - South Terminus with University Boulevard to S 2nd East; 0.63 miles.
• Section B - S 2nd East to E 7th South; 1.35 miles plus 0.80 mile local connector
to South Millhollow Road.
• Section C - E 7th South to Barney Dairy Road; 1.38 miles plus 0.32 mile
permanent connection between Barney Dairy Road and the Teton River SF
Bridge. See Section D.
• Section D - Barney Dairy Road to E 7th North; 0.48 miles. The Teton River SF
bridge is included in this section; along with 0.45 miles of temporary 2-lane
roadway connecting the bridge to Barney Dairy Road and E 7th North. The use
of temporary roadway assumes that a functional river crossing will be one of the
first projects constructed. Reconstruction of the temporary roadway connecting
the river crossing to permanent width and geometry is included in adjoining
sections C to the south and Section E to the north.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 35
Figure 11
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Implementation Sections
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 36
• Section E - E 7th North to Moody Hwy; 1.13 miles plus 0.13 mile permanent
connection between the Teton River SF Bridge and E 9th North. See Section D.
This section also includes a 0.29 mile local connection roadway between 1000
East and E 9th North.
• Section F - Moody Hwy to north terminus of approved alignment at 2000 East;
1.21 miles. This section also includes a 0.23 mile local connection to 1000 East.
The above sections were prioritized using four criteria, listed below in general order of
importance.
- Immediate Benefit to Existing Traffic Needs
- Utility Dependent on Prior Completion of Other Sections
- System Continuity / Service to Area wide Traffic Growth
- Service to Adjacent New Development
The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 5 which presents a prioritized list of
sections comprising the East Parkway and the factors that contributed to the individual
priorities. A discussion of the prioritization follows, in the order of the above criteria.
Immediate Benefit to Existing Traffic Needs. - Implementation of several segments
would reduce existing traffic congestion. These sections were considered to have a
higher priority. Three sections were considered to fall into this category. Section D
includes the new crossing of the Teton River SF and temporary connections to the
existing traffic system. This addition to the circulation system would have immediate
benefits of reducing congestion on 2nd East as a stand alone project, and thus was
considered to be the highest priority section. Section E, extending north from the river
crossing to Moody Highway would complement Section C in reducing traffic on 2nd East
and was thus considered to be the second project on the priority list. Section C (E 7 th
South to Barney Dairy Road) is also in this category, but is discussed below.
Utility Dependant on Prior Completion of Other Sections. - From a systems level, the
utility of certain sections is dependent on completion of other sections or links in the
East Parkway Corridor. There is little utility to Section E (Moody Highway to 2000 East)
without it leading to the new river crossing (Section D). Section C (E 7th South to Barney
Dairy Road) has little system utility unless it leads to the formation of a new east
Rexburg north-south route providing access to north and south areas of BYU-Idaho.
Thus it’s general utility is dependent on prior completion of Sections D and E.
Section B (S 2nd West to E 7th South) has very little utility unless connected to Sections A
and C; and finally, Section E (Moody Highway to 2000 East) should generally not be
constructed until section D is completed.
System Continuity / Service to Areawide Traffic Growth. - The urgency of completing
some sections lies more with completion of the system and responding to areawide
growth than supporting the existing traffic patterns. Thus the need for the north and
south terminal sections (Sections A and E) are of lower priority as their need is tied
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 37
more to future growth than to existing needs. This is also true of Section B (S 2 nd West
to E 7th South).
Service to Adjacent New Development. - The wild card in the urgency and possible
independent utility of many of the sections is plans for major development that would
rely on sections of the East Parkway for access. Should this occur, there would be
independent utility for the section with adjacent development. This would override the
priority list presented. Sections B, C, E, and F all have developable adjacent land areas,
and are thus susceptible to increased priority due to the emergence of new
development.
East Parkway Corridor Plan | 38
Table 5
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Table 5 East Parkway Corridor Plan Project Segment Construction Priorities SectionDescriptionPriorityLengthCost $1,000'sExisting Traffic NeedsPrior Completed SectionsAreawideTraffic GrowthAdjacent DevelopmentAUniversity Blvd to S 2nd East30.633,560$ XBS 2nd East to E 7th South41.356,060$ C, AXXCE 7th South to Teton River Crossing21.388,130$ XD, EXDTeton River Crossing with temporary connection between Barney Dairy Rd and N 9th East10.48 $ 3,170 XETeton River Crossing to Moody Hwy21.135,660$ XDXFMoody Hwy to 2000 East41.214,820$ EXXPriority SortSectionDescriptionPriorityLengthCost $1,000'sExisting Traffic ConditionsPrior Completed SectionsAreawideTraffic GrowthAdjacent DevelopmentDTeton River Crossing with temporary connection between Barney Dairy Rd and E 7th North10.48 $ 3,170 XEE 7th North to Moody Hwy21.135,660$ XDXCE 7th South to Barney Dairy Rd21.388,130$ XD, EXAUniversity Blvd to S 2nd East30.633,560$ XBS 2nd East to E 7th South41.356,060$ C, AXXFMoody Hwy to 2000 East41.214,820$ EXXTotal31,400$ Prioritization CriteriaPrioritization Criteria