South Utah County Active Transportation Plan

SOUTH UTAH COUNTY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mountainland Association of Governments December 2016

Elk Ridge Santaquin Mapleton Spanish Fork Payson Springville Salem Woodland Hills This page intentionally left blank.

ii South Utah County Active Transportation Plan ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Jim Price, Project Manager, Mountainland Association of Governments Richard Nielsen, Utah County Fred Aegerter, Community Development Director, Springville Dave Anderson, Community and Economic Development Director, Spanish Fork Dale Bigler, City Councilor, Elk Ridge Sean Conroy, Community Development Director, Mapleton Dennis Marker, Assistant City Manager, Santaquin Matt Marziale, Recreation Director, Salem Jeremy Searle, Planning Commissioner, Woodland Hills Jill Spencer, City Planner, Payson Brian Tucker, Planner, Mapleton

TOOLE DESIGN GROUP Jessica Juriga, Project Manager Michael Hintze, Deputy Project Manager Geneva Hooten, Transportation Planner Adam Wood, Senior Planner Galen Omerso, GIS Analyst Jessica Zdeb, Transportation Planner

RSG Kordel Braley, Senior Transportation Engineer Austin Feula, Transportation Engineer Roxanne Meuse, Analyst Justin Culp, Analyst

the science of insight

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan iii CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Introduction and Background...... 3 Chapter 4 Regional Network...... 39

Regional Context...... 4 Existing Facilities ...... 40

Study Area ...... 4 Network Development...... 42

Plan Vision and Goals...... 6 Recommendations ...... 43

Walking and Biking in South Utah County Today...... 6

Existing Plans and Their Relationship to This Plan �� 7 Chapter 5 Programmatic Element...... 53 Public Involvement ...... 8 Overview...... 54 Plan Organization...... 9 Education ...... 54

Active Education Efforts...... 54

Chapter 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ��11 Education Recommendations...... 55

Bicycle Treatments...... 12 Encouragement...... 56

Pedestrian-Specific Facility Types...... 15 Enforcement...... 58

Existing Enforcement Efforts...... 58

Enforcement Recommendations...... 58 Chapter 3 Focus Areas...... 17 Evaluation ...... 60 Elk Ridge...... 22 Other Recommendations...... 62 Mapleton...... 24

Payson...... 26

Salem...... 28 Chapter 6 Implementation Strategy...... 64

Santaquin...... 30 Strategies for Network Implementation...... 65

Spanish Fork...... 32 Funding Sources ...... 68

Springville...... 34

Woodland Hills...... 36

iv South Utah County Active Transportation Plan FIGURES TABLES

Figure 1 Existing and Forecasted Travel Patterns �� 4 Table 1 Online Map User Survey...... 8

Figure 2 Study Area ...... 5 Table 2 Why Are People Walking?...... 18

Figure 3 Types of Bicyclists...... 8 Table 3 Demand Weightings...... 18

Figure 4 Study Area Demand Analysis...... 19 Table 4 Encouragement Efforts in the Study Area �� 56

Figure 5 Elk Ridge...... 23 Table 5 Planning-Level Unit Cost Estimates...... 67

Figure 6 Mapleton...... 25

Figure 7 Payson...... 27 Figure 8 Salem...... 29 APPENDICES Figure 9 Santaquin...... 31 A. Design Guidance Figure 10 Spanish Fork...... 33 B. Crash Analysis Figure 11 Springville...... 35

Figure 12 Woodland Hills...... 37

Figure 13 Existing Bicycle Facilities...... 41

Figure 14 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 44

Figure 15 Elk Ridge Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 45

Figure 16 Mapleton Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 46

Figure 17 Payson Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 47

Figure 18 Salem Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 48

Figure 19 Santaquin Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 49

Figure 20 Spanish Fork Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 50

Figure 21 Springville Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 51

Figure 22 Woodland Hills Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network...... 52

Figure 23 Crash data on udot.numetric.com...... 60

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan v This page intentionally left blank.

2 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Introduction and Background The South Utah County Active Transportation Plan (“the Plan”) 1 is the final plan in a series of regional active transportation plans sponsored by the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG). Building upon the fiscally-constrained 2015 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the long-term vision outlined in MAG’s TransPlan 2040, this planning effort is intended to establish a unified vision for active transportation in south Utah County and recommend a complete network of regional intercity bikeways. Beyond regional bicycle connections, this Plan also includes pedestrian, programmatic, and policy recommendations to improve the experience of walking and biking in south Utah County. This new, unified regional vision will provide a roadmap for implementation over the next ten years.

This Plan augments the near-term, fiscally-constrained 2015 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to fit the existing and future needs of the partner communities.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 3 Regional Context Figure 1 Existing and Forecasted Travel Patterns This Plan builds upon the support and enthusiasm for developing a strong network of active transportation facilities to connect communities in south Utah County. Utah County leaders have acknowledged non-motorized transportation as an integral part of improving air quality, reducing congestion, and improving quality of life. As Utah Valley continues to grow and urbanize, the demand for safe, efficient, and enjoyable opportunities for walking and biking continues to increase. In 2014, MAG documented 2.2 million user trips on nine regional urban trails, a figure that is expected to increase as the population grows.1

An online statewide survey called “Your Utah, Your Future” reached 52,845 Utahns to ask about topics such as housing, water, public education, air quality, and other issues that affect the State.2 Related to transportation, “more than three of every four residents want neighborhood designs that encourage walking, public transit use, and shorter daily drive times.” There is therefore a high need and desire for active transportation facilities across the state and in south Utah County.

Improving bicycle and pedestrian connections to Note: The circle indicates travel within an area while existing and planned transit service supports transit an arrow indicates the travel direction between investments and provides people with viable means by two areas. The white numbers are 2014 total trips which to travel longer distances without using a car. (in thousands), while blue is the projected number Recommendations in this plan take into account the two of trips in 2040. The line thickness indicates the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) bus routes, the 805 and magnitude of trips in 2040. 821, which currently serve the study area, and the new commuter rail service between Provo to Payson that is strengthening the network of active transportation expected to be completed between 2025 and 2034. facilities in south Utah County and connections to the north will provide people with transportation choices Commute Patterns and help to meet the region’s transportation needs.

Figure 1 shows the commute patterns and magnitude of traffic that crosses or stays within each area of Study Area south Utah County.3 This analysis shows that in 2014 The study area is located along Utah’s Wasatch Front, approximately 340,000 commute trips were made encompassing the communities of Springville, Mapleton, within south Utah County, 160,000 trips were made to Spanish Fork, Salem, Woodland Hills, Elk Ridge, Payson, the central county area (Orem and Provo), while 51,000 Santaquin, and the contiguous unincorporated Utah trips were received from the central county area. By County land in between (see Figure 2). The focus of this 2040, trips within the area are expected to nearly triple Plan is to improve regional connections between the (from 340,000 to over 900,000 trips), and trips to Provo eight communities and access to public lands. and Orem are expected to nearly double. Therefore,

1 Mountainland Association of Governments. TransPlan 2040. https://mountainland.org/site/webroot/images/upload/files/ regionalplanning/Transportation%20Plan/transplan40/TransPlan40.pdf 2 Semerad, Tony. “Utahns want mix of housing, neighborhoods to designed to cut driving.” The Salt Lake Tribune. Sep. 6, 2015. Accessed Nov. 23, 2015. http://www.sltrib.com/home/2916140-155/ utahns-want-mix-of-housing-neighborhoods 3 Ibid.

4 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 2 Study Area

15 75 Uinta UTAH LAKE SpringvilleSpringville National Forest

PalmyraPalmyra 51 MapletonMapleton

LakeLake ShoreShore 156

147

198 BenjaminBenjamin SpanishSpanish ForkFork MoarkMoark 115 Junction d Junction e r s 2200west st s ou e 750 north st s 400 east st rh we 6 WestWest MountainMountain po n n 1260 west st e w 9600 south st

SalemSalem PaysonPayson

s 100 east st

ElkElk

w 12000 south st RidgeRidge SpringSpring WoodlandWoodland HillsHills LakeLake GenolaGenola SantaquinSantaquin

141

Uinta

National s 15 Forest nebo lo 89 op

r d

S Utah County ATP Study Area

Existing Railroad Parks Municipal Boundary Water County Boundary 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 5 Plan Vision and Goals Institutionalizing trails as integral to our A desire for active transportation is reflected in many growth and future of the current adopted plans for cities within the study area. This plan represents a comprehensive effort Creating regional connections to address gaps in the region’s key transportation and routes corridors with regard to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Developing well-used active transportation The recommendations in this Plan work toward a vision facilities of safe active transportation that is accessible to a wide range of people, including youth and seniors, people Creating collaborative energy and a shared that are confident bicyclists and those that are not, and vision between municipalities and others people with disabilities. This vision is characterized by the following goals that were developed by the Project Developing design and maintenance Management Team (PMT) and selected by the public at standards the project open house.

Walking and Biking in South Utah County Today South Utah County boasts an impressive trail network and biking. The Union Pacific lines that converge in that provides residents access to public lands— Springville and Spanish Fork create skewed crossings Powerhouse Mountain, Grindstone Ridge, Spanish and create other challenges for Payson and Santaquin. Fork Peak, and Lone Pine Ridge—separate and safe from motor vehicles. New trails, such as the Spanish A lack of a complete sidewalk network is a barrier to Fork River Trail, are very popular and quickly becoming walking in the study area. Sidewalks are one of the community assets. In fact, institutionalizing trails as most fundamental elements of a pedestrian network integral to the region’s growth and future was chosen as because they provide safety and separation from motor a top goal by the public. vehicles. Gaps within a sidewalk system decrease pedestrian comfort and can result in unsafe walking However, the active transportation network is conditions, particularly along higher speed roadways. disconnected and limited within the study area. The However, implementing sidewalks is expensive and, trail network is concentrated in the eastern portion of in many cities, cost-prohibitive. Therefore, sidewalk the study area, there are few on-street bicycle facilities recommendations are focused within higher activity serving more local destinations, and there are major areas of each city rather than at a county-wide scale. gaps in the sidewalk network. Based on feedback received from the public and stakeholders, there is While south Utah County has some pieces of an active a desire for more trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, and transportation network already in place there is much improved street crossings, especially at high-volume, work to be done to create a connected, safe, and high-speed arterials. comfortable network that provides opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to walk or bike for both The challenges to improving the active transportation utilitarian and recreational purposes. This Plan outlines network are related to the discontinuous street a vision and actionable steps to link existing trails and network and the size of the study network. For bikeways, address network barriers, improve existing example, development patterns and distances between design standards for a consistent and safe active communities leads to high-volume arterials and few transportation network, and make spot improvements redundant connections between communities. The I-15 to the pedestrian network within each community. freeway and railroads are barriers to people walking

6 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Existing Plans and Their Relationship to This Plan In addition to local plans that make provisions for walking and biking, there are several regional and state plans that influenced the development of this Plan. They are summarized below.

TransPlan40 Regional Transportation UDOT State Bicycle Plan: Bicycle Facility Plan: 2015-2040 Plan for the Provo/Orem Gap Analysis and Utah Collaborative Active Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (2014) MAG adopted a long-range transportation plan in June The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)’s 2014 2015. The TransPlan40 Regional Transportation Plan: 2015- State Bicycle Plan outlines an approach to help project 2040 Plan for the Provo/Orem Metropolitan Area identifies managers, designers, and planners to choose projects several regional trail projects to connect population that can make the biggest impact on bicycle transpor- and employment centers based on projected densities tation. The goal of the Plan is to enhance bicycle safety through 2040. This analysis was completed using the and mobility throughout Utah. As stated in the UDOT Active Transportation Latent Demand Model, which “Inclusion of Active Transportation” policy, “It is the uses population and employment densities, land use, policy of the Department that the needs of bicyclists, demographic indicators, and proximity to schools, pedestrians, and other active transportation users will parks, transit, and existing facilities to show where be routinely considered as an important aspect in the higher pedestrian or bicycle uses are anticipated. The funding, planning, design, construction, operation, and 4 active transportation projects proposed in TransPlan40 maintenance of Department transportation facilities.“ are based largely on adopted municipal bicycle and Recommendations in the Wasatch Front metropolitan pedestrian plans. The TransPlan40 includes 10 active area, which includes this Plan’s study area, are based on transportation projects within the study area. the Utah Collaborative Active Transportation Study recommendations (see below) and a bicycle facility gap analysis. This data‐driven assessment was used to identify areas with insufficient conditions for bicycle travel, or “gaps,” on all state routes in Utah.

Utah Collaborative Active Transportation Study (2013) The Utah Collaborative Active Transportation Study (UCATS) was developed as a regional active transportation master plan for infrastructure to enhance and coordinate pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The study lays the groundwork for a network of urban bicycle routes (UCATS Regional Bicycle Network) and pedestrian- based recommendations throughout the Wasatch Front.

Utah Department of Transportation Pedestrian and Bicycle Guide (2008) The Pedestrian and Bicycle Guide was created to provide UDOT staff and interested citizens information on how to improve walking and bicycling conditions. The guide addresses design and maintenance, funding, education and the UDOT project development process of active transportation facilities.

4 UDOT State Bicycle Plan: Bicycle Facility Gap Analysis & Utah Joggers in Springville Collaborative Active Transportation Study (2014)

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 7 Public Involvement The development of this Plan relied on a variety of means to engage the public and stakeholders. A Project Management Team (PMT) composed of one representative for each city in the study area was convened to provide project direction, engage with the public, review recommendations, and provide input. A larger Advisory Committee, including members of the PMT, was formed to involve a greater selection of decision-makers within the region, including those from UDOT, Utah County, and UTA. The Advisory Committee provided oversight and input during key points during Plan development. Attendees of the project open house discuss Payson’s To engage the public, an open house was held at the bike network Spanish Fork Park Pavilions on October 22, 2015. This open house was intended to provide an overview of the Information gathered via the online map showed that project and seek feedback from the public on potential participants were interested in intercity connections, bicycle and pedestrian facility types to be included in such as between Springville and Provo, Springville recommendations and desired regional connections. and Mapleton, Payson and Spanish Fork, Salem and Presentation boards introduced the project, draft Mapleton, and Santaquin and Payson. Users expressed goals, existing conditions, and potential improvements. an interest in accessing Utah Lake, Spring Lake, and the Through interactive exercises, the PMT learned that mountains via the canyon roads. canyon access, continuous trails, and improved crossings of railroads, arterials, and freeways were Table 1 Online Map User Survey among the top desires of those who attended the open house. FREQUENCY AND COMFORT OF RIDING PERCENTAGE

Additionally, an interactive online map was available I do not ride a bicycle and am unlikely as a means to provide input from mid-September to ever do so. 6% 2015 through the end of October 2015. Almost 100 I would like to bicycle more, but I prefer users provided location-specific information about not to ride in traffic 37% the routes they currently, or would like to, walk and I am willing to ride in traffic, but I prefer bike. Registration for the online map involved a short dedicated bike lanes and routes. 43% survey that asked limited demographic data. In total, 65 percent of users were male while just 30 percent were I am willing to ride in mixed traffic with cars on almost any type of street. 14% female (five percent chose not to specify). Nearly every responder (96 percent) walk or bike for recreation or exercise while less than half (44 percent) bike or walk for transportation. Figure 3 Types of Bicyclists

The survey also asked users about their interest and

comfort in riding (see Table 1). Researchindicates that 1% 9% people fall into one of the four categories shown in Strong and Enthusiastic fearless and confident Figure 3, which are closely correlated to the categories asked in the survey.5 The research posits that the “interested but concerned” could become more frequent riders with safer, more comfortable facilities. The survey showed that 37 percent of respondents sit in this “interested but concerned” category. Another 43 percent 37% Types of 53% are “enthusiastic and confident” by their willingness to Not able or Interested interested Bicyclists but Concerned ride in traffic, but prefer to ride in dedicated bike lanes and routes.

5 Dill, Jennifer and Nathan McNeil. “FOUR TYPES OF CYCLISTS? Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential.” Portland State University, 2012. 8 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Plan Organization This Plan is organized into six chapters including this one.

•• CHAPTER ONE acts as the introduction to the plan including how the plan originated, the regional context, background information on Utah County, and an overview of important planning efforts leading up to the Plan’s development.

•• CHAPTER TWO provides an overview of the bicycle and pedestrian elements included within this Plan.

•• CHAPTER THREE represents the pedestrian element of the Plan, including the selection of and development of community-based focus area recommendations.

•• CHAPTER FOUR represents the bicycle element of the Plan, including existing bikeways and the study network development. The regional bicycle recommendations are included in this chapter.

•• CHAPTER FIVE includes the programmatic elements, including education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation that enhance and complement the engineering recommendations presented in Chapters Three and Four.

•• CHAPTER SIX covers implementation, including cost estimates, and funding strategies.

•• APPENDIX A provides general design considerations for the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities recommended within this Plan.

•• APPENDIX B includes a bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 9 This page intentionally left blank.

10 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities This chapter presents descriptions of the different types of 2 bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are recommended in this Plan. Specific regionally-focused bicycle recommendations can be found in Chapter Four, and pedestrian- and locally-focused bicycle recommendations can be found in the community summaries in Chapter Three. Design guidance for all of these treatments is presented in Appendix A.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 11 Bicycle Treatments The following section provides descriptions of types of on-and off- street bicycle facilities recommended as part of this Plan.

Bikeway A bikeway is any facility that is open for the use of bicyclists. Bikeways include on-street facilities such as bike lanes and neighborhood byways, as well as off-street facilities such as shared use paths. All of the on- and off- street bicycle facilities described in this section are considered bikeways. Accessing open space via bicycle

Off-Street Facilities

Shared Use Path (Paved Trail) A shared use path is an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Typically, shared use paths are located in parks, stream valley greenways, along a utility corridor, or along abandoned railroad corridors. Shared use paths are for bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, and other non-motorized users. These are typically constructed of concrete or asphalt.

Soft Surface Trail Soft surface trails provide bicyclists and pedestrians a low-stress facility separate from motor vehicle traffic. Typically, shared trails are located in parks, forests, along utility corridors, or along abandoned railroad corridors. Due to their unpaved surface, these trails are typically more recreationally-focused and are used by mountain bikers, hikers, walkers, and joggers.

12 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan On-Street Facilities

Bike Lane A bike lane is a pavement marking that designates a portion of a street for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles. Bike lane markings are typically dashed where vehicles are allowed to cross the bike lane, such as for right turns or at driveway crossings. Bike lanes are best suited for two-way local and collector streets where there is enough width to accommodate a bike lane in both directions, and on one-way streets where there is enough width for a single bike lane.

Buffered Bike Lane Buffered bike lanes are created by striping a buffer zone between a bike lane and the adjacent travel lane. Some buffered bike lanes also offer a painted buffer between the bike lane and an adjacent parking lane. Buffered bike lanes should be considered at locations where there is excess pavement width or where adjacent traffic speeds are at or above 35 mph.

Separated Bike Lane A separated bike lane, sometimes called a cycle track, is a bicycle facility that is physically separated from both the street and the sidewalk. A separated bike lane may be constructed at street level using street space, or at the sidewalk level using space adjacent to the street. Separated bike lanes isolate bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic using a variety of methods, including curbs, raised concrete medians, bollards, on-street parking, large planting pots/boxes, landscaped buffers, or other methods.

Separated bike lanes designed to be level with the sidewalk should provide a vertical separation between bicyclists and pedestrians, or different surface treatment to delineate the bicycle from the pedestrian space (such as asphalt versus concrete). Separated bike lanes can be one way for bicycles on each side of a two- way road, or two-way and installed on one or both sides of the road. Separated bike lanes provide bicyclists with a higher level of comfort compared to bike lanes, and are typically used on large multi-lane arterials where higher vehicle speeds exist. They may also be appropriate on high-volume but lower-speed streets.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 13 Shared Street Shared lane markings (sharrows) may be used to designate bicycle facilities where there is not sufficient width for bike lanes. Bicyclists and motor vehicles will share the same travel lane so the sharrow can help position bicyclists in the best riding location while directing bicyclists away from the “door zone” of parked cars, alerting motorists of appropriate bicyclist positioning, and encouraging safe passing of bicyclists by motorists. The “BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE” sign (R4-11 in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD] is commonly used in conjunction with shared lane markings).

Neighborhood Byway (Bike Boulevard) A neighborhood byway (sometimes called a bike boulevard or greenway), is a street with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds designated to provide priority to bicyclists and neighborhood motor vehicle traffic. Neighborhood byways may simply have signs and shared lane markings, or may include traffic calming elements consisting of speed humps, traffic circles, chicanes, or traffic diverters. Neighborhood byways benefit neighborhoods by reducing cut-through traffic and speeding without limiting access by residents.

Paved Shoulder The shoulder is the section of the roadway outside of the travel lanes. When paved and of sufficient width, paved shoulders can serve as a bicycle accommodation. Additionally, paved shoulders provide safety and maintenance benefits. They should typically be four feet or wider to serve as a bicycle accommodation, although three feet may be acceptable on lower volume roads.

14 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Pedestrian-Specific Design details for these facility types are Facility Types available from the following resources: •• The American Association of State Highway and Pedestrian facilities is a general term to Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the include a number of accommodations Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) for people walking. These include https://bookstore.transportation.org/ sidewalks, paths, pedestrian signals, item_details.aspx?id=119 crosswalk markings, and median •• The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) islands. Some of the recommendations MUTCD (2009) http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ for bicyclists, such as shared use paths •• The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)Urban Street Design Guide (2013) and unpaved trails described previously, http://nacto.org/usdg/ will also accommodate pedestrians. •• Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ research/safety/04100/index.cfm

Sidewalk Sidewalks are used to separate foot traffic from vehicle traffic, to reduce conflicts, and to increase pedestrian comfort. Sidewalks are typically constructed of concrete and are located immediately adjacent to streets, preferably with a landscape buffer. Recent research has supported sidewalks as being very effective in reducing crashes.

Marked Crosswalks Extensions of sidewalks through intersections are legal crosswalks under state and local laws, regardless of if they are painted on the street. At busier intersections, signalized intersections, and at mid-block crossings, crosswalks are marked for additional visibility for motorists and to direct pedestrians to the appropriate crossing area. Standard crosswalks are composed of two parallel lines across a street, however continental crosswalks provide greater visibility than standard crosswalks. Continental markings consist of 12 inch or wider bars that run in the direction of traffic; if perpendicular edge lines are included (as shown), the crosswalk may be referred to as a “ladder” style. Continental crosswalks should be considered at busier street crossings, at unsignalized crossings, in school zones, and any locations where pedestrian crossings are difficult.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 15 Median Crossing Island Medians provide space in the middle of intersections for pedestrians to stage crossings in multiple steps. These facilities make crossings easier and safer for pedestrians. They should be a minimum of six feet in width and length.

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) are user- actuated amber light emitting diodes (LEDs) that supplement warning signs at unsignalized crossing locations at intersections or mid-block. When a pedestrian triggers the system, the lights flash rapidly, drawing attention to the warning sign and the presence of a pedestrian. RRFBs are only active when triggered by a pedestrian either actively (i.e., push button) or passively. They cost less than full signals and have been shown to increase driver yielding behavior.

Curb Extension Curb extensions extend the sidewalk into the parking lane of a street to narrow the roadway, provide additional pedestrian space, and reduce the distance of the street crossing for pedestrians. Curb extensions can be used at intersections or at mid-block crossings. Care should be taken to ensure that curb extensions do not extend into bike lanes. Curb extensions also function as a traffic calming device as the narrowing of the roadway tends to slow traffic speeds.

16 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Focus Areas Walking is the most universal mode of transportation. All people 3 are pedestrians at one point or another—walking either on foot or using mobility devices. Those who cannot afford, or do not have access to personal cars, including children, many seniors, and people with disabilities, rely on walking to accomplish their daily tasks.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 17 The Mountainland Association of Focus Areas Governments (MAG) and its member Due to the importance of walking, a pedestrian-focused communities recognize that everyone is a analysis was completed to complement the development pedestrian. Walking trips can be made alone of regional network recommendations as discussed in or in conjunction with transit, driving, and/ Chapter Four. As opposed to the regional nature of the or bicycling. Coordination with these other network connections, focus areas provide an opportunity modes can improve the functionality, as to hone in on challenges and opportunities related to well as expand the scope of, a pedestrian walking and biking within specific neighborhoods of network. Walking then becomes a each community. This Plan includes eight areas within viable part of any trip. which more detailed recommendations for improving pedestrian mobility and safety were made. The types of improvements and method by which they were identified Across the County, walking is an important mode of and prioritized in these focus areas may be replicated in transportation for all residents to access employment, other parts of each community. transit, goods and services, community spaces, and recreational opportunities. Table 1 lists the top reasons Selection Methodology why people walk, as documented in the US Department of Transportation’s 2012 National Survey of Pedestrian The project team selected draft areas of focus within Bicyclists Attitudes and Behaviors, Highlights Report. each of the eight communities based on the following Table 2 Why Are People Walking? analyses and input:

REASONS FOR WALKING PERCENTAGE Demand Analysis A Geographic Information System (GIS)-based demand Exercise or health 39% analysis was conducted to assess the probable demand Personal errands for active transportation infrastructure in the study 17% area. Probable demand is based on the destinations Recreation 15% and origins of trips for which people might choose to bike or walk if infrastructure conditions were adequate Walk the dog 7% and desirable. Demand factors such as population and employment density, trails and on-street bike routes, Visit a friend or relative 7% transit facilities, and pedestrian network density were Commuting to/from work 7% included in this analysis. Commuting to/from school 3% Table 3 shows the types of generators used to determine demand and the weight assigned to each, based on best Requires for job 2% practices. The following demand factors were chosen to estimate the demand for active transportation trips: population density, because it indicates the origin of a Table 3 Demand Weightings large portion of biking and walking trips; employment density to capture commute trips; trails and on-street FACTORS WEIGHTING bike routes to capture existing ridership; transit service and regional facilities to capture trip generators; and Population Density 22% pedestrian network density to indicate the density of Employment 22% development patterns and street network connectivity. Trails 17% Figure 4 shows the result of the demand analysis. The areas with the highest demand are shown in yellow. Within Network Density 11% the study area, the highest demand is concentrated east of US-89 in Springville, in southern Springville where it Regional Facilities 11% connects with Mapleton, in Payson’s downtown core near Main Street and 100 North, in Spanish Fork between Main On-street bike lanes and routes 11% Street and 100 North, and near Canyon Road in Spanish Transit 6% Fork. Areas with greater probable demand were first reviewed as potential focus areas as these hot spots are

18 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 4 Study Area Demand Analysis

15 75 Uinta UTAH LAKE Springville National Forest

Palmyra 51 Mapleton

Lake Shore 156

147

Benjamin 198 Spanish Fork Moark 115 Junction

West Mountain 6

Salem Payson

Elk Ridge Woodland Hills 141 Spring Lake Genola Santaquin t s e at st s

Uinta National 15 Forest 89

S Utah County ATP Study Area

Demand Existing Railroad Water High Municipal Boundary County Boundary Low 0 0.5 1 2 Parks Miles

User: gomerso Path: H:\B000\B012 S Utah Co ATP\GIS\GIS\MXDs\201609_September\S_Utah_Demand_Regional_LETTER_Portrait.mxd South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 19 School dismissal in Springville

likely to have greater foot and bike traffic. Further criteria, Barriers such as that listed below, was considered in addition to Barriers such as railroad lines, freeways, arterials, and the GIS-based demand areas. other obstacles that make it uncomfortable to walk or Stakeholder Input bike were considered in selecting areas to make focused bicycle and pedestrian recommendations. Members of the PMT provided information about areas of challenge within their cities. This input was Street Grid considered in addition to the demand areas. Areas with a gridded street pattern and potential parallel Public Input routes to principal arterials were selected over areas with less connected street pattern due to feasibility of Input provided by the public via the online interactive implementation in the short-term. map or at the public open house was considered when selecting focus areas. For example, the project team used GIS to overlay the desire lines and “places I would like to walk or bike” created in the online map with the areas of greatest demand to easily see overlap between the GIS-based analysis and the public’s input.

Activity Generators Presence of schools, churches, or other pedestrian- based activity centers influenced the selection of focus areas. The project team reviewed the existing barriers between residences and schools, parks, and commercial districts to evaluate the potential benefit of pedestrian- and bicycle-focused improvements. Santaquin Active Transportation Workshop

20 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Salem Pond

Recommendations Development

The project team inventoried the existing challenges and Draft recommendations were presented to the PMT and barriers to walking and biking within each focus area. stakeholders during the May 2016 Active Transportation A Google Earth desktop review identified challenges to Workshops. These workshops provided an opportunity mobility and comfort, such as: to combine field visits and on-the-ground brainstorming •• Missing crosswalks, with collaborative decision-making. Based on input received, the draft focus area recommendations were •• Difficult crossings, further modified and refined. •• Wide crossings, Recommendation Summaries •• Uncomfortable bike facilities, The following section provides focus area summaries •• Missing sidewalks, and maps for each of the eight communities within the •• Wide streets, and study area. These include a community overview, brief summary of the Active Transportation Workshop, and a •• Long distances between crossings. narrative about the key issues and how the focus area Then, based on field visits, further desktop reviews, recommendations address them. These summaries conversations with PMT members, and best practices, are intended to help the PMT, community leaders, draft focus area recommendations were developed. and other decision-makers prioritize infrastructure Initial draft recommendations addressed the challenges recommendations to improve walking and biking within listed above, with sensitivity to the feasibility of their communities. implementation, cost, and levels of effort. Generally, focus area recommendations address pedestrian safety and comfort, though some linear bicycle-oriented improvements are also included to complement the regional recommendations (see Chapter Four).

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 21 ELK RIDGE

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

Elk Ridge is a small residential community with few The Elk Ridge workshop was held on May 18, 2016. non-residential land uses. Elk Ridge’s focus area is A representative from Elk Ridge City Council, a Planning south of Park Drive and north of E Alpine Drive and Commissioner, the City’s contract planner, and project includes the Elk Ridge City Town Office, a park, and team members gathered to discuss draft focus area one church. Currently, the area has no sidewalks or recommendations. crosswalks to accommodate pedestrians so people walk on the narrow streets, in the adjacent bike lane, or in the wide gravel shoulders. The only traffic control in the area is one pair of stop signs at Escalante Drive and Park Drive controlling traffic on Escalante Drive. This area was chosen as a site for further study as there are opportunities to improve connectivity to parks, schools, and residences.

Focus Area Recommendations

The focus area recommendations are intended to address the following issues identified over the course of the Plan and refined through the active transportation workshop. Identified Issue: Identified Issue: The existing two-way bike lane along Park Drive is well- Vehicular traffic traveling along Park Drive often goes used by pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. However, faster than the posted speed of 25 mph. without vertical separation such as a curb, some vehicles are parked within the non-motorized travel lane. Response: The addition of some traffic calming measures would Response: improve travel for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic The addition of a buffer, whether with paint or a calming is recommended along Park Drive to encourage removable low-cost curb, would improve this treatment drivers to travel at the posted 25 mph speed limit. This throughout Elk Ridge while providing greater comfort will create a safer, more comfortable environment for people walking and biking. A buffered bike lane is for bicyclists and pedestrians that are riding with proposed along Park Drive, N Canyon View Drive, and traffic or are walking along the shoulder of the road. along E Alpine Drive. Additionally, crosswalks should be added at the corner of Escalante Drive and Park Drive to supplement the existing pedestrian crossing warning signs and reinforce pedestrians’ priority.

22 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 5 Elk Ridge ln e ama fille ln o rig e m a e bridger ln n n c o ln r n te o z w s d hudson d r ln hu e n ln mpo l e oca n a ll e g a m w ma gell e an ln

r rk d e pa w park dr

Shuler d

Park n e

n i

v e c

l n

c a

a r

k y l

a n l

n n a

t c

e n

n h ills dr id alpine

e e r i

d c

s d

n c

a a l

n h

y g

o i

n h

s vi s

a e

s w t o r d r ln

s h ills ide dr

ander dr e alex

Elk Ridge Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!F Driveway Narrowing Bike Lane Separated Bike Lanes (! Crosswalk MAPLETON Α (!G Other Paved Shoulder Crushed Stone Trail (!Β High Visibility Crosswalk Recommendations Shared Lane Markings Bike Lane SPANISH FORK Trail (!C Curb Extensions Traffic Calming Shared Streets ¤£6 Separated Bike Lane SALEM (!D Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Regional Recommendations PAYSON Trail 198 WOODLAND (!E Median Island Buffered Bike Lane ST HILLS SANTAQUIN ELK RIDGE 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 23 DRAFT MAPLETON

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

Mapleton’s focus area is centered on Main Street and The Mapleton workshop was held on May 17, 2016. W 1200 N and it includes three schools, civic offices, Three City representatives took the project team for a and one church. This area was suggested for study as tour of the focus area and the Mapleton Parkway Trail, there are currently people walking and biking along the which was still under construction at the time. Draft shoulder of 300 West Street, children biking along Maple focus area recommendations and regional network Street, and a concentration of residents within and just recommendations were discussed in detail. north of the focus area.

Focus Area Recommendations

The focus area recommendations are intended to address the following issues identified over the course of the Plan and refined through the active transportation workshop. Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Identified Issue: There is poor connectivity Access to Mapleton Junior Crossing Main Street While driver compliance between Main Street and High School across 1200 at 1200 North Street is at the crosswalk across W the Mapleton Parkway North is challenging for a challenge for people Maple Street at Mapleton Trail, including missing people walking as the walking and biking. Elementary School is high, sidewalks and crossings existing crosswalk lacks The existing standard the crossing distance near Hobble Creek enhancements to call crosswalks along the east (of 56 feet) is still wider Elementary School. attention to the presence and southern approaches than is comfortable for of pedestrians. are insufficient to meet pedestrians. Response: user needs. Adding bike lanes, or Response: Response: shared lane markings Adding a rapid flashing Response: Adding a median crossing where the rights-of- beacon across 1200 Narrowing the crossing island on Maple Street way along 1200 North North Street will help distance with curb will allow pedestrians to Street are too narrow, students access the extensions and adding cross the street in two will provide a place for Junior High School. high visibility crosswalks stages. This treatment will people to safely bike. on all four approaches improve the comfort and Closing a short sidewalk will improve pedestrian safety for those crossing segment between the comfort and safety, Maple Street, especially Elementary School and especially important for children and other the trail will provide a children walking to school vulnerable users. direct connection between along 1200 North Street. the two. Additionally, a crosswalk at the new trail crossing of 1200 North will improve visibility for people walking and biking.

24 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 6 Mapleton

s Hobble t

s s

Creek Park

e t s w e north st 0 00

w e 17

0 0

n w 1600 north st e 1600 north st

t t

s s

t t

s s

t e

w w

0 rth st 0 e 1400 no w

0 5

Hobble

n n

3 00 north st Creek n e 13 Elementary School w 1200 north st e 1200 north st

Mapleton

s Junior

s High School

e t

w s

e t 900 north st t t

0 0 s

s s

4 2

a t w 800 north st 1

e s

n a 0 a e 800 north st e

m 0 6

0 1

n 7

n t

w 600 north st e 600 north st s

0 0

t 0

s 1

e 460 north st t n

t t e 400 north st

0 s

t t

2 s s

1 a a

e e

0 0 1

3 t

2 s

t n n

s s

Mapleton a

Elementary 0

0 0

6 0

School 8

n n

w maple st e maple st

t s

Mapleton

n i

a City Park

t s

0 e dogwood d

0 r

2 1

147 s Eagle Rock Park w 600 south st (private)

Mapleton Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!F Driveway Narrowing Bike Lane Separated Bike Lanes (! Crosswalk MAPLETON Α (!G Other Paved Shoulder Crushed Stone Trail (!Β High Visibility Crosswalk Recommendations Shared Lane Markings Bike Lane SPANISH FORK Trail (!C Curb Extensions Add Sidewalk Shared Streets ¤£6 Separated Bike Lane SALEM (!D Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Regional Recommendations PAYSON 198 WOODLAND (!E Median Island Buffered Bike Lane Trail ST HILLS SANTAQUIN ELK RIDGE 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 25 DRAFT PAYSON

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

Payson’s focus area includes the commercial, residential, The Payson workshop was held on May 16, 2016. Payson recreational, and cultural activity located south of 100 City staff, a Payson City Planning Commissioner, a UDOT North Street and east of Main Street. This area includes representative, and project team members gathered the following activity generators: to discuss draft focus area recommendations. Due to inclement weather, the Payson workshop was held •• Peteetneet Museum and Cultural Arts Center indoors at the Peteetneet Museum and Cultural Arts •• Park View Elementary School Center. •• Memorial Park •• Two churches •• Commercial activity south of 100 North

Focus Area Recommendations

The focus area recommendations are intended to address the following issues identified over the course of the Plan and refined through the active transportation workshop. Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Identified Issue: There is little to connect the SR 198 presents a barrier for people There are few crossings of 300 Peteetneet Museum and Cultural walking to and from the downtown South to connect Park View Arts Center to Main Street. area. Existing crossings could be Elementary School and Memorial Additionally, the pavement width of E enhanced to improve visibility and Park. Additionally, there are no on- Utah Avenue is wider than necessary reduce exposure of pedestrians crossing street bike facilities in this area for for existing traffic volumes. the street. children biking to and from school. Response: Response: Response: City staff had indicated an interest in Adding high visibility crosswalks at The crossing of 300 South at Main developing a cultural trail within the City Main St and 600 East would improve Street is the most challenging for and building upon the streetscaping visibility of crossings. In addition, people walking and biking. Proposed along the north side of E Utah Avenue. curb extensions at all crossings would curb extensions on 300 South, Adding traffic calming along this narrow crossing distances and improve coupled with a median island and street will slow vehicular speeds while visibility, which is particularly important a high visibility crosswalk, would increasing comfort for those walking at unsignalized locations near transit provide a safer crossing. Curb and biking. Shared lane markings from stops (e.g., 200 East, 400 East, 500 E) A extensions added to the midblock N Main Street to 500 East Street will rapid flashing beacon at 200 East would crossing at 100 East Street leading indicate that this is a multimodal street. increase motorist yielding and improve to Memorial Park will shorten the safety along this school walking route. crossing distance and improve pedestrian safety. Additionally, buffered bike lanes on S Main Street and 300 East Street to 200 East Street will provide improved bike circulation and connection throughout the focus area.

26 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 7 Payson

t t t

s s s

t t t

s s s

a a a

e e e

t s

0 0 0

115 s

0 0 0

e 200 north st 0

s t

2 3 4

n n n

a n

w a

Pioneer 1

0 6

Park n

s 198 e 100 north st

e utah ave Peteetneet Payson Park Public Library

e 100 south st

e 200 south s t 0

s 2

e s

Memorial 0

Park s

t e 300 south st

Park View e

Elementary s School e 400 south st

t t

s s

a a

0 0

s s e 500 south st rd l na a c y r

Payson Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!F Driveway Narrowing Bike Lane Regional Recommendations (! Crosswalk Trail MAPLETON Α (!G Other Paved Shoulder (!Β High Visibility Crosswalk Recommendations Shared Lane Markings Separated Bike Lanes SPANISH FORK Trail (!C Curb Extensions Add Sidewalk Crushed Stone Trail ¤£6 Separated Bike Lane SALEM (!D Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Traffic Calming Bike Lane PAYSON 198 WOODLAND (!E Median Island Buffered Bike Lane Shared Streets ST HILLS SANTAQUIN ELK RIDGE 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 27 DRAFT SALEM

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

Salem’s focus area includes the commercial, residential, The Salem workshop consisted of a meeting with City recreational, and cultural activity located south of E 100 Staff held on May 18, 2016. The group gathered to N Street and west of S Main Street. Knoll Park, Salem discuss Salem’s draft focus area and regional network Pond, Salem Elementary School, and Salem Hills High recommendations. School are key generators of walk and bike trips, but State Route (SR) 198 and the non-gridded street pattern are deterrents to connectivity. This portion of Salem was chosen as an area of focus due to its need for improved connections to schools and the park.

Focus Area Recommendations

The focus area recommendations are intended to address the following issues identified over the course of the Plan and refined through the active transportation workshop. Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Identified Issue: The crossing of SR 198 at 100 West Access to Salem Elementary School Knoll Park is a boon to the community Street poses a major challenge by foot and bike is limited. There are with its picturesque views of the for pedestrians due to the traffic no bike facilities and places with mountains and Salem Pond However, volumes, speeds, and width of SR- missing sidewalks. Center Street small barriers within and adjacent 198. The high school just north of has sidewalks that are too narrow to to the park prohibit connectivity. For SR-198 generates high pedestrian meet the demand of people walking example, the bollards placed at either activity at this crossing. Several to school. end of the bridge between S Salem near-misses have already occurred Lake Drive and W Salem Lake Drive here, which indicates that crossing Response: make it challenging for people on bikes improvements are needed. Adding shared lane markings to or using mobility devices to cross. Main Street south of SR-198 will Response: provide a space for bikes. North of Response: SR-198 is controlled by UDOT SR-198, the road widens and there The bridge span is already too and the City of Salem is already is enough space for buffered bike narrow for motorized access, so the working to add pedestrian crossing lanes. Adding an asphalt trail on bollards should be removed to allow improvements at this location. the south side of Center Street will for the free movement of people. At Adding curb extensions and a median accommodate people walking and the intersection of 200 South Street island will shorten the crossing biking to Salem Elementary School. and 200 West Street, where the distance while providing a refuge Additionally, adding sidewalk along street turns, adding a high visibility space for pedestrians, allowing the south side of 100 South Street crosswalk and stop control will them to cross the street in two between 100 West Street and S Main more clearly define the intersection. stages. Adding a rapid flash beacon Street will provide a place for people Further south, at W Mountain View will alert drivers to the presence of to walk that is separated from motor Drive and W Salem Lake Drive, due to pedestrians that are about to cross or vehicles. the slope of the street, some drivers are actively crossing. may take the turning movement faster than the corner visibility allows. Adding a sign, STATE LAW YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS, will remind drivers to slow down and yield to pedestrians. 28 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 8 Salem

d s lv

b i

k a

w d m

a r

h n t y e k

e s e 200 north st b

t n

s n

198 t

t t e 100 north st s s

t a

s e

w n 0 Salem i

5 rd a en 7 10 Ballpark w s c en w m hr t n is cen n te n r st e center st

Heritage t

s Salem t

Park s

a Elementary i st e

a outh 0 s School 0 9 m 0

Eagle s Park w 100 south st e 100 south st s

s h w t e s lak e eview dr

n i

a r d

w 200 south st s

t e 200 south st s

0 Knoll Park 0

2 s w 300 so t uth st w salem lake d uth st s r e 300 so

0 s

4 t r e

s s d

t e

s k e w 400 south st

100 a

w l

Salem

0 w mountain view dr m 0 Lake w e 3 440 south st l t a 1 Park dr el s s z

r a s

t s h d

s e e e r

n w e

w 0 e

c o 0

u 3

Salem Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!F Driveway Narrowing Bike Lane Regional Recommendations (! Crosswalk Trail MAPLETON Α (!G Other Paved Shoulder (!Β High Visibility Crosswalk Recommendations Shared Lane Markings Separated Bike Lanes SPANISH FORK Trail (!C Curb Extensions Add Sidewalk Crushed Stone Trail ¤£6 Separated Bike Lane SALEM (!D Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Angled Parking Bike Lane PAYSON 198 WOODLAND (!E Median Island Buffered Bike Lane Shared Streets ST HILLS SANTAQUIN ELK RIDGE 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 29 DRAFT SANTAQUIN

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

The area of Santaquin centered along E Main Street The Santaquin workshop was held on May 17, 2016. between S 500 W and I-15 was suggested as an area of City representatives and Planning Commissioners focus as there are opportunities to improve connectivity took the project team for a tour of the focus area. Draft to parks, Santaquin Elementary School, churches, stores, focus area recommendations and regional network and other community destinations. recommendations were discussed in detail.

Focus Area Recommendations

The focus area recommendations are intended to address the following issues identified over the course of the Plan and refined through the active transportation workshop. Understanding that Main Street is expected to become a five-lane cross section within the next eight years, the focus area recommendations will lay a foundation for short term bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the city. Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Santaquin Elementary School There is poor bike connectivity Center Street, the intended gateway anchors western Santaquin, within the focus area, especially for to the City’s north side, has a however, there are portions of crossing Main Street. challenging crossing of Main Street. sidewalk missing adjacent to the There are missing curb ramps, no school along 400 West Street and Response: crosswalks, and no signal. Due to the nearest perpendicular side Adding bike lanes on 200 West the long spacing between signalized streets. Additionally, pedestrian Street, 100 South Street, and N crossings, pedestrians have to walk access to Main Street at 400 West Center Street will create a network over a half mile out of direction to is insufficient to meet user needs of facilities within the area. The cross at a signalized location. along this busy road. While a school City anticipates future crossings guard helps children cross the of Main Street at 200 West and Response: street during school arrivals and Center Street, which will improve Enhancing this crossing in the dismissals, the existing crosswalk connectivity. Additionally, there short-term will help improve safety is insufficient in terms of drawing is a long-term plan for a 10-foot for those walking and biking prior motorists’ attention to the crossing. trail for 200 West with center to the implementation of a full landscape median. Adding a bike signal. Crosswalks will indicate to Response: lane would establish the bike route all roadway users where pedestrians A median island and rapid flashing in the short-term. are present, a rapid flashing beacon beacon should be added to the will alert drivers to pedestrians’ crosswalk at 400 West Street and presence in a very visible manner, Main Street. This will shorten the and curb extensions will shorten the crossing for children accessing crossing distance. the school by breaking it into two parts, while and the beacon will alert drivers to pedestrians’ presence. Completing the sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the elementary school will help improve access and safety.

30 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 9 Santaquin

rth st t 10 no s

e 6

a e

w 0

w 560 north st

0 t

4 0

0 s

n t 1

4 s

e n

w w

0 0

5 0

3 w 450 n 3 orth st

n n

0 0 w 400 north st e 4 0 00 north st

w e

e s t

s t s

s t

t t s

a Cottonwood s

w 300 n e orth st t r e 300 north st Park

s 3

n w lark st 0 w 200 north st 1 e 200 north st

w 100 north st e 100 north st Main Street Park w main st e main st 6

s s

Santaquin s

Elementary w 100 south st e 100 south st e

s 1 e School City 0 3

a s 1 0 south st

e t

Center

Centennial t Park 0

2 r Park d w 200 south st e 200 south st s d an hl ig

h t

t s s

s t

15 s d t

t r a s

s w 300 south st e 300 south st

s e e a e

r g e 0

d 0 t Santaquin i 0

0 r

5 3 n

0 7 e s

s Cemetery s

s c

s w e 400 south st

0 t

0 s

t s s 15 e 450 south st

w 500 south st e

t 0

t s

s 0

t 2

t s

s s

e e

t w h st 0 w 580 sout s

t 0

6 s

0 e

s s

0 300 e w e 610 south st

s e 0

a 0

s 5 4

s s

t s

Santaquin Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!F Driveway Narrowing Bike Lane Regional Recommendations (! Crosswalk Trail MAPLETON Α (!G Other Paved Shoulder (!Β High Visibility Crosswalk Recommendations Shared Lane Markings Separated Bike Lanes SPANISH FORK Trail (!C Curb Extensions Add Sidewalk Crushed Stone Trail ¤£6 Separated Bike Lane SALEM (!D Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Angled Parking Bike Lane PAYSON 198 WOODLAND (!E Median Island Buffered Bike Lane Shared Streets ST HILLS SANTAQUIN ELK RIDGE 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 31 DRAFT SPANISH FORK

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

Spanish Fork’s focus area includes two high schools, The Spanish Fork workshop was held on May 17, residential neighborhoods, large city parks, and the 2016. Spanish Fork City staff, City Councilors, and convergence of the city’s two primary arterials: Center project team members gathered to discuss draft focus Street and Main Street. The area was chosen because of area recommendations. The team walked Main and the needed connectivity across these streets. The schools, Center Streets while discussing the draft focus area churches, parks, government buildings, and Main Street recommendations in detail. generates a high level of activity within this area that can be served via improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Focus Area Recommendations

The focus area recommendations are intended to address the following issues identified over the course of the Plan and refined through the active transportation workshop. Spanish Fork’s recommendations are consistent with the “Rediscover Historic Downtown Spanish Fork: Implementation Strategies to Promote Business, Heritage, and Community” published in September 2015 by the American Planning Association. This report outlines a vision for downtown N Main Street between E Center Street and E 400 N Street. The long-term Main Street Design Concept for this corridor includes a 32- foot landscaped median, similar to Provo, with a 12-foot outer lane shared lane marking to accommodate bicyclists. This cross section would include curb extensions and crosswalks at every intersection and across Main Street.

Identified Issue: Identified Issue: comfort. Wide cross sections can lead The existing marked crosswalks People use 475 West Street between to higher automobile speeds in spite of on Center Street are over a half 100 South Street and W Center the 25 mph speed limit on Center and mile apart, and only one crossing Street between the church and the 30 mph speed limit on Main Street. is marked near Spanish Fork residential neighborhood as a cut High School. This detracts from through route. There are reported Response: pedestrian safety, comfort, and speeding issues beyond the 25 Narrowing the crossing distances mobility along and across these two mph speed limit that have not been will help to improve the pedestrian streets. ameliorated through short-term crossing experience. Spot enforcement measures. improvements, such as curb Response: extensions on Main Street at Center Two high visibility crosswalks Response: Street, will help narrow the crossing should be added at 300 West Street Traffic calming measures such as distances. Additionally, reconfiguring and 200 West Street to increase vertical and horizontal deflection Center Street to have fewer or pedestrian visibility across Center along this street would slow traffic narrowed travel lanes would slow Street. Additionally, a rapid and improve safety. travel speeds while providing space flashing beacon, median island, for a buffered bike lane. Striping and high visibility crosswalks are Identified Issue: angled parking and on-street parallel recommended at 630 West street to Main Street and Center Street have parking will further narrow the visual improve visibility and crossings to wide curb-to-curb widths (over 90 feet) cross section. These improvements the stadium. This actuated signal and over five travel lanes plus on- will help to improve the walking will be helpful during sporting events street parking. These widths present and biking environments along and and during normal school hours for a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists across these two streets. students who walk or bike to school. crossing both streets while reducing

32 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 10 Spanish Fork

t w 400 north st e 400 north st

0 t

30 s w 300 north st

e 300 n

orth st t

0 t

s 3

6 t

Memorial Square s n

e t w 200 n orth st e 200 north st

0 Water

s Park 2

Spanish Fork a

High School t e 100 north st

Sunset

Park

w center st n t e ce s nter st

t e

s Spanish

0 Fork City w

Park

t 7 s

s e 100 sou th st e

w 100 south st 2 s s 156

t s e t

s s s c

a t

s la w s e

n t

t s e 200 south st e 0

e d s

r s

1 w 250 south st a

s s

m e

s w

Wildflower

t w 0 s 300 south st e 300 sou 0 Park th st

t 7

e s t s w w 350 south st t 0 s

4 e Landmark High

s d Russell School 0 v l 9 b Swenson

5 s

s s l i 3 Ball Park

a 4 r

0 t

w h

s v i e

ol n s

un a t p te s er s t dr s 198 Utah County w 500 south st Fairgrounds

dr rk pa est Spanish Fork w w Recreation Complex

Spanish Fork Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!G Other Shared Lane Markings Regional Recommendations (!Α Crosswalk Recommendations Add Sidewalk Trail MAPLETON High Visibility Crosswalk Trail Separated Bike Lanes (!Β Stripe Parking SPANISH FORK Separated Bike Lane (!C Curb Extensions Angled Parking Crushed Stone Trail (! Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane ¤£6 D Traffic Calming PAYSON SALEM (! Median Island Bike Lane Shared Streets 198 WOODLAND E Street Reconfiguration ST HILLS Driveway Narrowing Paved Shoulder ELK RIDGE (!F SANTAQUIN 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 33 DRAFT SPRINGVILLE

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

The Springville focus area is centered on Memorial Park The Springville workshop was held on May 17, 2016. The in central Springville. This area showed high demand for Mayor of Springville, City staff, a Planning Commissioner, walk and bike trips. However, due to the street pattern and other representatives took the project team for a tour and challenges in crossing E Center Street, 400 East of the focus area. Draft focus area recommendations Street, and 400 South Street, there are great opportunities and regional network recommendations were discussed to improve intersection crossings, connectivity, and in detail. residential access to schools, churches, and commercial activity.

Focus Area Recommendations

The focus area recommendations are intended to address the following issues identified over the course of the Plan and refined through the active transportation workshop. Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Identified Issue: Most issues in the Springville focus There is poor east-west connectivity The crossing of 400 South Street at area that present problems for for people biking through this area, 800 East Street is an intersection pedestrian and bicycle travel relate especially for eastern Springville that serves the Reams grocery store to the widths and configuration of residents into the center city. and Brookside Elementary School. streets. Portions of Center Street However, the pedestrian waiting and 100 South Street are overly wide Response: area on the northeast corner is for the functions they serve. Each Adding bike facilities, shared lane small and only contains one curb of these streets carries two lanes of markings and bike lanes, along 245 ramp. Southbound traffic making automobile traffic, but is over 60 feet South Street between 400 East a right turn onto 400 South Street wide. Open sections like this may and 800 East Streets will provide a will typically pull forward, thereby lead to faster vehicular travel speeds connection along this low-volume blocking the pedestrian pathway. than posted speed limits, making street that connects the church, crossing the street more difficult Memorial Ballpark, and Summit Response: for pedestrians and riding along the Center. Adding back-in angled Adding a curb extension and high street less comfortable for bicyclists. parking along both sides of the visibility crosswalks at this corner curved street between the church will provide a better pedestrian Response: and park will further narrow the queue space and improved visibility. Adding a buffered bike lane on Center street and provide traffic calming. While crosswalks are not necessary Street between 200 East Street Continuing the shared lane on the many local residential and 400 East Street will provide treatment up to 200 South Street streets in this area, they serve an an enhanced bike facility without provides a second option for people important purpose of alerting drivers compromising vehicular operations. to access the proposed bike lanes to pedestrians’ presence at key Additionally, adding traffic calming, on 400 East. locations like this intersection, which a sidewalk, and back-in angled is especially important due to its parking along 100 South Street will proximity to the elementary school. improve access to Memorial ballpark. Treatments such as striping of bike lanes or parking bays work to narrow the visual expanse of a roadway, thereby encouraging motorists to reduce travel speeds. 34 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 11 Springville

e center st

t t

s s

ave 0

e aaron 0 a

e 1 t 00 south st

a Grant

Elementary

0 0 School

s s Memorial Nebo School e 200 south st Ballpark District/Summit Center

e 245 south st s

b c e 300 south st i t e r

b t uc kolob cir

s k le e e chase ln a y

e a ve

400

s e 400 south st

s Brookside

glen Elementary e woo v

d a School

d t r

Springville e

r e

Middle v

School s e 535 south st

s b

Kolob o

Park s

e 600 south st d r e swenson ave

e 700 south st

Springville Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!G Other Shared Lane Markings Crushed Stone Trail (!Α Crosswalk Recommendations Add Sidewalk Bike Lane MAPLETON High Visibility Crosswalk Trail (!Β Angled Parking Shared Streets SPANISH FORK Separated Bike Lane (!C Curb Extensions Traffic Calming Future Opportunities !( !( (! Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Buffered Bike Lane Regional Recommendations Trail ¤£6 D PAYSON SALEM (! Median Island Bike Lane Trail 198 WOODLAND E ST HILLS Driveway Narrowing Paved Shoulder Separated Bike Lanes ELK RIDGE (!F SANTAQUIN 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 35 DRAFT WOODLAND HILLS

Community Overview Active Transportation Workshop Summary

Woodland Hills a small community with residential The Woodland Hills workshop was the primary agenda land uses. Woodland Hill’s focus area is centered on of the Woodland Hills Planning Commission held on S Woodland Hills Drive in front of the City Office and May 18, 2016. As such, members of the project team and community center. While it is narrower in scope than other Planning Commission members gathered to discuss focus areas chosen throughout the project, S Woodland Woodland Hills’ draft focus area and regional network Hills Road is an optimal place to look at opportunities to recommendations. improve comfort and safety for residents.

Focus Area Recommendation

The focus area recommendation is intended to address the following issue identified during the active transportation workshop. Identified Issue: Woodland Hills Drive is well-used by pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. However, there are no sidewalks or paved shoulders. Due to the hilly terrain and curvilinear street pattern, visibility is more challenging throughout this area. Response: Traffic calming measures, including vertical and horizontal deflection, will encourage vehicular traffic to travel at the posted speed of 25 mph. This will improve the pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort throughout this portion of the City.

36 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 12 Woodland Hills

le way ntain va y mou a e w w ie v e k la w

Woodland Hills City Offices/Community Center

e high line dr

w sp r in g d r

r d

s l l i h s e sp o d ring n dr a a k l d d o r o w

a r

e l p a m s e b road ho llow dr w

lo a f e r r d d r r d w e d i a v te r e es d in m nt p o e s h m s le tt se s

lo a f r e est d r le n d ag r e e

Woodland Hills Focus Area Recommendations UTAH LAKE 15 SPRINGVILLE Recommendations (!F Driveway Narrowing Bike Lane Separated Bike Lanes (! Crosswalk MAPLETON Α (!G Other Paved Shoulder Crushed Stone Trail (!Β High Visibility Crosswalk Recommendations Shared Lane Markings Bike Lane SPANISH FORK Trail (!C Curb Extensions Traffic Calming Shared Streets ¤£6 Separated Bike Lane SALEM (!D Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Regional Recommendations PAYSON Trail 198 WOODLAND (!E Median Island Buffered Bike Lane ST HILLS SANTAQUIN ELK RIDGE 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ¤£89

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 37 DRAFT This page intentionally left blank.

38 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Regional Network While south Utah County has some pieces of an active 4 transportation network already in place, there is much work to be done to create a connected, safe, and comfortable network that provides opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike. This chapter identifies existing bikeways in the study area and outlines a vision to link existing trails and bikeways through the addition of trails, separated bike lanes, bike lanes, paved shoulders, and shared streets. These recommendations comprise a regional bike network to span the eight communities and unincorporated areas within south Utah County.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 39 Existing Facilities

Elk Ridge trail user

Trails

The majority of south Utah County’s bicycle facilities Hobble Creek Parkway Trail are paved off-street trails which provide excellent The Hobble Creek Parkway Trail provides canyon access low-stress opportunities for active transportation from Springville. This asphalt trail parallels two miles of and recreation. South Utah County is home to several Hobble Creek beginning at the Hobble Creek Detention regionally-significant trails that offer a safe and Basin, travels adjacent to the Hobble Creek Golf Course, comfortable bicycling experience, near total separation and ends near Rotary Park. from vehicular traffic and scenic surroundings. However, because of their orientation to waterways and the Dry Creek Trail mountains, their use for serving everyday travel needs is Springville’s Dry Creek Trail is in the southwest of limited by their distance from important activity centers the city between 1200 West and 600 West. The trail and a lack of lateral connections because the trails run parallels the Dry Creek and terminates at the Union parallel to each other. Pacific railroad line that crosses from Springville to Bonneville Shoreline Trail Spanish Fork. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST) is a multiuse trail at Spanish Fork River Trail the base of the Wasatch Front that was designated as The Spanish Fork River Trail is a four-mile long paved Utah’s Millennium Legacy Trail as part of a White House trail that crosses south Spanish Fork between Canyon initiative.1 Thirty miles of the BST have been constructed View Park and 520 South at the western limits of the in Utah County composed of a gravel trail between Provo city. The trail was completed in 2015 and is a point of and Canyon Road in Springville, a dirt trail between pride for City staff and residents alike. Mapleton and Spanish Fork, and a discontinuous soft- surface trail throughout eastern Santaquin. The BST US 6 Trail Coalition, an organization of entities that represents the The US 6 Trail is a 1.5 mile paved sidepath in Spanish communities in support of the trail, envisions building a Fork that begins near the North Park at 200 East and non-motorized trail that serves as a connection between ends at Center Street. This trail provides some access the urban areas and public lands along the Wasatch to the commercial and residential land uses to the south Front and provides trail users with a recreational of US 6. experience that is safe and aesthetically pleasing. Dry Creek Parkway Trail 1 Bonneville Shoreline Trail. BST Coalition Annual Report 2014. Accessed Dec. 4, 2015. http://www.bonnevilleshorelinetrail.org/resources/ The Dry Creek Parkway Trail parallels the Dry Creek BST%20Coalition%20Annual%20Report%202014.pdf

40 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 13 Existing Bicycle Facilities

w center st 114

189

UTAH LAKE 75 B o n n Uinta e v 15 il National le S Forest ho re li ne T S p rr ii n g v ii ll ll e r a il 77

P a l m y r a P a l mw y r a p 51 al my ra dr

U S LLaakkee S hhoorree 6 T r a il Maplletton

147

d r 198 h B eennjjaam iinn c a e

b n

l Spaniish Forrk

i w 8000 south st

l s 115 l East River Trai rd d se r u s o n rh o 2 e W eesstt M o uunnttaaiinn x e w i 2 750 n o d orth st p 0 e s 0

w 9600 south st st 6 e 9800 south st

n S a ll e m la ke rd Payson

E llk R i d g e Woodlland Hiilllls S p r i n g R i d g e 141 w 12400 south st S p r i n g 15 LLaakkee G eennoollaa

st te ta s Santtaquiin

s ne bo d loo p r

Uinta B i r d s e y e National B i r d s e y e R oocckkyy R iiddggee Forest

Existing Bicycle Network S Utah County ATP Existing Facilities Municipal Boundary Hard Surface Trail County Boundary Natural Surface Trail Parks Bike Lane Water Existing Railroad 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 41 channel, extending from the entrance of Payson Canyon Challenges and Opportunities and almost reaching I-15. While sections of the trail have yet to be completed, those sections that are complete The challenges with the existing bike network noted by are heavily used. the public and stakeholders are most notably about the On-Street Bikeways lack of trails in the western County, a lack of north-south connections, poor crossings of arterials, and the barriers Some on-street bicycle facilities exist throughout posed by principal arterials, railroads, and the freeway. the County, but they are sparse and do not yet form Opportunities for implementing a more connected an interconnected network. There are signed routes, bicycle network include streets with excess vehicular shared lane markings, and bike lanes in Mapleton, capacity that could potentially be retrofitted with Springville, and Spanish Fork, as well as off-street trails. bike facilities and trails that can be upgraded or Figure 13 illustrates the existing trails, bike lanes, and completed to be more usable to a broader user group. signed bike routes that currently exist in the southern In addition, some communities within the study area portion of the County. have interconnected street grids, namely in Spanish Fork, Santaquin, Salem, Springville, and Payson. Street grids tend to provide better connectivity and shorter travel distances between origins and destinations, especially compared to a more suburban pattern of cul-de-sacs and meandering streets. The parallel streets and frequently-spaced perpendicular cross streets of a traditional grid street pattern make it is easier to create a bicycle network that is comfortable for the broader population. For example, a low-volume, low-speed street parallel to an arterial can be easily signed and striped for bicycle travel which provides a comfortable alternative to bicycle facilities on a higher speed arterial roadway. A lack of a grid street pattern in parts of the study area make it more challenging to implement a cohesive bicycle network. Network Development Bike lane in Elk Ridge The project team used the demand analysis (as explained in Chapter Three), existing facilities, barriers as noted by the public via the online map, crash data (see Appendix B), and Project Management Team (PMT) input to identify key gaps in the bicycle network.

These network gaps were compared to bicycle projects previously identified in regional and local bicycle plans (see Chapter One), including the 2015 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) corridors. This showed clear differences between the existing network, planned projects, and user-provided feedback. In areas where planned routes did not address the network gaps, additional analysis was performed to locate routes that would meet connectivity and intercity transportation needs. Following this, the RTP projects and new recommendations were combined into one draft set of corridors that were reviewed and refined by the PMT.

Bike lane in Santaquin

42 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Spanish Fork River Trail access

Recommendations Using national guidelines, the American Association of The online survey completed as part of this Plan showed State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) that 37 percent of respondents are part of the “interested Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, but concerned” category and another 43 percent are and best practices related to the development “enthusiastic and confident” by their willingness to ride of rural and suburban bicycle facilities, facility in traffic, but prefer to ride in dedicated bike lanes and recommendations were developed for the draft network. routes. Therefore, the recommendations presented in Recommendations were developed based on technical Figures 13 through 22 were developed to accommodate analyses, demand, feasibility of implementation, ability the “interested but concerned” riders by providing a to meet the project goals, ability to provide regional mix of bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, paths, and trails. connections, and stakeholder input. For example, in The recommended network is intended to create a looking at the street character, traffic volume, and comfortable and inviting space for people of all ages and existing pavement widths, the project team developed abilities to ride while providing the desired connection a series of facility recommendations like bike lanes between each community. or paths to meet user needs. A full explanation of the facility types is available in Chapter Two.

The draft regional network was further refined based on feedback and suggestions received during the Active Transportation Workshops, especially for refinements made at the focus area level (see Chapter Three). Finally, the full regional network, including facility recommendations, was developed to address the connectivity, safety, and access challenges throughout the County.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 43 Figure 14 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

w center st 114

¤£189

¤£89

UTAH LAKE 75 B o n n Uinta e v 15 il National le S Forest ho re li ne T S p rr ii n g v ii ll ll e r a t il

w 4000 south st t

77 a

r e 800 south st 0 d

s r

d m r l ach a e p b

n s P a l m y r a l P a l mw y r a co n p 51 li al w my Maplletton ra dr w maple st U S LLaakkee S hhoorree 6 w 5950 south st T r a w 1600 south st w 6400 south st il

st e center st t

e 147

6 w 7300 south st m

d e s c s a r nyo h B eennjjaam iinn n c rd a e

b n

l Spaniish Forrk

n i

l rl s t ad 115 he w st rro il Ea a River Tra w rd d se r u n ho o er W eesstt M oouunnttaaiinn x w i e 750 north o d st p s e

s w 9600 south st ¤£6 n 198

i r

a d

l l wutah ave i

w 10400 south st rd h l d

n na a n la c em a k l l t a e s s

d s w

d o t g

Payson S a ll e m o

Payson s

o w e o

w s

w 800 south st e w 11200 south st s

0 n e 0 s

6 t

5 d

r s

t E llk s

s t

s n Woodlland Hiilllls e e R iid g e b w S p r i n g 141 S p r i n g o 0 lo 0 L a k e o

2 15 L a k e p 5

d G eennoollaa s

st te ta s Santtaquiin

¤£6

Uinta B i r d s e y e National B i r d s e y e R oocckkyy R iiddggee Forest

¤£89

¤£91

Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network S Utah County ATP Regional Recommendations Shared Street Existing Facilities Municipal Boundary Hard Surface Trail Future Opportunities Hard Surface Trail County Boundary Separated Bike Lanes Trail Natural Surface Trail Parks Natural Surface Trail Shared Street Bike Lane Water Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Existing Railroad 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

44 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan

Figure 15 Elk Ridge Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

s al rd y can w 11200 south st berr w n a d

r r st l s n l o

y a

n a n f

u e

r w

r l

o i

n c w i

e a

a o a

u n

l t

h w sky hawk w i

q y n a n

y i

l l o w

u n l l n

i o d s a r

t r m d

n y n l e m dr s aple d k k r o a y o

t w

c e

n w

l l

o s

t o o

r e

s o

c o i

a k

r n d s r n k h l

u d a m c r

b r n a

d d p n

n le h t i d s l oosenest dr e goosene l r w g s cir w ak d ln o r ille ic lnn dr f olymp ge ma n ln w e krid e a dso l a u k w o h ln e b n r e llan ridger l i d e g g a e m r w y d a d e w Gladstan r dr w v k r w ar e a e y i i a w park dr e p d ll v w

v Golf e y w n k ie r v

o a e

y Course p k n la

n w dr c lpine

e a n s n

e r

b d o

e s h

g i c l i d l r i s r i s d u k e m l m d e e it s r pri s r ng dr lls d c lem hi r sa e w e e hi k gh s p w lo e af broa ie k e d ho r w r llow r e oak ln y dr a s d d lo r r a fe r c w a hol n ar y be o s s n lo rd a s f er n e d b r o lo dr o s loafer p r r d t d nes s eagle

il a r T n Uinta n o National C y a Forest B Four

S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Elk Ridge Regional Recommendations Existing Facilities Water Hard Surface Trail Hard Surface Trail Separated Bike Lanes Natural Surface Trail Natural Surface Trail Bike Lane Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Church Shared Street Municipal Boundary Future Opportunities County Boundary Trail Parks

0 0.5 1 Miles South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 45 Figure 16 Mapleton Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

h st e 1150 sout s oak leaf ln

w 2000 north st

d r t

s e

t w 1800 north st n i

a rth st e 1700 north st

a w 1600 no t

s m e 1600 north st s s

e 1200 north st

1200 north st t

w s

t s

t t

s s t

s a

n t e r a

d s e 800 north st a 0 o w a 0

0 e

d t

t 0 6

a s s 0

r n

s 7 1

t o 0

s n

d n 4

l s

a s e e

e n

s w

0 e 400 north st 0 0 Mapleton 0 Whiting Campground

2 0

1 6

City 1

n w maple st Library e maple st

d r e t sp an an sl 147 is s t

h s f or t k s pk e

w w y 0 w 800 south st

0 t

t e 900 south st

s s

t s

s e e

n e 1100 south st i

w w

0 0

s 8

s 1

s e 400 north st s l 400 N. Trail i w 1600 south st e 1600 south st a r T y r a d l t e i s w v r a e 130 north st t uth st rk e r s 0 so w 200 s T e a re

w P p e

0 s Mapleton in

0 l 8

Maple s r o h Mountain S e l High l i Uinta v e n n National e 600 south st o B Forest

e can yo t n s

t d

s t

t s th st s ou s a

e 1400 t e 89 s

198 a

2 0 s

r 8 2

t s s e r e 1850 south st on c ny ca e

s MOARK

f i JUNCTION n g e r s h g u o t m r e s d x s r p d

rd a

n i al s n h ca y o rr a

be kd aw r str s S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Mapleton Regional Recommendations Existing Facilities Library Hard Surface Trail Hard Surface Trail Campground Separated Bike Lanes Natural Surface Trail Historic Natural Surface Trail Bike Lane Existing Railroad Other Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Municipal Boundary Shared Street Junior & High Schools County Boundary Future Opportunities Elementary, Charter School Parks Trail Church Water 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

46 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 17 Payson Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

t t

es s

s e 0

0 w

2 0

3 7

n w 1500 north st

trl d ea wh ro d ar e w s

WEST o p

MOUNTAIN o r

t p

i o

t t

n c

t e

b n

n a

s e m n

w l b o tr e c 0 rg d

0 e r ea e 6 h g

5 d

r i w d o r s r r lk a e e s

w 400 north st a

n 0 Mountain s

5 Payson City

t w utah ave Library n View Hospital es

w y

a w 100 south st 0

w 0 t

s t t

n 1

s s

w 10400 south st a t

t t ic t s s

s s r s e

e e e e e hs w e 400 sout t

w w

0 a 0

0 0

4 3 15 8 d

s s l r

s t

s s s a

an r

s c d m

e t sal

w 800 south st w e

g s e Payson

w 790 south st d

s 0

High k

e s

9 s

e t s

2 r

w a

s w d 0 be r 8 al

t rry can 6

n n i e a lk

th st m r w 1400 sou id g s e d r s ne bo l oo Gladstan p rd Golf

w 11900 south st Course

SPRING LAKE il a r

xtension T d e E rail i

hlin t ig R H s

s n e

t i

w s

a t

0 t

5 s

0 t

0 s

2 o

a Uinta

t e

s National 0

e 4

n r D Forest 0

0 rth st 1 e400 no

n S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Payson Regional Recommendations Existing Facilities Æc Library Water Hard Surface Trail Hard Surface Trail "' Hospital Separated Bike Lanes Natural Surface Trail ! Historic Natural Surface Trail Bike Lane Existing Railroad Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Other Municipal Boundary Shared Street n Junior & High Schools County Boundary Future Opportunities n Elementary, Charter School Parks Trail Ý Church 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 47 Figure 18 Salem Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network t s

t s

t t s

s e a t

s e 0

e w 8

0 0 s

7 6

7 2

n w 1500 north st R

r trl st d Trail Ea

ea d

h r

ow t rr e a e

w b

n d

o p

l o tr r

p d

a r e h o w t ro c e 750 r e north st

a n

s n o

t c

m r n

n k d l w 400 north st t ix e e 400 north st o s s rl n t t p Salem s d o a

n e ea d

Hills High 0 h r w d 0 e 180 north st o 5 rr a e 100 north st n e e 50 no s rth st rd 198 en s e center st s h t

t n te e s

s is hr e e olsen ln

n t c w n i e 100 south st

a r

t m e

s s e 200 south st

5 d e r

s l

0 300 south st d a a n w s r

0 a n

e a

7 l

e c

t t e

n t 0

s s m k s m

0 e t l a a t e s

s t

1 s l

e s e 300 north st e t

s t

w s

e 200 nort 0 h s st a

3 0

Mountain e t

0 t

4 s

s e

0 a

s 6

s e

0 View Hospital 0

t 1

0 5

7 0

a s

e 5 1

6 t

t eda r r vis

s d

s s

d t

r s l g

a s n

a d e 1280 south st c t

m i r sale d s

w r a

k l a e

n l

e a 0

c 0 s y rr 4 be traw s s s

w 11200 south st

w sky haw k way s n w l y o o a w o f k d

e p l s a r m

k n c d a e

s a p e

n n h

e r le

y i b c o l

o l d s

t r n

lo i

o d r

p m r ln d rd on ds m u rk dr u e h pa s n e r Gladstan Golf el d k k r a i o Course d

g dr s e pine e al d e r r highlin e d S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Salem Regional Recommendations Existing Facilities Hospital Hard Surface Trail Hard Surface Trail Historic Separated Bike Lanes Natural Surface Trail Existing Railroad Natural Surface Trail Bike Lane Municipal Boundary Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Other County Boundary Shared Street Junior & High Schools Parks Future Opportunities Elementary, Charter School Water Trail Church 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

48 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 19 Santaquin Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

w 11900 south st

s e

SPRING LAKE

w 12800 south st Exten GENOLA hline sion Tra

Hig il t

r t nd d 0 a s l 0 l t oya

r t 8 w s

s 4

s e

0 0

n t

t s

t e 400 north st t t s s w er

s e l t ar h

k t

rd w n c

s l

e a 0 a d e

c r 0

e a p

h 3

n c n

0 r n 0 o

1 n

n 6 Bro Santaquin Santaquin wn Chieftan City Library S ton Museum e 300 south st e Trail e 400 south st e 450 south st

6 e 10 south st B roa r d d T t 15 Hollow rail s w e t i v s e

i w a

t 0 n 0

u 3

o m s

d il s y s r l a a r i r g y a e kw r T e b e p T C

dg a i e n

s summit r in n l o

e y r y

o o h n S n

e a l C il R v i e m n e n l Uinta o o L B P o o National p l i a T Forest r r T a i d l

e l o P

S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Santaquin Regional Recommendations Natural Surface Trail Municipal Boundary Hard Surface Trail Other County Boundary Separated Bike Lanes Elementary, Charter School Parks Natural Surface Trail Church Water Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Library Shared Street Amusement Existing Facilities Historic Hard Surface Trail Existing Railroad

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 49 Figure 20 Spanish Fork Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

t s

t t w 4000 south st south st s c 00 t w 4 s

t Springville a s e n s Springville e e y

w Art Museum

o w

w n

0 w 700 south st

0 0 0 High r

0 d 5

9 4

w 700 south st 1

s s

s t

s e m e 900 south d

s e n t

w l a e e 1000 so s w y uth

i t t c 0 e n

s v a

0 5

t l a s st t l 9 0 s h th t 15 u h s a s e 1 0 o 6 t s

r s

o e

w w

n n

0 w 00 s w 2000 north st

w 3 0 5

7 w 1800 north st

Spanish s Fork-Springville

s t

t s

s w 1200 north st r t

a 51 d s

o e

0 d w800 north st 0 a 0 r

2 0

d 4 n d l r e n s Mapleton City te 15 ta Library s

t s

i a e sp w maple st e maple st m anish fork p

6 k n w n y m ar ke

tp t

c t e e

t s e 1000 north st e w 800 south st 8 r

s w

w 5950 south st w 1000 north st 0

t 0 0

s n 0

a U or th st 6

e S 1

e 700 north st 6 s

0 T

0 r 6 a e 400 north st i w 400n orth st 147 n l 400 N. Trail Spanish Fork High 30 north st Maple e center s e 1 t Mountain Spanish Fork City Library High

115 t

s e Landmark

0 High e 500 south st

0 t

8 s

t e 600 south st t t

s s s s

t a

n s e

a 0

e t

e c Uinta 2 an s m

0 y 8

o t

s 0

r s s d s

w 900 south st m a National e

i s l s

l 0 d r e 5

d l Forest

8 t

m t

o t n s

s t s t t c

e s

a s

a r e e l t

d p

89 s 0

a 0 c 0

198 e

0 7

1 0

2 0

e s 8 t dr

t 2 s s

t e t

r s s s e 1 c t 850 south st yon

l s r e a n

t t a ca

s d

0 MOARK e

t e

hea 8 s 0

w 7 JUNCTION

e ro 0

r s 4 w a

w 1

7 s s 7

n o m

s e d

r x

t r

s p d e

e a l e

k n

r i

n s i

d rd h

g l o e na

c a

o c n y k

r r d

n e 1100 north st

d r r

e e

s c b

t l w

o i a

r r h t

p s

d r s

n t

s e a

750 n l o orth st

s i

o e a d

s S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Spanish Fork Regional Recommendations Existing Facilities Library Hard Surface Trail Hard Surface Trail Amusement Separated Bike Lanes Natural Surface Trail Historic Natural Surface Trail Bike Lane Existing Railroad Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Other Municipal Boundary Shared Street Junior & High Schools County Boundary Future Opportunities Elementary, Charter School Parks Trail Church Water 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

50 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Figure 21 Springville Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

a y w pkw al i P str u s e nd i a e i n k

t o

i a a l d

r y s a

s i t l n a t East k e

u s UTAH LAKE Bay h t n RV Park i r

75 n n m 4 i l 0 l p t 0

o s

w n t

e d s

e d t

r w s

0 5

15 6 l 1 i ra n Uinta T

t n

s o w 550 north st y

n National

d i r n

a a e C

m Forest

n g

o n r w 250 north st i

Springville r n City e 100 north st p S w center st Library t e cen er s e 100 south st t Springville Art

t 77 s

s Museum e 400 south st

w 400 south st t c s a

e n y w o n

0 w 700 south st Springville High 0

t rd 5

w 700 south st 1

s s

t r

d t e 900 sou h e

t t 89 s

e t w

s s

0 t

t a l

e s

0 s s

h l e 6 t r a

o 0

n w

00 0 4 30 s w 2000 north st w 5 51

7 s 1

w 1800 north st s e 1600 north st t s

r w 1200 north st t t d s

a o e t

d s 0north st a 0 0 a r w 8 0

e o

ld 6

0 1

s Mapleton n

2 e 400 north st n City Library

t n s w maple st m

i a

m e maple st 6 r ket e spanish fork n p p la kw

ce y t

d s

t s e e

8 w 0 w 800 south st

U 0 w 1000 north st S 0 e 900 south st n 0

6 o 6

T rth st 1

r s s e 700 north a st i t

l s

e 600 north st e e 1600 south st

e 400 north st w e 500 north st w 400 n 0 o t

rth st 147 400 N. Trail 0

n Maple s

Spanish Fork i a

High Mountain m e center st e 130 north st High s S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Springville Regional Recommendations Shared Street Church Parks Hard Surface Trail Existing Facilities Library Water Separated Bike Lanes Hard Surface Trail Campground Natural Surface Trail Natural Surface Trail Amusement Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Bike Lane Historic Other Shared Street Existing Railroad Future Opportunities Junior & High Schools Municipal Boundary Trail Elementary, Charter School County Boundary 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 51

Figure 22 Woodland Hills Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

w 11200 south st

i n a t lo n a u f

o e

r r m

d c

e y a

k n e

c y

o o

r n w

n r l l e meadow lark ln d i dr e maple dr n k w a

l w o

e g

a s s

r w d s n ew e vi o idg o o e r a d k l ri a dg ir n n c d s e un se t s a v cir h m e k i w a l a o l p s le d d r ln t r dson w vis a hu ci y e r w wa ln e b vie llan ridger ln lley ge a a e v m r park d e e dr ay k w a w o ie d s v

l e l ll e w va y

w a r w o d w

r k e d i e mountain ine r v vale w alp n ay e a e

p k a

s l n a w

s s

t n o e r ln b o w e r c highl d ir s ine dr e p k s ri n la h g y i l d k l s s r i s d e

d r e spring dr

s s

c u

a m

y m o i loaf e n t w e br c r oad h r d r ollow v e d dr oak ln i r e e e d r w k a d d p te t r s k s en l w e o m em a y o tl f h et e s s r olw s c h a ar n be y s s o l n s o rd e a a fe g r le d ne r s t d r

s loafer

t h

Loafer Cany on T ra il

S Utah County ATP Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network: Woodland Hills Regional Recommendations Bike Lane Hard Surface Trail Church Separated Bike Lanes Municipal Boundary Natural Surface Trail County Boundary Bike Lane/Paved Shoulder Parks Shared Street Water Existing Facilities Natural Surface Trail

0 0.5 1 Miles

52 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Programmatic Element In addition to the engineering recommendations presented 5 in Chapters Three and Four, there are other strategies to improve safety, enhance mobility, and increase the number of people walking and biking. This chapter outlines education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation to improve active transportation within the study area. Together with engineering, these are referred to as the “Five E’s” of bicycle and pedestrian planning.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 53 Overview Education Education efforts typically focus on teaching all Education is an important component of improving the roadway users how to safely interact. Education may safety and experience for people walking and biking. In focus on teaching bicyclists, particularly children, how addition to serving as a crash prevention tool, education to properly interact with motorists. Motorist education can also increase the awareness of the rights of and typically focuses on reminding motorists of the rules of challenges experienced by bicyclists and pedestrians. the road and how to properly interact with bicyclists and Finally, education can be used to encourage people to pedestrians. Education efforts may include: try walking and biking. •• Bicycle rider education •• Bike rodeos Active Education •• Public Service Announcements (PSAs) Efforts •• Driver’s education The following education programs are examples of active education programs in south Utah County: Encouragement strategies focus on increasing biking and walking through fun and interesting activities, and may also involve social marketing and incentives. Bicycle Education in Schools Encouragement efforts seek to demonstrate that biking and walking are valid, healthy, and fun modes of Bike Utah will soon launch the Youth Bicycle Education transportation and may include: and Safety Training Program to teach 3,000 kids in Utah how to safely and confidently ride a bicycle. The training •• Bike to Work Week and Bike and Walk to School is a five-hour, on-bike program that will be administered Day activities at schools to target students between fifth and seventh •• Community bike rides grades. Bike Utah will provide a trained instructor, •• Wayfinding bicycles, helmets, and all other equipment.

•• Maps, brochures, and other ways of providing For the past ten years Payson Junior High School has information to users provided bicycles for after school clubs and some physical education classes. In 2013 the school began Enforcement activities focus on enforcing the rules of collaborating with Specialized Bicycle Components the road for all users. Enforcement also prioritizes links Company to study the correlation of physical activity between the law enforcement community and the biking and academic achievement. community. This may include efforts to: •• Reduce speeding •• Increase yielding to pedestrians •• Reduce red light/stop sign running •• Implement new training programs for law enforcement officers

Evaluation is about tracking progress of the other “E’s” and identifying what’s working, what’s not, and where additional effort is needed. Evaluation can be ongoing or done on a semi-annual or annual basis. Evaluation efforts may include: •• Measuring the growth of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a region •• Measuring the rate of biking in an area or the number of users on a specific facility •• Evaluating crash data for patterns or frequency

Students walking home from school

54 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Education Recommendations Continue to Foster Relationships with Partner Organizations

Education about bicycling and walking should be implemented through partnerships with the groups listed below. These groups can help broaden education outreach to more people and groups by promoting SRTS programs, facilitating educational events, and distributing educational materials to all roadway users. •• School districts •• Individual •• Churches businesses • •• Public health • Media officials/educators •• Law enforcement agencies and Walking home from school in Santaquin •• Neighborhood associations offices • •• Elected officials • National and State advocacy Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and •• Chambers of organizations the Student Neighborhood Access commerce Program (SNAP) Work with School Community Councils To assist in addressing the public safety and health aspects of students walking and biking to school, In Utah, one of the responsibilities of all School Community UDOT provides Utah schools with walking and biking Councils (except for high schools) is to create a Child Access safety resources through the Safe Routes to School Routing Plan. The SRTS and SNAP programs discussed (SRTS) program and the Student Neighborhood Access above can be a valuable resource to School Community Program (SNAP), which is administered as part of SRTS. Councils in performing this function. City staff should work The main goal of the SRTS Program is to assist and collaboratively with the School Community Councils in encourage students living within two miles of a school creating access routing plans and improving infrastructure to safely walk or bike to school. Funding can be used for students to safely travel to and from school. for education and encouragement programs as well as infrastructure such as new sidewalks, pavement markings, signage, bicycle parking, and other projects. Pursue the Road Respect The SNAP program provides tools, information, and Community Program incentives to make walking and biking to school safer and more appealing for students. Every elementary, Share the road campaigns educate all users of the road middle, and junior high school in Utah is required by law how to safely and respectfully operate together on to have a SNAP Plan available, which includes a SNAP roadways. They work to ensure that drivers and bicyclists Map showing the safest walking and biking routes to the alike, as well as other road users, follow the rules of the school. road and recognize the various other road users as sharing equal rights to using the road. In 2011, Bike Utah, UDOT, the Utah Department of Public Safety, and Zero Fatalities School Safety Patrols teamed together to run the Road Respect Program, which promotes safety and encourages mutual respect between School safety patrols are usually composed of older drivers and cyclists in Utah. Cities can become a Road student volunteers who help direct their fellow students Respect Community with support from this program. to and from school in a safe manner. Activities often The Road Respect Community Program highlights the include traffic safety training, teaching fellow students, communities that are taking action to support the Road directing students in crossing the road during arrival Respect Message to ultimately become examples for and dismissal, assisting bus drivers, and serving in other other communities in Utah. City Staff should work with school leadership and education roles. their communities to explore this designation option.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 55 Encouragement Providing safe opportunities for people to walk and bike is a key component of improving public health, enhancing quality of life, and providing equitable transportation choices in south Utah County. However, beyond providing safe infrastructure, encouraging people to walk and bike often involves additional support, information, community engagement, and, to a certain extent, convincing people that walking and biking are viable transportation options.

The current encouragement efforts in the County and recommendations for improvements are outlined below in Table 4.

Table 4 Encouragement Efforts in the Study Area

Encouragement Description Active Efforts Comments/ Lead Tool Recommendations Entities

Bicycle/Pedestrian MAG’s website has an MAG, Mapleton, Spanish Fork, One County-wide bicycle and MAG, Print and Online Maps interactive map that shows and Springville trail map should be made member bikeways in the County. widely available throughout cities Individual cities may offer the study area, particularly at printable maps of existing schools, community centers, trails. and bike shops.

Bicycle, Pedestrian, Municipal planning Springville, Mapleton, Payson Foster and support existing Member or Trail Advisory departments can designate and new groups. Encourage cities Committees a subset of people to serve transparency by advertising on a committee focused meetings online and posting on bicycle and pedestrian meeting minutes so that needs. anyone can stay informed even if they cannot attend in person.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Knowledgeable and Bike Utah, Provo Bicycle Engage advocacy groups Member Advocacy Groups interested community Committee when making changes to the cities, MAG, members can form a group to roadway network to ensure Utah County, advocate for improvements the needs of people walking UDOT in walking and bicycling and biking are being met. infrastructure and to encourage more walking and bicycling.

Bike Month Bicycle outreach during Springville, Provo Expand bike month activities Member Utah’s Bike Month of May by partnering with advocacy cities, MAG, includes bike rides, Bike groups, businesses and Utah County, to Work Day, National engaging the media to get UDOT, Bike to School, and other the word out and build Advocacy encouragement events. excitement. Encourage Bike groups to Work and National Bike to School Day activities.

Community Events Many cities have an annual Santaquin, Spanish Fork, Offer incentives such as free Member day or festival to celebrate Springville, and Payson bicycle valet parking and cities their city’s heritage or “door prizes” for people who unique offerings. Smaller arrive by bike. events may include summer concerts and outdoor movie screenings.

56 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Encouragement Description Active Efforts Comments/ Lead Tool Recommendations Entities

Bike Clubs Clubs offer an informal way Utah Cycling Club with the Broaden the types of cyclists Existing to share knowledge, ride University of Utah, includes participating in clubs by clubs bikes, and explore an area rides throughout the study area offering rides that appeal together. and free family Saturday rides to cyclists of different skill levels and needs, e.g., new to biking, commuting, cargo bikes.

Bike Repair Shops and Bicycle shops not only sell Noble Cycling in Spanish Fork, Encourage bike shops to Bicycle Rentals bikes, but also offer repair Nebo Peaks Cycles in Payson, offer classes for adults shops, services, bike fittings, and and children such as basic member group rides. Some shops maintenance, how to secure cities offer bike rentals. a bike, etc.

Walking School Bus An adult leader gathers Through UDOT’s SNAP, parents Walking school buses should Schools, and walks with students to can use the Walking School Bus be expanded throughout the member school. phone app or more informal County cities, means to coordinate.

Donated Bicycle These programs turn donated Provo Bicycle Collective Expand donated bicycle Non-profit Programs bicycles into refurbished programs throughout the organizations bicycles to be reused by study area. others in a community. There is often an education component where people learn to repair bicycles (either their own or others that are donated.)

Wayfinding Wayfinding signs direct None A comprehensive wayfinding Utah County, people to destinations or system will help people MAG, guide them along routes. navigate the network with member confidence and encourage cities, UDOT greater use of the area’s amenities. The member communities should pursue funding for a unified wayfinding system.

Bike Rodeos Bike rodeos provide a fun Utah County has a bike rodeo Add bike rodeos to school Member environment for kids to learn kit available for groups to Physical Education cities to ride bikes safely. borrow. The kit includes curriculums common road signs (stop, yield, railroad crossing, etc.) as well as instructions for designing a chalk road for kids to practice riding on. Since 2013, Payson has collaborated with Utah County in hosting annual bike rodeos. This initially began when the Tour of Utah’s stage finish was in Payson, and has since continued. . The Provo Bicycle Committee offers free basic bike tune-ups at local rodeos.

Bike with the Mayor Community members of all Springville More cities within the study Member ages can connect with each area should sponsor Bike cities other and their mayors in an with the Mayor rides. active, community-oriented setting.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 57 Enforcement Enforcement initiatives provide an opportunity to institutionalize a safe and consistent transportation system for all users by prioritizing the links between law enforcement and the active transportation community. Existing Enforcement Efforts According to the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) bicycle friendliness ranking, Utah is the fifth most bicycle friendly state in America. Some signs of success listed in the report card are due to the State’s Traffic Code – such as a safe passing law of three feet or greater and a Vulnerable Road User (VRU) law, both discussed below.

Safe Passing Law (Three Feet or Greater)

Many states have safe passing laws that requires vehicles to pass each other at a safe distance, often defined as three feet. Utah’s safe passing law (41- 6a-706.5) states that a motorist may not “knowingly, Speed enforcement in Salem intentionally, or recklessly…operate a motor vehicle within three feet of a vulnerable user of a highway.” This law may deter drivers from passing a bicycle too close and may provide legal validation if a crash does occur due to unsafe passing.

Vulnerable Road User Law

Vulnerable Road User (VRU) laws help protect road users such as bicyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, skateboarders, and others using the roadway that do not have the protection offered by a motor vehicle. VRU laws ideally include two elements, according to the LAB: 1) a definition of a vulnerable road user and 2) specific penalties for car drivers injuring them. Utah is one of nine states with a VRU law (41-6a-706.5) that meets the two recommended elements described above. Enforcement Recommendations Bicyclist and pedestrian safety is a shared responsibility between all roadway users. To be effective, enforcement programs should focus on awareness and education, rather than punishment. Enforcement priorities should be established through a collaborative process involving local police departments, implementing agencies, Warning Signage in Mapleton MAG, bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees, and

58 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan other stakeholders. For this Plan, it is important that motorists should be offered to law enforcement officials. all jurisdictions support the enforcement program and As bicycling and walking in the region increases, it will are consistent in addressing enforcement priorities. be important for all patrol officers to be prepared for The following recommendations focus on mitigating potential conflicts and incorrect behavior. The National risky behaviors that lead to crashes such as speeding, Highway Traffic Safety Administration has several distracted driving, running red lights and stop signs, and resources that can be integrated into regular training riding without lights. materials to keep the message fresh and engaging for officers. Individual police departments should provide Target Enforcement to Reduce educational training to officers about bicyclist rights and responsibilities as well as aggressive motor vehicle Crash-Contributing Behaviors behavior toward bicyclists and pedestrians.

Using the UDOT Traffic and Safety Application (see the Evaluation section) tool, crash data can be easily Enhance Enforcement Initiatives reviewed and analyzed to understand the contributing factors to bicycle/pedestrian and motor vehicle crashes, Building off the bike-friendly State laws, the such as speeding, distracted driving, and riding without communities in south Utah County have the opportunity lights. Agencies within the study area should use this to improve their education about and enforcement of tool to evaluate crashes and work to mitigate prevalent laws directly impacting the safety of bicyclists and crash contributing factors that can be reduced through pedestrians. Initiatives could include: enforcement. Agencies should work with police •• Develop and implement education and departments and traffic operations to develop high- enforcement initiatives at key times of year (e.g., priority enforcement and education locations based on September, when school is back in session) crash data (for all modes). •• Conduct annual workshops with police Common motorist behaviors that can be targeted departments and other community stakeholders include the following: to collaborate on key messages and safety priorities, and develop a mutual awareness of •• Turning left and right in front of bicyclists bicycle-related laws. •• Passing too close to bicyclists •• Conduct annual community safety discussions •• Parking in bike lanes •• Partner with police departments to distribute •• Failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks or at safety items as part of an overall bicycle intersections enforcement strategy (e.g., lights) •• Speeding •• Communicate enforcement campaigns to the •• Harassment or assault of bicyclists public through print and social media •• Coordinate training sessions to ensure Bicyclist behaviors that should be targeted may include: knowledge on current local, regional, and national •• Ignoring traffic control (particularly traffic bicycle policies and ordinances signals) •• Riding the wrong way on a street Encourage Police Participation in •• Riding without lights at night Outreach Activities •• Riding recklessly near pedestrians on sidewalks Because police officers are seen as authority figures and respected by children, their involvement in programs Law Enforcement Education and activities that promote safe cycling can help foster responsible riding while reducing the likelihood of Given the numerous jurisdictions within the study area, injury. Local police agencies can get involved by being it is important that all law enforcement personnel have present at community bicycling events, developing a common understanding of current laws pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian safety messages for morning bicycling along with motorists’ and bicyclist’s behaviors announcements, and being present on the street near that lead to crashes. It is the responsibility of all officers schools during the morning and afternoon during school in the region to emphasize the need for safe streets for arrival and dismissal. all road users. To do so, regular trainings on traffic safety laws as they pertain to bicyclists, pedestrians, and

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 59 Figure 23 Crash data on udot.numetric.com (Source: UDOT; This data is protected under 23 USC 409).

Evaluation Crash Data Evaluation serves to track progress of the other “E’s” and The Crash Studies Team of the UDOT Traffic and identify what’s working, what’s not, and where additional Safety Division maintains a detailed database of crash effort is needed. Evaluation can be ongoing or done on a statistics for all public roadways within Utah. This data semi-annual or annual basis. Evaluation is often related is compiled from crash reports submitted to the Utah to safety and ridership. Department of Public Safety and post-processed by UDOT. These statistics are used to identify safety issues, Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting prioritize potential safety projects, and allocate limited funding to the locations most in need of improvements. UDOT recently prepared a best practices document Crashes involving pedestrians and/or bicyclists are for conducting non-motorized counts. One deliverable classified as such so that these types of crashes can be of this project is the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Counts queried and evaluated in greater detail. Guidebook, which provides detailed guidance on In an effort to more easily share crash and other safety counting methodologies, technology, and some analysis related data, UDOT partnered with Numetric to create methodologies. the UDOT Traffic and Safety Application which allows for MAG has a countywide count program including two crash analysis, reporting, and review in one streamlined locations within the study area. Both locations include platform. The tool allows merging of multiple data sets permanent bicycle and pedestrian counters along including crash data, roadway data, and safety layers the Spanish Fork River Trail: one south of the Spanish for a seamless experience optimizing the ability to make Fork Sports Park and another east of 1100 East. MAG data-driven decisions regarding roadway safety. The intends to leave its counters up for at least one year, tool enables quick identification of crash patterns, as with the possibility of relocation later. A year’s worth of well as the ability to drill down within the data to analyze data can allow cities and other agencies to determine segments at varying levels, compare potential projects, average demand including seasonal variation. Interested and develop benefit-cost analyses according to Highway agencies can request this data from MAG. Safety Manual methods. The tool also provides a public portal, allowing anyone to view high-level crash data summaries. Data can be viewed spatially as points or in aggregated form on segments. Data can also be viewed in tables, charts, and other statistical views. Figure 14 shows an example of the visualized crash data. 60 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Building on the existing count program will help MAG Evaluation and the cities within south Utah County continue to Recommendations evaluate ridership and safety, while supporting future investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Systematic counting methodologies will help MAG in Track Crash Locations, Numbers, developing correction factors to mitigate shortcomings and Rates inherent in national and regional data sources. Additionally, year-to-year changes in counts can also Cities should use the UDOT Traffic and Safety help member cities in evaluating ridership and safety Application to monitor crashes within their communities impacts at specific locations where new infrastructure and implement crash countermeasures as needed. has been built. The crash rate – a ratio of the number of crashes occurring to the number of people bicycling - is a more useful measure of whether safety issues are effectively Pursue League of American Bicyclists being addressed, but it requires data on the number of (LAB) Bicycle Friendly Community Award bicyclists traveling within a given corridor or area. (business, city, and county levels)

The LAB’s Bicycle Friendly Community Program Expand Bicycle and Pedestrian provides incentives, hands-on assistance and award Counting recognition for communities that actively support bicycling. A Bicycle Friendly Community welcomes MAG should continue collecting continuous counts along bicyclists by providing safe accommodation for the Spanish Fork River Trail, though adding inductive bicycling and encouraging people to bike for loop counters to the existing passive infrared counters transportation and recreation. The program provides a would provide information on the modal split of users, benchmark and roadmap for bicycling within a city and rather than a combined bicycle and pedestrian count. the guidance to improve all five E’s. While the application In addition, MAG should coordinate collection of short to attain a Bicycle Friendly designation is lengthy, duration counts at strategic locations within the study this process encourages reflection and action while area based on geographic distribution and facility types. establishing public recognition for great biking. These two types of counts will enable MAG to establish a regular and standardized bicycle and pedestrian count program aligned with statewide efforts.

Project Management Team rides the Spanish Fork River Trail

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 61 Cities within the study area should work toward Bicycle Friendly Community status by working on their Other engineering, programs, and policies and applying for Recommendations a formal designation. Additionally, the Bicycle Friendly Business designation should be encouraged in the Develop Complete Street Policies business community for not only bicycle-related businesses, but to a wide range of businesses through Complete Streets are streets that are accessible for all chambers of commerce. road users; they consider all modes of transportation, as well as all ages and abilities of people using those Create a South Utah County modes. Complete Street policies standardize when or MAG Subgroup in what contexts to apply Complete Street principles, as well as design guidelines. While there is not a Statewide The monthly trails meeting convened by MAG serves Complete Streets Policy, each city within the study area to collaborate and provide oversight and input on should develop Complete Street policies to guide the trails projects throughout the region. To continue development. this Plan, a monthly South Utah County Subgroup should be convened. This group would serve as a continuation of the Project Management Team with at least one representative from each city to discuss this Plan’s recommendations, move recommendations forward, complete Transportation Improvement Plan applications, and collaborate on active transportation projects that cross city borders.

Project Management Team collaboration in Springville

62 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Implementation Strategy The Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) plays a 6 pivotal role in the planning and funding of transportation projects. MAG produces TransPlan40, the regional transportation plan for urbanized Utah County and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which lists funded regional transportation projects and programs for the next four years. The TIP includes capacity projects from TransPlan40 and short term projects from federal, state, local governments, and transit agencies. Over the next ten years, MAG anticipates allocating approximately $3 million dollars per year for active transportation projects approved in the RTP.

There is therefore an established process for implementing active transportation projects at the regional level, however given the breadth of recommendations in this Plan and the need to stretch available funding to the largest degree possible, a creative and coordinated approach is needed. This chapter describes practical and feasible strategies for implementing the South Utah County Active Transportation Plan over the next ten years.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 63 Strategies for Network Roadway Engineering Strategies Implementation Retrofitting Existing Roadways To move this Plan into implementation, a combination of In many cases there is excess space within the agency partnerships, creative reuse of existing rights- roadway that can be reallocated to develop safe of-way, improved design guidelines, and a combination and comfortable bicycle facilities. Space that can of funding sources will be needed. Ultimately, this Plan be reallocated to bicycle facilities may be found in needs the full support of the member cities who have shoulders, underutilized on-street parking, excessively helped in shaping the Plan’s focus area and regional wide vehicle travel lanes (i.e., greater than 11 or 12 feet), network recommendations. Recommended strategies or an excessive number of vehicle travels lanes or turn are discussed below. lanes relative to the volume of traffic. Repurposing shoulder space or underutilized on-street parking is the Build Upon Agency Partnerships easiest, least costly roadway retrofitting strategy for implementing bicycle facilities. Other strategies include A transportation network is inherently interjurisdictional. road diets and lane diets. The recommendations in this Plan are on roads A road diet is a rechannelization technique where within rights-of-way that are owned and maintained travel lanes are removed from a roadway and the space by a number of different agencies including local is redistributed to other travel modes or functions, jurisdictions, the Utah Department of Transportation including bicycle facilities and sidewalks. Potential road (UDOT), Utah County, and the Bonneville Shoreline diet candidates are evaluated based on traffic volume Trail Coalition. Therefore, agency collaboration and flow, turning volume, frequently stopping and slow- and partnerships will be needed for successful moving vehicles such as buses or trucks, and roadway implementation of this Plan. Taking advantage of function. the momentum established through the Advisory Committee and monthly Project Management Team Lane diets are another rechannelization technique in (PMT) meetings during the Plan development process, which travel or turn lanes are restriped to be narrower, and the cooperative regional framework in place through and the space is redistributed to other travel modes the Council of Governments and RTP will be critical to or functions, including bicycle facilities or sidewalks. this effort. Candidates for lane diets are based on traffic speed and volume as well as the traffic type and roadway function. As outlined in Chapter Five, a south Utah County MAG The Federal Highway Administration has endorsed 10- Subgroup should be convened. This group would and 11-foot travel lane widths. Studies have shown that serve as a continuation of the PMT, with at least one such lane widths have no negative safety impacts, and representative from each city to discuss this Plan’s may actually have safety benefits by encouraging slower recommendations, move recommendations forward, travel speeds. Some engineering and analysis will be complete TIP applications, and collaborate on active required to make roadway design decisions, especially transportation projects that cross city borders. to ensure that there is sufficient space for comfortable bicycle facilities. For example, the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states that five feet is the preferred minimum bicycle lane width, but on high-speed roadways, a wider bicycle facility is preferred and recommended.

Leverage New Roadway Construction Roadway construction projects should be leveraged to implement the focus area and regional network recommendations found in this Plan. This requires close coordination with Capital Improvement Programs and development review to identify these opportunities and ensure they are included in the early scoping and design phases.

Project team members in Elk Ridge

64 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan Potential roadway to retrofit with bicycle facilities

Routine Roadway Resurfacing that are implemented. For example, cities could increase minimum sidewalk widths and improve pedestrian All resurfacing, repaving, and improvement projects safety and comfort in many cases. Additionally, clear should be evaluated to determine whether it is possible and specific design guidance can provide cities a to provide the bicycle facility recommendations included more effective bargaining tool with developers when in this Plan. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approving site plans and right-of-way improvements. produced the Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Specific design guidance can help to strengthen the Resurfacing Projects guidelines in 2016 which provide level of oversight and direction that cities can provide strategies for using routine roadway resurfacing to regarding street use and improvements. The Design implement bicycle networks. Guidance included in Appendix A of this Plan may Improved Design Guidelines and Standards serve as a good starting point for modifying local standards and providing the guidance needed during the The level of design detail related to bicycle and development approval process. pedestrian facilities varies widely among cities in south Utah County. For example, some local standards include sidewalk and trail width standards, but lack standards Cost of Implementing this Plan for on-street bicycle facilities such as bike lanes. Some design standards within the region already include The recommendations in this Plan will be implemented provisions for bicyclists, such as requirements to in phases. Some recommendations can be implemented include trails in all private development and bike parking. in the near-term using relatively low-cost methods of However, they lack details such as minimum width or reallocating existing street space such as on-street configuration of bicycle facilities. Further, roadway parking or shoulders. Other recommendations may and sidewalk width requirements tend to lead to wide take advantage of opportunities such as routine arterials with relatively narrow sidewalks. resurfacing projects or be incorporated into other projects or otherwise added as part of street or Improving the design guidelines and standards will lead stormwater upgrades. to higher quality facilities and improved consistency across the County. As this is a regional plan with intercity Planning-level estimates (shown in Table 5) were recommendations, aiming for consistent standards developed for this Plan. Unit costs are in 2016 dollars across the cities will help unify the region and ensure a and were developed based on historical costs data better experience for people walking and biking. from UDOT, where available. The costs shown are construction costs only and do not include planning, Given that the majority of projects within the County are engineering, or survey costs. Construction costs will developer-driven, improving the development standards vary based on the ultimate project scope and economic and design guidelines will greatly improve the projects conditions at the time of construction.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 65 Table 5 Planning-Level Unit Cost Estimates Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning-Level Cost Estimates* and Intersection Spot Treatments Shared Lane Markings $19,000 per mile (includes signage)

Neighborhood Byway (Bike Boulevards) $146,000 per mile (assumes no signal upgrades) to $335,000 per mile.

Paved Shoulders $575,000 per mile (assumes no signal upgrades) to $880,000 per mile

Bike Lanes $56,000 per mile (assumes no signal upgrades) to $107,000 per mile

Buffered Bike Lanes $65,000 per mile (assumes no signal upgrades) to $118,000 per mile

Separated Bike Lanes $230,000 per mile (assumes no signal upgrades) to $560,000 per mile

Shared Use Paths (Trails) $910,000 per mile for paved trails, $880,00 per mile for soft surface trails

Sidewalks $230,000 per mile

Marked Crosswalks $8,000 each

Median Islands** $28,000 each

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons $55,000 each

Curb Extensions** $10,000 each

* Estimates include lump sum items such as maintenance of traffic, utility adjustments, landscaping, mobilization, clearing, erosion, and sediment control, where applicable. ** Includes lump sum design estimates. Prioritizing Plan Recommendations staff ranking is provided to the MAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for information. Then, TAC members visit each project in the field and listen to presentations Projects that offer the highest benefits and best from project sponsors. return on investment should be implemented first. Due to funding constraints, member communities Following this field visit, MAG staff use the project should focus on quick-to-implement, low-cost wins ranking List created by the TAC to assign available that can potentially be combined with or leveraged funding. When complete, the Draft Funding List is from other opportunities. Projects assigned to the returned to the TAC for review and recommendation to quick wins category have the ability to rapidly make MAG Regional Planning Commission. substantial improvements to south Utah County’s bike and pedestrian system. The majority of these projects Finally, the TAC members use their knowledge of the are along low- to moderate-stress streets that are Concept Reports, MAG staff ranking, and field review already largely suitable for bicycling, but can be greatly to create a project ranking list. Each municipality, enhanced with simple signage and pavement markings. the county, UDOT, Utah Transit Authority, and the The quick wins projects can be prioritized for near Department of Air Quality have one vote per project. term implementation based on cost, ability to enhance safety and connectivity, and ability to form a continuous Pursue Creative Funding Opportunities network of low-stress bikeways.

For larger projects identified in this Plan, MAG funding There are numerous funding sources to help implement and the TIP selection process should be used to move active transportation projects (see below). Through a projects forward.1 First, cities will complete a TIP combination of local, regional, state, federal, and other Concept Report which is reviewed and ranked based funding sources, communities can better leverage their off information provided in the application.2 The MAG available funding as a means of implementing this Plan.

1 http://mountainland.org/img/transportation/TIP/TIP%20Process.pdf Selection/2016%20TIP%20Selection/TIP%20Selection%202016%20 2 https://mountainland.org/img/transportation/TIP/Project%20 Presentation.pdf

66 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan A paved trail around Salem Pond is used by people of all ages

Transportation Investment Generating Funding Sources Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant Summarized here are potential Federal, State, regional, TIGER grants fund a broad array of road, rail, transit, and locally-administered funds for bicycle and bicycle, and pedestrian projects. The program pedestrian infrastructure. Included within each category focuses on capital projects that generate economic are a description of the funding source, some eligibility development and improve access to reliable, safe, and requirements, and direction to additional information affordable transportation, especially for disadvantaged where available. communities. TIGER grants only fund projects that have gone through preliminary design and there is typically Federally-Administered Funding preference given to projects with broad stakeholder support. Applicants are required to demonstrate that Although many funding sources identified in this project benefits outweigh costs. Projects in more urban plan rely on Federal funds, only two are administered areas, such as Springville and Spanish Fork, must Federally – that is, the Federal government (USDOT) request at least $10 million with a minimum 20 percent makes the project selection decisions. The other match. Utah County, MAG and several other local and sources that use Federal funds are listed under State- regional partners were recently successful in obtaining administered or regionally-administered programs. approximately $20 million in TIGER grant funding, which will be used to fund several active transportation In December 2015, President Obama signed the newest projects in Utah County. transportation authorization bill, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the FAST Act), into law. Transportation Alternatives The FAST Act streamlines some programs but is not The FAST Act replaced the former Transportation expected to substantially affect program eligibility or Alternatives Program (TAP) with a set-aside of funding requirements at the local level. As with any new funds under the Surface Transportation Block Grant legislation, it is possible that some of the individual Program (STBG). For administrative purposes, the components of specific programs will change in the near Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will refer to future. Therefore, the communities within south Utah these funds as the TA Set-Aside. The TA Set-Aside County should use up-to-date information, regulations, authorizes funding for programs and projects defined and requirements when pursuing grant money. as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road active transportation facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, recreational trail projects, and safe routes to school projects. South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 67 Federal Transit Administration Funds Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

Multiple FTA grant programs are able to help cities, The RTP provides funds to develop and maintain trails towns, and rural areas invest in bicycle infrastructure and trail-related facilities. Projects can include: planning to improve personal mobility and access to public and design; land acquisition; maintenance and the transportation. purchase of maintenance equipment, and educational programming. The RTP funding could, for example be applied toward the planning and design of multiuse State-Administered Funding trails. In Utah, the Division of State Parks and Recreation runs the program and the Combined Trails Advisory This section describes State-administered funding Council reviews and recommends funding requests.4 sources, including those that use Federal funds and The finalized list of projects to be funded under RTP is those that use state-generated revenue: submitted to the Director of the Division of State Parks •• Class B & C Road Funds and Recreation for administrative approval and funding. Projects authorized for funding become part of UDOT’s •• Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). •• Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) •• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) HSIP funds are available for safety projects aimed at •• Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Bike •• Land and Water Conservation Fund lanes, roadway shoulders, crosswalks, intersection •• Safe Sidewalk Program improvements, underpasses, and signs are examples of eligible projects. Projects in high-crash locations are •• Utah Department of Transportation Maintenance most likely to receive funding. States that have identified Program bicycle safety and pedestrian safety as Emphasis Class B & C Road Funds Areas are more likely to fund bicycle and pedestrian safety projects. However, as of November 2015, UDOT’s Class B & C road funds are generated from a Emphasis Areas do not include bicycle safety or combination of state fuel taxes, registration fees, driver pedestrian safety.5 license fees, and other revenue sources. These funds are allocated to each city and county based on population, Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) road mileage, and land area. Class B funds go to The FLAP program provides funding to improve counties while Class C funds go to cities and towns. transportation facilities that provide access to, are Funding can be spent on “enhancement of traffic and adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands. pedestrian safety” including sidewalks, curb and gutter, The Access Program supplements State and local and the construction of bicycle facilities in the highway resources for public roads, transit systems, and other right-of-way. transportation facilities, with an emphasis on high- Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)3 use recreation sites and economic generators. Eligible project activities include transportation planning, This program provides funding for education, research, engineering, preventive maintenance, enforcement, evaluations, and infrastructure rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and improvements near elementary and middle schools reconstruction of roads and provisions for pedestrians that promote students walking and biking to school. and bicyclists. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) administers the SRTS Program using Federal Surface Land and Water Conservation Fund Transportation Block Grant Set-Aside funds (formerly The National Park Service provides oversight for The the Transportation Alternatives Program) and Highway Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act which Safety Improvement Program Funds, both described was established by Congress in 1965 to provide funds below. UDOT provides Utah schools with walking and for the acquisition and/or development of public biking safety resources for two purposes: (1) to educate outdoor recreation areas, including walking trails. Land children about how to walk and bike safely to school and (2) to build infrastructure improvements such as 4 The RTP was consolidated into the Surface Transportation Block Grant sidewalks to increase student safety. Set-Aside with the passage of the FAST Act in 2015. Each state administers the RTP independently and their funding is set at 2009 levels. 5 UDOT. Emphasis Areas. Nov. 24 2015. Accessed Jan. 28 2016. 3 http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0::::T,V:1388 http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:33,72787

68 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan School dismissal in Santaquin acquisitions for public outdoor recreation are also Resurfacing Projects” in March 2016.6 This report LWCF eligible. The program is administered locally by provides guidance on using routine resurfacing projects Utah State Parks. Any site or facility that is purchased, to implement bike facilities. developed, or improved with funding from the LWCF is protected in perpetuity as a public outdoor recreation Regionally Administered area. LWCF funding requires a 50 percent match from the applicant. The grant recipient must be able to fund This section describes funding sources administered by 100 percent of the project up front and is reimbursed MAG, including several Federal funding programs. In the periodically by LWCF up to 50 percent of the costs. descriptions below, the programs are referred to by their Safe Sidewalk Program new names under the FAST Act: The Safe Sidewalk Program provides a legislative •• Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funding source for construction of new sidewalks •• Surface Transportation Block Grant Program adjacent to state routes where sidewalks do not Set-Aside currently exist and where major construction or •• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality reconstruction of the route, at that location, is not Improvement (CMAQ) Program planned for ten or more years. Sidewalk locations must be located adjacent to a State highway within an urban •• Community Services Block Grant Program area or an area of an urban nature, and have significant (CSBG) pedestrian traffic. A 25 percent local government match is required. This program is admistered by UDOT. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program The STBG Program is the new name for the Surface Utah Department of Transportation – Transportation Program. This flexible program may be Maintenance Program used by States and localities for projects to preserve Through close coordination between agencies, UDOT and improve the conditions and performance on any can use routine street resurfacing as an opportunity Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on to add bicycle lanes or buffers on to existing facilities. any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure This option would not require additional funding. anywhere, and transit capital projects, including intercity For agencies interested in learning more about this, bus terminals. Eligibility includes bicycle transportation the Federal Highway Administration published, “Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into 6 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/ publications/resurfacing/resurfacing_workbook.pdf

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 69 Construction of the Mapleton Parkway Trail, May 2016

and pedestrian walkways, ADA sidewalk modification, improve active transportation could be eligible for CMAQ recreational trails, and any activity eligible under the Set- funding.8 Aside program (see below). MAG and the State control funds which they can spend or distribute within the MAG Community Services Block Grant Program region. (CSBG) The CSBG Program provides funds to alleviate the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program causes and conditions of poverty in communities and Set-Aside includes transportation projects. Administered by the This Set-Aside, established in the FAST Act, replaces the Department of Health and Human Services, funding Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP).7 Funding is allocated to states that make funding available to through the Set-Aside can be used for the construction local communities. Funded projects have included: of sidewalks, walkways or curb ramps; bike lane striping, commercial district streetscape improvements, sidewalk bike parking and bus racks; traffic calming; off-road improvements, safe routes to school, and neighborhood- trails; bike and pedestrian bridges and underpasses; based bicycling and walking facilities that improve local ADA compliance; acquisition of railroad rights-of-way; transportation options or help revitalize neighborhoods. and planning, design and construction of multiuse trails and rail-with-trail projects. Larger Metropolitan Planning Local Funding Organizations, such as MAG, control a share of the funds to distribute locally through a competitive process. This section describes locally-administered funding Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality sources: Improvement (CMAQ) Program •• General Fund

The CMAQ program supports surface transportation •• Bond Financing projects, like those for active transportation projects, •• Impact Fees due to their linkage to air quality improvements. •• Special Assessment or Taxing Districts Because Utah County includes Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas that are not in compliance with the •• Development-driven Projects National Ambient Air Quality Standards, projects to

7 The TAP included the former Transportation Enhancements Program, 8. Utah Division of Air Quality 2014 Annual Report. Feb 2015. http://www. the Safe Routes to School Program, and the Recreational Trails airquality.utah.gov/docs/2015/02Feb/2014DAQAnnualReport_FINAL. Program. pdf

70 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan General Fund such as bicycle and pedestrian amenities. A TDD has the power to issue a bond to pay for the construction of General funds, like those used for maintenance and projects that can benefit the district. Special districts some capital improvement projects, can be leveraged may be considered for some areas within the study area; to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access. For example, especially within downtown cores. streets identified for reconstruction or repaving should be evaluated for their potential to complete or augment Development-Driven Projects the existing bicycle and pedestrian networks. Developers construct the local streets within Bond Financing subdivisions and may participate in the construction of collector/arterial streets and trails adjacent to their Bond financing is a long-term borrowing tool used to properties. provide funds for capital projects. Bond measures are approved by voters and can authorize specific projects, including transportation improvements identified Other Sources through the legislative process. This section describes other potential funding sources: Impact Fees •• The Kresge Foundation Impact fees are paid by the developers to fund a fraction •• People for Bikes of the improvements that are required because of the •• Crowdfunding new growth. Impact fees can be instituted to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects, such as trails. Impact The Kresge Foundation fees are typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic The Kresge Foundation provides grants to nonprofit impacts produced by a proposed project. Establishing organizations and government agencies seeking a clear nexus between the impact fee and the project’s financial assistance for projects that contribute to impacts is critical. Impact fees may be considered at improving health at the community level. The goal of a citywide scale or for new developments along the these grants is to create a comprehensive system that corridor. improves health outcomes, promotes health equity, One challenge with using road impact fees to implement reduces per-capita health costs, remove barriers to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is how and whether health, and offers the greatest promise for adoption on the facilities are shown as continuations of existing a larger scale. Active transportation projects may be infrastructure. Therefore, cities with existing bike competitive for this funding. lanes may have an easier time making that case to add People for Bikes additional bicycle facilities then cities with no existing bike lanes. Therefore, cities should perform a more People for Bikes supports bicycle infrastructure projects detailed analysis to see how impact fees can be used. and advocacy initiatives that make it easier and safer for all people to ride. Their grant funds are awarded to Park impact fees are another potential source of funding infrastructure projects such as bike paths, lanes, trails, for trails. Again, cities should perform a more detailed bridges, and end-of-trip facilities such as bike racks, bike analysis to see how park impact fees could be used. parking, and bike storage. Some examples of People for Bikes grants in Utah include:9 Special Assessment or Taxing Districts •• Moab Canyon Path - A $10,000 grant went to Special districts are organized to fund a specific project the Moab Trails Alliance to help complete the that benefits an identifiable group of properties. Moab Canyon Path, a paved path linking key Special districts are designated areas within which destinations. property owners are assessed a charge to defray the •• Historic Union Pacific Rail Trail - The Mountain costs of capital improvements that can benefit the Trails Foundation received $3,000 to help extend properties within the district. The costs of improvements the Historic Union Pacific Rail Trail in Park City. are generally divided among property owners within •• Boulevard Parkway Trail - The Cache County a specified area. The contribution by owner can Trails Coalition used a $2,000 grant to help be allocated based on property frontage or other connect communities throughout Cache County methods such as traffic trip generation. Transportation with bicycle facilities. Development Districts (TDD) are one example of these districts used to finance transportation improvements, 9 Utah. People for Bikes. Accessed Jan 28, 2016. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/get-local#state-UT

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 71 Crowdfunding Crowdfunding focuses on raising money for projects through many small donations. Websites, such as gofundme.com, ioby.com, and indiegogo.com, allow fundraising campaigns to be easily established. In 2014, Memphis raised $70,000 through crowdfunding to build a separated bicycle lane. In 2015, Denver launched a crowdfunding campaign focused on corporate donors for the planning and design of a protected bike lane in downtown. Crowdfunding can be a creative approach to using community-based donations to leverage public funding.

72 South Utah County Active Transportation Plan This page intentionally left blank.

South Utah County Active Transportation Plan 73