Regional Bike Network Update. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee April 11, 2017

Transcription

1 1 Regional Bike Network Update Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee April 11, 2017

2 Regional Bike Network revision process

3 Regional Bike Network Development: T2040 Implementation Transportation 2040 calls for developing a regional bicycle system network and pedestrian networks oriented to designated regional centers and transit station areas as a framework for regional and local nonmotorized transportation planning and investment Transportation 2040, p 72

4 Regional Bike Network Development: Criteria Based on T2040 guidance, connect to regional destinations: regional centers regional transit locations high employment zones higher education locations colleges, universities and high enrollment high schools military bases regional parks major trails in surrounding counties

5 Regional Bike Network Development Process Review of the initial development process in 2014: 1. Develop network based on criteria Charrettes, comments, BPAC 2. Identify Gaps 3. Additional analysis: tiering Based on shortest routes to regional destinations

6 Regional Bike Network 2018 UPDATE Summary of BPAC Discussions on this topic: Replace pdf maps with web-map Update map to local comprehensive plans but maintain existing criteria Need to reconcile what is currently on the ground with aspirational network Need to better communicate the planning/ aspirational nature of this network (not a bike map) Need to better communicate purpose/ use of the network

7 Regional Bike Network 2018 UPDATE Improvements in 2018 Web-map format Better communicate intended audience (PSRC decision makers, local jurisdictions show local projects that support regional priorities) Better identify completed, planned and aspirational links Update routes consistent with local plans, updated information Provide more information about the links: on a transit/ freight route, known topography issues, etc.

8 Regional Bike Network 2018 UPDATE Highlights from 2017 charrettes Cross-county connections Challenges on busy streets Education needed about facility types Address geographical boundaries (rivers, railroads, hills) Links most appropriate for regional network or not (some will come out) Rethink places where regional bike routes overlap planned BRT routes and high capacity transit Need to integrate the transit network somehow

9 Regional Bike Network 2018 UPDATE Proposed Changes

10 Pierce County Connection around Gravelly Lake: New construction on Gravelly Lake connects to Lakewood Center to the north but PC route only has sharrows on a 5 lane road with no other improvements or another unknown type of improvement to the east. Strategy: Work with Pierce County/ Lakewood on the most appropriate connection.

11 Pierce County Connecting Foothills Trail to South Hill: Suggested additional connections/ alternate routes to connect between the Foothills Trail and Puyallup South Hill. Strategy: Work with Pierce County on the most appropriate connection.

12 Pierce County Connecting the Port of Tacoma: Current network shows connection on 54 th but no strategy in Tacoma or Fife plan for implementation on the entire corridr. Strategy: Work with Tacoma/ Fife on the most appropriate connection. Legend: Planned Improvements PSRC Bike Network

13 Pierce County Connections in Orting Area: New suggested route N/S but no PC routes planned. Suggestion to remove a route but PC has a plan to build it. Strategy: Work with PC on the most appropriate connection. Strategy: Suggest keeping the link.

14 King County Connections in Kent area: Some of these are ST suggestions. Regarding the line along Auburn city limits we would need to verify the regional connection. Strategy: Accept ST suggestions. Coordinate with Kent, Auburn and SeaTac on critical links and suggestions.

15 King County Connection to South Park and Georgetown: New suggested route. This does connect to South Park and it may be a bit dense but there are quite a few barriers that make this a necessity. Seattle DOES have this in their plan for improvements. Strategy: Work with Seattle on the most appropriate connection.

16 King County Suggestion to remove this link: There are no plans to improve this bike route, topography is difficult and it does not meet the criteria for connecting regional destinations. Strategy: Remove but verify with Seattle.

17 King County Additions in Bellevue: Bellevue requested some additions. These came with criteria justifications. Also align network with new LRT station. Strategy: Suggest to accept the additions. Work with Bellevue on dense network in DT core for the best route as well as along the BNSF Corridor (most likely eliminating the route along Bellevue Way S of DT).

18 King County Connections in Sammamish Area: We may want to fill-in some connections within the Sammamish area to connect N/S. This could be along the East Plateau Trail or along 228 th. Strategy: Work with KC and Sammamish on the most appropriate connection.

19 Snohomish County Suggested Connection to Snohomish County: Suggested route to connect better into Snohomish. This is a gap in the existing system. Strategy: Need to coordinate with Bothell, Kenmore, Brier and Snohomish County.

20 Snohomish County Connections in Lynnwood/ Edmonds area: Important changes to take the regional bike network off of SR 99. Alternate suggested routes connect better to regional transit and Edmonds CC. Strategy: Apply suggested changes. Verify with Edmonds and Lynnwood. Legend: Suggested for removal Suggested to add

21 Snohomish County Suggested add to connect Burke Gilman Trail to MLT and regional transit: Assess best route to connect the BGT to Snohomish County. We may replace existing regional bike network line (red arrow). Strategy: Coordinate with Kenmore and Lake Forest Park on best route.

22 Snohomish County Suggestion to connect Interurban Trail to the eastside north of I-405: It appears from the map there are few direct connections here Strategy: Coordinate with Snohomish County, Lynnwood and Bothell to see if this is feasible. May become an aspirational link.

23 Snohomish County Proposed Changes in Everett: Aligns with Everett s bike plan. We may need to connect the loop on the north end. Strategy: Suggest to accept edits. Verify with Everett. Does not connect to N Everett Transit Center or Everett CC as well. Will ask Everett about that. Legend: Suggested for removal Suggested to add

24 Snohomish County Other Snohomish Changes: Arlington Additional line work in Marysville and Arlington area. Strategy: Accept Marysville added connection but confirm best route from DT to trail. Work with Arlington on the most appropriate regional routes (some may be more local).

25 Kitsap County Many changes proposed in Kitsap County: There are quite a few changes needed in Kitsap County. There are many proposed changes we re working through which are most appropriate. Strategy: Coordinate with Kitsap County. Prioritized routes will be ready by the end of April. Legend: Suggested for removal Suggested to add

26 Kitsap County Bremerton and north: We ll redraw the route within Bremerton along 6 th to match their bike plan (not reflected in this map. Additions north of Kitsap but we ll have to decide either the outer routes or along the more dense routes. Strategy: Coordinate with Kitsap County and Bremerton.

27 Kitsap County Bremerton and north: We ll redraw the route within Bremerton along 6 th to match their bike plan (not reflected in this map. Additions north of Kitsap but we ll have to decide either the outer routes or along the more dense routes. Strategy: Coordinate with Kitsap County and Bremerton. Other Kitsap County changes include: Fixing the alignment on the Sound to Olympics Trail Updating routes around the Gorst area and highlighting the challenges there.

28 Kitsap County Connecting Silverdale to Poulsbo: Again quite a few changes. Removing the route on SR 3 is widely supported. Strategy: Accept the removal of the SR 3 route. Work with Kitsap County and Poulsbo on the most appropriate connections.

29 Additional Discussion from charrette process Campgrounds were not added to the maps (from charrettes) Will add local parks and rivers to map Tiering will be the result of quantitative analysis and perhaps some discussion of other considerations later in the process require best practices in design and safety need to emphasize transit connections to create a complete multimodal network (from Pierce and Snohomish charrettes) some suggestions from charrette process will be relayed to local jurisdictions rather than being incorporated into the regional network Provide more information about the links need for pedestrian overpass, need for increased signage, etc. (if we have the data we can add these notes)

30 Key Questions for the BPAC 1. Should we plan for (and promote) an all ages and abilities network? if so, there are some implications: i. many connections are in rural areas which won t meet this criteria ii. iii. some connections don t have plans for this level of design (but most do have plans for something) would completed bike lanes still indicate completed? if so, how would we communicate all ages and abilities? SUGGESTION: replace current tiering (dark and light pink lines) to indicate which segments are (or are planned to be) an all ages and abilities network

31 Key Questions for the BPAC 2. In rural areas, should we show connected shoulders completed? We may never see any on-road facilities in rural areas as completed if bike lanes are the criteria (although this gets at question #1).

32 Key Questions for the BPAC 3. Scenic Routes: The primary goal is to connect regional destinations. Some routes are places where people often bike but there are no plans plus topography issues make even the aspirational improvements perhaps not feasible (at minimum not planned and very challenging). Do we keep these in the network? (examples in next slide)

33 Scenic Routes Snohomish County King County (Seattle) Pierce County Kitsap County (south)

34 Regional Bike Network Update Schedule: April: Review changes with BPAC, send to countywide groups (preliminary costs assessment) May: Assess costs, final review Summer: Additional analysis (overlapping freight, transit routes, other information) Autumn: Finalize web-map

35 35 For More Information Kimberly Scrivner, Senior Planner /