The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015 Madison County Transportation Master Plan - HorrocksMADISON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN At� lidwAk Ho—%(lc—Ks Acknowledgements iw There have been many that have contributed to the input of this transportation master plan update. We thank the Madison County Commissioners and the members of the Madison County Rural Planning �► Organization (RPO). .w Madison County Commissioners: �+► Kimber Ricks, Chairman Jon Weber /* Todd Smith Madison County Rural Planning Organization (RPO) Richard Woodland, Mayor City of Rexburg Glen Dalling, Mayor of Sugar City W. Lamont Merrill, Mayor of Sugar City Jon Weber, Madison County Commissioner (Chair) Bill Shaw, Strategic Planning and Community Involvement at Idaho Transportation Department Eric Conrad, University Services with BYUI John Millar, Public Works Director Keith Davidson, Assistant Engineer Scott Johnson, Economic Development Soecial Thanks to: Deedee Tucker, City of Rexburg ` Daniel Torres, City of Rexburg Brent McFadden, Madison County P&Z Craig Rindlisbacher, Madison County GIS Also a special thanks to the Rexburg City Council, the Rexburg Planning and Zoning committee, and all of the City and County staff who have assisted in this effort. We would also like to thank all those members of the public who provided valuable input as this plan has come together. Introduction The Madison County transportation systems spans a diverse landscape and serves a variety of users. Although airports and railroads serve an important role in the transportation system, roadways are the most widely used and most important feature of the transportation system. Daily commuters, farm -to - market truck haulers, recreation for local as well as regional travelers use the roadway system in Madison County every day. As we remember what the road system has been in the past and what it is today, we envision what the County current and impending needs are, and look to the future. What will the transportation system be for our grandchildren and their grandchildren? Will decisions made today have a lasting impact on decisions they make to live and work in Madison County. The area is growing with a thriving University and a desire by businesses to locate in Madison County. Over the next 25 years it is anticipated that the number and mix of roadway users will continue to grow. Transportation that accommodates this growth will ensure the continuation of the strong economic vitality and exceptional quality of life which currently exists in Madison County. Existing Roadway Network The existing roadway network consists of local, collector and arterial streets as well as the state highway US -20. Each of these roadway classifications serves a different yet important function in the roadway system. Traffic volume and turning movement data was collected throughout the County to establish a baseline of existing traffic volumes. These volumes were compared to the capacity of the individual roadways in the network to determine any existing deficiencies. Level of Service (LOS) is a performance metric used by the Federal Highway Administration to categorize congestion on roadways. A letter grade A, B, and C being acceptable. LOS D, E, and F are considered unacceptable. Every roadway segment in the County is operating at an acceptable level of service. There are however, a number of intersections that are experiencing excessive delays. These are as follows: • 2 n East and Teton Village Road • 2nd East and the Walmart Entrance • US -20 Ramps at Main Street • US -20 Ramps at University Boulevard Several bridges in the area are in need of attention according to the National Bridge Inventory Database. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) owns 32 bridges in Madison County, one of which is structurally deficient and one of which is functionally obsolete. The County owns 39 bridges, three are structurally deficient and two are eligible for federal aid with a sufficiency rating of less than fifty. The Twin Bridges are also in need of channel correction. The City of Rexburg maintains 8 bridges, of which one is structurally deficient and one is federal aid eligible. The only bridge in Sugar City is functionally obsolete. In addition to roadways, the jointly owned Rexburg -Madison County airport is operational and serves primarily private and agricultural aircraft. A committee currently exists to evaluate future airport needs Aft and the potential for relocation as an expansion becomes necessary. There are 52 miles of railroad along the Yellowstone branch of the Eastern Idaho Railroad. This stretch moves more than 35,000 car loads per year to the Union Pacific branches. rn Future Conditions Future traffic patterns and the resulting operating conditions of a roadway network are directly related ,* to land use planning and socioeconomic conditions. Socioeconomic data were gathered from the Cities, County, BYU-I and other stakeholders in the area to ensure the best available data were used. ,* Transportation planning in the region should be a cooperative effort of state and local agencies. One of the purposes of the newly formed RPO is to coordinate this transportation planning process in Madison County. T A large part of the coordinated planning process wasthe development of a regional travel demand model. This model will serve as a planning tool for the County and RPO for years to come. The travel demand model was the basis for the analysis of future traffic growth in the County and helped determine not only ^� the expected problems caused by growth but also the effectiveness of the proposed solutions to those problems. AMA Three planning years were evaluated; 2020, 2030, and 2040. Growth in the County is expected to continue IWA through these years with populations reaching 46,000 in 2020, 55,000 in 2030, and 64,000 by the year 2040. This growth will significantly influence the roadway network and, as shown in the no -build scenarios presented in this report, will result in unacceptable congestion in the area. Several projects were identified as part of the planning process and range from signal timing projects to interchange reconstructions. Current projects will seek to solve problems such as geometric deficiencies, pedestrian safety, intersection operational failure, and over congested roadways. "nk In addition to the three planning years studied, a vision scenario was developed to identify potential problems which are likely to occur once the County population exceeds the 64,000 threshold set for the year 2040. These projects include the East Parkway Corridor, 5`h West Extension and US -20 overpasses at Moody Road, Poleline Road, and 7th South. These vision projects should considered by the RPO as development and growth occurs. A total of 22 intersections were studied in depth as part of the TMP. The intersections were evaluated for safety, geometric, and capacity insufficiencies. Of the 22, seven are currently over capacity. Seven have geometric or safety concerns, and 11 (including the original seven) are expected to be over capacity by 2040. Rural Madison County Improvements Many of the improvements in and around the City of Rexburg are driven by travel demand and the projected congestion that will occur with the growth. For the rest of the County, including Sugar City, the existing system will provide a projected LOS A through the year 2040. Although not driven by travel demand, the connectivity, safety and utility of the rural part of the County has been studied. A capital ..� improvement plan has been developed for the rural areas of the Counties and priorities have been developed based a consensus of the most pressing needs by input of the public and stakeholders. iii Details of the major improvements proposed in the TMP are included in the body of this report. A list is provided here for reference: • US -20 and State Highway 33 • US -20 West Side Frontage • US -20 East Side Frontage • Spot intersection locations throughout the County Alternative Modes of Transportation Alternative transportation modes are an important part of the overall transportation system. A complete transit system may include bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail, commuter rail, and van share facilities. Non -motorized traffic includes pedestrians, bicyclists, hikers, horseback riders, and joggers/walkers. These modes of transportation are very important and should be accommodated in a vibrant and sustainable transportation system as they become appropriate for the community. It has long been discussed that a vibrant bus system within the community could become a vital link to expanding access to the University for students. A transit system, particularly within the City of Rexburg should be considered in the future plans of the community. While many transit options exist, the most viable and affordable option for the area would be a fixed schedule bus system. The exact location and timing of the bus routes will require further study. Pedestrians and Bicyclists are an essential element to the transportation master plan. The City of Rexburg has a high volume of pedestrian activity in and around the BYUI campus. Sidewalks should be considered a priority for any new roadways or capacity improvements. Improving the sidewalk connectivity between the downtown area and the campus is essential. Regional bike plans exist and should be used to determine the most appropriate location for bike lanes and trails within the County. Each of the roadway cross sections should include the ability to accommodate bicyclists either with on -street facilities such as bike lanes or "sharrows" or off-street facilities such as multi -use pathways and trails. Other Elements of the Transportation Master Plan Traffic Impact Studies should be required for all developments that may have a detrimental impact on the transportation network. Traffic Impact Studies give the County and Cities the ability to determine what effects a proposed development will have on the street network and how to plan accordingly. Guidelines to when and where a Traffic Impact Study is required are given in the appendix of this report. The guidelines also show the information that should be included in the study. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) can greatly improve the function of any roadway. ITS elements include signal detection, traffic volume recorders, traffic cameras, variable message signs, and advanced warning signs. Each of these elements allow traffic engineers to monitor traffic patterns and adjust to maximize traffic flows accordingly. The ITS can also provide valuable information to the traveling public to assist in travel decisions. A traffic operations center should be set up in the County to monitor the proposed ITS elements. Access Management is a standard or set of guidelines used to control access on major roads. Controlling access improves the safety of a roadway and increases capacity. The State of Idaho has an access IV management program for the state roads. It is recommended that the County adopt the same standards for locally owned roads of similar function. Madison County must be an integral player in regional planning. The formation of the RPO has taken a large step in the right direction to accomplish this goal. The County must continue to work with ITD and neighboring jurisdictions to guarantee that transportation planning is all encompassing. g• Many of the projects identified in this report will not be needed for 10, 20, or perhaps 30 years. It is vital that the County takes the necessary steps now to prepare for these projects. The simplest way to make sure that these projects are still possible in the future is through Corridor Preservation. This is a technique 00% used to preserve areas of Right -of -Way, with sufficient width to accommodate a future planned roadway. As rural areas develop, the County and Cities must be proactive in procuring the necessary right-of-way for planned projects as it becomes available. Maintaining access management standards on these corridors is also important. .r► Travel Demand Management is the practice of encouraging people out of single occupancy vehicle use. Several strategies exist and could be employed by the members of the RPO including a ride share program, Ak transit, incentives for carpooling, variable work schedules, etc. Traffic Calming and Safety are also an important part of any transportation network. Ensuring the safety of motorists and pedestrians should be the highest priority on any transportation project. Traffic calming can help reduce speeds and volumes on roadways, but should be used with caution and only where .+� appropriate. A guide to traffic calming is provided in this report. '^ Capital Facilities Plan The most important element of the TMP is the Capital Facilities Plan. This section of the report includes all of the recommended projects to mitigate any existing and future transportation deficiencies. The report includes the nature of each project, the timing of the project and a planning level cost estimate for each project. The total cost of all of the proposed capital improvement projects combined for ITD, the Cities and the County in Madison County, excluding those already programmed or completed, is $58,911,000. .� Public Involvement In addition to multiple updates to the Madison County commissioners and the members of the Rexburg w► City Council, the public was also invited to attend a series of two public meetings. The meetings allowed the public to express ideas and concerns related to the topics presented. The meetings were advertised via web site, television, radio, and via social media. Receipt of social media invitations confirmed that more than 12,000 residents of Madison County were able to open and view the invitation. In addition, Kelly Hoopes of Horrocks Engineers discussed the project and the intent of the master plan update on local television news channels on two different occasions. The first public meeting was held on April 1, 2015 in the Madison County Commissioners chambers. The +► second meeting was held the following night on April 2, 2015 in the City of Rexburg City Council chambers. Each meeting presented the same information in an open house format. Exhibits of the various �► v A^ discoveries and alternatives of the study were presented. Many in attendance came simply to learn with no comments. Others expressed comments verbally and in writing. The primary concern expressed by the majority of attendees was the congestion on 2nd East between Main Street and 7th North. The alternative presented as a couplet on 3'd East concerned some residents who live along that corridor. vi Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 Overviewand History ................................................................................................................................1 ,* Review of 2004 Transportation Master Plan............................................................................................4 ,.� Existing Roadway Network...........................................................................................................................7 ,W Existing Socioeconomic Conditions...........................................................................................................7 OWAStreet System............................................................................................................................................7 ^� Roadway Cross Sections.......................................................... ......................................... .....................9 Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ........................................... ......................................................... ...11 TrafficVolume Data............................................................................................................................11 Levelof Service...................................................................................................................................13 Bridges....................................................................................................................................................17 Sufficiency Rating.........................................17 ....................................................................................... rw, Structural Evaluation...........................................................................................................................17 Ink Status..................................................................................................................................................17 ConditionRatings: ............................................................................................................................... 18 ExistingBridge Conditions...................................................................................................................18 Airport.................................................................................................................................................19 Rail.......................................................................................................................................................19 FutureConditions.......................................................................................................................................20 r^ Future Socioeconomic Conditions..........................................................................................................20 Future Land Use ........................................ ...................................................................... ....................20 TravelModel Development................................................................................................................23 NoBuild Network................................................................................................................................23 FutureRoadway Network...................................................................................................................23 ,* 2020 Conditions......................................................................................................................................23 2020 No Build......................................................................................................................................23 .* 2030 Conditions......................................................................................................................................28 •w 2030 No Build......................................................................................................................................28 2040 Conditions......................................................................................................................................32 2040 No Build......................................................................................................................................32 TheVision Beyond 2040..........................................................................................................................37 SenWest Extension..............................................................................................................................37 TUS -20 Overpasses...............................................................................................................................37 AftEast Parkway Corridor.........................................................................................................................38 ' - \111 Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sug { _Transportation X pl�P Master Plan Updati _:- _. Intersection Improvements................................................................................................................40 Rural Madison County Improvements........................................................................................................44 US— 20 and State Highway 33................................................................................................................44 US-20 West Side Frontage..................................................................................................................45 US-20 East Side Frontage....................................................................................................................46 Intersections Improvements in the County............................................................................................48 General Intersection and Roadway Improvements............................................................................48 Alternative Modes of Transportation.........................................................................................................54 Transit..................................................................................................................................................... 54 ExistingTransit Service........................................................................................................................54 FutureTransit Service.........................................................................................................................54 Pedestriansand Bicycles.........................................................................................................................54 RegionalPlan.......................................................................................................................................55 Other Elements of the Transportation Master Plan................................................................................... 56 TrafficImpact Studies.............................................................................................................................56 Intelligent Transportation Systems.........................................................................................................56 TrafficSignal Coordination..................................................................................................................56 AccessManagement...............................................................................................................................56 ITDCoordination.....................................................................................................................................57 CorridorPreservation..............................................................................................................................57 Corridor Preservation Techniques......................................................................................................58 Travel Demand Management.................................................................................................................58 Safety...................................................................................................................................................... 59 TrafficCalming........................................................................................................................................59 Types of Traffic Calming Measures.....................................................................................................60 CapitalFacilities Plan..................................................................................................................................61 Transportation Needs as a Result of New Development........................................................................61 Proposed Means to Meet Demands of New Development................................................................65 Public Involvement Summary .....................................................................................................................52 viii Figure 1 Madison County Population Projection..........................................................................................2 Figure 2 Madison County Area Map.............................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing Roadway Network...........................................................................................................10 Figure4 Count Locations............................................................................................................................12 Figure 5 Roadway Level of Service Representation....................................................................................13 Figure 6 Existing Roadway Level of Service................................................................................................15 Figure 7 Madison County Land Use Plan....................................................................................................21 Figure 8 Madison County City General Plan Map.......................................................................................22 Figure 9 Projected 2020 No -Build Level of Service.....................................................................................24 Figure 10 2020 Solutions to Projected Deficiencies...................................................................................26 Figure it 2nd East Mini-Couplet.................................................................................................................27 Figure 12 Projected 2030 No -Build Level of Service...................................................................................30 Figure 13 Solutions to 2030 Problems........................................................................................................31 Figure 14 2040 No Build Level of Service....................................................................................................34 Figure 15 2040 Solutions to Problems........................................................................................................35 Figure 16 V East/2nd East Couplet Concept...............................................................................................36 Figure17 Vision Projects.............................................................................................................................39 Figure 18 Rural Madison County Projects...................................................................................................53 ix Table1 Population Data................................................................................................................................2 Table 2 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP years 1-5................................................................4 Table 3 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP Years 6-10..............................................................5 Table 4 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP years 11-15............................................................5 Table 5 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP years 16-20............................................................6 Table 6 Street Functional Classification........................................................................................................8 Table 7 Roadway Functional Classification Characteristics..........................................................................9 Table 8 Suburban Highway LOS CapaCity Criteria in Vehicles per Day.......................................................14 Table 9 Suburban Arterial LOS CapaCity Criteria in Vehicles per Day........................................................14 Table 10 Suburban Collector LOS CapaCity Criteria in Vehicles per Day....................................................14 Table 112"d East Signal Operations............................................................................................................16 Table 12 US -20 Intersection Level of Service..............................................................................................17 Table 13 Summary of Bridges in Madison County.....................................................................................19 Table 14 Intersection Analysis....................................................................................................................40 Table 15 Transportation Improvement Plan...............................................................................................62 x Aft Ak Overview and History �* Madison County, Idaho is located in the Upper Snake River Valley. Established in 1913, it has a rich 0% heritage with roots of pioneer families that first settled in the area. These pioneers quickly began farming 0% and cultivating the land. They built farms, roads and the first irrigation systems. Before January 1, 1914, the County was part of neighboring Fremont County. The newly established County was named for 0% American president James Madison. Over the years there has been growth and change to the area. There A1% are just under 40,000 people residing in Madison County today. Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, .�, the population grew from 27,466 to 37,596, an increase of approximately 37%. A map of Madison County is shown in Figure 2. .� The majority of the people living in Madison County live within the City of Rexburg, accounting for 25,536 people in 2010 (68% of the County population). Less than one third of the population live outside of the City in the rural areas and smaller towns. There are several smaller communities in Madison County ^" including Sugar City, Salem, Lyman, Plano, Sunn dell, Independence, Moody, Thornton, Hibbard Burton "* Edmonds and Archer. Sugar City is the largest of these Cities (1,509 population in 2010) and is located on Oak the northern border of Madison County. Many of these towns are brought together by common schools and churches. Madison County, particularly the City of Rexburg, has experienced a significant amount of growth and .� development over the last several years. This growth is expected to continue in the future, as shown in Figure 1. By the year 2040 the population is projected to be approximately 64,000 people. .* Table 1 shows the existing population numbers from the year 1970 to the projected population year of ^► 2040. In order to keep pace with the projected population growth, a comprehensive transportation plan must be developed and regularly maintained. The purpose of this plan is to incorporate the goals of Madison County, the City of Rexburg, Sugar City and the Idaho Department of Transportation regarding A% the transportation systems within their jurisdiction. One of the key traffic generators in the County is Brigham Young University Idaho (BYU-1). Established in '* 1888 as Bannock Stake Academy, BYU-I has become one of the region's premier higher eductation .� establishments. With a campus consisting of over 40 buildings spanning 430 acres, BYU-I serves students from over 80 countries worldwide. More than 28,000 students attend each year with over 16,000 full- time students at any given time. 1 Table 1 Population Data Figure 1 Madison County Population Projections RA This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) contains an analysis of the existing transportation network and conditions. Any major deficiencies are itemized and possible improvement or mitigation alternatives are discussed. An analysis of the future transportation network is also included for the horizon years 2020, 2030 and 2040. Any deficiencies in the future transportation network that are expected to exist and would not be accommodated by projects that are currently planned will be discussed. A list of recommended improvements and projects will be given to aid in planning for future transportation projects within the County as well as working with other agencies such as ITD and neighboring Counties. This TMP is intended to be a useful tool to aid in planning and maintaining the overall transportation network within the County. Review of 2004 Transportation Master Plan The Madison County Transportation Plan was adopted in 2004 by the County and the Cities of Rexburg and Sugar City. The East Parkway project was identified regional project of highest priority. One of the elements of the 2015 TMP is an analysis of what has been completed from the 2004 planning document and to determine if those modifications met the needs as defined in the study. The 2004 plan recommended 21 projects (9 local and 12 ITD) in years 1-5 and 19 projects (15 local and 4 ITD) in years 6-10. These projects are summarized in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and Table S. There were also 19 projects recommended for years beyond the 10 year planning horizon. Table 2 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP years 1-5 Item 1 Project Complete South Arterial —Yellowstone to 71h South Roadway S. Arterial 2 Conduct East Parkway Corridor Study East Pkwy 3 Begin East Parkway 2nd West to 2"d East East Pkwy 4 Add East Pkwy — Barney Dairy Rd to 71h North (Bridge) East Pkwy 5 Add East Pkwy — 71h South to Barney Dairy Road East Pkwy 6 Extend 7" South to East Pkwy 7th South 7 Widen 7th South from 2"d West to 2"d East 71' South 8 Corridor Study -2"d West—S. Arterial to 400 West 2"d West 9 Safety Study on 2"d East — 7th South to Main 2"d East 10 Safety Study on 2"d East— Main to 71' North 2"d East 11 Improve Intersection — 2"d East / 4th North 2"d East 12 Widen Approaches -2"d East and 7th North 2"d East 13 Widen Approaches -2"d East/Salem Highway/SH-33 2"d East 14 Main Street Safety Study— US 20 WB to 2"d East Main St 15 Intersection Improvement— Main St and 2"d West Main 16 Intersection Improvements — Main St and 2"d East Main n Item 17 Project Widen SH -33 US 20 to 12th West Roadway SH -33 18 Improve US 20 / SH 33 and 12th West SH -33 19 Intersection Improvements — SH 33 and 12th West SH -33 20 Sugar City East Parkway Alignment / West Circulation Study East Pkwy 21 "S" Curve Safety Study — SH 33 SH -33 Table 3 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP Years 6-10 Item 1 Project Install Emergency Preempt System at Signals Roadway All 2 Improve Continuity from 2nd East to Barney Dairy Rd Barney Dairy Rd 3 Widen University Blvd —12th West to US 20 University Blvd 4 Improve Intersection—Salem Highway/ 14th North to Moody Salem Highway 5 Widen Salem Highway 1800 North to US 20 Salem Highway 6 Widen Salem Highway within US 20 Interchange Salem Highway 7 Reduce Intersection Angle — SH 33 / 9th East (7th West) SH 33 8 Reduce Intersection Angle — SH 33 / 14th North (Moody Hwy) SH 33 9 Widen SH 33 — 2nd East to 141h North (Moody Hwy); Reconstruct SH 33 "S" Curves as necessary SH 33 10 Extend Airport Airport Rd 11 Extend 2nd West south to Poleline Rd 2nd West 12 Add 5000 South — US 20 to Arch -Lyman Hwy 5000 South 13 Study Hibbard Hwy along 3000 West Hibbard Hwy 14 Extend Hibbard Hwy -3200 South to US 20 Hibbard Hwy 15 Extend Hibbard Hwy— 5200 South to 3400 West Hibbard Hwy Table 4 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP years 11-15 1 Project West Arterial — 2nd North to 2nd East RoadwayItem W. Arterial 2 Reconfigure 2nd South / 2nd West Intersection 2nd South 3 Complete East Parkway from 7th North to SH 33 East Pkwy 4 Complete East Parkway from 2nd East to 1000 East East Pkwy 5 Intersection Geometry— Poleline / 3000 East Poleline Rd 6 Widen 12th West — University Blvd to SH 33 12th West 19 Item 7 Project Widen 1201 West — SH 33 to 7'^ North Roadway 12'1 West 8 Add road from East Parkway to 16' E south to Barney Dairy Rd East Pkwy 9 Improve Yellowstone / South Arterial Intersection Yellowstone 10 Widen Yellowstone —Archer Lyman Hwy to South Arterial Yellowstone 11 Extend 2nd West south to 400 West 2"d West Table 5 2004 Transportation Master Plan Projects CIP years 16-20 Item 1 Project Extend University Blvd — 12t1 West to 5000 West Roadway University Blvd 2 Corridor Study — 400 West from 7800 S to 5500 S 400 East 3 Extend 4700 South — US 20 to 4000 West 4700 South 4 Widen 2nd East -7th South to Main 2nd East 5 Improve Intersection — 2nd East / 2nd South 21 South 6 Widen 2nd West — 4th South to 7'h South 2nd West 7 Widen Salem Highway— US 20 to 4000 North Salem Highway 8 West Arterial — 2nd North to 2nd East W. Arterial Between 2004 and 2015, the south arterial between Yellowstone Road and 7th South has been completed. This roadway has become a vital link between the University Interchange and the City. This segment is also referred to as the "South Rexburg Arterial". The East Parkway Corridor Plan was studied and completed in March of 2013. Over this time, the general growth within the County and around the City of Rexburg has shifted from a pattern of growth on the north and east of the City to a pattern of growth on the southwest of the City. The overall plan, as presented in 2004, centered on this growth and the network implementation of the East Parkway. While it is believed that many of these projects as listed will yet be needed in the future, it is not foreseen that the East Parkway will be the most necessary component of the Madison County transportation system between the time of this update in 2015 and the year 2040. The corridor and the connections as shown in the 2013 corridor study should be preserved as developments are planned on the east side of Rexburg. 3 .,,Existing AoaclwaTnetworK A thorough documentation of the County's existing conditions was performed in order to evaluate the transportation system and to address current and future needs in the area. The existing roadway network in Madison County is found in Figure 3. The data collected for this TMP update include: ^� 4• Key Roadway Traffic Volumes 4. Socioeconomic Conditions i• Land Use and Zoning 4. Roadway Classifications/Widths/Cross Sections Public Transit Routes Bicycle/Pedestrian Trails This data forms the basis for analyzing the existing transportation system, as well as providing the .* foundation to project future traffic conditions. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions Socioeconomic data used in the transportation analysis was obtained from the City of Rexburg and Madison County. This data includes population, household size, zoning, land use, BYU-I plans, and economic development plans. Street System Streets provide for two distinct and very different functions: mobility and land access. Both functions are vital and no trip is made without both. In this TMP, street facilities are classified by the relative amounts of through and land -access service they provide. There are four primary classifications, with detailed descriptions in Table 6: Local Streets — Local facilities primarily serve land -access functions. Local Street design and control '^ facilitates the movement of vehicles onto and off the street system from land parcels. Through movement •'� is difficult and is discouraged by both the design and control of this facility. Residential subdivision streets ..� are an example of a local street. Collectors—Collector facilities, the "middle" classification, are intended to serve both through and land - access functions in relatively equal proportions. For long through trips, such facilities are usually Aft, inefficient, nevertheless they are frequently used for shorter through movements associated with the .n, distribution and collection portion of trips. An example of a collector street is Pioneer Road. AM.. Arterials—Arterial facilities are provided to primarily serve through -traffic movement. While some land- ,� access service may be accommodated, it is clearly a minor function. All traffic controls and the facility design are intended to provide efficient through movement. Main Street and 2ntl East are Arterial Streets. Highways—These facilities are provided to service long distance trips between Cities and Counties, but do not have the limited access provided by freeways and expressways. US -20 is a highway. 0'4 Roadway functional classification does not define the number of lanes required for each roadway. For instance a collector street may have two or four lanes, whereas an arterial street may have up to nine lanes. The number of lanes is a function of the expected traffic volume on the roadway and serves as the greatest measure of roadway capacity. oft Table 6 Street Functional Classification F1 f 00.. r On. P` Collect and Traffic distribute traffic Traffic movement movement, land between streets Land access access and arterials, land access Not applicable 5-10% 10-20% 60-80% Continuous Continuous Continuous None .. 4 miles 1-2 miles %:-1 mile As needed Typical % of Surface Street Not applicable System Vehicle- 40-65% 10-20% 10-25% Carrie -Miles Restricted: Some movements Limited: Major prohibited; Safety controls - None Generators Only number and access spacing of driveways controlled Intersection SeeIDAPA SeeIDAPA SeeIDAPA SeeIDAPA pacing 40-50 mph in Speed Limit 55-75 mph fully developed 30-40 mph 25 mph areas Discouraged Limited Allowed s caprial Amobility Provides link Through traffic st& Backbone of between Local should be ph- Street System and Arterial discouraged sity Network F1 f 00.. r On. P` Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Transportation Master Plan Update 2015 Roadway Cross Sections Table 7 shows some general guidelines for each roadway type as described in the aforementioned tables. Figure 3 shows the functional classification of each of the roadways in Madison County. Table 7 Roadway Functional Classification Characteristics 9 I Legend Functional Class I Highway Major Arterial (, Minor Arterial Collector — Local/County Road Madison County Border } f t I rl I-10 KIE JT MAIIJ.' III I r 1 ; 1/21 /. If`" I ".r BALOYKNOL� 4 1 CANYON GREEK BUTTE , - �''- YL R<I: N ,a l:1"r ll 1 WHITE 0 BUTT i 19 f-- 1686 Z' / 1_ FARNES MOUry AIN ARGUMENT G A R N S M O RIDGE' Pt, SPECT PEA THOUSAND SPPlNGS VALLEY.. , 1 ' / ✓' LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN HELt LANYCNJT O NS „a .rY P 1J PINEYPEAK ao . IL IPEIiSC111 _� i /r 'i H 5 Y. a3a kk —� vL�'.1^ rn. j• F� aj�/j._r FINesl a HORROCKS Figure 3 Existing Roadway Network I ill11 r 2 a .; I N I E N S Madison County Transportation Master Plan Mile. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service An extensive data collection effort was performed in conjunction with the preparation of the TMP. This A% included collected data from the Cities, towns, and County as well as new daily traffic counts and new .^ turning movement counts. Travel volume data form the basis of the travel demand model calibration and serve to show any capacity deficiencies that may exist today. The daily counts are average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. This refers to a normal day (Tuesday -Thursday) where no special events, construction activity, or adverse weather may contribute to abnormal traffic conditions. Data for roadways where traffic counts were not collected were obtained through a custom built Travel Demand Model. Using the existing traffic conditions based on the Travel Demand Model, existing count data, and roadway functional classification, the existing roadway capacity deficiency in the County can be measured using a measurement called Level of Service (LOS). The following sections describe the process of collecting traffic volume data and calculating LOS. Traffic Volume Data An extensive data collection effort was performed in conjunction with the TMP. This included data collected from the City, County, neighboring Counties, ITD, and new daily traffic counts on many of the City and County roads. These volume data form the basis of the custom built travel demand model calibration and serve to show any capacity deficiencies that may exist today. Figure 4 shows the locations around the City/County where 24 hour traffic data was collected. The numbers shown are average weekday traffic volumes (ADT). .► .W 11 C� 3„ugh `�pl -Pt011 Legend a ^0' ` > 1453m • Daily Traffic Count d ID-33---_4t3. 713 F N SII gar 7496m W 300014 /f F 3000 N !!!! w 9548 0 N 2 1452 1^J 2000 N 13722 otly Rd - w L 2000 N O • O 4 0 Z A o Talon Lakes- ^' GollCours Z 462 n7 c I N W NJ 7000 N =I�'1!'n h,o,y u i Son1 - ( / Z - - 17322 rj °or Ilr•Jon lbr-.v I. Barney f / r • 458 3366 5182, 1817 - J - 23248 3248 / _ 16805 16402101lrg 33� 848 31� 18809 • • /J¢ '/ 2202 4547 115 8665 336 ... - • 7475 • 1584 / 0 1663 92381 • 916 5m 8733 8 w 7579 m - o W 100051010 10552 1679 vi Q7 o• O V. c o IJniverslly Blvd 13118 r! m ----- S O M M E R S B U T T E I - W 2000 S I Polf I m, R'i / E 2000 S ' W E B S T E R B U T T E ` ! W 3200 S W 3200 S 0 Lu 0 o E 3500 S 492 680 W 3800 5 5 m rt o 0 v 0 c ' 1483m 1604 a? m / 1 3400 -- / \ _ V.• 844 n \ I LV 5000 5 N a 1638 m w ;473 m 718 2252 \ 4'v' S20U S 8 n P ,o"r, 768u w4 n? t. Survey, Esri Japan, MET], Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community HORROCKS I Figure 4 Count Locations r � 6 1 N r I k 5 Madison County Transportation Master Plan 1 6 'Miles Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City o_ """ Transportation Master Plan Update 2015 mo -` �-' ;lt, r�• Level of Service *► Level of Service (LOS) is a term defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to categorize the level of congestion on a roadway segment or intersection. LOS is measured using a letter grade A through F where A represents free flowing traffic with absolutely no congestion and F represents grid lock. In this TMP, LOS C is the accepted minimum standard for the street network and intersections. Figure 5 is a graphical representation of LOS on roadway segments. Figure 6 shows the existing LOS on the County roadway network. Figure 5 Roadway Level of Service Representation A Excellent Good Average Acceptable Congested Severely Congested 0 C"1111116 4611110 41111111111111116 D 4iiiiiliw *'Aw 4iibi 4i'lli 4&W E 4"��F� F ft*.JW6 ftft,,4011.4ft. Roadway segment LOS and intersection LOS differ in the way they are measured. Roadway segment LOS relates directly to the number of lanes in the segment and is determined by a volume/capacity ratio. Where the number of vehicles traveling on a roadway exceeds the number of vehicles that can be reasonably accommodated without undue speed reduction, the roadway is defined as LOS F. For intersections, LOS is related to the length of time the average vehicle will have to wait at a signal before being able to proceed through the intersection. LOS F is seen where an average vehicle must wait longer than 80 seconds to proceed through an intersection. Intersection and roadway segment LOS problems must be solved independently of each other as the treatment required to mitigate the congestion is different in each case. Roadway segment LOS can be mitigated with geometry improvements, additional lanes, two -way -left turn lanes, and access management. Intersection problems may be mitigated by adding turn lanes, improving signal timing, and improving corridor signal coordination. Roadway LOS is used as a planning tool to quantitatively represent the ability of a particular roadway to accommodate the travel demand. Table 8 Table 9. and Table 10 summarize major roadway LOS conditions within the City. These values are based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) principles and regional experience. 13 Table 8 Suburban Highway LOS Capacity Criteria in Vehicles per Day /^ Table 9 Suburban Arterial LOS Capacity Criteria in Vehicles per Day Table 10 Suburban Collector LOS Capacity Criteria in Vehicles per Day �P" LOS C is approximately 70 percent of a roadway's capacity and is a common goal for urban streets during peak hours. A standard LOS C for system streets (collectors and arterials) is acceptable for future planning. LOS C suggests that for most times of the day, the roadways will be operating well below capacity. The peak times of day will likely experience moderate congestion characterized by a higher vehicle density and slower free flowing speeds. From Table 8. Table 9. and Table 10 roadway capacity decreases as ease of access increases. Collector roads, designed for lower speeds and easy access, have lower capacities than freeways where ease of access is limited. Capacity also depends on the number of lanes. An additional lane increases the roadway capacity based on the functional class of the roadway. For example, the additional daily capacity per lane for collector roads (1,300) is significantly less than an additional highway lane (40,000). Existing traffic volumes along with the parameters in Table 8. Table 9 and Table 10 were used to determine the LOS for each roadway segment in Madison County, as shown in Figure 6. 14 Legend Level of Service Acceptable (LOS A -B) Acceptable (LOS C) — Local/County Road – – Rexburg City Limits 4000 Daily Volume Imo' V , r,a, J V' O _.1 I < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 p o v V r r V O o o - - �. ' < L0 0 M VI -0-0-V' O o AV _ 101 rr1 _ 111 111 - �-.:c9, ---- ( < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 v n ENON 2 000 _. v M 10600 AA'.10on M h _ 0000 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 < 3( upe ^ e xN 0o 0 0 Ria O V M M V V V < 3000 Y. � E66 Servire Layer DeLan: .H RE, US HERE, 0eLorme,TomTom,In .NRC N,Ean Japn, ETI,EtLQUSG&FAQ NPS. NRCAarlM Ge�ae,IGN, KeEeabr NL.ONnence Survey, Esn Jeb@n,M�T; Ee�CMnB (Hoop KonB.smss opo, MepmyllWie,DO reelMe mnlnburp .anI rM1e er Lo unity Sourus: Esn.0eLprme.HERE,USGS, InlermapJncrerreniP Cory.. NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Eatl LM1lne (HoSJ,KMp), Estl (TM1eileg�}, TomTom - I - HORROCKStarpeP•� y ul.,tw Figure 6 Existing Roadway Level of Service L `d ri I 1 l If C Ra ant Grove, UTMM3 (801)T5151W Madison County Transportation Master Plan 1 U 1 Miles V , r,a, J V' O _.1 I < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 p o v V r r V O o o - - �. ' < 0 M O o _ 3000 v ---- ( < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 v < 3000 < 3000 <3000 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 ' 16800 15500 194001- < 3000 t, I o 00 0 0 < 3000 7800 O Jj / O 0 0 V 0 O 00 O LN O o o _ r a, < 3000 Dp O M 'O "' V < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 V V �� 0 on n M ?3a �, __ V o o �O oo 0 / wlaaop v <3000 o M M 10600 `O - < 3000 < 3000 M -' -. < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 `o < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 o ^001 a ,( - o < 3000. h ' v yt` _ < 3000 A Fes" Mo o o o o w o u. _I r V o M —r V _M —: '<3600 <300o M EINQfS I A .000 4100 16800 16800 15500 `_._. 19400 "..._<3000 o O o O 0 v m Parks / .. M. ... __• O O {�-"''oo Oo p V oo 'M <3000 rnlape rcea \ O^ y v .� :-� -M V (07\)- M iJ tae3m nHaO a� m V V 7600 O t V M,= M v N r <3000 o A o 000 � o r - ' <3000 <3000<13000 3500 c < 3000 are " < 3000 .9900, 0 0 V 00 v v M 10600 AA'.10on M h _ 0000 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 < 3( upe ^ e xN 0o 0 0 Ria O V M M V V V < 3000 Y. � E66 Servire Layer DeLan: .H RE, US HERE, 0eLorme,TomTom,In .NRC N,Ean Japn, ETI,EtLQUSG&FAQ NPS. NRCAarlM Ge�ae,IGN, KeEeabr NL.ONnence Survey, Esn Jeb@n,M�T; Ee�CMnB (Hoop KonB.smss opo, MepmyllWie,DO reelMe mnlnburp .anI rM1e er Lo unity Sourus: Esn.0eLprme.HERE,USGS, InlermapJncrerreniP Cory.. NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Eatl LM1lne (HoSJ,KMp), Estl (TM1eileg�}, TomTom - I - HORROCKStarpeP•� y ul.,tw Figure 6 Existing Roadway Level of Service L `d ri I 1 l If C Ra ant Grove, UTMM3 (801)T5151W Madison County Transportation Master Plan 1 U 1 Miles There are currently no roadway segments in the County that are operating below LOS C. LOS C is IOWA experienced for travelers on Main Street between 2"d West and 2"d East and also on 2nd East between Main Street and 4th North. This same area, as well as the area of 2nd East North of 4th North, does however experience excessive delays during the peak times of day due to failing intersections. Table 11 shows the LOS during the pm peak hour for the signals on 2"d East. Under the current intersection configurations .* and timings, the signals on 2nd East at Teton Village Road and the Walmart entrance are failing at LOS F and E, respectively. Each of the signals on 2nd East is currently running free and independent of the other signals. Free operations at signals, especially during saturated flows is often desirable. However, in the case of the two closely spaced signals at Teton Village Road and the Walmart entrance, coordinating these signals would significantly improve operations along the corridor. Table 11 shows that with signal optimization, each of the intersections on 20d East can be improved to at least LOS C. There is some ,* degradation to the intersection at 11t North but this slight degradation will allow the other coordinated signals to operate at acceptable levels. Table 112 n East Signal Operations Two other areas of the County are currently operating over capacity. These areas are at the US -20 interchanges at Main Street and University Boulevard. Both interchanges are traditional diamond interchanges with unsignalized ramps. During the pm peak hours in particular, the westbound left turning lanes from Main Street onto Southbound US -20 experience severe congestion. This is a result of opposing .^ eastbound traffic, which prevents the left turning vehicles from accessing the highway ramp. A similar situation occurs at University Boulevard during the peak times of the day and especially as the high school west of US -20 lets out or a special event such as graduation or a sporting event takes place. Again, the eastbound traffic flow does not create enough gaps for the left turning vehicles to access the freeway ramps. Signalizing the interchange ramps will mitigate the existing failures and allow for better access to the highway, especially during the peak times. Table 12 shows the LOS of the highway ramp intersections „y under the existing conditions during the pm peak hour and the expected LOS when the ramps are signalized. AM 16 Table 12 US -20 Intersection Level of Service /� Intersection Unsignalized Signalized Intersection LOS • US-20/Main Street (West) F B US-20/Main Street (East) B B US-20/University (West) F B US-20/University (East) B A Bridges In total there are 80 roadway bridges in Madison County. 32 of the existing bridges are owned by ITD, 39 by Madison County, eight by the City of Rexburg and one by Sugar City. The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Database provides a methodology to determine the condition of roadway bridges based on the following conditions. Sufficiency Rating Bridge sufficiency is a method of evaluating highway bridge data by calculating four separate factors to obtain a numeric value which is indicative of bridge sufficiency to remain in service. The result of this method is a percentage, in which 100 percent would represent an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent would represent an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge. Sufficiency Rating is essentially an overall rating of a bridge's fitness for the duty that it performs based on factors derived from over 20 NBI data fields, including fields that describe Structural Evaluation, Functional Obsolescence, and necessity to the public. A low Sufficiency Rating may be due to structural defects, narrow lanes, low vertical clearance, or any other possible issues. Sufficiency Ratings less than 50 are potentially eligible for federal aid funding. Structural Evaluation Structural Evaluation is an appraisal rating that describes an overall rating of the condition of the bridge structure. This is a summary of the separately rated conditions of the structural components of a bridge. This is the most accurate measure according to the NBI for the structural fitness of a bridge. Status Functionally Obsolete Functionally Obsolete is a status used to describe a bridge that is no longer, by design, functionally adequate for its task. Reasons for this status include an insufficient number of lanes to accommodate the traffic flow, a drawbridge on a congested highway, or not enough space for emergency shoulders. Functionally Obsolete does not communicate any structural aspects. A Functionally Obsolete bridge may be perfectly safe and structurally sound, but may contribute to traffic jams or not have a high enough clearance to allow an oversized vehicle to pass under the structure. 17 ..� Structurally Deficient Aft Structurally Deficient is a status used to describe a bridge that has one or more structural defects that require attention. This status does not indicate the severity of the defect, but rather that a defect is present. For further details please see the Structural Evaluation and the Condition ratings of each bridge Deck, Substructure, and Superstructure of the nature and severity of the defect(s). 0% Condition Ratings: �► Deck ^� A bridge deck is the supporting surface of the bridge. It may or may not be covered with a wear surface such as asphalt. The bridge deck is often steel -reinforced concrete and is supported by the Superstructure. Superstructure '* The bridge Superstructure includes the structural elements that support the bridge deck. These may include steel beams, a concrete frame or culvert, steel cables and a floor beam system as used in a suspension bridge, or a steel truss. �* Substructure ^� The bridge Substructure is essentially the bridge's foundation supporting the Superstructure. This includes �w abutments and piers. Existing Bridge Conditions Of the 80 bridges in Madison County, two are functionally obsolete, five are structurally deficient, and two are eligible for federal aid funding with a sufficiency rating less than 50. Table 13 summarized the condition of the existing bridges in Madison County. The State of Idaho conforms to the national standards for bridge ratings and evaluations. Within this standard a bridge is defined as a structure that spans a distance greater than 20 feet. By this definition, any structure that spans less than 20 feet is considered a culvert. Those structures that are considered culverts are not inspected and monitored as closely as those that are considered bridges. Consequently, an accurate inventory of the condition of the culverts is not often recorded. The culvert near the intersection of 2000 W and 3000 N is high on the priority list for Madison County ODOM .-, crews. It will likely be a full replacement with V~ a three -sided stiff -leg box culvert. Additionally improvements to the bridgei over the Warm Slough is also required. Improvements may include a full replacement but should include guardrail upgrades as a minimum. Culvert near int. of 2000W and 3000N1 1E Table 13 Summary of Bridges in Madison County /► Airport The Rexburg -Madison County Airport is located in Rexburg. It is jointly owned and operated by the City of Rexburg and Madison County. It serves primarily private and agricultural aircraft. The majority of the use comes from private plans that have private hangars located on site. There has been discussions of providing a commercial service, however there is no regularly scheduled service at this airport. There is a single asphalt runway approximately 75 feet in width and 4,200 feet in length. A full length taxiway with several smaller taxiways provide access to the general aviation hangars and facilities. The City and County have continued to look toward the future by working in committees to discuss the future needs of the airport. As growth occurs, the potential for a greater air service need in Rexburg will grow. The airport configuration in Rexburg is currently landlocked and the ability to grow and expand is limited. Committees have discussed alternatives for possible relocation and expansion. Airport consulting experts have been consulted and studies are being conducted, however there are no defined plans at this time. Results from these studies are not yet finalized and are therefore not included in this master plan. Rail The 52 mile long Yellowstone Branch of the Eastern Idaho Railroad (EIRR) passes through Madison County between Idaho Falls and Ashton. The railroad runs parallel to the Old Yellowstone Highway and follows the general path similar to US 20. The Eastern Idaho Railroad started running as a collection of two disconnected clusters of the former Union Pacific branches. EIRR is owned by Watco Inc. and moves more than 35,000 carloads per year to the Union Pacific with interchanges at Idaho Falls on the northern segment and Minidoka on the Southern segment. The annual income of the EIRR is reported to be under 25 million dollars. 19 NIVIR119=111011to HUM Future traffic patterns and the resulting operating conditions of a roadway network are directly related to land use planning and socioeconomic conditions. Socioeconomic data were gathered from the Cities, the County, BYU-I and other stakeholders in the area to ensure the best available data were used. Future Socioeconomic Conditions Aft The majority of the projected socioeconomic data used in this study comes from the City and County economic development group. This data was supplemented and verified using the data provided by the City and County in the form of the adopted Land Use Plan (see Figure 7). The information given is considered the best available for predicting future travel demand. However, land use planning is a 00% dynamic process and the assumptions made in this report should be used as a guide and should not Am, supersede other planning efforts particularly when it comes to localized intersections and roadways. "* Transportation planning in the region should be a cooperative effort of state and local agencies. One of i► the purposes of the newly formed RPO is to coordinate this transportation planning process in Madison i►. County. Future Land Use In the Land Use Plan, the County has sites planned for agriculture, commercial, industrial, town sites, master planned communities as well as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, and Idaho Department of Lands. Figure 8 shows the latest Land Use Designation Map (updated March 24, .� 2015) for Madison County. The most current version can be found at http://rexburo.orglpages/Maps. ASk Ask Aft 20 .ft dene'son County Ag Land R38E R39E Fremont County Jefferson County R42 P R43 E Teton County T 07 N T06N T05N T04N Teton County ra moimmm� on .e loom v.z lw ger oae e nnol be t. WM1lapoanuMeu mispueeo IiIY aeRexbary �:� a elo Ya IM �, ��_ ___ Ilpialetl. ]9 Me2ft M�5 R 42 R38 R39E R43E cur /Y Teton Covnty T 07 N ,- R 40 E R41 E mt ;' € Teton Newdale p 6 au z Sayar City le �rvu, aa' t ,. F _ # �jLL a F i T06 N m — It mill i a �flr €aF sa zrm¢ = RA0 P a¢ f s f. e j n T05N p p � P p :F 3_ ons m .Tins g __ Ir. LIT F>w 13 ti �13 },s. y.TI dip PpM°A ¢rflxrt.wa .Mb�,m �- apN.Y ��#2 f �2 T 04 N dr , F ,w i A na Pp.wuAure Bu eauHYN MempemeM �_ Prverzfleax �„ - l ./ � �e i�� / d { llS Foner Servke �— BFe PozE i r F r y r �` L Jefferson Ccuny ron.�ar i� �' w.t " t _ Teton .Nv i-or,np- i n¢usroNeerY � m¢pl OeNYY eeiwaPYa �•� �� ill PeuLerAw �`� 4u a,N P' Bonneville County 10 wwmee m mre m>e,. ra remm,m. uW>r.e. n rw.rm xss pWeo¢e¢m.ry rn>arterveoumr .a>....or rze.ewq a>rerNx.a re.p¢�Mem ror n,�,¢nx.em¢. �* Travel Model Development One of the primary outcomes of the Transportation Master Plan was to develop a regional Travel Demand Model for the entire County. This model is intended to be a living model in that it can be run and ,.` maintained to project future travel demand for years to come. There are several travel demand modeling software packages available on the market but the model chosen for Madison County was TransCAD. A travel demand model was developed that is compatible with the surrounding jurisdictions, including Bonneville County and the BMPO. The TransCAD model was built from scratch, as Madison County did not previously have a travel demand model. The input data came from observed traffic counts, trip lengths and types from the BMPO and BTPO, socioeconomic information from the City of Rexburg and Madison County Community Development Department as well as information from the US census, and BYU-I. The model was calibrated to existing roadway conditions and a root mean squared error calculated. ..� Typically, an acceptable calibration yields an RMSE error less than 40%. The Madison County model RMSE was less than 30% in the existing conditions. Once this calibration was achieved, several model alternatives were processed to get an idea for the traffic conditions that can be expected in the future and then determine the best solutions to solve any potential deficiencies in the roadway network. No - build and build scenarios were developed for the design year 2040, the short term planning horizon year of 2020 and the medium term planning year, 2030. T No Build Network .r► A no -build scenario is intended to show what the roadway network would be like in the future if no action was taken to improve the County roadway network. Typically, the no -build scenario acts as a guide for roadway capacity inefficiencies that will need to be improved for each planning year. ,^ Future Roadway Network �► The goal of the TMP is to provide a transportation network which will accommodate traffic at an acceptable LOS through the year 2040. In order to accomplish this, several roadways and intersections in the County will need to be improved. Each horizon year was modeled to determine the best course of action to take to mitigate any future deficiencies. The following sections detail the findings of the travel demand modeling for each of the planning years. 2020 Conditions ,^ With a projected population of 46,000 in 2020, there is moderate but not insignificant growth expected in Madison County. Much of this growth is expected in the commercial areas to the North of Rexburg and some out to the West close to the high school. This new growth will cause volumes on the major roadways in the City to increase and in some cases exceed the allowed capacity. 2020 No Build Figure 9 shows the projected traffic volumes and LOS on the Madison County roadways if no roadway improvements are made before the year 2020. 23 Legend Level of Service Acceptable (LOS A -B) Acceptable (LOS C) Unacceptable (LOS E) — Local/County Road —••—r Rexburg City Limits 4000 Daily Volume Existina Level Of SE m O m 2000 0 p) +r.., �Dfr: l 0 0 m 4300 Id �'I11 -Y Trl 6000 0 0 v 1 00 j 1100 1q0 29w•n�•+I� N o o ro ' 1., j O -. •.�`..T � O C O � aa•1 d rail _ _ _ _ /Y/ N N p... Lu"' 2000 L;0 2200 3900 1 _ w �aaa N 1 I 1 eagle paj 1 I o p o ------------- A 1 I L 5360'".7 5400 5400 5500 e ,16300 2200 1 rgharnYoun n icer sity• Ide Ifo o 1 i 1 M r 1..—..� 5100 ! Se Lryel Dedlls Sources'End HERE DeLarme TpmTom Inlermap ncremenlPCOR. GERCO, USGG, PAO!NPS Ni C�J�Base IGN Ketlasler NL, Ordnanu Sorvey Eafi JapeR METI Ea11 CM1 (M gNonB)awisslopo. Mapmylndla 00 ealAl. wnNbuto end iM1e GlG User Co 1 Soo ces Ead, DeLarme HERE USGS Inlermap mcnlreniP GorD-NRCAN Ean Japan METI EsrI CM1lna (Hong Kong), Esn (IM1a d), TomTom I � , d i HORROCKS s11; 1--n—p•n—y Figure 9 Projected 2020 No -Build Level of Service I. a I I c le q eaaaam cm.e. ur wceg Madison County Transportation Master Plan M,leS 1 leo,l Laa.slo0 g ..y-'�*2 ��a',.. ♦'' I ice, AV% Projected Deficiencies "* It is likely that the growth to the North of Rexburg will cause 2nd East to enter a failing condition, particularly between Main Street and 4th North. With volumes expected to exceed 27,000 vehicles per day on this section of roadway, the existing seven lane road section will not be able to maintain LOS C or better. Other parts of 2nd East, around the US -20 intersection and the area between 4' North and 7' North, as well as the south end on campus between 41h South and 7th South will experience some congestion at LOS Aft C. Main Street, between 2"d West and 2"d East, will also experience LOS C. Solutions to Projected Problems The areas which are experiencing LOS C should be monitored regularly as they are pushing the limits of acceptability. Care should be taken to ensure that travel demands do not exceed the roadway capacity. If .� this were to be the case then some of the solutions proposed for the 2030 condition should be advanced "'► to the short term priority list. 1"° East 5olution Travel demand on 20d East between Main Street and 4th North is expected to be too high to be accommodated on the existing 5 -lane roadway section. Several options were explored to mitigate these deficiencies. One option would be to widen 2nd East to three travel lanes in each direction. Due to the nature of the T corridor as the commercial center of Rexburg, such a large cross section would be potentially detrimental to the economic vitality of the area. The other option is to introduce a one-way couplet to the roadway. This is a common practice in A% downtown areas with similar configurations utilized to great effect such as in downtown Pocatello and Boise. This is a new concept in Madison County and should be treated with caution and should only be considered along with an extensive public outreach effort. The couplet would essentially limit traffic on 2nd east to three travel lanes in one direction, which would allow for expanded on -street parking, bike ,► facilities and pedestrian facilities. In order for a couplet to function correctly and not require too much .� out of direction travel, it is preferable that the street used for the opposite direction travel be no more one block away. In this case that would be either on 3`d East or 1st East. In either case, the couplet required in 2020 would include three travel lanes in the opposing direction to 2nd East and would terminate at 4th North where it would join back to 2nd East and continue north as a two-way arterial. Figure it shows a conceptual layout of the 2nd East couplet using 3rd East as the alternate direction and terminating at 4th �► North. All of the options discussed above are feasible. This is a large scale project and would likely only be �► affordable for the City through Federal Funding. Using Federal Funding would mean that a full environmental study would be required to determine which alternative is least impactful. 25 M, f 1 I v 4 xg I k + - �' 2nd East Couplet y.' `- r �- �: 3rd East Option Interim Couplet � + r one - y wa reverts +• ' back to two-way if ;sS� S a implemented eKO Ar 1`, ►'; °R.1.."a �� -, All traffic on 2nd East 01 lanes o uthward in three - 2 East �z j: %.It I •� ,� n ,� a .. � I f � �;� � - i� � � s . k pp °i�p1! t`j1 ry x 9 1 t, R It v 3rd East ' All traffic on 3rd East i `; flows northward in- a'S i three lanes IIS ux... If 4 V� ' i 1 IT IT °� `• New Bridge over the x ', ° , Teton River Required AL1, �i 1 rI s road Reauired Alignment shown is intended as schematic only and does not represent a preferred alignment. Connectivity and general concept is intended by this figure only. Q �� Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City 2 cis date 2015 3Transportation Master Plan U s� p p 2030 Conditions The population of Madison County in 2030 is expected to be approximately 55,000 people. Growth again is expected north of Rexburg and on the west side of US -20. There will also be some growth around the T University Boulevard highway interchange. T 2030 No Build Figure 12 shows the projected traffic volumes and LOS on the Madison County roadways if no roadway improvements are made before the year 2030. ,^ Projected Deficiencies With no roadway improvements several areas of the City of Rexburg are likely to experience failing Aft conditions in 2030. These areas are confined to Main Street and 2"d East but they are extensive along these two corridors. Volumes are expected to exceed capacity of the 7 -lane section on 2nd East between Main Street and 7" North (an extension of the deficiencies noted in the 2020 conditions). 2nd East at the •h US -20 interchange is also expected to fail as commercial development occurs along the 2nd East corridor and as residential neighborhoods are constructed to the west of Sugar City. This two-lane roadway will not handle the expected traffic in 2030. 2nd East on the eastside of BYU-I campus is also expected to exceed capacity as the University builds new housing and parking for expansion. The final area of failure is Main Street from the 2000 West to 71" West. Currently a five -lane section, the predicted volumes in excess of 24,000 vehicles per day are likely to exceed the capacity in this area as more and more travelers nA are attracted to the center of town from US -20. 00% The remainder of Main Street from 7`" West to 2nd East will be approaching capacity at a population of .w, 55,000 people in 2030. Again, this should be monitored and the extents of any project mitigated to ensure the Main Street failures are adjusted based on actual conditions. .� Solutions to Projected Problems The areas which are experiencing LOS C should be monitored regularly as they are pushing the limits of acceptability and care should be taken that travel demands do not exceed the roadway capacity. If this were to be the case then some of the solutions proposed for the 2040 condition should be advanced to the medium term priority list. Figure 13 shows the proposed projects to meet the 2030 travel demands. 2"d East Moody Road to 3000 North As commercial development increases north of Rexburg and residential development occurs west of Sugar City and north of US -20, the need to provide efficient access to and from US -20 on the north end of town will become paramount. The roadway is currently unimproved with no sidewalk, curb and gutter, etc. There is only one lane in each direction, with no two -way -left -turn lane. As development occurs along AN this section, these improvements will need to be made along with an expansion to five lanes. This configuration will be consistent with the 2nd East section south of Yellowstone Highway. 2nd East from Main Street to 7`" South Aft Campus oriented traffic along 2nd East will be increasingly attracted to the new commercial development on the north end of 2nd East. This poses significant problems as 2nd East south of Main Street is not T 28 T designed to handle the large volume of traffic expected in 2030. The other problem lies in the close proximity to BYU-1 and the high pedestrian traffic found on 2nd East through campus. 2nd East is already a hotspot for pedestrian/vehicle crashes and every effort should be made to eliminate these conflicts in the interest of safety. The main area for pedestrian activity lies between 2nd South and 7th South. Minimizing vehicular traffic on this stretch should be a high priority in 2030. This can be achieved by employing some of the traffic calming techniques described in a later section of this report. Calming 2nd East between 2nd South and 71h South will discourage pass-through traffic while still allowing local traffic access to campus and the surrounding neighborhoods. 2nd West, which is already a five -lane road section with enhanced pedestrian facilities, such as a HAWK signal, should be the preferred route for non -local traffic. 2nd South can also be used as an alternative to Main Street between 2nd West and 2nd East, especially with some of the University parking located on 2"d South. This requires increased capacity on 2"d East from 2nd South to Main Street. Widening to four lanes in this area will allow the segment to operate at LOS C or better without too much impact to the existing residences along the roadway. University Boulevard, High School to 3000 West With development to the west of the high school, there will be a need for a new connection from the high school to 4000 West. Although in 2030 it is expected that a three lane road will be sufficient, right of way should be preserved for a five -lane cross section. 29 Legend oo t < 3000 < 3000 I o V Level of Service _ 1 i 1 5 .—eL—•M € V .7600 Acceptable (LOS A -B) 767 Acceptable (LOS C) < 3000 �- 3500 o s Unacceptable (LOS D) o0 0 $ Unacceptable (LOS E) M V i Unacceptable (LOS F) g <3000<3000� — Local/County Road r layer Credlls:sources. EUI, HERE, OeLotme: Tommi pm,Intermep,IncrementPCorp., GfaCO, USGS, FRO, NPS, NRLNN.G ne.IGN, Ka Eari CM1lne (Hmg Kong), Eari (TM1eil d1, TomTom, Ma S Sources: Sen. HERE, C.Lorme, USGS, Inn ap, cerement P Corp.. NRCAN, EO Japen.METI, 1 —••— Rexburg City Limits o 0 M 4000 Daily Volume i HORR�OCKS -' VF <3000 <3000 > ExI ing Level of Service 0 - < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 _ 0 V <3000 <3000 o m _ 1 1 " b .......... 00< 0 1000 • 3000 0 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 <3 00 t --- o 0 000 • <3000 ..E4Vprt —.L �� V y //•f {�Ixc� Y H.e torq < 3000 0 1:: - i V V V wtwgN1. 1 <3000 3300 I 1 3000 < 3000. .." • 1 .. -......... �..-..-.. • Eaq,e Payl <.., �.. �, � v <3000 . I O �o < 3000 < 3000 0 Peer 0 0 ^� N.,...M q V ' M —0 < 3000 < 3000 4100 `16800 `�"168001 V 15500 . ` 19400-• -1 < 3000 �,,. -„ - ,. o _T.... FM —: 0 S-- i 3700 _ {vl ( I i i <3000 <302030'No-Build Level of Service <3000 O \ S pbn Le or ca a I v✓ 0 a — Or ce survey. Esri Jap ETI, Sari CM1ina(H pKon,sW.eWp.,M.pmylnd..rS0, nSU.ctM.Pc-nburom,and Ne Glsyaef d open . n,e dme G"user mead Figure 12 2030 No -Build LOS Madison County Master Transportation Plan w Me oo t < 3000 < 3000 I o V _ 1 i 1 5 .—eL—•M € V .7600 767 < 3000 �- 3500 o J.9900 Nu,n., < 3000 1 I o0 o $ 0 M i V g 10600 I S Service layer Credlls:sources. EUI, HERE, OeLotme: Tommi pm,Intermep,IncrementPCorp., GfaCO, USGS, FRO, NPS, NRLNN.G ne.IGN, Ka Eari CM1lne (Hmg Kong), Eari (TM1eil d1, TomTom, Ma S Sources: Sen. HERE, C.Lorme, USGS, Inn ap, cerement P Corp.. NRCAN, EO Japen.METI, 1 i HORR�OCKS I n 6 1 N ! {vl ( I i i <3000 <302030'No-Build Level of Service <3000 O \ S pbn Le or ca a I v✓ 0 a — Or ce survey. Esri Jap ETI, Sari CM1ina(H pKon,sW.eWp.,M.pmylnd..rS0, nSU.ctM.Pc-nburom,and Ne Glsyaef d open . n,e dme G"user mead Figure 12 2030 No -Build LOS Madison County Master Transportation Plan w Me 05 0 ®Miles 05 2040 Conditions The population of Madison County in 2040 is expected to be approximately 64,000 people. 2040 No Build ,^ Figure 14 shows the projected traffic volumes and LOS on the Madison County roadways if no roadway improvements are made before the year 2040. Projected Deficiencies With no roadway improvements, several areas of the City of Rexburg are likely to experience failing conditions in 2040. In addition to the areas mentioned in the 2020 and 2030 analysis, University Boulevard from 3000 west to Yellowstone Highway is also expected to reach a failing condition by the year 2040. ,^ Solutions to Projected Problems .� As with the short and medium term scenario, areas which are experiencing LOS C should be monitored regularly as they push the limits of acceptability and care should be taken that travel demands do not exceed the roadway capacity. The following paragraphs describe the solutions proposed to mitigate the projected traffic congestion in 2040, as graphically represented in Figure 15. A, 2nd East Couplet Extension A% The roadway project discussed previously from Main Street to 4th North, whether that be a widening or a couplet, will have to be extended north. By the year 2040 it is anticipated that the project will need to be extended beyond 4th North to Yellowstone Highway. This will require significant right of way purchase through some sensitive agricultural land for the 11 East option, through wetlands for the 311 East option, ,^ or more right-of-way through the commercial corridor. A bridge over the river or bridge widening would be required in each scenario. Due to the large cost of this project, it is likely that federal funding will be required to complete the project. As such, a full scale environmental analysis of the potential impacts of the project will need to be completed and the alternative of least impact selected. Aft Main Street, 12th West to 51h West Oak Increased traffic from US -20 will cause Main Street in the vicinity of the US -20 interchange to experience LOS E with almost 30,000 vehicles per day using the roadway. Main Street west of town is already wide enough to accommodate 7 Lanes of traffic and restriping this configuration would allow the road to sustain travel demand long into the future. Access restrictions should be placed on Main Street to ensure that the road is able to function properly as an arterial street designed to carry traffic to and from the downtown area and the University. The 7 lane section will need to pass under the Highway and extend out to 12`h West. University Boulevard, 12`h West to Yellowstone Highway University Boulevard is the main highway exit for BYU-1 and as enrollment increases there will become more and more congestion. It is also likely that development will happen along the University Boulevard corridor and this will also add to the congestion experienced by traffic using the US -20 interchange. ^� Widening University Boulevard to 7 Lanes from 121h West to Yellowstone Highway will mitigate this ..� condition and allow the roadway to function at an acceptable LOS. 32 .o US -20 Interchanges OW As previously discussed, the two main interchanges of US -20 in Rexburg, Main Street and University Boulevard, will see great increases in traffic volume over the next 25 years. This increase in traffic will unlikely be handled by the traditional diamond interchange configurations that currently exist, even with signalized on and off ramps. ITD monitors the conditions of these interchanges and it is likely that a full interchange reconstruction will be needed in 2040 at both locations. The most likely scenario would be to reconstruct the interchanges in conjunction with the roadway widening of Main Street and University Boulevard and have the interchanges reconfigured as Single Point Urban Interchanges (SPUI). A SPUI is a type of interchange where the arterial and ramp entrances/exits are controlled by a single traffic signal. This type of interchange can be more efficient than a traditional diamond interchange and can take up less space. Main Street, 12`h West to 3000 West With traffic volumes in excess of 13,000 vehicles per day, Main Street west of US -20 will also need to be addressed as development occurs on the west side of US -20. This will require a 5 lane arterial street similar in lane configuration as exists currently on Main Street east of US -20. University Boulevard, 121h West to 4000 West Similar to Main Street, University Boulevard west of US -20 to 4000 West will need to be widened to five lanes by the year 2040. This will allow greater access to US -20 from the west side and also improve operations around the high school. 33 Legend Level of Service Acceptable (LOS A -B) Acceptable (LOS C) Unacceptable (LOS D) Unacceptable (LOS E) Unacceptable (LOS F) — Local/County Road —••— Rexburg City Limits 4000 Daily Volume Existing Level of Service S O O < 3000 v < 3000 < 3000 v o 0 � 0- 0 <3000- V. V 1 1 r Iv < 3000 <3000 A < 30001 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 <'3000 0 77 ----------- 00 ...,,� <3000 OF' <3000 '3000 r g ^ry� V WI N 1 < 3000 < 300( M V V � / n i w o M c < 3000 . `� < 3000 V -L1680016800 v 15500 19400 ' 3000 , . 1.. 4100 __ I'elmi � 3000 ro • O 1—+vue50 M O V 1 r V o 5100 .� V � M n o$,9900 i g W N J o . � 1 <3000- 13500 0 _ <3000 M g M a HORROCKS 1 0 _ - �. V rp o TT1V 108UU 24600 724600 r _ <3000- Iv 1p uw],.,11 < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 <'3000 ----------- 4700 <3000 '3000 r g ^ry� M V V 8 V V 8 V __ I'elmi l 5100 j ten.0 v 6000 i g 0 a HORROCKS 0 - �. __-.-....-__-------- 0 V Madison County Master Transportation Plan 0.0 05 0 ®5 '3000 00 V a° '3000 '3000 '3000 0 O 4500 v O° o '3000 ^OM v 0 0 0 0 o Op V - 1� -••-j 2040 No -Build Level of Service <3000 <3000 <3000 I 4000 <3000 <3000 '3000 0 0 v '3000 N '� 0 0 g <3000 V <3000 4500 v V - It C." (0 I M V ue: ; V v O^ '3000 <3000- < 3000 < 30 0 10y° 7500 7 0 0 M 4800 M V v v V v <3000 -3600 I:g 29800 •o. O° i 6200 13 o M <3000 <3000 A� <3000 4000 <3000 11200UL <3000 •<3000 V V •} o.� n 5500 N�•< 3000 ",�O`'° t _ v V 6 24600• 0 ^p 10500 .g +••� btn .ut " r w+«ox V O° • 7 , ,�..._.._.. 7 r..�. '3000 0 <3000 4700 <3000 '3000 3900 l"'•T; '-• vnA —1- L..j I.O �, O v <3000 4800' b� <3000 I �°�° v N rn o o On•� ^ � ! 1 <3000_;r`5 3600 V 1 M m;'.29800 ' 24600 26200 <3000 ' 1 0 V V „ ro p00 n 13100 N ^ r�._s $ 3800 '0 3200 1 i.ro„-' _J I V. I IY 1 °p L77 11200 V 4300 '3000 - N 108UU 24600 724600 Iv < 3000 < 3000 < 3000 <'3000 ----------- 4700 <3000 '3000 f '30001 8 V V 8 V Vy l j ten.0 v i g e , a HORROCKS Figure 142040 No -Build LOS e r i a c u s Madison County Master Transportation Plan 0.0 05 ®5 a+•. .e _.� ® ..w � ,..:_ i +',,. e. ' � •"i 1 `,' y�. e,� _-,; � i. '+� � .r .>+ r � � fir, + 1 st East/ 2nd East � � • f t {' • .. . Couplet Option �. , ,z� € It - r� -0 rt4Y � � �j r_ � O � tet"_, . i "�,$r'' � . } _ ^4'$av .•E y s "y� > s E S 5 s 1+ - ' Z11 r.. '� "f' ♦. to . _ } _ r `# t _ a #1 f Yrfl`-g� + 11 s e p f '-'R � � � +,.. _..."� '"'l r• j ` *.. 'a � , ,4 /r _. 1 ( � � � }f}�& trY �� 3 ..1 :§.'. ,: : pq'g f� a�P Traffic South -bound g [ Ali nment shown is intended as schematic one-way on 1st East ' < $, only and does not represent a preferred g f alignment. Connectivity and general concept is intended by this figure only. _ 1st East , v It e + j f _.. y a •1 in !� -1 1� . 4 f ' / a. ' � � } s I j p}. i r'y }$ � ,� 1•,� a �i -i �.. r t t 1 r 2nd East •'` k . Traffic Northbound t- j one-way on 2nd East 3rd `li '_ � � I ; F , _, . ,. • Y �;-_..., O/0 O ) P b r Z •� t N . h . i > � - •• ` •' �. `. a g`I( . p t �i.5 �i ,r ^* The Vision Beyond 2040 While the planning year horizon for this study is 2040, it is prudent to look beyond that year to the future ^" to determine generally what transportation needs may arise. The purpose of thisvision outlook is to allow the City/County policy makers to protect the corridors that may be needed for transportation in the future. This can be done by restricting access on roadways that will need to function as arterial streets as well as preserving the right-of-way for new roads and roadway widening projects. Several areas of the City and County were studied and specific projects identified that will likely be needed at some point in 'T time beyond 2040 or when the population of Madison County exceeds 64,000. These projects are identified in Figure 17 and are described in the following paragraphs. 5th West Extension 0114 A% The 5th West extension project from Main Street to Moody Road has been on the planning radar for a number of years and was explored as an option to help alleviate traffic in 2nd East. Travel demand modeling results indicated that this project would not have a significant effect on 2nd East traffic to be a '* viable solution to that problem. It is however, very likely that a collector type roadway will be needed to w� connect Main Street to Moody Road on the west side of town as development occurs close to US -20. This ,^ project will provide that needed connection. The timing of the need for this project will depend entirely on development on the west side of town. A% US -20 Overpasses In urban areas it is common to have highway crossings between each of the major interchanges. There are not currently any US -20 overpasses in the Rexburg area. This means the interchanges bear the brunt .^ of any traffic trying to cross the highway in the east -west direction. This is incredibly inefficient as typically highway interchanges should be used predominately for traffic entering and exiting the highway. Cross traffic generally means an interchange will need longer signal cycle lengths, more lanes and will therefore not function optimally. Removing the cross traffic from an interchange can extend its operational life to that of its functional or structural life and reduce the cost of expensive reconstruction and expansion. Highway crossings are costly and will likely be funded with State or Federal monies. Three highway ,^ crossing locations are proposed as part of the Vision plan and include: Dnp 1000 North The 2000 North/Moody Road crossing would connect the east and west sides of US -20 on the north end ,^ of Rexburg with a two lane overpass. This will allow residents of existing communities northwest of Rexburg to access the commercial hubs in town without using US -20 and the interchanges. This new crossing will connect to the proposed 5th West extension and provide efficient north -south access as well. 7th South 7th South currently consists of dead ends on both sides of US -20. The road is therefore a good candidate for a crossing between University Boulevard and Main Street. There is a great deal of development expected west of US -20 in this area of town around the high school. A 71h South crossing will allow travelers access to local facilities without the need to go through the interchanges. There may need to be 37 some widening of 7th South to accommodate left turning traffic, similarly the railroad crossing near Yellowstone Highway will also need to be addressed. 20005outh 2000 South/Poleline Road is south of University Boulevard and is a popular road for cyclists. Providing a crossing in this location will encourage cyclists as well as passenger car vehicles on the south end of Rexburg to avoid the University Boulevard interchange. East Parkway Corridor The East Parkway Corridor has been studied extensively over the past few years as an essential regional transportation project. The timing of the East Parkway Corridor will depend solely on development along its proposed route. As an alternative to Main Street and 2n' East traffic, the East Parkway does not solve any problems as it is more a belt route connecting the south end of town with Sugar City. Travelers are currently using US -20 rather than 2n" East so the East Parkway Corridor does not change the local traffic on 2 n East. As development occurs to the east of Rexburg, an arterial facility will be needed to connect this development to US -20 and it is favorable that this facility be a belt route around Rexburg rather than a connection to the existing street network. The full East Parkway Corridor study is provided as an appendix to this report for reference. M3 Legend Functional Class Highway MajorArterial Minor Arterial ® Collector — Local/County Road –• – Rexburg City Limits ` I — Madison County Border 1 L1 1 n A, N�•. dIU r e S ,i I € � 3 jA g S e 9 ) � f ) j , p LfYe E PJk L f 6 1 IE SaMce Layer Cretlla: Saumes. Earl HERE DeLorme, TomTom Inlermep ncement P Corp., GESCO. USGS,,PAO,rNPS, P Souroea: Ean.HERE. GeLorme,USGS,Inlermeg increment P Corp., NRCAN. Earl Japan. E Den. METL Een China (Hoop Kong), HORROCKS dmvreal Grara P..M.y d ,W onaaoo L IN li I V 1_ I k , Ple,;16tGmre, uaeaaz IBofl i6}510D V BI. 7th South Overpass H aline Rd�-F Poleline Road Overpass V1z 1�U) o' v�S y At a44� _� z yha',", ;' z o Moody Road Z` Overpass 0 Over ass 15th West E r silo: Extension I BI. 7th South Overpass H aline Rd�-F Poleline Road Overpass V1z 1�U) o' v�S y At a44� _� z ir1 ce Gun'eg Eari JaPan,METI,E1CMWSW PO, Kon Mapp, Mapmylndia, 00-adSlrenM D nonlrbul sand the GIS Uaer nSVaelMap coniiEuton, and the 11 Lear p Figure 17 Vision Network Madison County Master Transportation Plan 7th SOUth yha',", ;' Overpass 1 Z E 9th N ' W 3000 N z E 7th N E 1000 N Poleline Road Over ass z � . .,D Moody Road Overpass 3 I y? East Parkway Corridor 5th West 3 Extension — Z E real len c - `o POleline Rd d _LE UU ir1 ce Gun'eg Eari JaPan,METI,E1CMWSW PO, Kon Mapp, Mapmylndia, 00-adSlrenM D nonlrbul sand the GIS Uaer nSVaelMap coniiEuton, and the 11 Lear p Figure 17 Vision Network Madison County Master Transportation Plan 7th SOUth yha',", ;' Overpass I Poleline Rd Poleline Road Over ass E East Parkway Corridor 11 Intersection Improvements Any type of potential intersection improvement, including additional turn lanes on existing roadways, 0% traffic signals, roundabouts, and geometrical improvements will be considered. The City and County must „* approve the recommended improvements on streets prior to creating any specific improvements. This plan indicates the places where intersection improvements may be made but does not specify the type of improvement. Multiple options will likely be feasible at each location and each location should be studied and analyzed individually. Right-of-way requirements and widening will depend on the type of treatment selected for each intersection. Asa part of this TMP, all types of intersection improvements, such as traffic signals, roundabouts, and stop -controlled intersections will be discussed. T T The City of Rexburg suggested several intersections for study to determine if improvements would be needed in the future. These intersections were analyzed based on existing pm peak hour traffic counts and were modeled to determine the current operating level of service. The same intersections were then studied under a projected future scenario (2040) to determine any future likelihood for deficiencies. Again the pm peak hour was used for analysis and the measure of performance was level of service. Table 14 shows the results of the intersection analysis and identifies several intersections that should be monitored in the future as candidates for improvements. Table 14 Intersection Analysis Intersection 2nd East & Moody Road 2012 LOS C 2040 LOS F Control Type Stop Proposed Mitigation Signalize Yellowstone & Moody Road B F Stop Signalize/Roundabout 2nd East & Yellowstone A C Signalized 2nd East & Teton River Village E F Signalized Re-Time/Co-ordinate 2nd East & Valley River Drive F F Stop Signalize 2nd West & 1st North B E Stop Signalize/Roundabout Main Street & Hwy 20 (West) F F Stop Signalize Main Street & Hwy 20 (East) C F Stop Signalize Main Street & 12th West C F Signalized Re-Time/Co-ordinate 1st West & 2nd South B B Stop 500 West & 4th South B C Stop Yellowstone & Trejo Street D F Stop Signalize/Roundabout 5th West & 700 South B D Stop Signalize/Roundabout 12th West & University Blvd A F Signalized Re-Time/Co-ordinate University Blvd & Hwy 20 (West) F F Stop Signalize University Blvd & Hwy 20 (East) B F Stop Signalize 5th West & University Blvd B F Stop Signalize/Roundabout 2nd East & 7`" North B F Stop Signalize* 4% *Signalize only if 2nd East is widened Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City Trans ortation Master Plan Update 2015 Trac Signals as Intersection Improvements Traffic signals may be warranted at the intersection of any two roadways depending upon the signal warrants outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The design of the traffic signal depends primarily on the amount of traffic passing through the intersection during the peak times of day. Design parameters that are essential to a well-designed signalized intersection include lane configuration, turn radii, turn pocket lengths and taper lengths. Each of these parameters are a function of the road classification, peak hour volume, and design speed. Traffic signals in Rexburg should only be considered at intersections along arterial roadways. The following section discusses the guidelines for installing new traffic signals. Traffic Signal Warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices The need for new traffic signals will be based on warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and any additional warrants established by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Traffic progression is important in determining the location of a new signal. Generally, a minimum spacing of one-half mile for all signalized intersections should be maintained. The one-half mile spacing is usually desirable to achieve decent speed, capacity, and optimum signal progression. The one-half mile signal spacing standard may be relaxed on lower volume collector streets where an engineering study shows traffic progression can be maintained. The signal cycle split assumptions must consider pedestrian movements and clearance. To provide flexibility for existing conditions and to ensure optimum two-way signal progression, an approved traffic engineering analysis must be made to properly locate all proposed access points that may require signalization. The section of roadway to be analyzed for signal progression will be determined by the City and will include all existing and future signalized intersections. A traffic control signal should only be installed if and when the warrant criteria outlined in Chapter 4C of the MUTCD are met. It is possible to predict where traffic control signals may be warranted in the future based on projected traffic volumes and roadway functional classifications. A traffic control signal may be warranted at intersections containing at least one arterial and one collector street. They are rarely warranted where two collector streets meet and almost never warranted where local streets connect. Traffic signals are typically not warranted when other traffic control devices such as modern roundabouts or mini -roundabouts are recommended. Signal Timing One method that will need to be maintained regularly is traffic signal timing. As traffic volumes continue to increase, the signal timing can be improved to optimize the performance of the traffic signal. Since many of the signals in the area are ITD owned and operated, coordination with ITD is essential to assure that all traffic signal timing is updated regularly to maintain adequate traffic flow. Queuing Analysis A 95th percentile (using Poisson's distribution) queue length will be used as the basis of storage length design and verification of the adequacy of existing storage lengths. Alternative methodologies, such as the Synchro 95th percentile length calculations may be used with City approval. At signalized intersections, a background cycle length of 120 seconds will be assumed. Green times for specific 41 movements will be based on the movement's proportion of the critical lane volume, subject to phase minimums. Minimum green times will be assumed to be 10 seconds for through movements and 4 seconds for left turns. Yellow change and red clearance intervals will be assumed to be 3 seconds and 1 second, respectively, for left turn movements and 4 seconds and 1 second, respectively, for through movements. For lane groups that have multiple lanes, a lane utilization factor, in accordance with the HCM methodology, shall be applied to the calculation of queue lengths. Deceleration Lanes for Right Turning Vehicles A right turn deceleration lane is required when any one or more of the following criteria is met: Where the design hour volume of the right turn into the access is less than five and the outside lane volume exceeds 250 on 45 to 55 mph roadways, 400 on 35 to 40 mph roadways, or 600 on a 25 to 30 mph roadway, a right turn lane may be required due to high traffic volumes or other unique site specific safety considerations. Oe When the access volume meets or exceeds 25 design hour volume for roadways with speeds of 25 to 40 mph or 20 design hour volume for roadways with speeds in excess of 40 mph, a right turn deceleration lane will be required. Roundabouts as Intersection Improvements ^1 According to FHWA, many international studies have found that one of the most significant benefits of a roundabout installation is the improvement in overall safety performance. Specifically in the United States, it has been found that single -lane roundabouts are safer for drivers than two-way stop -controlled intersections. The frequency of crashes might not always be lowered at roundabouts, but the injury rates and severity of crashes are reduced. On a planning level, it can be assumed that roundabouts will provide T higher capacity and lower delays than all -way stop control, but less than two-way stop control if the minor movements are not experiencing operational problems. A single -lane roundabout may be assumed to operate within its capacity at any intersection that does not exceed peak -hour volumes warranted for signals. A roundabout that operates within its capacity will generally produce lower delays than a signalized intersection operating with the same traffic volumes and right-of-way limitations. Mini -roundabouts are a type of roundabout characterized by a small diameter and traversable islands (central island and splitter islands). Mini -roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. As with roundabouts, mini -roundabouts are a type of intersection rather than merely a traffic calming measure, although they may produce some traffic calming effects. According to the published Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) technical summary (FHWA-SA-10-007), there are three applications for mini roundabouts: ,^ Space Constrained locations with reasonable approach speeds (30 mph or less): Since A% mini -roundabouts require less space than larger roundabouts, they may be a solution when a larger roundabout does not fit, provided that incoming speeds are reasonable 'I, :• Residential environments: Mini -roundabouts offer a low -speed, low -noise intersection option that requires little ongoing maintenance Intersections with high delay: A mini -roundabout can be an ideal application to reduce delay at stop -controlled intersections that do not meet signal warrants 42 Mini -roundabouts are common in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and France and are emerging in the United r.► States (including states such as Maryland and Michigan), Germany, and other countries. Madison County A will consider the application of mini -roundabouts in the future according to the guidelines given by the FH WA. P► (Reference: "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide", U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067). Stop -Control as lntersectlon Improvements Wherever possible the City is encouraged to use roundabouts to control traffic on low to medium volume roadways. In cases where this is not feasible due to financial restraints or sight distance concerns, stop - control may be an appropriate intersection treatment. Four-way stop control should be avoided on collector streets and prohibited on arterial streets where possible. In all cases stop controlled intersections should follow the guidelines and warrants set forth in the MUTCD. 43 Rural Madison County• • - Many of the improvements in and around the City of Rexburg are driven by travel demand and the projected congestion that will occur with population growth. For the rest of the County, including Sugar City, the existing system will provide a projected level of service A through the year 2040. Although not driven by travel demand, the connectivity for the traveling public, safety for motorists as well as EMS response and commerce for farm to market and businesses of the rural part of the County has been ^, studied. A capital improvement plan has been developed for the rural areas of the Counties and priorities have been developed based a consensus of the most pressing needs by the study and by the input of the public and stakeholders. Aft US — 20 and State Highway 33 ITD owns and maintains US -20 and State Highway 33 within rural Madison County. These two facilities are the most important links within the County for north/south and east/west travel. The travel demand A% model study indicates that with the exception of SH -33 and the interchange ramps within Rexburg as noted previously, both of these roadways will provide adequate capacity through 2040. The corridor plans for US -20 and SH -33 have outlined plans for these roadways that limit access and promote through traffic ^� as efficiently as possible. Continued coordination with ITD to maintain these facilities and coordinate with the goals of these plans is in the best interest of Madison County. The primary goals from the objectives A% of the US 20 plan elements, as they are completed that most impact Madison County, include: • Eliminate at -grade intersections on the four lane, divided portion of the corridor o Consolidate roadways into fewer points of access o Eliminate turning movements other than right turns at at -grade intersections as an interim measure o Replace the at -grade intersections that are to remain as access points with grade separated interchanges overtime o Develop parallel roads or frontage roads to carry local traffic to the roads with interchanges A • Access management that would prevent any additional direct access to US 20 �► The construction of the Thornton Interchange and the subsequent closures of the at -grade intersections between the County line and the University Blvd Interchange are steps in incrementing the corridor plan. As the US 20 plan is implemented with the Thornton Interchange, adaptation by the rural network the results are imperative for a successful system. Success will be achieved when active coordination between ITD, the Cities and Madison County focus on two major, common goals. These goals include 1) coordinated effort to plan for responsible access permitting and 2) a continued effort to provide �► connectivity to the US -20 and SH -33. 1) Access Management for the US -20 and SH -33 should maintain the standard as accepted by ITD. US -20, as a divided highway has controlled access and as future improvements occur US -20 will only be accessed at interchanges. SH -33 is a primary business arterial where direct access is very common. The ITD standard should be reviewed for each approach as re -development applications are considered. Opportunities to reduce friction in traffic flow and improve safety should be a priority to all entities as re -development applications are considered. 2) Connectivity to these major corridors will provide a vital linkage for all types of traffic within Madison County. As interchanges are implemented and at -grade facilities are removed from US - 20, connectivity to the interchange by local traffic should be evaluated and improved where necessary. As growth continues to the south and west of Rexburg the need to improve the connectivity in these areas will increase. Connectivity improvements to arterials for the foreseeable future should be focused between US -20 and the Madison County Line on the south and the University Blvd interchange. As ITD improves the Thornton interchange and development continues, a focus should be placed on the connectivity to the US -20. US -20 West Side Frontage The system described as the US -20 West Side Frontage consists of the arterials and collectors that connect the local roads to the highway between the High School and the County line to the south. These two areas can further be divided as the west side frontage south of the proposed Thornton interchange and west side frontage north of the Thornton interchange. Currently, the roads in this area serve primarily residential and agricultural access. This should remain the priority but anticipated development should be woven into all roadway construction and improvements. West Side Frontage North This area is largely farm fields with clusters of houses near the community of Burton. There are also businesses that have sought out the high visibility locations along US -20. There are also various ponds and lakes as well. The Madison County Comprehensive recognizes the potential and anticipates retail along the US -20 corridor with rural clusters surrounding the town site of Burton. Growth in this area is likely to occur as fields are developed into residential subdivisions with retail developed close to the US - 20 corridor. As this occurs, the trips generated in this area will increase as well as modeled and included in the travel demand model. As the trips originate from this area, all the traffic will funnel to University Blvd on the north and to the Thornton interchange on the south. As this occurs these interchanges will become more congested and the improvements recommended for University Blvd will increase. Additionally the connectivity of this area will be greatly improved with the addition of an overpass at W 2000 S (Poleline Rd). For the development of this area, priority should be given to: 1) A planned collector frontage road between the soon to be constructed connections to the Thornton interchange and University Blvd. This frontage road should be planned to accommodate future improved intersections with 3800 S (Bob Frew Rd), 2000 S (Burton Oil Rd/Poleline Rd). As retail developments are proposed, the overall development of the frontage road should be a priority. A planning study that examines the most likely commercial development scenarios and residential growth will help steer the alignment of the frontage road. It is anticipated that this frontage road will be located between 500 feet and 1500 feet from the US -20 right-of-way but should have a focus on safely and efficiently connecting traffic to the interchanges on US -20. 2) Widening of University Blvd west of US -20 has been in the plans. The existing roadway anticipates this growth. Plans for this widening should precede the needs as they develop. Congestion will increase to failing levels of service on this roadway near the intersection without the proposed widening. 3) An overpass of US -20 at W 2000 S (Poleline Rd) will eventually become a need as the development occurs. Right-of-way should be preserved and future plans should be developed. 45 1 x West Side Frontage South A*� The west side frontage between the planned Thornton interchange and the County line on the south is A% largely agricultural and undeveloped land. However, with the unique terrain, natural waterways, and the access to federal land make it a potential for retail, sportsman and tourist development. There have already been developments of this type in the area such as Bear World and there is a potential for future development as well. Though the timing for this type of development is uncertain plans for improvement should be anticipated. Long range plans should include a frontage road for connection to the Thornton .* interchange. These plans should include the potential impact to wetland and undeveloped land. The present plans should focus on maintaining safe roadsides and intersections in the area. The primary .* roads in this area are 5200 S and 4300 W. These two roadways carry the majority of the traffic load in the ,* area. Although the future projections indicate that these facilities functioning as two lane roadways is adequate through the year 2040, priority should be given to the following: 1) Proper way finding signs to the Thornton interchange. With the current system of roads, the path to get to the proposed Thornton interchange is not perceived as direct to unfamiliar drivers. A% Wayfinding signs, especially around the intersection of 4300 W and 5200 S should be a priority. A% Additionally, the added traffic will stress the existing roadway base and asphalt. The existing roadway should be assessed for the added trips consisting of large buses and the potential for roadway surface failures. Without improvements to the pavement structure, additional maintenance will likely be required. rw 2) Egress from the southbound leg of US -20 at 4300 West is anticipated with the overall planned improvements of the Thornton interchange project. This egress will improve safety for the unfamiliar motorists seeking access to the attractions of the area. Additionally, this egress is necessary for the efficient travel of emergency services coming from Rexburg in route to the established and growing businesses and residences around 4300 West. 3) The County comprehensive plan anticipates retail development between the Thornton interchange and the County line to the south along US -20. Once the Thornton interchange improvements as planned are completed, nearly all of the traffic generated in this area funneling to the US -20 corridor will pass through the intersection of S 4300 W and W 5200 S. This ,^ intersection should be a priority for maintenance and safety. The proposed Thornton interchange will increase the traffic to this location and safe, forgiving roadsides with adequate way finding signs is a priority which should accommodate the recreational vehicles anticipated in the area. �► 4) As retail development grows, the development should include the construction of a frontage road. The frontage road should be consistent with the proposed retail subdivision. It is anticipated that retail development will be located between the frontage road and US -20. The primary purpose will be to provide a direct route, cohesive to retail and residential development to access to US - 20. US -2O East Side Frontage Oft The system described as the US -20 East Side Frontage consists of the arterials and collectors that connect the local roads to the highway between the City of Rexburg and the County line to the south. These two areas can further be divided as the east side frontage south of the proposed Thornton interchange and east side frontage north of the Thornton interchange. Currently, the roads in this area serve primarily .^ residential and agricultural access. This area also includes some industrial areas, both planned and 46 currently in use. The east side is served by the Yellowstone Highway and 2000 W (Lyman Archer Highway) as the primary arterial routes. The 2000 W (Lyman Archer Highway) serves as a primary route between the City of Rexburg and the Counties to the south. Access has traditionally been unrestricted to each agricultural and residential property owner, however some of the new residential developments have consolidated access. For both the 2000 W (Lyman Archer Highway) and the Yellowstone Highway, access control and permitting should be a priority as future development occurs. The development of the Thornton interchange will change the use and traffic patterns of the area. Currently, the railroad tracks funnel all of the traffic accessing US -20 at Thornton and at the at -grade intersection with US -20 at 6800 S. The at -grade intersections at 6800 S and at Thornton will be closed (as well as all other field accesses) and replaced with a single grade separated interchange at Thornton. This will dramatically improve safety for the entire area. However, all traffic accessing US -20 for the area will be funneled to the interchange. An undesirable consequence will be increased traffic in the residential areas surrounding Thornton. The planned construction of the 5000 S roadway between the Thornton interchange and 2000 W will alleviate much of the concern. This new roadway will then become a primary roadway that divides frontage on the east side of US -20 to East Side Frontage north and East Side Frontage South. East Side Frontage North This area has experienced growth as it has turned from less agricultural to retail, industrial and residential subdivisions. The area south of BYUI and Rexburg near the University Blvd interchange has seen tremendous growth with more anticipated as development trends southward. Consolidating access and the access management should be priority. Once the 5000 S roadway is constructed the primary foreseeable improvements for this area should include: 1) Site vision triangles at intersections with the Yellowstone Highway. Most of the reported accidents occurring along this roadway were caused due to bad weather and icy conditions or impaired driving. However, many of the intersections along the Yellowstone Highway have acute site triangles. Because the Yellowstone Highway parallels the railroad that runs in a north east direction and most intersecting roads run east and west, this situation runs throughout the County. This potential concern is especially prevalent in this area. Where prudent, intersections should be evaluated and site triangles should be preserved. Crash data should be reviewed regularly to identify clusters of accidents. As new traffic patterns emerge with the construction of the Thornton interchange and 5000 S, increase in left -turns should be monitored for potential safety improvements at this intersection. 2) As retail continues to grow, the travel demand model should be updated and re-evaluated. A center -turn lane on Yellowstone Rd between 2000 S (Poleline Rd) and University Blvd should be anticipated as retail continues to grow. 3) Provisions for the future 2000 S (Poleline Rd) overpass should be planned well in advance of the future need. East Side Frontage South The west side frontage between the planned Thornton interchange and the County line on the south is largely agricultural and residential subdivisions. The town sites of Lyman and Archer have clusters of residential neighborhoods with various retail restaurants and shops. Once the Thornton interchange and 5000 S improvements are complete there will be a more direct route for larger agricultural loads coming north from Jefferson County to reach US -20. Whether the north/south traffic proceeds to the Thornton 47 interchange or north to Rexburg on the Lyman Archer Highway route, comprising of the roadways 2000 W, 7800 S and 600 E. These routes are heavily used between granaries in Bonneville County and Madison County. Any connecting traffic to US -20 that used W 6800 S (River Bridge Rd) will need to proceed northward to the W 5000 S road to be constructed. As the area continues to grow it is important to adhere to the access management guidelines and carefully consider each approach. Access improvements will be required where closed access onto US -20 land locks any existing parcel. '1 As the Thornton interchange and the 5000 S roadway is constructed, the area around Thornton is �► expected to grow and develop. There has been interest expressed in the property for potential ,* commercial growth. The extension of 3100 W (Muskrat Rd) north from Union Lyman Rd to the new 5000 S road should be of high priority to preserve connectivity to collector roads and minimize through traffic in residential neighborhoods. Once the 5000 S roadway is constructed, the primary focus of the foreseeable improvements for this area should include: 1. Bridge preservation improvements at the Snake River Bridge on 600 E (Twin Bridge). This is a critical crossing. Failure at this structure would halt traffic on this important arterial. There are ^� limited detours available at this location. 2. Construction of the new segment of 3100 W (Muskrat Rd) between the Union Lyman Rd and the new alignment of 5000 S. .,� Intersections Improvements in the County General Intersection and Roadway Improvements Outside of the urban areas the most prevalent concern driving improvement is focused at the intersections. Inclement weather, impaired drivers and inattention to driving are the cause of the majority of the crashes. Continued efforts to improve driver alertness to hazardous situations should be a continued focus for law enforcement and citizens throughout the County. However, there are four T common geometric layout concerns found at intersections in the County at various locations. Because ,^ there does not appear to be chronic accidents directly related to the layout concerns, improvements to the geometryshould be completed asfunding becomes available and prioritized based on concerns ofthe citizens. These layout concerns include: 1. Free flowing 90° turn of the through traffic at four different intersections 2. Acute and oblique angles at intersections making site triangles and visibility difficult 3.Dugway geometry 4. Bridge railing and clear zone protection *� Free Flo wing 9O-tumsfor through trafc. Currently there are intersections in the County that create a "head-on" type conflict point as the vehicle .^ paths meet. Where speeds are higher these types of intersections cause greater concern. Four of these types of intersections should be monitored and evaluated for possible improvement. These locations are on 2000 North at the intersection with 3000 W and again at 2000 W. This situation also occurs on the Archer Hwy at 7800 S and 600 E, as well as at the intersection of Moody Road and 5000 E. There are Ank 48 several intersections that have similar geometry concerns throughout the state of Idaho including the neighboring Counties. Despite their prevalence there is a concerted effort to improve these types of intersections all over the state. For each of these locations, a potential of modifying the intersection to be a stop controlled intersection or a roundabout was presented to the stakeholders and the public. Converting to a stop controlled intersection or a roundabout for these intersections reduces the number of conflict points at the intersection. Additionally, the most concerning conflict at these existing intersections Acute intersection at Center St and 7th E is the potential "head-on" conflict point. Eliminating this potential crash type is a priority for these intersection improvements. Also by converting these intersections to a stop control intersection or a roundabout, the conflict points that do remain occur at lower speeds and tend to result in more "fender bender" type accidents. Each of the intersections were evaluated and presented as shown in the attached exhibits. The advantages and disadvantages include: Stop Controlled Intersection: Advantages: More conventional to drivers, require less land to implement and to install, require less impact on surrounding residences and irrigation ditches than roundabouts. Disadvantages: Require drivers to come to a complete stop where before was free-flowing traffic. Roundabout Intersection: Advantages: conflict points are at slow moving speeds and the intersection geometry limits the conflict point to a fender bender type collision, traffic can proceed through the intersection without stopping if the driver is not required to yield to circulating traffic. Disadvantages: Generally requires more land to install the roundabout, this type of intersection is less customary to local drivers. Because the lack of familiarity was a concern for roundabouts, the stakeholders decided to present the alternatives of roundabouts to the public at the public meetings. Both alternatives were presented and the public generally had very little concern or opposition to either the stop controlled intersection or the roundabout. All agreed that the existing intersections were potentially hazardous and something should be done. Each individual intersection should be evaluated for cost and impacts as future individual E9 Inefficient intersection 4000 N and 5000 W Ow► Vii. W�a ,.� intersection projects are planned. Generally, the public felt that the intersections on 2000 North should be addressed as priority over the other two intersections. The intersection of Center Street (SH -33) and Digger Drive (7th E) in Sugar City has a similar geometric layout. The acute intersection angles make it difficult to get a clear vision of all of the intersecting traffic. A roundabout could be considered at this location but with the proximity of parks and schools to this intersection, pedestrian safety should be a high priority at this location. In the future when the East Parkway is implemented it is likely that there would be an increase of traffic on 7th East making safety at this intersection a higher priority. Intersection Layout The AASHTO — Geometric Design of Highways and Streets is generally accepted as the standard of design throughout the United States. This guide recommends that, 'Intersection legs that operate under stop control should intersect at right angles wherever practical, and should not intersect at an angle less than 60 degrees." This standard is especially difficult to adhere to where streets connect to the Yellowstone Highway. The visibility hazards that have previously been discussed should be evaluated continually for these intersections. While it is not Acute intersection at Center St and 7th E practical at this time to modify the layout of all of these types of intersections, when development could potentially impact these intersections the opportunity to correct the deficiency should be considered. Furthermore, as growth around these intersections elevate the traffic to warrant a signal, a 90 degree intersection functions best to convert to a signalized intersection. To accommodate irrigation ditches many of these types of intersections also include an offset of the crossing street alignment. These two intersections should potentially be evaluated on a case by case basis. I Dugway Geometry Currently there are three roadways known by the locals as the "Dugway". These roadways are 2000 5 '* (Poleline Road), 5000 5 (Bybee Dugway) and 7800 S, "the dugway to the gravel pit". Each of these lead to the butte on the hill where there are many fields. Each of these roadways pose concerns for different reasons. .* The 2000 S (Poleline Road) horizontal alignment is very straight but the vertical alignment causes sight distance concerns. There are currently signs indicating blind driveways and for drivers to use caution. As more and more growth in the City of Rexburg grows southward, there will be more and more traffic in this location. There is also an interest by the community to designate this roadway as a route for bicycling. With limited sight distance, possible traffic increases and other users of the roadway, such as bicyclists and pedestrians, this roadway should be considered a candidate for wider shoulders and vertical curve w improvements where possible. 50 T The 5000 S (Bybee Dugway) is a paved roadway but is not currently an overly used roadway. However, as the construction of the proposed Thornton Interchange and the 5000 S roadway projects are completed, there is an improved link between the fields on the butte and US -20. Although these improvements will not be complete for four to five years, the potential for increased traffic and the need for safety improvements on this dugway should be considered. The 7800 S dugway is the shortest route for many harvest trucks carrying grain to the market in Ririe. There are also gravel trucks and other farm equipment that use this road often. The elevation difference between the butte and the roadways below 'makes the horizontal and vertical alignment geometry a challenge. Safety improvements should be evaluated on this roadway. The long range connectivity of the growing population as Rexburg grows southward and as harvest equipment 5000 S (Bybee Dugway) competes with more passenger vehicles for space on these dugway roads, the need for an improved roadway from the butte to the ITD system will continue to grow. Though it is not likely needed before the year 2040, planning for an arterial would accommodate the function of these dugways and should be reviewed with the farmers. It is likely that the preferred location for the arterial will be at the 5000 S alignment because of its direct connectivity to the Lyman Archer Highway and US -20. Bridge Railing and ClearZone Protection The concept of developing a "forgiving" roadside environment was developed in the 1960s. The concept provided for the creation of a "clear zone" where a driver might recover control and return to the roadway or safely come to a stop before encountering a hazard. The width of this zone adjacent to the travel way by design is wider where traveling speeds are greater. In the rural parts of Madison County, providing a clear zone is not always practical. Efforts to improve the roadside including the terminals for bridge railing should be considered Deficiencies from the previous repos` The 2004 Transportation Master Plan identified ten deficiencies. These deficiencies include: 1. Intersection of 5000 E and Moody Highway (Update: discussed within this report as a potentially viable location as a stop controlled intersection or a roundabout). 2. Burton Highway (various locations) — small shoulder with steep side slopes going into ditch, creates problems for large farm vehicles. (Update: This concern still exists in this area as well as many other locations around the County. Where possible clear zones should be implemented, however there has been no significant increase in number or severity of accidents due to these roadside concerns in the Burton area). 51 ,.� 3. Intersection of SH -33 and 7" N (1000 N — Madison County) — Offset approaches. (Update: The offset approaches still exist, however, the greater concern lies in the frequency of left turning truck trailer combinations. Due to the proximity of other signals it is not a good candidate location for '1 installing a signal. Alternatives such as left -turn priority actuated signals may be an alternative during harvest time for this intersection, see the intersection improvement section of this report). 4. Hwy 33 —West of Rexburg tight reverse curves, difficult for vehicles to negotiate curves. (Update: No changes have been made. No increase in accidents or concerns due to this geometric concern have been noted for this update). 5. Hwy 33 — north of Rexburg; acute intersections with 1000 E, 2000 N (Update: These intersections have not been realigned. All acute intersections with the Yellowstone Highway should be realigned to as close to a 90° intersection as possible when opportunities arise). 6. 2000 N —Offset approach at 2000 N and SH -33 (Update: Project now being evaluated by the City of Rexburg staff). 7. US -20 and SH -33 interchange — small turn radius from SH -33 EB to US -20 westbound on-ramp. (Update: Interchange reconfiguration discussed within this update). 8. Main Street — need for center turn lane in downtown area. (Update: Turning movements are balanced with parking). 9. 20005 — intersection with 3600 E "the Dugway" — sight distance issues, grade issues, acute intersection, and safety issues for farm trucks. (Update: No changes. The Dugway was brought up by one County resident at the public meeting as a concern. This resident however felt that the other projects presented should be a priority over improving the Dugway). 10. Intersection of Center Street and Digger Drive — Acute Intersection. (Update: No changes have been made. No increase in incidents has been observed. Discussed previously as a possible �+ intersection concern). During the study and in discussion with the stakeholders and public there has been no incidence or A concern that would elevate any of these deficiencies on the priority list. Unless discussed in a separate section of this report, this should be monitored in the future. Figure 18 shows the locations of the rural Madison County Projects. 52 F Legend 0 Guardrail O Intersection • Roadway • US -20 Crossing • Bridge O Culvert Edmonds Plano 22 I,;Ir. nl 15 2 111531 fl8 Hibbard 1 10 Burton i:.. Thornton Interchange to be constructed as funding becomes available. 16 I , 7 meiaJn 21 Imi" ill. f1r•1ulr ,$,ttgar (Oity 20 13 14 19 .:rj i iRexburg ^� .._i r. 1.. 17 51 / Lyman 3 12 Archer IT 6 Notes: 1. Maintenance projects which may be required are not shown. J 2. Projects shown are at varying stages of development. Some are either approved for construction or are currently in development stages as noted. Other projects are shown as potentially needed projects as needs arise. SOMMERS BUTTE (VERS TER BUT If Project List 1. 3000W/2000N (Hibbard Church) Guardrail Project (Completed 2015) 2. 2000W/2000N (Homer Taylor Corner) Guardrail Project (Completed 2015) 3. 7800S/600E (Suttons/Archer) (Completed 2015) 4. 1000E Bridge (approved for construction) 5. 5000S Roadway (in development, anticipated funding 2018) 6. Twin Bridge Repair 7. 310OW (Muskrat Rd.) Extension 8. 5200S/4300W Int. Improvements/Shoulder Improvements 9. Cherry Stem Road (To be completed with 5000 S Project 10. 3000W/2000N Intersection (Roundabout or 'IT") 11. 2000W/2000N Intersection (Roundabout or 'IT") 12. 7800S/600E Int. (Suttons/Archer Rd.) Roundabout or'IT" 13. 2000N/5000E Int. (Moody/Baker) Roundabout or'IT" 14. 2000NNellowstone Hwy Int. Offset/Skew Realignment (city) 15. Salem Road Widening 16. Frontage Road West of US -20 17. 2000S Crossing US -20 (Poleline, Burton Rd.) 18. 2000N Crossing US -20 (Moody Rd.) 19. 5th W Extension 20. 2000N Bridge (Moody Rd., Teton River) 21. Potential Access Enhancements in Conjunction With Thornton Interchange including access enhancements 22. Warm Slough Bridge 23. Canal Culvert Repair Priority will be based on funding, safety, development, or other factors. t Projects are shown for potential listing on the master plan.f�iJr,,• J .. 3. Alignments shown are schematic only and are not intended to indicate planned design. ur•w I:�!`u xmoeLayer Credits: Sources said, HERE, peLorme, TomTam,lnhrm cremem PCorp., GEECO,U& FAO, NPS. NRCAN. GeeRGKatlaaNi OrtlnSrv,EeB Japan. Kong).synesiki Mapmylnda, O OpenSlreetMap coninfl ra, an Na cls uses commmiAy LOOKOUT MOUNTA!!J I BALDY RYAN PEAK FARNES AIOUNTAJN ARGUMENT RIDGE' 1'RO SPf [ l I I P.•';,v4M, SpR�JGg�,� NESE "01 1, VAL EYi ' • 1%vr 4 N calrvoJJ u VINE Y. fa EAK >IS-rl �• it Nit I1. _ _ _ Ins y" 11611 I6e-1 2162 -st Col. prove., Ss Figure 18 Rural Madison County ProjectsHORROCKmGra,a In pa.f tactfpamoo Madison CountyMaster Transportation o Plan ®Miles Alternative transportation modes are an important part of the overall transportation system. A complete transit system may include bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail, commuter rail, and van share facilities. Non -motorized traffic includes pedestrians, bicyclists, hikers, horseback riders, and joggers/walkers. These modes of transportation are very important and should be accommodated in a vibrant and sustainable transportation system as they become appropriate for the community. Transit A% Existing Transit Service The existing transit for the Madison County population has not yet reached the need for light rail or commuter rail. However, a bus system has long been a topic of discussion. This is especially true for the students and faculty of the local Brigham Young University. A vibrant bus system within the community could become a vital link to expanding access to the University by students. University studies have shown that much of the on -campus student population live within walking distance of the school. It has also shown that the majority of the faculty live within Rexburg or very near the urbanized area. Improving the bus alternatives would likely expand the student housing facilities further away from the school as the population grows. Future Transit Service Local Bus Routes While a bus system would have an impact on the parking immediately adjacent to the school it is unlikely that there would be any appreciable decrease in traffic congestion. While expanding bus routes in Madison County may be in the future of the community it is not anticipated that improving the bus system will alleviate any of the traffic congestion concerns. The Chamber of Commerce, Brigham Young University and other interested entities such as the Targhee Regional Public Transportation Authority (TRPTA) are studying the benefits of an improved bus system in and around the Rexburg area. The outcome of this study should be considered once it is completed. ,^ Further study of the local bus routes was not included in this transportation master plan. Pedestrians and Bicycles *' Pedestrians and bicycles are extremely important components to the overall transportation system. �'► Students getting to and from school use the same corridors as the traveling cars and trucks. Where .� possible it is always best to separate these modes of travel from vehicles by either physical barriers such ., as barrier or curbing and/or distance. ...� Sidewalks should be considered a priority where there are significant numbers of pedestrians walking to or from school. Standards found in the AASHTO — A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets as well as related reference manuals including the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be used wherever practicable. 54 f'� .! Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City t :� Transportation Master Plan Update 2015 Much of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic in and around the Rexburg area is due to more leisure activity rather than commuting. Except at certain intersections, pedestrian and bicycle traffic have little to do with traffic congestion. However, a significant number of accidents have occurred within Rexburg between vehicles and pedestrians. Accident records have been reviewed for the entire County to see if there are any re -occurring accidents or High Accident Locations (HAL) where a potential improvement should be made. Only a few locations indicated a possibility where potential improvement should be considered. For each of the locations discovered there have already been improvement measures implemented by the City of Rexburg. The streets around Brigham Young University have the highest concentrations of pedestrians. Where large numbers of pedestrians are found crossing streets heavily used by vehicles, HAWK (High-intensity Activated crossWalK) signals should be considered. The HAWK signal that has been successfully included in the system on 2"d West is well used by the pedestrians. It alerts the vehicles to the pedestrians and provides a safe location for crossing the Street. Several locations/situations have been identified that should be monitored as pedestrian traffic and vehicle traffic increases. Neither location appears to warrant immediate change or correction. 2"d South is the first east -west street north of the University. It is also a heavily used local street far traffic connecting to larger arterial streets. With its proximity to the University there is a very high concentration of pedestrians. Most of the pedestrians safely use the cross walks at the intersections. Vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians using the cross walks. However, during certain times of the day there are so many pedestrians that there are few gaps for vehicles to travel through the intersection. It was noted in the field and from public comment that this may become a concern. Vehicle drivers may become impatient waiting for a gap in the pedestrian traffic. This could become a potentially risky behavior. Timed signals would reduce the behavior. However, implementing a signal would introduce undesirable delays during off-peak pedestrian/vehicle periods. Implementing signals for pedestrian purposes should be considered on a case by case basis. Areas that should be considered for monitoring include: 2"d S and Center St., 2"d S and College Ave., 2"d W and 6th S St., 2"d W and 7`h S,2 nd E and 31d S Regional Plan Recommended Bike Paths All of the proposed arterial and collector street cross-sections allow for the addition of bicycle lanes. Before a bicycle lane can be installed on a roadway, the roadway itself must be complete along the entire extent of the bicycle path. Missing shoulders and incomplete segments pose a serious hazard to bicyclists. Bicycle facilities are an integral part of any connected transportation system and should be encouraged where feasible. The City of Rexburg and Madison County have promoted the improvement of certain bike/ped paths. The Trails of Madison County is an active committee that advises the City and County in planning, promoting and facilitating the design and construction of walking, jogging, and biking trails in Madison County. This committee has developed a prioritized plan for improvement of the paths. Included within this transportation master plan is the recommendation of this pathway plan. Implementation of these paths will provide an area for recreational walking, jogging and biking away from vehicle traffic. As funding becomes available, the priority list as shown is based on the recommendations from the committee of paths that should be implemented. 55 Pp�s02 OVN� Traffic Impact Studies .► As growth occurs throughout the County, the need to evaluate the impacts of proposed developments on the surrounding transportation networks prior to giving approval to build will increase. This will be accomplished by requiring a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be performed for any development in the area based on City staff recommendations. A TIS will allow the City/County to determine the site specific '^ impacts of a development including internal site circulation, access issues, and adjacent roadway and .�► intersection impacts. In addition, a TIS will assist in defining possible impacts to the overall transportation system in the vicinity of the development. The area and items to be evaluated in a TIS include key intersections and roads as determined by the City Traffic Engineer on a case by case basis. ,,* Each TIS will be conducted by a qualified Traffic Engineer chosen by the developer at their cost and Auk approved by the City/County. A scoping meeting will be required by the developer/Traffic Engineer with the City Engineer to determine the scope of each TIS. Traffic Impact Study Requirements are included in the appendix of this report. Intelligent Transportation Systems Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) refers to the increased use of technology and communication methods to improve traffic operations. Pavement detectors, traffic cameras and weather sensors are used to gather constant information about traffic flow conditions along corridors or at intersections. This Aft information may be relayed to a traffic control center where operators can change traffic signal timing •► plans or post messages on variable message signs. Interconnectivity of the signal network is vital to the ,^ safe and efficient operation of the signal system. The signals in the City of Rexburg are not currently interconnected but ITO has plans to connect these signals in the next few years. All new and existing signals that are not currently connected should be via radio or preferably fiber optic where possible. Installing a mini Traffic Operations Center at some central location where signal operations can be monitored and adjusted where necessary is also recommended. Traffic Signal Coordination Traffic signal coordination is another ITS method that is used to improve traffic operations and efficiency. In modern coordinated signal systems, it is possible for drivers to travel long distances without encountering a red light. This coordination is done easily only on one-way streets with fairly constant levels of traffic. Two-way streets are often arranged to correspond with peak times of the day to speed the heavier volume direction along. The traffic signals along 2nd East and Main Street should be coordinated to allow favorable progression during the peak times of the day. Access Management Access management is a term that refers to providing and managing access to land development while maintaining traffic flow and being attentive to safety issues. It includes elements such as driveway spacing, signal spacing, and corner clearance. Access management is a key element in transportation planning, helping to make transportation corridors operate more efficiently and to carry more traffic 56 without costly road widening projects. Access management offers local governments a systematic /► approach to decision-making applying principles uniformly, equitably, and consistently throughout the jurisdiction. An access management program must address the balance between access and mobility. While the functional classification of roads implies the priority of access versus mobility, access management does much the same thing. Freeways move vehicles over long distances at high speeds with very controlled access and great mobility. Conversely, residential streets offer higher levels of access but at low speeds and with little mobility. Access management standards must account for these different functions of various facilities. After extensive study, it is recommended that the City and County abide by the concepts and rules set forth in the IDAPA 39 Title 03 Chapter 42 Rules Governing Highway Right -of -Way Encroachments on State Rights -of -Way, a copy is found in the appendix of this report. These standards are the minimum standards set forth by the state and can be applied to City and County roads of similar function. It is imperative that, with continued growth, a common approach to development and access management be adopted and maintained by Madison County, the Cities, and ITD. The established RPO could be a forum for access impact discussions between the entities ITD Coordination Madison County must be an integral player in developing regional planning involving state roads and highways. US -20 and HWY-33 run through the County and the City of Rexburg. The formation of the RPO goes a long way to ensure that Madison County has a voice that is heard when it comes to state roads. In the future, the City and County must continue this collaborative relationship with ITD and coordinate planning efforts through the use of the new travel demand model and sharing of important planning information. Corridor Preservation Corridor preservation is an important transportation planning tool that agencies should use and apply to all future transportation corridors. There are several new transportation facilities that have been identified in the Transportation Master Plan. In planning for these future facilities, corridor preservation techniques should be employed. The main purposes of corridor preservation are to: Preserve the viability of future options, :• Reduce the cost of these options, and Minimize environmental and socio-economic impacts of future implementation. Corridor preservation seeks to preserve the right-of-way needed for future transportation facilities and prevent development that might be incompatible with these facilities. This is primarily accomplished by the community's ability to apply land use controls, such as zoning and approval of developments. Adoption of the Transportation Master Plan by the County is a commitment to citizens and future leaders in the community that the identified future corridors will be the ultimate location for transportation facilities. Perhaps the most important elements of corridor preservation are ensuring that the corridors are preserved in the correct location and that they meet the applicable design and right-of-way standards for the type of facility being preserved. As the master plan does not define the exact alignment of each future 57 .^ corridor, it becomes the responsibility of the City/County to make sure that the corridors are correctly preserved. This will need to be accomplished through the engineering and planning reviews done within the City/County as development and annexation requests are approved that involve properties within or adjacent to the future corridors. .^ Corridor Preservation Techniques 14% Some examples of specific corridor preservation techniques that may be most beneficial and easily implemented include the following: "► ❖ Developer Incentives and Agreements — Public agencies can offer incentives in the form of tax abatements, density credits, or timely site plan approvals to developers who maintain property within proposed transportation corridors in an undeveloped state. ,^ Exactions —As development proposals are submitted to the City/County for review, efforts should be made to exact land identified within the future corridors. T f• fee Simple Acquisitions — This is a voluntary transaction full ownership of a land parcel, including the underlying title, transferred from the owner to the City/County via either purchase or donation. Transfer of Development Rights and Density Transfers — Government entities can provide incentives for developers and landowners to participate in corridor preservation programs using ,^ the transfer of development rights and density transfers. This is a powerful tool in that there seldom is any capital cost to local governments. ,, ❖ Land Use Controls —This method allows government entities to use its policing power to regulate intensity and types of land use. Zoning ordinances are the primary controls over land use and the most important land use tools available for use in corridor preservation programs. Purchase of Options and Easements — Options and easements allow government agencies to purchase interests in property that lie within highway corridors without obtaining full title of the ny land. ❖ Annexation — The City may require right-of-way for roadways to be dedicated to the City during the annexation process. This becomes part of the annexation agreement and is an effective and efficient way to procure needed right-of-way for future expansion. Travel Demand Management Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs are designed to reduce the traffic volume on streets by increasing the number of occupants in a vehicle or by reducing or changing travel patterns and behavior. TDM programs use incentives and disincentives on automobile users to promote these changes in behavior. There are many myths and misconceptions about various TDM programs, what their specific Auk goals are and how effective they may be. It is important to understand the facts behind each type of program and what each may be expected to accomplish prior to the selection and implementation of such strategies so that the benefits of the program may be maximized. Travel Demand Management measures can be divided into three categories: Improved Alternatives, Incentives and Disincentives, and Alternative Work Arrangements. The information in this section about Travel Demand Management has been 58 summarized from a reference manual produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) called Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measure'. Safety One of the main goals of the TMP and long term transportation planning in general is to estimate traffic growth and provide for adequate facilities as the need arises. The safe traffic operations of these future facilities are of equal importance. As a result, all of these facilities should be constructed and maintained to applicable design and engineering standards such as those set forth by the City/County ordinances, AASHTO "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This includes implementing applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and school zone treatments. Traffic Calming Traffic calming provides many benefits to pedestrians and to the creation of livable neighborhoods. Traffic calming and slower traffic enhances pedestrian safety by: d• Decreasing the chances of a car -pedestrian collision Reducing the severity of injuries should a collision occur Making it easier and less intimidating for pedestrians to cross streets Traffic calming and slower traffic encourage more walking and bicycling by improving the ambiance of the neighborhood and more livable streets by: d• Producing less traffic noise Reducing the level of air pollution Street patterns are typically developed at the time of construction. In eastern Idaho, the history of using a grid system for planning and development purposes started with the first settlers and has proven efficient for moving people and goods throughout a network of surface streets. However, the nature of a grid system with wide and often long, straight roads can result in excessive speeds. For that reason, traffic calming measures (TCM) can be implemented to reduce speeds on residential roadways. Traffic calming is, however, still applicable to many neighborhood or local streets and may be given consideration on the City's local and residential streets on a case-by-case basis upon request. Traffic calming may be applied to existing City streets when requested by the neighborhood but should always be considered during the development of new neighborhood streets and subdivisions. The City/County should consider the application of a Traffic Calming Program to remove the subjectivity of the decision making process when it comes to traffic calming. ITE has established a definition for traffic calming that reads, "Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve I Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: A Series on TDM, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C. June 1993. 59 conditions for non -motorized street users." Altering driver behavior includes lowering of speeds, reducing ANN aggressive driving, and increasing respect for non -motorized street users. Types of Traffic Calming Measures There are several types of TCM that can be grouped into three categories, depending on the level of control or the effect on traffic flow and speeds. Several factors can influence the choice of TCM used, T including the location, street classification, street geometry, adjacent land uses, public transit needs, erg budget, climate, aesthetics, and community preferences. Level I measures are the least restrictive, while ,^ Level 11 is the most dramatic. The measures used for each level are outlined below. Levell Measures Level I measures would emphasize to residents important traffic safety issues and give instructions for driving safely in accordance with the rules of the road. The following list outlines Level I measures: Neighborhood Education Brochure Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaign s+ Signage Pavement Markings Brush Trims ,^ :• Target Enforcement Neighborhood Speed Watch Radar Speed Trailer Levelll Measures Level II measures indicate physical measures to reduce traffic volumes and traffic speed. As a part of x, traffic calming practices, the following measures should not be used for traffic calming: �o Stop Signs Children at Play Signs Rumble Strips Level II measures are separated into two categories for volume and speed control and are explained below. '"t Volume Control Measures The primary purpose of volume control measures is to discourage or eliminate cut -through traffic. The following are volume control measures: Half Street Closures ,^ d• Median Barriers Force Turn Islands r� Speed Control Measures ,^ The primary purpose of speed control measures is to reduce vehicle speed. The following are speed control measures: ti Speed Cushions (Temporary Only) 60 Raised Sidewalks/Speed Tables Raised Intersections Roundabouts Traffic Circles Center Island Narrowing Chokers Streetscaping Streetscaping includes the planning and placement of items, such as street furniture, lighting, art, trees, landscaping, and side treatments along streets and intersections. Although streetscaping can be implemented without traffic calming, TCMs need a certain element of streetscaping to be functional. Streetscaping enhances the aesthetics of roundabouts and constrictions. Landscaping and other roadside treatments make street closures more effective and safer by highlighting the presence of the measure. As shown and discussed in Section 4, the City will need to construct new roads, widen existing transportation corridors, and make spot intersection improvements to provide future residents of the City/County with an adequate transportation system. Transportation Needs as a Result of New Development Table 15 identifies the specific projects that will be necessary in the near future; however, only arterial and collector improvements were identified since any local roads would be required to be built as part of future development. All costs have not been adjusted for inflation and therefore represent 2015 costs. The cost estimates shown represent the costs of construction, right-of-way, and engineering. Table 15 includes all projects in the City/County through the year 2040. Actual development and transportation needs should provide the final decision on project timing. It is expected that the total cost of roadway improvements needed before 2040 will be approximately $58.911,000 and the additional vision projects will be an additional $49.203,000. 61 C> ��,. 14 ie Transportation Master Plan Update 20 Table 15 Transportation Improvement Plan Main Street/2ntl East (5th West Signal timing/coordination $20,000 City Immediate to Yellowstone) Main Street/US-20 Interchange Signalize Ramps $500,000 ITD Immediate University Boulevard/US-20 Signalize Ramps $500,000 ITD Immediate Interchange 3000 West/2000 North New Guardrail Completed County Immediate 2000 West/2000 North New Guardrail Completed County Immediate 7800 South/600 East New Guardrail Completed County Immediate 1000 East Bridge Bridge Currently Under County Immediate Construction Traffic Calming Program TCP $25,000 Rexburg/County Immediate Yellowstone Highway/Trejo Intersection Improvement $1,000,000 ITD Immediate Street 5000 South Roadway Construction PROGRAMMED County Short 3000 West/2000 North Intersection Improvement (Roundabout) $250,000 County Short 2000 West/2000 North Intersection Improvement (Roundabout) $250,000 County Short Twin Bridges Abutment/Bridge Repair HYDRAULIC STUDY County Short RECOMMENDED 7800 South/600 East Intersection Improvement $30,000 County Short (Stop Controlled intersection) 2000 North/5000 East Intersection Improvement $30,000 County Short (Stop Controlled intersection) 2000 North/Yellowstone Intersection Improvement (Realignment $1,200,000 County Short Highway with RR Crossing) 3100 West New Road $843,000 County Short 62 fffffffffffffEfffffffffffffffffffffffffffff( r IDdyp II 5200 South/4300 West Salem Road (3 Lane Section to Interchange) US -20 West Frontage Roads Thornton Interchange Warm Slough Bridge Canal Culvert 2"d East (Main Street to 4"' North) Traffic Signals (Rexburg) Traffic Operations Center 2"a East/Moody Road Main Street/12'h West 2nd East (Moody Road to 3000 North) 20d East (Main Street to 2nd South) 2nd East (2nd South to 7th South) University Boulevard (High School to 4000 West) 2nd and 3`d East (4th North to 7th North) i ( I A 1 ( t t( 1 It l( i l l l l t l It It AL PROJECTTYPE COST• • URCE TIMING Intersection/Shoulder Improvement $40,000 County Short (Widening and slope flattening) Pavement and Base Upgrade for 5200 S & 4300 W from Off Ramp to Thornton IC $702,000 Widening to 3 -Lane no C&G $589,000 County Short (Additional 12' lane and shoulder) New Road North $2,714,000 County Short New Road South $5,065,000 New Interchange PROGRAMMED ITD Short New Bridge $650,000 County Short Culvert Repair $60,000 County Short (Three -sided Box) One -Way Couplet/Widening(Minor $500,000 ITD/Rexburg Short widening and intersection improvements) Signal Interconnection $25,000 ITD/Rexburg Short TOC $100,000 Rexburg Short Intersection Improvement $150,000 ITD/Rexburg Short Signal (See Salem Road Widening) Intersection Improvement $250,000 ITD Short Widening to 5 -lanes $2,500,000 Rexburg/Sugar/ITD/County Medium (Widening of the structure) Widening $750,000 Rexburg Medium Traffic Calming $50,000 Rexburg Medium New Road $3,063,000 Rexburg/County Medium Couplet Extension/Widening $9,773,000 Rexburg/ITD Long (Including structures and ROW) (3`d St Option) 63 �0 Sprt� Madison County/City of Rexburg/Sugar City n Tras ortation Master Plan Update 2015 P (? Main Street (12" West to 51' West) University Boulevard (12th West to Yellowstone Highway) Main Street/US-20 University Boulevard/US-20 Main Street (12th West to 3000 West) University Boulevard (12`h West to 3000 West) Yellowstone Highway/Moody Road Widening from 3 lane to 5 lane $11,701,000 Rexburg/County Long Intersection Improvement (1't St Option) ITD Long Widening $2,000,000 ITD Long (not including structure) Rexburg Long Poleline Road Widening $2,000,000 ITD/Rexburg Long (not including structure) Overpass $6,544,000 ITD Interchange Reconfiguration $6,500,000 ITD Long Interchange Reconfiguration $6,500,000 ITD Long Widening $2,315,000 Rexburg/County Long Widening from 3 lane to 5 lane $5,189,000 Rexburg/County Long Intersection Improvement $350,000 ITD Long 12th West/University Intersection Improvement $250,000 Rexburg Long Boulevard 5th West/University Boulevard Intersection Improvement $250,000 Rexburg Long Poleline Road Overpass $5,679,000 ITD Vision Moody Road Overpass $6,544,000 ITD Vision 5th West Extension New Road $5,580,000 County/Rexburg Vision East Parkway Corridor New Road $31,400,000 * Rexburg/County Vision *See East Parkway Corridor Study 2013 64 F E(4)(1,11,C4111 I (I (1,UEEI f f ( st"6.r Madison County/C + Cl ortation 77q Proposed Means to Meet Demands of New Development All possible revenue sources have been considered as a means of financing transportation capital improvements needed as a result of new growth. This section discusses the potential revenue sources that could be used to fund transportation needs as a result of new development. Transportation routes often span multiple jurisdictions and provide regional significance to the transportation network. As a result, other government jurisdictions often help pay for such regional benefits. Those jurisdictions could include the Federal Government, the State Government or ITD. The City/County will need to continue to partner and work with these other jurisdictions to ensure the adequate funds are available for the specific improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. The City/County will also need to partner with adjacent communities to ensure corridor continuity across jurisdictional boundaries (i.e., arterials connect with arterials; collectors connect with collectors, etc.). Funding sources for transportation are essential if the Madison County recommended improvements are to be built. The following paragraphs further describe the various transportation funding sources available to the City/County. Federal Funding Federal monies are available to Cities and Counties through the federal -aid program. Because the programs for funding are continually changing, the Cities and County should regularly discuss upcoming projects with ITD and coordinate efforts to receive federal funding. Regardless of the status of the current funding mechanisms, a list of priority projects with up to date purpose and need statements should be maintained. In addition, those projects most likely suited for federal funding should be evaluated and where appropriate environmental protections under the federal NEPA regulations should be considered. Idaho law now allows for the solicitation and construction of transportation projects through new and innovative methods. Projects that require unique construction techniques or unique construction delivery methods may be appropriate for Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) projects. This delivery method is effective where anticipated construction challenges may warrant input from a potential contractor during the design process. often, funding such as a TIGER grant is awarded to local agencies which require relatively quick construction schedules. Design/Build projects have been completed in Idaho and are a potential avenue for quick project delivery. Where federal funding is the most likely avenue for funding a project, Madison County, the City of Rexburg and ITD should consider the most effective delivery method and potential schedules. Environmental evaluations may be completed in advance of the design and may provide an avenue for alternative delivery of the project. The City and County should stay in contact with ITD and coordinate for continued funding programs to investigate any needs as they arise. Federal funding may be available through the Federal Transit Administration as well as other agencies. ng Aft, Specific to Madison County is a bridge structure crossing the Snake River on the south end of the County. This bridge is the Snake River Bridge often referred to as the Twin Bridges. Due to a channel change in the Snake River, the abutment of the bridge is vulnerable to erosion and potential failure. In this particular situation consultation with other agencies is imperative. FEMA and USACOE should be included in planning discussions. Because of the nature of this bridge and the importance to the citizens of the surrounding areas, the agencies may be willing to participate with federal funds. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds projects for any roadway with a functional classification of a collector street or higher as established on the Functional Classification Map. STP funds can be used ,^ for both rehabilitation and new construction. The Local Highway Technical Advisory Council (LHTAC) programs a portion of the STP funds for projects around the state in urban areas. The programs include the STP Urban, the STP Rural, and the bridge program. STP urban funds are allocated for projects with urban areas of 5,000 people or greater. The local match is 7.34%. The STP Local Rural Funds are allocated for projects in rural areas, and in Cities with populations below 5,000. The STP funds can also be used for activities such as transportation planning and corridor studies. The local match requirement is 7.34% and are awarded through the Local Federal -Aid Incentive Program. "* The federal -aid bridge program provides funds for the replacement of bridges. This program has a limit ..� of one project application per year per jurisdiction. The local match is again 7.34%. Funds are awarded T through the Local Federal -Aid Incentive Program. To qualify the bridge must: 1) Be in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Database, which requires that the bridge be longer ^ than 20 feet and it must carry a public road. (Recent rulings for this program have allowed for funding for bridges as long as the proposed span of the bridge exceeds 20 feet even when the existing structure span is less than 20 feet). 2) Have a sufficiency ration of less than 50 for replacement. Bridges with a sufficiency rating of less than 75 are eligible for funding for rehabilitation. 3) Be classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. n� The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federally funded program aimed at reducing fatal and serious type A injury crashes on the roadway system. Beginning in 2013 LHTAC began receiving state HSIP funds. The Local HSIP program called LHSIP is based on the number of Fatal and Type A serious injury crashes per jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with the highest amount of Fata and Type A Serious Injury crashes per ITD district are identified. Eligible jurisdictions are notified each Fall. This federally funded program Oft may require a 7.34% local match. At the time of this TMP update, the next available application for this funding is 2017. Madison County falls with the ITD District 6 which is scheduled to receive $540,000. There are typically 13 eligible jurisdictions within the district. 15 are listed because the Cities of Rigby, Salmon and Lewisville are tied for the 13th position. Madison County ranks 4th and the City of Rexburg ranks 6th. No other jurisdictions �* within Madison County were ranked. The purpose of the program is to correct or repair deficiencies in the system that have contributed to a Fatal or Serious Type A injury accident. The accident reports for the entire County were studied to identify ^„ opportunities where corrections could be made. At the time of this study, the only injury locations were OVA 49 r�, a correction or protection could have changed the outcome of the accident were at locations where /► applications for this funding had already been made. State/County Funding The distribution of State funds is established by State Legislation and is administered by the Idaho Department of Transportation. Revenues for the program are derived from State fuel taxes, registration fees, driver license fees, inspection fees, and transportation permits. Some of these funds are kept by ITD for their construction and maintenance programs. The rest is made available to Counties and Cities. As many of the roads in Madison County fall under ITD jurisdiction, it is in the interests of the County and City that staff is aware of the procedures used by ITD to allocate those funds and to be active in requesting the funds be made available for ITD owned roadways in the City. Recent rulings by the Idaho Legislature have appropriated funding to jurisdictions within Madison County. Because of limited availability and the reoccurrence and the amount of funding is highly variable from year to year, each jurisdiction is encourage to stay in contact with ITD. The Local Highway Rural Investment Program (LHRIP) is a program aimed at aiding small local jurisdictions (less than 5000 people) with their roadway construction, signing upgrades and transportation plan projects. Federal funds are exchanged for state funds to be spent on projects without following the federal guidelines. City Funding Some Cities utilize general fund revenues for their transportation programs. Another option for transportation funding is the creation of special improvement districts. These districts are organized for the purpose of funding a single specific project that benefits an identifiable group of properties. Another source of funding used by Cities includes revenue bonding for projects intended to benefit the entire community. Private interests often provide resources for transportation improvements. Developers construct the local streets within subdivisions and often dedicate right-of-way and participate in the construction of collector/arterial streets adjacent to their developments. Developers can also be considered a possible source of funds for projects through the use of impact fees. These fees are assessed as a result of the impacts a particular development will have on the surrounding roadway system, such as the need for traffic signals or street widening. General fund revenues are typically reserved for operation and maintenance purposes as they relate to transportation. However, general funds could be used if available to fund the expansion or introduction of specific services. Providing a line item in the City budgeted general funds to address roadway improvements, which are not impact fee eligible is a recommended practice to fund transportation projects should other funding options fall short of the needed amount. General obligation bonds are debt paid for or backed by the City's taxing power. In general, facilities paid for through this revenue stream are in high demand amongst the community. Typically, general obligation bonds are not used to fund facilities that are needed as a result of new growth because existing residents would be paying for the impacts of new growth. As a result, general obligation bonds are not considered a fair means of financing future facilities needed as a result of new growth. 50 � lu d7 I z y 1 ^N Developer Impact Fees ^ Impact fees are a way for a community to obtain funds to assist in the construction of infrastructure .� improvements resulting from and needed to serve new growth. The premise behind impact fees is that if no new development occurred, the existing infrastructure would be adequate. Therefore, new developments should pay for the portion of required improvements that result from new growth. Impact fees are assessed for many types of infrastructures and facilities that are provided by a community, such °* as roadway facilities. According to state law, impact fees can only be used to fund growth related system improvements. To help fund roadway improvements, impact fees could be considered. These fees are collected from new developments in the City to help pay for improvements that are needed to the roadway system due to growth. Other Funding/lltematives Various other alternatives for funding exist which include Community Development Block Grants, Local Improvement Districts, EPA funding programs and USDA Rural Development programs. Other programs such as Impact Fees and Local Option Vehicle Registration Fees are alternatives that should be carefully considered on a case by case basis. �w 51 W In addition to multiple updates to the Madison County commissioners and the members of the Rexburg City Council, the public was also invited to attend a series of two public meetings. The meetings allowed the public to express ideas and concerns related to the topics presented. The meetings were advertised via web site, television, radio, and via social media. Receipt of social media invitations confirmed that more than 12,000 residents of Madison County were able to open and view the invitation. In addition, Kelly Hoopes of Horrocks Engineers discussed the project and the intent of the master plan update on local television news channels on two different occasions. The first public meeting was held on April 1, 2015 in the Madison County Commissioners chambers. The second meeting was held the following night on April 2, 2015 in the City of Rexburg City Council chambers. Each meeting presented the same information in an open house format. Exhibits of the various discoveries and alternatives of the study were presented. Many in attendance came simply to learn with no comments. Others expressed comments verbally and in writing. The primary concern expressed by the majority of attendees was the congestion on 2nd East between Main Street and 7`h North. The alternative presented as a couplet on Yd East concerned some residents who live along that corridor. 52