NORTHWEST US 95 ACCESS STUDY FINAL PROJECT REPORT
CH2M HILL with JPL Engineering
Las Vegas, Nevada September 2011
NOTE: The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f) of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I: Data Collection 1. Overview ...... 1 2. Non-Motorized Modes ...... 4 3. Land Use ...... 10 4. Motorized Traffic and Safety ...... 14 5. Transit Supply and Demand ...... 20 6. Additional Previous Studies ...... 23
Part II: Evaluation of Mobility Needs 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Roadway And Intersection Safety ...... 5 3. On-Road Bicycle Facilities ...... 16 4. Trails: Non-Equestrian And Equestrian ...... 22 5. Pedestrian Facilities ...... 34 6. Transit Service and Facilities ...... 40 A. Appendix ...... i
Part III: Proposed Alternatives 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. On-Street Facility Alternatives ...... 4 3. Off-Street Facilities Alternatives ...... 35 4. Transit Improvement Alternatives ...... 54 5. Project Prioritization ...... 65 6. Cost Estimation ...... 74 A. Appendix A ...... i B. Appendix B ...... ix C. Appendix C ...... xvii
Part IV: Agency Coordination and Outreach 1. Agency Coordination Plan ...... 1 2. Public Outreach ...... 3
Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Access Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Access Study
PART I: DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY
1. Overview ...... 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Description ...... 1 1.2 Data Collection Summary ...... 2
2. Non-Motorized Modes ...... 4 2.1 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada ...... 4 2.2 City of Las Vegas ...... 6 2.3 Clark County ...... 7 2.4 Nevada Department of Transportation ...... 9
3. Land Use ...... 10 3.1 Regional Land Use Goals ...... 10 3.2 City of Las Vegas ...... 10 3.3 Rural Neighborhood Preservation Areas...... 11
4. Motorized Traffic and Safety ...... 14 4.1 NDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic ...... 14 4.2 City of Las Vegas Turn Movement Counts ...... 17 4.3 Street Safety ...... 18
5. Transit Supply and Demand ...... 20 5.1 Transit Service Routes ...... 20 5.2 Transit Ridership ...... 20
6. Additional Previous Studies ...... 23 6.1 Capital Program and Transportation Priorities ...... 23 6.2 Transportation Goals and Priorities ...... 23 6.3 List of Documents Reviewed ...... 23
Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 Study Purpose and Description
Over the last decade, the northwest U.S. 95 corridor has experienced some of the fastest growth in the Las Vegas region. As the U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor continues its rapid urbanization and experiences increasing travel demand and possibly congestion, there is a need to plan infrastructure to support travel by alternate modes, especially for short trips. The purpose of the Northwest US 95 Access Study is to analyze barriers to mobility for alternate modes in the Study Area and to develop alternatives for improvements. The Study Area boundary is shown in Exhibit 1-1 below.
Exhibit 1-1: Northwest US 95 Study Area
Source: City of Las Vegas Map
1 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
A technical working group (TWG) was formed for the Northwest U.S. 95 Access Study in order to establish the project goals, review the consultant team’s progress, and provide input on proposed Study Area alternatives. In establishing the TWG, RTC and the consultant team attempted to include a variety of stakeholders who represent the diverse perspectives and needs of the Study Area communities.
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) has funded this planning effort and was the organizing and coordinating agency for this planning study. The RTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the region. As such, RTC is responsible for the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and the financial programming of significant transportation capital projects. RTC plays a key role in regional planning, including for alternate modes such as walking and bicycling. The RTC recently developed a bicycle map for the region and a Bicycle and Pedestrian plan. RTC transit serves the corridor including the Centennial Hills park-and-ride.
The Study Area includes several unincorporated neighborhoods around its periphery. These are part of Clark County’s Lone Mountain Planning Area. The unincorporated areas included in and adjacent to the Study Area are the Gilcrease neighborhood to the east of U.S. 95 and the larger Lone Mountain neighborhood to the west of U.S. 95. These neighborhoods are primarily zoned as rural neighborhood preservation areas. As unincorporated areas in Clark County, their transportation facilities are administered by the county’s planning and public works departments. The TWG included representatives from both of these departments, as well as from the Town Board Liaison’s office for the Lone Mountain area which facilitates connections between residents of Clark County District 3 and their county government and services.
The majority of residents within the Study Area live within the City of Las Vegas, which also accounts for the greater share of land within the Study Area. The City’s planning and public works departments are responsible for transportation planning, operations, and improvements within the Study Area, so the TWG included members from each of these departments.
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) was the last key TWG participant. NDOT is continuing a major reconstruction and widening of U.S. 95 in the corridor that will dramatically impact vehicular traffic. NDOT was also a key source of safety and traffic data. The TWG included a representative from NDOT’s District 1 office.
1.2 Data Collection
Following the project kick-off meeting held on October 27, 2010 with the TWG members, the study team began collecting and analyzing data in order to help define potential transportation improvements in future tasks. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes the data that was
2 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study collected, grouped into the following categories: Corridor Geometrics; Land Use; Traffic Demand; Transit Supply and Demand; and Previous Studies.
Exhibit 1-2: Data Collected
Section Category Data Item Received From 2. Clark County, Non-Motorized Sidewalk, bike lane, multi-use path, and City of Las Modes trails Vegas, RTC, NDOT
3. Relevant local land use plans and City of Las Land Use documents, including base & proposed Vegas, Clark zoning County 4. Traffic Traffic counts in Study Area, turning NDOT, City of Demand and movement counts at major intersections Las Vegas Safety 5. Transit Supply Transit ridership in Study Area RTC and Demand 6. Planned capital improvements in Study Previous RTC, UNLV, Area; existing alternate mode policies and Studies NDOT goals,
The remainder of this memo describes these items in more detail.
3 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
2. NON-MOTORIZED MODES
2.1 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), Clark County and the City of Las Vegas have developed strategic plans that address non-motorized travel. The RTC adopted its first Bike Master Plan in 1996. The original plan designated 440 miles of bike routes and 60 miles of bike lanes. In 2003, the RTC completed an Alternative Mode Master Plan Study that recommended expanding the bicycle lane network to 735 centerline miles and reducing the bike route network to 395 miles. The study also included an ambitious plan for 634 miles of shared use paths. The 2003 Master Plan designated a much more robust bicycle network in the Study Area, and the plan remains under development.
The vision statement for the current RTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Element (BPE), updated in 2008, is to provide for a regional alternative mode network consisting of paths, enhanced sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes that form an interconnected, non-motorized transportation system for the Las Vegas Valley. The Plan calls for a system that shall be designed, built and maintained in a manner that provides viable and safe alternatives to motorized travel, linking the community’s residential areas to public facilities and providing transit to areas where residents work, attend school and where both residents and visitors recreate and shop. Exhibit 2-1 provides an outline of the BPE’s main goals.
Exhibit 2-1: Relevant BPE Goals System Development •Assure that the demand for Bikes on Buses and other mass transit modes can be fully accommodated •Assure availability of facilities that can secure bikes at transit terminals •Assure that pedestrians and bicyclists are provided continuous access to transit Design Development •Work with local jurisdictions to create portals within subdivision walls to allow access to transit and other regional destinations •Improve tools to better evaluate, manage, implement and maintain alternative mode facilities Safety/ Security •Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes across the Las Vegas Valley •Work with local jurisdictions to develop or implement enhanced regional street/sidewalk design standards that safely accommodate alternative mode travel Other Items •Provide a reliable and adequate source of funding to implement non‐motorized travel facilities in the Las Vegas area. •Develop a process to review bicycle facilities to determine appropriateness of facilities with relation to changes in land use or roadway characteristics
4 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
The BPE identifies three facility types for bicycles: (1) designated bicycle routes, (2) bicycle lanes, and (3) shared use trails. Modification of a designated bicycle facility requires a forty-five day public comment period. The BPE establishes firm criteria for incorporating new bicycle routes into the BPE. These consist of the following: ▪ Continuity: the segment should improve the connectivity of the existing bicycle network, ▪ Accessibility: the segment should be relatively free of conflict with motorized modes, ▪ Directness: the segment should provide efficient travel routes for bicyclists, ▪ Posted Speed Limit: the segment should have a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or lower, ▪ Transit Access: the route should be within a quarter of a mile of a transit route, ▪ Surface Conditions: the route should be in an acceptable level of repair for bicyclists, and ▪ Truck Traffic: the segment does not experience heavy truck traffic.
There are four classes of sidewalk designated by the 2008 BPE. Class 1 sidewalks have a landscaped buffer to separate the pedestrian facility from the street. Class 2 sidewalks are adjacent to the street without a buffer. Class 3 sidewalks are between a block wall and the adjacent street without a buffer on either side. Finally, Class 4 sidewalks have a shoulder but no sidewalk structure in place. The BPE created an initial sidewalk inventory, but it has not been continuously maintained. Currently, the RTC is updating the inventory.
The BPE also identified pedestrian safety as a major challenge in the Las Vegas region. Pedestrians in the region are involved in collisions at a higher rate compared to the nation’s average. The plan identifies several priorities for future improvements for alternate modes. One focus is to make the impact of wide major arterials on pedestrians a priority for future investments to improve pedestrian mobility. Another priority is the continued establishment of street medians and landscaped sidewalk buffers to reduce overall crashes and provide physical, lateral separation for bicyclists and pedestrians. A third priority is the improvement of intersections for pedestrian safety. Secondary priorities include: ▪ To identify street segments with inappropriately high or un-posted speed limits, ▪ To continue to work to identify gaps in sidewalk infrastructure, ▪ To continue to work help local jurisdictions and HOAs create access for pedestrians and bicyclists across block walls, ▪ To work with local jurisdictions to promote more and higher quality facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists at their trip destinations, especially workplaces, and ▪ To investigate the implementation of complete streets in select locations.
RTC has provided GIS shape files of sidewalk assets in the Study Area from the agency’s last sidewalk survey, completed in 2008. The consultant team is updating these maps based on recent aerial photos and field confirmation.
5 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
2.2 City of Las Vegas
The City of Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan identifies two elements: Transportation Trails Element Recreational Trails Element.
The Transportation Trails Element establishes standards, guidelines, objectives, policies and priorities for the location, development and maintenance of transportation trails in the city. This effort is to establish a multi-modal non-motorized system (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists).
This Master Plan element of the plan identifies: . Off-street multi-use transportation trail alignments, both multi-use non-equestrians and pedestrian paths (Map No. 2), . On-street bicycle trails (Map No. 7) – Exhibit 2-2 provides an extract of the map – and . Multi-Use Trail Alignments for the Town Center Area (Map No. 6).
Exhibit 2-2: On-street Bicycle Train Alignments
Source: City of Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan (April 2009)
The Master Plan Recreational Trails Element, a companion plan to the Transportation Trails Element, also establishes standards, guidelines, objectives, policies and priorities for the location, development and maintenance of recreation trails in the city. However, the major 6 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study distinction between the Recreational Trails Element and Transportation Trails Element is the ownership and maintenance of the trails. The City is required by state legislation to own and maintain any recreation trail required of a development, while a transportation trail may be own and maintained by a regional trail agency, a city department or a private interest group. This element of the Master Plan identifies off-street recreational trail alignments, both multi-use equestrian and multi-use equestrians trails (Map No. 2).
The Suggested School Route maps, developed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Division, are prepared for the schools within the city’s jurisdication to distribute. The school routes suggested took into account physical barriers such as railway lines, freeways and high volume major arterial streets.
Transportation capital projects planned for the Study Area in the near term mostly included improvements along U.S. 95. The City of Las Vegas’s Capital Improvement Plan includes only a small number of total projects, detailed in Exhibit 2-3. Most of the projects include pedestrian and bicycle elements to facilitate mobility.
Exhibit 2-3: City of Las Vegas Capital Improvement Projects in the Study Area FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 Project Description Budget Budget Budget Budget Completion of street Farm Road - Tule improvements: lighting, drainage, $79,465 - - - Springs curb/gutter, and sidewalks
Grand Teton Construction of US 95 overpass on $40,201 - $3.0M $5.0M Overpass at US 95 Grand Teton
Horse Drive at US Construction of an interchange $40.5M $13.8M - - 95 Interchange with US 95
Kyle Canyon Construction of a partial Interchange at US interchange/overpass including $0.5M $2.5M $13.7M - 95 pedestrian improvements US 95 at Tropical/ Landscape improvements in the Azure Overpass $0.3M - - - NDOT ROW Landscaping
Source: City of Las Vegas 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan, FY2010-2014
2.3 Clark County
In 2007, Clark County developed the Clark County Equestrian Trail Study to specifically identify and address the residents of unincorporated areas of Clark County wants and needs for equestrian facilities. The Study Area examined the equestrian trail needs within two general areas of US-95 access study: (1) On the west side of US-95 from Ann Drive to CC- 215 and (2) the eastside of US-95 with north/south boundaries from Iron Mountain to
7 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Centennial and east/west boundaries from Jones Boulevard to Man O’War. The purpose of the Clark County Equestrian Trail Study is three-fold: ▪ Determine the need for equestrian facilities by surveying residents living in the RNPs, ▪ Identify how many horses are located in the RNPs, and ▪ Develop a plan that addresses the demand and needs with consideration for road engineering, flood control and public safety.
Exhibit 2-4 presents a sample of the identification and mapping of the opportunities and constraints that result from this effort. Note the flood conveyance opportunity.
Exhibit 2-4: Clark County Equestrian Trail Study
The Clark County Safe Route to School Program (SRTS) is part of the Federal Safe Routes to School Program that provides a comprehensive, computerized traffic, pedestrian, and
8 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study bicycle plan for elementary and middle schools under the jurisdiction of unincorporated Clark County.
Clark County addresses alternate modes mobility primarily through its land use planning documents. For this reason, more details on Clark County’s pedestrian and bicycle planning policy is set out in Section 3.
2.4 Nevada Department of Transportation
NDOT has only limited involvement in the Study Area. As described in the State Maintained Highways of Nevada, Descriptions and Maps (January 2010), all NDOT maintained streets are directly adjacent to U.S. 95. The frontage roads and overpasses maintained by NDOT are built to City of Las Vegas standards and include shoulder bike lanes. Kyle Canyon Road is also maintained by NDOT. Any east-west crossing of U.S. 95 will require cooperation with NDOT. Exhibit 2-5 shows the various streets, ramps, and highway segments maintained by NDOT in the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-5: Streets Maintained by NDOT in the Study Area
Source: State Maintained Highways of Nevada, Descriptions and Maps (January 2010)
9 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
3. LAND USE
3.1 Regional Land Use Goals
The review of land use planning documents began by examining regional level planning studies. The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC), a coalition of local governments in the Las Vegas Valley published the Regional Growth Summits Project Report (March 2004) as a guide to development goals in the region. One of the “overarching objectives and actions” determined from the project is that the region should do more to consider transportation, land use, and air quality together in planning.
RTC has provided GIS map layers containing current spatial estimates of population and employment densities in the Study Area.
3.2 City of Las Vegas
The City of Las Vegas Master Plan 2020 - Land Use & Rural Neighborhoods Preservation Element (adopted 09/2009) inventories and classifies the types of land uses in the city and serves as a comprehensive plan for the most desirable utilization of land, while also providing general plans to preserve the character and density of rural neighborhoods.
Included in this element is the City of Las Vegas’ Centennial Hills Town Center Land Use Map (Exhibit 3-1), it identifies the land use within the corridor. Mixed-Use, Commercial and Residential comprise the majority of the land uses within the corridor. The land uses adjacent to US 95 and CC-215 include Commercial (both General and Service), Mixed Use for Suburban and Main Street.
Moving away from the freeway, the land use shifts from medium to low density residential. To the west, the residential density reflects land use consistent with Clark County’s Rural Neighborhood Preservation designation. Included in the Land Use element is the zoning reflecting the Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County, it identifies a majority of the Study Area east of US-95 corridor as Planned Community Development.
Other noteworthy uses within the Study Area limits includes: (1) the only Employment Center use, which is located at the north end of the corridor near Grand Teton Drive and Fort Apache Road and (2) Public Facilities which includes Mountain Ridge Park near Elkhorn and Oso Blanca.
10 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 3-1: Centennial Hills Town Center Land Use
3.3 Rural Neighborhood Preservation Areas
This element also includes discussions of rural neighborhood preservation. Rural Neighborhood Preservation (RNP) areas are local neighborhoods with low density zoning and are the subject of an interlocal agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County in an effort to preserve a low density, rural feel in an increasingly urbanized region. For example, streets are designed and built to a rural standard without sidewalks and few street lights. These areas provide its residents with open space and wide view sheds of the surrounding areas.
Exhibit 3-2 below is an astronaut photograph of the Study Area taken at night on November 30, 2010. The brightly lit areas of the photo correspond to City of Las Vegas development with the Study Area Town Center zone visible as the brightest spot along U.S.
11 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
95. The dark areas circled in red are the RNPs adjacent to the Study Area. Within the corridor Study Area, there are two main areas of unincorporated Clark County, both zoned as RNP areas. The first is the Lone Mountain RNP located west of US 95/ County 215 interchange, visible within the larger circle in Exhibit 3-2. The second is the Gilcrease RNP on the eastern most boundary of the Study Area, visible as the dark area in the smaller circle. The signature darkness of the RNPs is the result of fewer street lights, a result of the areas’ adherence to Clark County’s special design standards for non-urban areas.
Exhibit 3-2: Nighttime Astronaut Photo of the Study Area
Source: NASA Earth Observatory Website13
Although most of the unincorporated areas in the Study Area are a part of RNPs, the population and density of these areas continue to increase. Lone Mountain added 3,978 people between 2001 and 2007, a 36.2% increase in population while the surrounding
13 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=47687 12 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Centennial Hills area grew 75% to 171,500 residents. As Exhibit 3-3 shows, single family homes predominant in Lone Mountain.
Exhibit 3-3: Land Uses in the Lone Mountain Planning Area (2006)
Land Use Acres Share of Total Single Family 3,090 77.8% Multi-Family 9 0.2% Neighborhood Retail 18 0.5% Community Retail 1 0.0% Regional Retail 0 0.0% Hotel 0 0.0% Office 16 0.4% Industrial 120 3.0% Non-Retail/Other 73 1.8% Schools 136 3.4% Open Space 510 12.8%
Source: Clark County Existing Land Use (July 2006)
The Land Use Plan sets out several specific goals and supporting policies related to this Study. ▪ Policy 1.4: “When block walls are used along the perimeter of developments, walking connections should be provided on all sides of the development to avoid the creation of isolated areas.” ▪ Policy 3.6: “Encourage the preservation of the rural character of the large lot areas by implementing the provisions contained in the Minimum Road Design Standards for Non-Urban Roadways handbook, as adopted by Clark County and available from Clark County Public Works.” ▪ Policy 5.5: “Encourage multiple family developments to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems that connect to schools, recreation and commercial areas. Multiple family developments should also connect with existing and planned trail systems, parks, and open space.” ▪ Goal 13: “Encourage an integrated network of roads, mass transit (where feasible), bicycle, and pedestrian routes in order to provide transportation choices and alternatives in the Lone Mountain Area.” ▪ Policy 13.3: “Encourage ride sharing in areas of heavy travel demand.” ▪ Policy 13.5: “ Minimize traffic on local and residential streets by using cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets within subdivisions.”
13 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
4. MOTORIZED TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
4.1 NDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic
The NDOT 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County provides Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) estimates at select count locations in the Las Vegas region, including the Study Area for the Northwest US 95 Access Study. This data is collected by electronic sensors. The exhibit below shows the locations of these sensors in and adjacent to the Study Area. The numbers on the graphic in Exhibit 4-1 identify sensor locations, not AADT.
14 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 4-1: NDOT Traffic Count Locations
Source: 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County, NDOT
For each count location, the 2009 Annual Traffic Report provides AADT estimates from the years 2000 to 2009. Exhibit 4-2 shows an example of this data, including locations (003)2075 and (003)2076 which are both on Grand Teton Drive.
15 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 4-2: Example of NDOT AADT Estimates by Count Location, 2000 to 2009
Source: 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County, NDOT
The consultant team mapped the AADT data to provide a useful visualization of 2009 traffic patterns. Although the estimates are only available for certain routes, Exhibit 4-3 gives some perspective of traffic patterns in the Study Area.
16 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 4-3: Visualization of 2009 NDOT AADT Estimates
4.2 City of Las Vegas Turn Movement Counts
Other relevant transportation data sources are turning movement counts and 24 hour counts conducted by the City of Las Vegas at select times between the years 2007 and 2010 at select intersections in the Study Area. The counts include a peak morning hour and a peak evening hour in 15 minute increments. Exhibit 4-4 shows an example of this data, for Ann Road and US 95 Northbound.
17 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 4-4: Example of Turning Movement Counts
Source: City of Las Vegas, Department of Public Works
4.3 Street Safety
The most serious safety issue for travelers using alternate modes including bicycling and walking is a collision with a motor vehicle. While other transportation hazards exist for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists, no local sources cover report safety data other than for motor vehicles.
The consultant team submitted requests for traffic safety data to NDOT and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for key intersections in the Study Area. Exhibit 4-5 shows the locations of the data requested from NDOT’s crash data program (http://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/nv_crashes/).
18 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 4-5: Intersection Locations included in Safety Data Requests
Similar but more detailed crash data was also requested from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Traffic Division which has jurisdiction in the area.
The posted speed limits and the location of existing bicycle lanes also helps to better characterize the safety issues present in the current street network in the Study Area. The consultant team has created a speed limit map and is compiling a map of the existing bicycle lane and trail network in the Study Area.
19 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
5. TRANSIT SUPPLY AND DEMAND
5.1 Transit Service Routes
The Study Area remains an area with limited transit service. Service revolves around the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride and includes one local route (Route 106 A and B) and one commuter route (the ACE CX line). Exhibit 5-1 shows a map of service in the Study Area (highlighted in pink).
Exhibit 5-1: Map of Transit Service in the Study Area
Source: RTC Transit Map, November 7, 2010
RTC has provided GIS shape files showing existing transit routes.
5.2 Transit Ridership
In October and November 2010, RTC provided transit data for the routes operating in the Study Area (Route 106 and the C-Line), including average daily ridership, ons/offs by stop, and on-time performance. Exhibit 5-2 shows the monthly ridership history on Route 106 from the years 2002 through 2010.
20 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 5-2: Route 106 Monthly Ridership History 2002 to 2010
Month 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Jan 48,854 46,362 60,068 72,511 71,583 75,718 83,883 77,248 73,291 Feb 45,314 44,278 53,347 69,148 67,453 72,343 74,743 65,067 68,624 Mar 47,401 51,342 63,728 84,642 73,247 79,760 77,899 69,439 73,376 Apr 41,765 50,714 69,722 79,974 72,691 75,317 76,863 64,836 67,874 May 39,851 51,578 72,511 71,779 78,661 81,413 85,048 69,174 67,385 Jun 38,201 52,017 73,674 68,663 73,097 81,044 89,300 65,433 64,230 Jul 40,549 53,617 74,303 65,989 74,960 78,472 95,694 64,366 68,707 Aug 41,894 56,984 77,355 74,007 76,151 83,020 96,959 62,925 70,422 Sep 41,169 59,320 75,817 74,052 74,501 77,840 88,733 64,577 TBD Oct 43,990 69,030 78,221 75,851 76,116 85,045 91,667 71,478 TBD Nov 41,667 65,506 72,134 70,994 74,507 82,478 83,967 73,271 TBD Dec 46,527 65,819 71,980 71,313 72,096 79,662 82,607 73,802 TBD Totals 517,182 666,567 842,860 878,923 885,063 952,112 1,027,363 821,616 TBD Source: RTC
Exhibit 5-3 shows passengers per service hour (PPSH) numbers for Route 106, the C-Line (shown as Route 901), and other RTC routes from July to September 2010, separately for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
Exhibit 5-3: Passengers per Service Hour by Route, Jul to Sep 2010
Source: RTC
21 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 5-4 shows average daily passenger ons and offs by stop, as well as average daily load, for Route 106A (the counter-clockwise direction) in the Centennial Hills area based on March 2009 data.
Exhibit 5-4: Route 106A Average Daily Ons/Offs by Stop, March 2009 data Total Total Avg. Avg. Route Stop ID Stop Name Ons Offs Ons Offs 106A 5411 Ann / Rainbow 26.82 112.94 1.4 5.9 106A 5551 Ann / Rio Vista 24.07 149.33 1.3 7.9 106A 5552 Ann / Tenaya 45.81 136.57 2.3 6.8 106A 3907 Sky Pointe / Tenaya 18.49 74.87 0.9 3.7 106A 1035 Sky Pointe / Eagle Crest 57.95 58.99 3.1 3.1 106A 3908 Sky Pointe / Ranch House 43.43 178.43 2.2 8.9 106A 5735 Azure / Sky Pointe 25.45 120.54 1.3 6.3 106A 4452 Tenaya / Azure 34.13 53.88 1.7 2.7 106A 4453 Centennial / Tenaya 1 16.62 0.1 1.9 106A 4275 Sky Pointe / Target 115.52 177.58 6.1 9.4 106A 4454 Sky Pointe / Buffalo 8 14.26 0.8 1.4 106A 4455 Cimarron / Deer Springs 97.3 93.61 4.6 4.5 106A 4456 Cimarron / Odysseus 12.2 44.38 0.6 2.3 106A 4457 Elkhorn / Cimarron 30.95 93.2 1.6 4.7 106A 4458 Elkhorn / Conough 19.4 36.27 1.1 2.1 106A 5195 Buffalo / Elkhorn 32.81 48.89 1.7 2.6 106A 5197 Buffalo / Bridlehorne 27.68 33.61 1.5 1.9 106A 5199 Farm / Buffalo 144.21 185.21 6.9 8.8 106A 5200 Farm / Palm Grove 20.1 48.42 1.1 2.7 106A 5201 Farm / Cimarron 91.87 88.69 4.6 4.4 106A 5202 Farm / Nido 31.6 53.3 1.8 3.0 106A 5203 Farm / Tule Springs 243.04 244.43 11.6 11.6 106A 5371 Farm / Tule Springs 8.14 42.86 0.5 2.4 106A 5204 Durango / El Capitan 198.57 144.75 9.5 6.9 106A 5205 Durango / Oso Blanca 100.26 136.5 5.0 6.8 106A 5206 Durango / Elkhorn 414.99 293.34 20.8 14.7 106A 5207 Durango / Dorrell 297.35 180.07 15.7 9.5 106A 5208 Durango / Deer Springs 213 209.04 10.7 10.5 106A 5056 Durango / I-215 W Off Ramp 8.83 16.56 0.6 1.2 106A 5292 Centennial / Durango 109.65 77.25 5.8 4.1 106A 5054 Centennial / 8555 Centennial 5.1 16.82 0.4 1.4 106A 5053 Centennial / Grand Montecito 43.45 40.8 2.3 2.2 106A 3835 Centennial Ctr / Del Taco 1282.62 1222.04 64.1 61.1 Source: RTC
22 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
6. ADDITIONAL PREVIOUS STUDIES
6.1 Capital Program and Transportation Priorities
In addition to the documents mentioned in the previous sections, RTC, NDOT, the City of Las Vegas, and Clark County have published a variety of additional reports and studies related to transportation in the Study Area. For the most part, these additional documents address motorized transportation or general regional transportation policy goals.
Several important documents relate to NDOT’s U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor Improvements Project. Maps and project reports posted on NDOT’s project website give some information on Phase 2 of the project, now in progress. The central component of Phase 2 is the widening of U.S. 95 from Ann Road to Kyle Canyon Road, expanding from two lanes to three general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The project will also add one auxiliary lane in each direction between Ann Road and Durango Drive. Completion of all new elements may depend on the availability of funding sources. The reconstruction of the U.S. 95 and CC-215 interchange is expected to begin in 2012.
The other major project planned for the Study Area is the improvement of CC-215 from an expressway into a grade separated highway. The RTC West Valley North-South Critical Facilities Study – Phase 1 Draft Report (2008) notes that CC-215 has space available for lane for future lane expansion – up to five lanes in each direction. The current RTIP (Draft RTIP 2011-2014) includes significant improvements of CC-215 in the Northern Beltway section of the freeway. The upgrades will likely feed additional traffic through the 95-215 interchange. The 95-215 interchange is being upgraded to accommodate six through lanes on both freeways. NDOT is upgrading Kyle Canyon road to include 17 miles of bike lanes. The expansion of US-95 north of Ann Road from four or six lanes to eight lanes is ongoing.
6.2 Transportation Goals and Priorities
The RTC’s West Valley North-South Critical Facilities Study emphasizes several key congestion management strategies that apply to the Study Area. It underscores the need to avoid overloading Las Vegas’ arterials with local traffic. It recommends that agencies should work to connect discontinuous streets, especially arterials. The study also recommends that agencies consider the establishment of unidirectional complementary couplets. Finally, it recognizes that Durango Drive is a critical north-south travel facility in the Study Area.
6.3 List of Documents Reviewed
Exhibit 6-1 provides a complete list of the sources reviewed for this task. Not all of the documents listed were included in this technical memorandum.
23 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Exhibit 6-1: List of Documents Reviewed for Task #2 Author Section Type Name Date Agency
City of Las Current website # 2 Vegas Maps Suggested Routes to School information
City of Las Adopted 2002_01, # 2 Vegas Plan Master Plan - Recreation Trails Element Revised 2005_01
City of Las Master Plan - Transportation Trails Adopted 2002_01, #2 Vegas Plan Element Revised 2005_01
City of Las City of Las Vegas 5 Year Capital #2 Vegas Plan Improvement Plan, FY2010-2014 2009_07
Clark County Safe Route to School Current website #2 Clark County Maps Program (SRTS) information Clark County/ #2 UNLV Study Clark County Equestrian Trail Study 2007_04
State Maintained Highways of Nevada, #2 NDOT Report Descriptions and Maps 2010_01
#2 RTC Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2008_10 Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan - Land Use City of Las & Rural Neighborhoods Preservation #3 Vegas Plan Element Adopted 2009_09
#3 Clark County Plan Clark County Existing Land Use 2006_07
#3 Clark County Plan Lone Mountain Land Use Plan 2008_09 City of Las Vegas/ Clark Interagency Interlocal Agreement Between the city Adopted: #3 County Agreement of Las Vegas and Clark County 2008_12
Regional Growth Summits Project #3 SNRPC Study Report - Final Report 2004_03
2009 Annual Traffic Report, Clark #4 NDOT Report County 2010_05
#5 RTC Maps RTC Transit System Map 2010_11
#6 NDOT Study Northwest U.S. 95 Project Map Unknown
24 Part I Northwest U.S. 95 Data Collection Summary Access Study
Author Section Type Name Date Agency
Northwest U.S. 95 Corridor Project #6 NDOT Study Management Plan 2009_04
Road Safety Audit Report U.S. 95, #6 NDOT Study Washington Avenue to Ann Road 2007_12 U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor Improvements Project Newsletter, #6 NDOT Study Volume 2, Edition 1 2010_Spring
U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor Project #6 NDOT Study Initial Financial Plan 2009_04
#6 RTC Plan Draft RTIP 2011-2014 2010_08
West Valley North-South Critical #6 RTC Study Facilities Study – Phase 1 Draft Report 2008
City of Las Planning and Development N/A Vegas Newsletter (Newsletter): “...and another thing” 2007_Q1
City of Las Transportation & Streets and Highways N/A Vegas Plan Element Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan Adopted 2009_04
City of Las N/A Vegas Plan Northwest Open Space Plan Accepted 2005_01 Standards Last Revised by City of Las and Design Kyle Canyon Development Standards MOD-25875, N/A Vegas Guidelines and Design Guidelines 2008_02
City of Las Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan - School N/A Vegas Plan Facilities Element Adopted 2008_08
Regional Transportation Plan 2009 - N/A RTC Plan 2030 2008_11
25 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
PART II: EVALUATION OF MOBILITY NEEDS
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Roadway And Intersection Safety ...... 5 2.1 Assessment of Current Street and Intersection Conditions ...... 5 2.2 Identification of Street Segments and Intersections for Improvement ...... 10
3. On-Road Bicycle Facilities ...... 16 3.1 Existing Bicycle Network Conditions ...... 17 3.2 Bicycle Network Needs ...... 19
4. Trails: Non-Equestrian And Equestrian ...... 22 4.1 Trail Types ...... 22 4.2 Existing Trail Network Conditions ...... 22 4.3 Trail Network Needs ...... 29
5. Pedestrian Facilities ...... 34 5.1 Pedestrian Sidewalk Types ...... 34 5.2 Existing Side Walk Conditions ...... 35 5.3 Sidewalk Needs ...... 37
6. Transit Service and Facilities ...... 40 6.1 Existing Transit Service Characteristics ...... 40 6.2 Transit Service Performance ...... 41 6.3 Unmet Transit Needs ...... 46
A. Appendix ...... i
Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
1. INTRODUCTION
The Task 2 Technical Memorandum – Data Collection Summary – described the existing and planned land uses and existing transportation patterns in the Study Area as well as the planned bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian network. These, along with the other data collected, provide the basis for the analysis of corridor mobility needs for travelers using alternate modes. The purposes of the Task 3 Technical Memorandum are (1) to identify roadway safety issues, (2) to identify and characterize the remaining gaps in the planned alternate modes network, (3) to identify additional gaps in the alternate modes network, and (4) to provide the basis for developing alternatives to mobility for bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians in the Study Area.
Exhibit 1-1 shows a map with the two highways dividing the Study Area into four sections. A number has been placed in each section to designate four Study Area quadrants.
Exhibit 1-1: Study Area Map with Quadrants
1 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 1-2: City of Las Vegas Centennial Hills Sector Zoning
Source: City of Las Vegas, Centennial Hills Zoning Map, March 21, 2011, http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/northwestsectorzoning.pdf
2 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
In the near future, the City of Las Vegas and NDOT will complete the Study Area’s planned street network and the highway capacity improvements along the northwest US 95 corridor, so it is necessary to assess the remaining mobility needs in the Study Area to ensure adequate facilities are in place to support the planned growth in and around the Study Area. Since the street network is nearing completion, the focus of this analysis is street safety and alternate modes mobility, especially pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian travel. Equestrian travel is of interest because of the significant horse population in and around the Study Area and the existing challenges to equestrian mobility that cause riders to use sidewalks and unsafe shoulders at times.
Exhibit 1-2 shows the planned land uses in the Centennial Hills sector. The map identifies most of the undeveloped land area in the Study Area as either “Town Center” or “Traditional Neighborhood Development.” These zoning designations emphasize the need to carefully plan infrastructure to support these new neighborhoods as well as to address infrastructure gaps and needs in existing neighborhoods.
For each mode, we will focus on existing network gaps and evaluate connectivity both within (intra-quadrant) and between (inter-quadrant) the four quadrants of the study area, split by US 95 and CC-215. As identified earlier, these facilities constitute the most significant barriers to mobility for alternate modes in the Study Area. Below Exhibit 1-3 provides a conceptual diagram of this approach. Intra-quadrant connectivity – illustrated by orange arrows – will focus on access to key destinations including schools, retail centers, other services, and recreation centers. The inter-quadrant gap analysis – illustrated by white arrows – will emphasize connectivity of alternate mode networks. The analysis will also examine facilities to support multi-modal trips within the Study Area generally and access to the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride specifically.
Exhibit 1-3: Analysis of Mobility Gaps in the Study Area by Quadrant
3 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
In addition to a gap analysis, the consultant team has undertaken an assessment of traffic control improvements to facilitate alternate modes mobility and general roadway safety. This assessment focuses on identifying specific intersections, street segments, trail segments, and trail crossings which present points of greater risk within the alternate modes network or would benefit from improvements because of their likely higher volume of travelers. Specific alternatives for improvements will be presented as part of Task 4.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows: . In Section 2, there is an examination of the mobility needs related to alternate mode travelers’ safety on streets and at intersections; . Section 3 identifies gaps and needs related to the on-street bicycle network; . Section 4 analyzes the off-street path and trail network to find key gaps and opportunities for improvement; . Section 5 analyzes the sidewalk network gaps and identifies the critical missing segments; . Finally, Section 6 considers the transit use and needs within the Study Area.
4 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2. ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION SAFETY
2.1 Assessment of Current Street and Intersection Conditions
This section focuses on identifying street segments and intersections which could most benefit from additional improvements to improve alternative modes’ safety as well as general roadway safety. In order to identify specific locations where opportunities exist, the available risk factors and demand variables collected in the course of Task 1 were catalogued for major streets in the Study Area – parkway arterials, major arterials, minor collectors, and frontage streets2. Based on these factors, each street segment and adjacent key intersection received an overall risk score to determine the need for additional measures to protect the pedestrians and bicyclists using the segment.
The scoring system weighed all of the variables equally relative the others, and the scoring scales were normalized to reflect this approach. The risk variables included the traffic levels on the street segment, the segment’s posted speed limit, the street category, the type of intersection, and the crash history of the intersection. Only two demand variables were included in the analysis: (1) the presence of important destinations within three blocks of the segment and (2) the presence of bike lanes on segment (implying the route would be preferred by cyclists). The sum of the scores in each category created a total risk score, with higher scores indicating higher risk and demand on the street segment. The full data for each street segment is attached in the Appendix.
The traffic levels were obtained from both the Nevada Department of Transportation’s (NDOT’s) 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County and from the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Works’ ongoing traffic counts3. The analysis used the City’s data except where the NDOT measurements were more recent. High traffic levels can significantly raise the risk of collisions for alternate mode travelers, cause them discomfort from noise, exhaust, and other environmental impacts, and create a barrier to crossing the street. Street segments were divided into six scoring categories: - Very low volume streets: 0 to 999 vehicles per day (VPD), - Low volume streets: 1,000 to 4,999 VPD, - Moderate volume streets: 5,000 to 9,999 VPD, - Somewhat high volume streets: 10,000 to 19,999 VPD, - High volume streets: 20,000 to 29,999 VPD, - Very high volume streets: 30,000 or more VPD.
2 This classification is based on Map Six “Centennial Hills Sector Circulation” (p.65) in the City of Las Vegas’ Centennial Hills Sector Plan published March 1, 2006. 3 Available at http://www3.lasvegasnevada.gov/TrafficCounts/.
5 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The Centennial Hills Sector Plan classifies the Study Area’s major streets into four categories: parkway arterials, major arterials, minor collectors, and frontage streets. Parkway arterials, such as Durango Drive, are widest and were given the highest score, followed by major arterials, minor collectors, and then frontage streets. As mentioned previously, local streets are typically calm and are often not integrated with the street grid and so were not considered as part of the street risk and demand analysis. Wider streets run straight along the city’s grid and encourage higher traffic speeds and are a physical barrier to pedestrians because of their width. However, landscape improvements and sidewalk setbacks can be included to make arterial roadways more pedestrian friendly. Exhibit 2-1 shows a map of street classifications in the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-1: Map of Study Area Street Classifications
6 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The next risk score variable, the type of intersection, was determined based on observations from aerial photos and verification in the field. Intersections were classified four ways: - Signalized intersections: the best controlled and therefore lowest scoring intersections, - Four-way stop signs: well controlled intersections that pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians can still easily cross, - Uncontrolled intersections: intersections where traffic does not stop in the direction of the alternate mode’s travel, contributing to higher risk travel conditions, - Stop signs with at uncontrolled cross streets: a significant hazard for alternate mode travelers since cross traffic is not forced to yield to them and therefore the highest scoring intersections.
The study team received location-based crash data from NDOT. Since the Study Area continues to evolve quickly, historical collision data are less meaningful in the context of the Study Area. Thus while crash data were available for the last four years (2007 through 2010), only the collisions from 2010 were considered. Each available intersection’s “property damage only”, injury crashes, and fatal crashes totaled to create a sum used as the crash risk rank. The rank numbers were normalized to match the other scoring scales. The crash ranks are available in the Appendix. Since data were not available for many streets segments, they were assigned a slightly below average score in this category, reflecting the fact that most of these were lower traffic streets.
The final available risk variable was the posted speed limit on the streets of interest. Faster moving vehicles have longer braking distances and pose a greater hazard to alternate modes. Streets in the Study Area range in speed limit from 25 miles per hour (MPH) – the lowest scoring – to 45 MPH – the highest scoring. Exhibit 2-2 shows a map of speed limits in and around the Study Area.
7 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 2-2: Map of Study Area Posted Speed Limits
The first demand variable, the presence of important destinations within three blocks of the segment, is an important factor in determining the use of a route by alternate modes. The destinations considered were schools, the transit center, and highway crossings (highest score), retail and the area’s hospital (medium score), and amenities such as parks, libraries, and churches (low score). Streets segments without proximate destinations received no score in this category. The destinations within three blocks of each segment are listed in the Appendix.
8 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The other demand variable included was the presence of bike lanes on the street segment. Bicycles traveling on roadways are directly exposed to the parallel traffic and more vulnerable to collision with a vehicle. Bicycle lanes tend to attract more bicyclists seeking improved safety. Street segments with such an existing, designated bicycle facility would benefit from consideration for possible improvements for better bicycle safety and easier travel. Therefore, street segments with two bike lanes received the highest score, followed by segments with a single lane or lanes only part of its length (incomplete bike lanes). Segments with no lanes received no score in this category. Exhibit 2-3 provides a map of bike lanes in the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-3: Map of Study Area Bicycle Lanes
9 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The following section provides the results of the analysis to identify target intersection and street segments.
2.2 Identification of Street Segments and Intersections for Improvement
To create the final risk score, each segment’s individual score for each of the seven risk and demand variables was added into a single score. Exhibit 2-4 shows the score scales for the seven variables.
Exhibit 2-4: Street Risk Assessment Score Scales
Variable Scores 30,000 or more: 5 20,000 to 29,999: 4 Traffic Level (Vehicles 10,000 to 19,999: 3 per Day) 5,000 to 9,999: 2 1,000 to 4,999: 1 0 to 999: 0 55 MPH: 7 50 MPH: 6 45 MPH: 5 Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH: 4 (Miles per Hour) 35 MPH: 3 30 MPH: 2 25 MPH: 1 Parkway Arterial: 4 Major Arterial: 3 Street Category Minor Collector: 2 Frontage Street: 1 Stop Sign at Uncontrolled Intersection (cross traffic does not stop): 4 Uncontrolled Intersection (traffic does not stop in the Intersection Type direction of travel): 3 Four Way Stop Sign: 2 Signalized Intersection: 1 Vehicle Collisions Rank Most Crashes (30) to Least Crashes (0) (2010) Points by destination: Highway Crossing, Transit Center, or School: 3 Proximity of Destinations Hospital or Retail: 2 Park, Library, or Church: 1 (Highest total: 14; lowest total: 0) Two Lanes (both sides): 2 One Lane (1 side): 1 Presence of Bike Lanes Partial Lanes (discontinuities exist on the segment): 1 No Lanes Exist: 0
10 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
In order to weight each of the variables equally, the scores were normalized – if necessary – to a 0 or 1 to 5 scale and then summed to create the total score. In each case, the highest score indicates a greater risk for alternate mode travelers on the segment or higher demand by alternate mode travelers for the segment.
After the creation of the final risk scores, they were grouped into five categories of relative interest. The highest risk category received a total score of at least 26 points, indicating significant concern across nearly every variable. Only one segment received the “high risk/demand” rating. The next category, “moderate to high risk/demand”, indicates significant concern in a majority of categories. The remaining three categories – “moderate risk/demand,” “low to moderate risk/demand,” and “low risk/demand” – show significant scores in fewer than half of the variables.
Exhibit 2-5 maps the final score totals by these five categories. High risk and demand segments would benefit most from improvements in street and intersection safety. Low risk and demand segments are not well travelled and are relatively safe and therefore present fewer opportunities for improvement. The map provides a basis for the identification of possible investment to improve both motor vehicle and alternate mode facilities and safety and to reduce conflict among modes.
11 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 2-5: Map of High Demand Street Segments for Alternate Modes
On the segment of Durango Drive north of Oso Blanca Road (colored in red), the confluence of factors including the presence of a highway crossing, high traffic levels, a high speed limit, the presence of bike lanes, and the proximity of so many destinations creates an environment that could benefit significantly from additional improvements to augment bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The Town Center area, shaded dark gray on the map, contains a concentration of green and yellow segments representing a higher investment need than the surrounding areas, such as the less dense residential areas on north and west
12 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study sides of the Study Area. The connections across U.S. 95 are particularly important because they are high speed, high volume arterials with no available alternate route choices for alternate mode travelers. The map also illustrates the extent to which Durango Drive represents a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists between the western residential areas of Quadrant 1 and the commercial core of the Town Center. Elkhorn Road has a similar impact. These segments and other red, yellow, and green segments on the prioritization map indicating that the development of projects to improve alternate modes’ mobility in the Study Area might provide more benefit in these locations.
Exhibit 2-5 provides a basis for prioritizing roadway improvements to better meet the needs of alternate modes in the Study Area. Critical intersections where alternate modes would most benefit from additional traffic control measures to promote safety include: - Durango Drive and Oso Blanca Road, - Durango Drive and U.S. 95, - Durango Drive and Elkhorn Road, - Durango Drive and Deer Springs Way, - Elkhorn Road and Grand Montecito Parkway, - Centennial Center Boulevard and Azure Drive/Tropical Parkway, and - Durango Drive and Tropical Parkway.
All of these intersections are in Quadrants 1 and 3 within the Town Center and are shown in Exhibit 2-6 below.
13 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 2-6: Target Intersections for Traffic Control Safety Measures
It should also be noted that several additional intersections on moderate risk segments could benefit from the improvement or installation of crosswalks based on specific conditions that were not practical to include in the general risk assessment approach. In cases where arterials such as Ann Road and Cimarron Road go significant distances without interruption by a controlled intersection, pedestrians can be left without a convenient alternative for crossing the street. The following cases may warrant some level of additional pedestrian safety improvements:
14 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
- At the Centennial Hills Park, residents to the east have no convenient crosswalk by which to reach this important neighborhood destination. - On the relatively long segment of Ann Road between Durango Drive and Centennial Center Parkway, there is no controlled intersection where pedestrians can safely cross for north-south travel. There is one crosswalk at Buffalo Drive with minimal safety measures in place. - A segment of multi-use trail connects with Cimarron Road at Hesperides Avenue. If additional trail development connects this path with the overall trail and bicycle network, the path may generate significant pedestrian traffic across Cimarron; however, the nearest intersection is uncontrolled and has no crosswalks. - The baseball field complex on Grand Montecito Parkway currently has no sidewalk access. A pedestrian connection across Grand Montecito Parkway to Dorrell Lane would provide alternate modes with safe access from the residential neighborhoods to the west and from the adjacent retail.
As the street network is completed in the Study Area, it is important to continue to give attention to avoiding similar issues on new street segments. According to the City of Las Vegas’ Transportation and Streets and Highways Element (adopted April 15, 2009) Hualapai Way will provide a primary arterial connection – meaning a 100-foot right-of-way – north to Horse Drive. The plan shows Grand Canyon Drive providing a primary arterial connection north from Horse Drive to Kyle Canyon Road. As shown in Exhibit 1-2 (page 2), the undeveloped neighborhoods north of Grand Teton Drive are mostly zoned as Traditional Neighborhood Development, with fewer block walls and cul-de-sacs. Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning corresponds to medium densities (up to eight dwelling units per acre) and emphasizes a need to accommodate alternate modes throughout the street network, both at intersections and along the street segments. Attention to the quality and spacing of pedestrian crossings will help ensure a high level of accessibility within and across these new neighborhoods.
15 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
3. ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES
This section focuses on characterizing the state of the existing on-street bicycle network. The analysis also seeks to identify the critical network gaps which most impede bicycle mobility in the Study Area with respect to both the existing and planned on-street bike facilities. Additionally, the analysis seeks to identify bike lanes on higher risk street segments which could benefit from the deployment of additional traffic control measures to improve safety.
The City of Las Vegas Master Plan Transportation Trails Element has defined three major trail classifications:
A bikeway trail consisting of portions of the roadway, a minimum of four feet wide (excluding curb and gutter), that has been designated by striping, Bike Lane signing, and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists traveling in the same direction as vehicle traffic.
A bikeway trail along a roadway that is designated by Bike Route signage for use of bicyclists but shared with vehicular traffic.
A path intended primarily for bicycles that is physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic. Pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, and other Bike Path non-motorized users may also use bicycle paths. For this reason, a bicycle path is also referred to as a shared use path.
This section is concerned mainly with the first two types of bicycle facilities, and it discusses bike paths only in the context of how they connect with the on-street bike network. Section 4 addresses bike paths and other off-street trails directly.
In the City of Las Vegas Master Plan Trails Element, Map 3 – On-Street Bicycle Trail Alignments (p.39) and Map 7 – Town Center On-Street Bicycle Trail Alignments (p.47) describe a backbone system that circulates through the commercial areas within the Study Area and provides on-street access from the residential areas to the bike lane network that runs through the Town Center area. As Exhibit 3-1 shows, when completed, this network of both bike lanes and bike routes will connect through each of the quadrants in the Study Area.
16 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 3-1: Adopted On-Street Bicycle Facilities
Roadway Name Alignment Quadrant Route Lane Grand Teton E/W 1, 2 x Elkhorn E/W 1, 2 X Tropical E/W 3 X Ann Road E/W 3, 4 x Azure E/W 4 X Oso Blanca N/S 1 x* X Durango N/S 1, 2, 3 x Grand Montecito N/S 1, 3 X Grand Canyon N/S 1, 3 El Capitan N/S 2 x Tenaya N/S 2, 4 x Sky Pointe N/S 2 x Centennial N/S 3 x* X Centennial Center N/S 3 X *Outside town center
3.1 Existing Bicycle Network Conditions
While the City of Las Vegas’ Master Plan Transportation Trails Element4 identifies a complete bike route and bike lane system, the actual bicycle network in the Study Area includes a fragmented set of bicycle lane segments, many of which do not correspond to the planned routes. Exhibit 3-2 provides a table showing the extent to which the planned bicycle lane network is complete.
Exhibit 3-2: Implementation of Planned Bike Lane Network
Designated Bicycle Lane Existing Distance Planned Percent Network Segment 1 lane 2 lanes Distance Complete Elkhorn Road 0.3 2.7 3.1 94% Oso Blanca Rd/Grand Montecito Pkwy 0.0 2.0 3.4 61% Centennial Center Pkwy 0.3 1.9 2.2 93% Tropical Pkwy/Azure Dr 0.1 1.1 1.7 68% Cimarron Rd/Sky Pointe Dr 0.0 1.8 1.8 100% Sky Pointe Dr/Tenaya Way 0.2 0.4 1.0 47%
The routes in Exhibit 3.2 are important since they connect the four quadrants together across the two highways and facilitate access to the Town Center. These segments are also
4 Adopted January 16, 2002 and revised January 20, 2005; Map 3 (p.39) and Map 7 (p.47) describe the planned bicycle network.
17 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study particularly important because in several cases they correspond to higher traffic and higher speed segments. Exhibit 3-3 maps both the existing speed limits and the existing bike lane network. Elkhorn Road, Grand Montecito Parkway, Tropical Parkway and Azure Drive, and Centennial Center Parkway do not have smaller, slower streets that could serve as convenient alternatives for bicyclists. Critical gaps in the lanes on these street segments continue to exist and represent an ongoing safety concern.
Exhibit 3-3: Existing Bike Lanes and Speed Limits in the Study Area
18 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 3-3 shows the core network exists mostly on higher speed streets with 35 and even 45 MPH speed limits. The map also highlights how fragmented the bike lane network is apart from the City of Las Vegas’ planned network. The area would benefit from the completion of this network and its integration into a planned bike network.
The study team encountered difficulty in verifying the implementation of the planned bike routes in the Study Area. Where they exist, bike routes seemed to be poorly or intermittently signed and typically coincide with the existence of a bike lane. If the bike route system is to function effectively and attract increased bicycle traffic, there needs to be more effective use of signage and traffic control measures to promote improved awareness of and safety on these routes. RTC has documented one official bike route in the Study Area on Ann Road between Durango Drive and Centennial Center Parkway. It should be noted that this is a higher speed limit street in the context of the Study Area. The two major planned bike routes in the Study Area would use Durango Drive and Buffalo Drive north of CC-215, both of which are also higher speed limit streets. The planned bike route network will help improve safety for those cyclists that choose to use these streets, but it is best not considered to be a part of the core bicycle system in the Study Area. The through streets in the Study Area are constructed for higher traffic volumes, and the dedicated right-of-way space of a bike lane offers a higher level safety for these routes.
3.2 Bicycle Network Needs
Providing continuity in the core bike lane network can help encourage bicycling, so one priority is to close the gaps in the City of Las Vegas’ planned bike lane network mapped in Exhibit 3-2. However, as previously noted, the existing bike lane network makes more use of higher speed streets than of naturally calmer streets. Also, it should be noted that RTC is planning to significantly expand the network in 2011. The bike lanes planned for construction are noted in Exhibit 3-4. They cover important network gaps in Quadrants 1 and 2 and provide cyclists with dedicated road space on several higher speed limits streets – Durango Drive, Buffalo Drive, and Farm Road.
Using the prioritization map from Exhibit 2-4, the map below in Exhibit 3-4 shows the potential for using calmer streets to enhance and extend the existing bike lane system.
19 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 3-4: Existing Bike Lanes and Roadway and Intersection Risk Levels
Bicycle transportation trips generally have similar patterns to motorized travel: trips are generated in residential areas with destinations such as schools, shopping, commercial areas, employment, and recreational destinations such as parks and recreational bike trails. These patterns of demand and the maps from Exhibits 3-3 and 3-4 support the selection of additional candidate segments that would best improve the existing bike lane network. Such segments include: - Grand Canyon Drive, - Tropical Parkway,
20 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
- Sky Pointe Drive/Tule Springs Road (north of US 95), - Oso Blanca Road between Farm Road and Gilcrease Avenue, - The Durango Drive crossing of US 95, - Fort Apache Road north of US 95.
If the US 95 frontage roads are eventually widened, that would offer another opportunity to extend the bike lane network. The frontage roads provide the most direct connections between highway crossings. The frontage roads also offer bicyclists long distance connections with a minimal number of driveways and intersections per mile. However, they currently have insufficient shoulder width to accommodate standard bike lanes.
Since the existing lanes are disproportionately on high speed limit streets and on street segments prioritized for improvements (based Section 2), there are also opportunities to improve the existing bike lane network. One possible priority would be to investigate alternatives to improve bike lane safety on higher speed streets, especially those included in the City of Las Vegas’ planned bike network.
Another possibility is to make more use of the paved multi-use paths as connections. Opportunities include the trail off of El Capitan Way at the Lowe’s Home Improvement store and the path connecting the east side of the Elkhorn Road crossing of U.S. 95 with Tule Springs Road. The first path could be extended along the U.S. 95 right-of-way (ROW) to the Grand Teton Drive Subgrade trail crossing and the first quadrant’s bike network along Grand Teton and Fort Apache Road. The second path could connect with an extension of the Sky Pointe Road bike lanes. Another paved bicycle path provides an off-street connection between Grand Montecito Parkway and Tropical Parkway and also the back of the Centennial Center shopping center. Completing the Grand Montecito and Tropical Parkway bike lanes would complete connections with this path and offer more route choices across the third quadrant.
Finally, traffic control measures can be implemented to improve bicyclists’ safety on streets with existing lanes. For instance, better signage increases drivers’ awareness of the presence of a bicycle route and attracts more bicyclists to use existing routes instead of streets without lanes or shoulders. Shoulder lanes’ widths can be checked to find whether the location of the lane line gives riders sufficient space for comfortable riding. Where routes have on-street parking, it is important to verify that the lane also has sufficient space and is appropriately delineated. Lastly, because traffic speed plays a major role in safety and because so many of the existing bicycle lanes are on higher speed streets, speed limit reductions worth considering for key street segments: - Elkhorn Road between Campbell Road and Durango Drive - The complete length of Grand Montecito Parkway - Tropical Parkway between Durango Drive and Tenaya Way.
21 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
4. TRAILS: NON-EQUESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN
This section describes the existing status of multi-use and equestrian trails in the Study Area and identifies gaps with respect to equestrian network connectivity within and between quadrants.
4.1 Trail Types
Both recreational trail and transportation trail needs are important components of alternate mobility needs. The City of Las Vegas Master Plan provides the following descriptions of trail types:
Transportation Trails – intended primarily for transportation purposes (1) Multi-Use Transportation Trails: . Off-street bicycle facilities or bicycle paths are referred to as “multi-use trails” or “shared use trails” because these paths can be used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and others; . These facilities typically have paved trail paths separated from the roadway and designed for exclusively for non-motorized travel; . Sidewalks adjacent to travel are not considered a multi-use trail; . Multi-use trails are typically designed as grade separated facilities. Recreation Trails – intended primarily for recreation purposes (2) Equestrian Trails: . These are recreation trails specifically designed for equestrians with design elements including a soft surface and fencing.5 (3) Multi-Use Equestrian Trails: . Multi-use equestrian trails are routes that provide both a soft surface facility intended for equestrians and a parallel multi-use path intended for shared use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and skaters.
4.2 Existing Trail Network Conditions
The most important aspect of the current trail network is its connectivity. Within the US 95 Access Study area, the existing trail network includes facilities within the jurisdictions of both Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. This section first addresses trails providing equestrian access and then examines multi-use trails intended primarily for non-equestrian use. It is important to note that equestrian travel tends to be recreational in nature and follows different patterns within the study area. The existing equestrian trail system
5 Note that the RTC only provides funding for ADA accessible trail facilities. While most equestrian facilities would not qualify for RTC funding, equestrian uses are an important element of travel patterns in the study area and represent a legitimate mobility need and are therefore addressed as part of this report.
22 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study extends across the area north of CC-215 connecting the Lone Pine RNP and Quadrant 1 to the Gilcrease RNP and Floyd Lamb State Park in Quadrant 2. In Quadrant 3, there is only a small trail segment, although there is an informal trail network west of Durango Drive just outside the Study Area. Quadrant 4 has no existing equestrian trail segments. The existing equestrian trails residing within the City of Las Vegas and in the RNPs are shown in Exhibit 4-1.
Exhibit 4-1: Existing Equestrian Trails Network
23 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The two trail categories, equestrian only and multi-use equestrian, do not necessarily imply enforcement of the modal designation but rather denote the design approach used. Equestrian only paths are routes that only offer a soft surface path, usually constructed of decomposed granite and grade separated from the street. A multi-use equestrian trail implies the existence of both paved and soft trails. In the Study Area, there are two short north-south routes located north of CC-215: . Quadrant 1 of the Study Area includes a trail along Hualapai Way, from Grand Teton Drive to Severence Lane where there is a gap traversing the Lone Pine Rural Preservation Neighborhood (RNP) with just a small trail segment adjacent to CC-215; . The north-south trail runs along El Capitan Way and Durango Drive briefly and connects the east-west trail along Grand Teton Drive to the northern edge of the Study Area near the City of Las Vegas’ boundary.
The only east-west trail runs along Grand Teton Drive and completely traverses Quadrants 1 and 2: . In Quadrant 2 of the Study Area, the trail runs along Grand Teton from Buffalo Drive to the eastern limits of the Study Area near Tenaya Way and includes the only grade-separated crossing of US 95. The trail has yet to be completed west of US 95; plans show this trail traversing the north section of the city from Puli Road to Decatur. Most importantly this trail provides access to Floyd Lamb State Park and will eventually connect it to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
Another planned equestrian trail is located in Quadrant 3 but no segments yet exist: . The planned east-west route traverses the Gilcrease RNP along La Mancha Avenue from Durango Drive to CC-215 with spurs on Ruffian Street and Dapple Gray Road.
In the City of Las Vegas Master Plan Recreation Trails Element, Map No. 2 – Off-Street Recreation Trail Alignments (p. 25) defines the equestrian trial network in the Study Area. With the exception of segments on Grand Teton Drive and Severence Lane, this network is nearly complete. Exhibit 4-2 details the implementation progress by Study Area quadrant.
Exhibit 4-2: Equestrian Trails Network State of Implementation Existing Planned Percent Quadrant Miles Miles Complete #1 1.1 2.2 52% #2 3.6 3.6 100% #3 0.0 0.0 N/A #4 0.0 0.0 N/A
While Exhibit 4-2 shows substantial progress toward completion of the planned equestrian network, significant gaps remain in the planned network of paved multi-use trails. One
24 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study issue with off-street trail planning in the Study Area is that many planned transportation trails have been constructed as sidewalks. While many of these are wide sidewalk paths measuring between eight and ten feet across and represent an attractive facility to alternate mode travelers, their design does not accommodate safe bike travel as well as a fully grade-separated trail would. Sidewalks, even if designated for bicycle use, are often punctuated by driveways or run directly adjacent to relatively high speed traffic. While these sidewalk paths are a valuable component of the alternate modes network, the focus in this section is on fully functional multi-use transportation trails meeting the design standards set forth in the Master Plan Transportation Trails Element. Exhibit 4-3 provides a map of the existing off-street trail network in the Study Area and its vicinity.
Exhibit 4-3: Existing Multi-Use Trails Network
25 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
All four quadrants of the Study Area include at least one paved trail segment. The longest segment, running parallel to Azure Drive in Quadrant 4, covers a distance that just exceeds 0.6 miles. Most of the transportation trail segments are much shorter, running through a park or along the edge of schools or bridging discontinuities in the street network. Exhibit 4-4 shows the existing and proposed trail network for the area. As shown in Exhibit 4-5, significant portions of the network remained incomplete.
Exhibit 4-4 Existing and Proposed Off-Street Trail Network
Source: “Shared Use Trails and Land Use” map, RTC IT Department GIS, September 2008
26 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The table in Exhibit 4-5 provides the state of implementation for the non-equestrian off- street trails system both including and without the sidewalk paths. The table uses the planned network described by Maps 2 (p.37) and 6 (p.45) in the City of Las Vegas Master Plan Transportation Trails Element.
Exhibit 4-5: Multi-Use Trails Network State of Implementation Existing % Complete: Existing Multi-Use + % Complete: Multi-Use + Multi-Use Sidewalk Planned Multi-Use Sidewalk Quadrant Miles Path Miles Miles Only Paths #1 0.1 5.0 5.4 3% 92%
#2 1.2 2.2 10.5 12% 21%
#3 1.0 0.4 5.8 17% 7%
#4 0.6 0.2 2.2 28% 8%
Both US 95 and CC-215 create barriers for trail users between the quadrants. At this time only one crossing currently exists near Grand Teton and US 95, this crossing provides grade-separated equestrian access across US 95. Exhibit 4-6 also identifies the existing and proposed equestrian crossings located in the US 95 Access Study Area. Note that planning is underway to provide a new above grade trail link across the planned Grand Teton overpass of US 95. Also, the Hualapai crossing of CC-215 has a trail crossing in place, but without any trail approaches.
27 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 4-6: Existing and Planned Off-Street Highway Crossings
Source: City of Las Vegas Master Plan Recreation Trails Element (February 2009) Map No. 2 (p.25)
To complete the evaluation of trail network gaps in the Study Area, it is important to characterize likely demand for these potential trails. The study team identified the origins and destinations for equestrian trips and multi-use trail trips. The Clark County, Nevada Equestrian Trails Study (April, 2007) analyzed the public demand for equestrian trail network in the Rural Neighborhood Preservation (RNP) areas. It identified a high concentration of horses in the vicinity of Quadrant 2: 368 horses live in this area, most just outside the Study Area. The County’s study also counted 581 horses in the vicinity of Quadrant 3 with facilities for as many as 940. The Clark County Study did not explore the equestrian travel demand in the Quadrant 1 of the US 95 Access Study area. This area includes the Lone Pine RNP area where there is also likely significant demand.
28 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Equestrian travel differs from other non-motorized travel as these trips are usually destined for recreational areas. The Clark County study noted the Floyd Lamb State Park to the east and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to the west as destinations for equestrians. These are also likely destinations for recreational bicyclists, walkers, and runners.
Multi-use trails serve both the recreational trips noted above and traditional transportation trips. Multi-use trail users need access to land uses such as residential areas, schools, mixed use commercial, employment sites, and the Centennial Transit Center and Park and Ride. A majority of the residential use occurs along the outer perimeter of the study area while commercial centers are adjacent to US 95 and CC-215. Schools and parks are scattered fairly uniformly across the Study Area. However, the multi-use trail users also travel to the same recreational destinations noted for equestrian trail users.
4.3 Trail Network Needs
As noted earlier, the equestrian trail network intends to provide a network connects the areas in which horses reside to the primary recreational destinations: Floyd Lamb State Park and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and other BLM lands to the west. The trail gap on Grand Teton Avenue west of US 95 is a major barrier to east-west travel between Quadrants 1 and 2. However, the trail network also needs completion west of the Study Area to reach the BLM trailheads. The other gap Grand Teton Drive just east of the Study Area is less crucial to equestrian mobility because of the existence of soft street shoulders in this area but also represents an important long-term need to complete the area’s equestrian trail network.
Within Quadrant 2, there also is an existing equestrian trail gap – visible in Exhibit 4-3 – in the Grand Teton trail between Buffalo Drive and Tenaya Way. The City of Las Vegas’ “Off- Street Recreation Trail Alignment” map in the Master Plan Recreation Trails Element (2005) shows this connection routed along Racel Street and Tenaya Way. This trail would complete the connection between the Gilcrease RNP to the east of the Study Area and the western open space areas and Floyd Lamb State Park. A trail segment opportunity not currently noted in any plan exists just outside of Quadrant 2 to link the El Capitan Way horse trail with Floyd Lamb State Park at Log Cabin Way; this potential segment is noted in Exhibit 4- 8.
The relatively high number of horses in Quadrant 3 and its vicinity indicates demand for an equestrian accessible trail connection to the existing trail system in Quadrants 1 and 2. Such a connection would require linking the now complete equestrian crossing noted in Exhibit 4-6 at Hualapai and CC-215 to the Grand Canyon Drive equestrian trail alignment. Such a connection could parallel the planned Las Vegas Beltway trail between Grand Canyon Drive and Hualapai Way and then continue along the Beltway trail to connect into the BLM
29 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study trail system to the west. The Hualapai-CC-215 crossing would then effectively provide residents in the Lone Pine RNP additional equestrian access to the recreational facilities to the southwest of the study area, (e.g., the Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area). This trail connection is not part of an existing plan. This equestrian trail connection is not a part of any existing plan, but is an important opportunity and is noted Exhibit 4-8.
Quadrant 3 does not currently include any soft trail segments. While the RNP to the west of Quadrant 3 is an important equestrian area, the lack of horse facilities in Quadrant 3 and of connections across US 95 between Quadrants 3 and 4 suggests that no future soft surface trails will be needed.
Exhibit 4-7: Paved Sidewalk Path and Horse Trail in the Study Area
Source: The consultant team, January 2011
While the Gilcrease RNP does include a small group of parcels in Quadrant 4 at Gilcrease and Tenaya, this area only represents a small very fraction of equestrian facilities and demand in the Study Area and its vicinity. The City of Las Vegas has not identified any equestrian trail facilities to connect Quadrant 4 with any of the other parts of the Study Area. However, there may be some opportunity to include an equestrian accessible connection across CC-215 at Tenaya Way. Because more of the larger RNP size and greater horse density to the east of Quadrant 4, Torrey Pines Drive is a more promising location for a future above-grade equestrian crossing. The City of Las Vegas’ Master Plan Recreation Trails Element also shows a multi-use trail alignment which is partially complete and includes a soft surface trail. However, since above grade crossings are usually costly, it may be best to consider any equestrian crossing across CC-215 as part of a future overpass.
30 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The final important issue with the existing equestrian network is the presence of two problematic existing equestrian crossings, all Quadrant 2. The most important one is the intersection of Ackerman Avenue with Durango Drive. The intersection is uncontrolled with a 40 MPH speed limit. The location may warrant additional traffic control measures to improve equestrian, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety at the intersection. Just outside the Study Area, there is also a crossing on Racel Street from the termination of the horse trail to Floyd Lamb State Park across the street. Additional traffic control improvements could also reduce the risk of this crossing. Exhibit 4-8 shows the location of these two crossings and of the existing equestrian trail gaps.
Exhibit 4-8: Equestrian Network Gaps
31 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
The next set of trail needs relates to the off-street multi-use trail network. The sidewalk path system provides the most connectivity for the Study Area’s off-street paved trail system. Other shared used trails represent a highly fragmented network that is not currently amenable to longer trips. Two major opportunities exist to improve the multi-use trail network. The first opportunity is to complete the network of sidewalk paths: . Complete the Fort Apache Road sidewalk path . Complete the Durango Drive sidewalk path . Complete the Grand Teton Drive sidewalk path . Improve the Grand Teton Drive-US 95 trail crossing to better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians . Improve the sidewalk facilities along the Durango Drive and Grand Montecito Parkway crossings of CC-215. Another long term alternative might be to provide a trail crossing as part of the US 95-CC- 215 interchange reconstruction. The reconstruction might include either a north-south or an east-west connection or both.
The second opportunity to improve the off-street trail network is to develop a backbone system of multi-use trails along the highway ROWs. The CC-215 Beltway Trail is already planned to traverse the Study Area along CC-215. A similar trail is possible along US 95 for the length of the Study Area. The size of the ROW in both cases is sufficient that they could accommodate both multi-use and equestrian (soft surface) trails. Priority multi-use trail segments include: . A connection along Sky Pointe Drive and Tule Springs Road between the Centennial Crossroads Plaza, Elkhorn Drive, and the commercial center on Durango Drive . A connection along Centennial Parkway east from the Centennial Crossroads Plaza to Tenaya Way (connecting to the future CC-215 Beltway Trail) . Completion of the existing trail from the commercial center at Durango Drive and El Capitan Way (behind the Lowe’s store) to the Grand Teton Drive trail crossing . The connection of the multi-use trail segments within the Town Center area in Quadrant 3 . The completion of the CC-215 Beltway Trail between Fort Apache Road and Grand Montecito Parkway.
Over the long term, US 95 provides right-of-way to provide a multi-use trail connection north to the Kyle Canyon Road interchange and to the Nu-Wav Kaiv Boulevard interchange and the Snow Mountain Paiute Golf Club interchange. Also, the northward extension of the Hualapai Way sidewalk path would connect the northern Study Area into the extensive Quadrant 1 multi-use trail system and connect residential neighborhoods to potential mixed-use areas to the north for retail and other services.
32 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 4-9 highlights these potential multi-use trail connections. No issues were identified related to multi-use trail street crossings.
Exhibit 4-9: Off-Street Multi-Use Trail Network Gaps
33 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
5. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
This section evaluates existing sidewalk facilities in the US 95 Study Area, evaluates the connectivity of the system, and identifies discontinuities in the network.
5.1 Pedestrian Sidewalk Types
Sidewalks in the network are those built as part of fully improved streets. Typically, fully improved street standards include 48-foot-wide ROWs in residential areas (except in planned unit developments), collector streets up to 80 feet wide, frontage roads with up to 90-foot-wide ROWs, and arterial and parkways (ROW greater 90-foot). Sidewalk widths, amenities, and landscape zones vary for each of the aforementioned ROW sizes. Sidewalk width can range from a minimum of 5 feet to as much as 15 feet with attendant amenities on parkways and primary arterials. Because planned unit developments (PUDs) are generally self-contained with respect to pedestrian traffic, they are not considered as part of the network. However, the perimeters of PUDs are integral to the system and must be developed to the pertinent standards, and therefore are considered in this analysis. The same holds true for gated communities and private streets. Exhibit 5-1 shows the street classifications within the Study Area.
Exhibit 5-1: Corridor Right-of-Way Widths
Source: City of Las Vegas Centennial Hills Sector Plan (March 1, 2006)
34 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
5.2 Existing Side Walk Conditions
The corridor contains approximately 52 miles of public sidewalks6 excluding trail systems. The corridor has the capacity to accommodate an additional 13 miles (approximately). GIS data files, aerial photography analysis, and field verification provided the basis for this analysis.
Exhibit 5-2: Study Area Sidewalk with Within the US 95 Access Study area, the existing sidewalk network crosses Clark County and the City of Las Vegas jurisdictional lines. Since both the County and City use the Uniform Design Standards for Streets (Clark County 1997) as the minimum standard, the analysis considered sidewalk sections without distinguishing between jurisdictions. However, note that some RNPs use rural design standards; these are shaded yellow in Exhibit 5-5. Finally, note that pedestrian travel is defined as short (typically less than 1 mile), localized trips. These short trips are generally for the purposes of connecting to: . Retail/Commercial . Schools . Parks/Recreational centers . Larger Trail Systems.
The existing networks are generally located within fully developed areas, meaning those that have development on at least one side of the street and where at least half of the required street improvements have been installed according to County design standards.
Quadrant 1 is highly developed and includes complete sidewalks for all major east-west streets on the east side of Fort Apache Road. The sidewalk connects to the existing trail along Grand Teton providing access from the northwest quadrant of the study area to the northeast quadrant. Destinations in Quadrant 1 include: . Mt. Ridge Park at the southeast corner of Elkhorn Road and Grand Montecito Parkway . Centennial Transit Center and Park and Ride at the northeast corner of Durango Drive and Elkhorn Road
6 Each sidewalk mile counts only a single side of the street.
35 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
. Thompson Elementary at the southwest corner of Campbell and Severence Lane . Escobedo Middle School at Grand Canyon Drive and Echelon Place . The dog park and playground located at the northeast of Elkhorn Road and Fort Apache Road. Major retail exists along the Durango Drive-Elkhorn Road intersection and the Durango Drive-US 95 interchange. In addition, these destinations are all on well developed ROWs and are served by sidewalks on adjacent streets.
Quadrant 2 is also highly developed with sidewalk networks connecting throughout. Destinations in Quadrant 2 include: . Bilbray Elementary in the far north of the quadrant near Kyle Canyon Road . Spring Mount Ranch Community Park near Racel Street and Horse Drive . Arbor View High School at the southeast corner of Grand Teton Drive and Buffalo Drive; . Rhodes Elementary at Buffalo Drive and Sunny Springs Lane; . Centennial Hills Park adjacent to Rhodes Elementary School . The Creech Air Force Base Park and Ride at the US 95/CC-215 interchange7. Note the Creech Air Force Base Park and Ride falls within the Quadrant 4 boundary, although vehicular access is from Quadrant 2 and there is no sidewalk system connecting to Quadrant 2 or Quadrant 4 sidewalk networks. Major retail exists at the Durango Drive-US 95 interchange and planned commercial exists at CC-215.
Quadrant 3 is almost fully built out with along CC-215 development and or commercial planned use concentration of commercial at CC-215 and US 95. Quadrant 3’s retail centers are major destination for pedestrian foot traffic. Destinations include: . Major Retail along US 95 and CC-215 to Durango Drive; . NW Career Technical School at Tropical Parkway east of Durango Drive. Major retail development is located along the Durango corridor and the CC-215 and US 95 corridors that bound the quadrant on the north and east sides.
Quadrant 4 the smallest of the quadrants and is essentially fully built out with the exception of several undeveloped/underdeveloped rural parcels east of Tenaya Way. The sidewalk network is fully developed in this quadrant. There are no major schools or park destinations with the Quadrant 4 but there are commercial destinations along CC-215.
Existing highway crossings Both US 95 and CC-215 create barriers for pedestrian users between the quadrants. North- south crossings between Quadrants 1 and 3 exist at the Durango Drive/CC-215 interchange
7 Note that the Creech Air Force Base Park and Ride is a temporary facility will be closed and eliminated as part of the reconstruction of the US 95-CC-215 interchange with regional park-and-ride services consolidated at the new Centennial Hills Park and Ride and Transit Center.
36 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study and at the Grand Montecito Parkway/CC-215 Crossing. The Tenaya Way crossing connects Quadrants 2 and 4. There is no direct connection between Quadrants 1 and 4 or between Quadrants 2 and 3.
The east-west crossings for Quadrants 1 to 2 are at the Durango Drive-US 95 interchange and the Elkhorn Road crossing of US 95, although the overall sidewalk continuity for the Durango Interchange is discontinuous (See Section 6.3 below). The new Horse Drive-US 95 interchange provides a new crossing at the north end of the Study Area. Azure Drive and Ann Road provide east-west crossings between Quadrants 3 and 4.
5.3 Sidewalk Needs
Overall connectivity within quadrants is well developed with exception of some key areas. Within Quadrant 1 east-west connectivity is good within the major streets. Exhibit 5-3 provides an example of the sidewalk coverage analysis:
Exhibit 5-3: Sidewalk Connectivity in Quadrant 1
Street Name Existing Sidewalk Segment Start Segment End East-West Deer Springs Yes Grand Canyon Grand Montecito Elkhorn One Side Grand Canyon North Frontage Align Severence Yes Hualapai North Frontage Rd Farm Yes Grand Canyon North Frontage Rd Grand Teton Intermittent Hualapai Tee Pee
North-South Hualapai Intermittent Severence Grand Teton Grand Canyon Intermittent Deer Springs North Tee Pee Fort Apache Yes Deer Springs Gilcrease Severence Yes Hualapai North Frontage Rd Farm Yes Grand Canyon North Frontage Rd Grand Teton Intermittent Hualapai Tee Pee Durango Yes CC-215 North Frontage Road
Exhibit 5-4 summarizes the sidewalk coverage by quadrant.
37 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 5-4: Sidewalk Network State of Implementation
Quadrant Existing Miles Needed Miles Percent Coverage #1 17.3 4.1 81% #2 23.5 4.5 84% #3 6.1 4.2 60% #4 5.1 0.1 98%
In Quadrant 1, the critical missing or undeveloped sidewalk segments include the following: . Grand Teton Drive from Tee Pee Lane to Oso Blanca Road; . Durango from Oso Blanca Road to the US 95 southbound on and off ramps; . Deer Springs Way between Durango Drive and Oso Blanca Road; . Oso Blanca Road between Gilcrease Avenue and Kyle Canyon Road and between Severence and CC-215.
Quadrant 2 has sufficient connectivity within all residential and commercial corridors with the exception of the Fort Apache alignment between Racel Street and Brent Lane and within the retail center on the south corner of Durango Drive and Farm Road. Also as in Quadrant 1, the frontage road between Grand Teton and Kyle Canyon does not have improved sidewalks.
Quadrant 3 has the least comprehensive sidewalk network due to the RNP zoning loosely bounded by Durango Drive, Fort Apache Road, and Tropical Parkway. RNPs use the county’s rural street standards which don’t provide for fully developed sidewalks. Development of sidewalks south and west of Durango Drive and Tropical Parkway and west of Jannell Drive is not a priority. Exhibit 5-5 shades these areas in yellow and colors sidewalk gaps in blue. Priority sidewalk gaps in the Study Area include: . Centennial Parkway from Durango Drive east to the Town Center commercial development approximately ¼ mile east of Grand Montecito Parkway . The Durango Drive alignment between Tropical Parkway and Centennial Parkway . El Capitan Way between Centennial Parkway and Ann Road.
Finally, Quadrant 4 has both comprehensive inter-quadrant and intra-quadrant connectivity with continuous network of sidewalks connecting on Tropical to Quadrant 3 to the West and on Tenaya to Quadrant 2 to the north.
38 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 5-5: Study Area Sidewalk Connectivity
39 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
6. TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES
This section evaluates existing transit services in the US 95 study area, considers levels of utilization and demand, and identifies potential unmet transit needs.
6.1 Existing Transit Service Characteristics
The Study Area remains an area with limited transit service. Service revolves around the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride and includes one local route (Route 106 A and B) and one commuter route (the Centennial Express or CX line). Exhibit 6-1 shows a map of service in the Study Area (highlighted in pink).
Exhibit 6-1: Map of Transit Service in the Study Area
Source: RTC Transit Map, November 7, 2010
40 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Spans of service for these routes are as follows:
Route 106: In the southbound direction from the study area to downtown Las Vegas, weekday service operates from 3:55 am to 1:51 am. In the northbound direction from downtown Las Vegas to the study area, weekday service operates from 4:27 am to 2:15 am. Weekend/holiday service has similar service spans.
CX Line: In the southbound direction, weekday service operates from 5:20 am to 11:44 pm. In the northbound direction, weekday service operates from 7:02 am to 12:54 am. Weekend/holiday service has similar service spans.
Service frequencies are as follows:
Route 106: Service frequencies are about every 30 minutes throughout most of the day. Within the study area, one trip per hour operates in the counter-clockwise direction (route 106A); another trip per hour operates in the clockwise direction (route 106B). As a result, the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride is served about every half hour. After about 8 pm, service frequencies are about every hour. Service frequencies are similar on weekends/holidays as on weekdays.
CX Line: During weekday peak periods in the peak direction (southbound from about 5:30 am to 8:30 am; northbound from about 3:00 pm to 6:30 pm), service operates about every 15 to 20 minutes. Service operates on an hourly basis during other times on the weekdays and on weekends/holidays.
Major stop locations are as follows:
Route 106: Within the study area, major stops include: Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride; Farm Rd at Tule Springs Rd; Sky Pointe Rd at Centennial Parkway; Centennial Center at Azure Rd; and Ann Rd at Tenaya Parkway. Route 106 has a number of other stops in the study area as well, as identified in the next subsection. The route also serves stop locations on Rancho Drive, and ending at the Bonneville Transit Center in downtown Las Vegas.
CX Line: This route runs express between the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride and downtown Las Vegas via US 95, then continuing to UNLV via I-15.
6.2 Transit Service Performance
RTC provided transit service performance data for Route 106 and the Centennial Express (CX) Line, including average daily ridership, ons/offs by stop, and on-time performance. Exhibit 6-2 provides route-level average weekday ridership from July to September 2010, sorted from highest to lowest. Transit routes that serve the Strip operate in areas with land uses and densities that are vastly different from the US 95 Study Area; its ridership is not comparable to suburban services that are the focus of this section and are not shown.
41 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 6-2: Route-Level Average Weekday Ridership 14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 CX 202 109 206 201 204 110 107 210 115 103 213 111 101 113 208 108 203 106 105 102 104 119 215 218 219 207 212 117 217 209 214 402 211
Source: RTC Monthly Ridership Statistics, July through September 2010. Notes: Excludes routes that operate on the Strip. Routes 408 and 409 are not shown due to lack of functional data.
Of the 34 RTC routes for which data is available, Route 106 ranks #18 at 2,436 average weekday riders and the CX Line ranks #32 at 724 average weekday riders.8
For Saturdays, Route 106 ranks #18 among the 34 RTC routes at 2,097 average Saturday riders and the CX Line ranks #33 at 482 average Saturday riders. For Sundays, Route 106 ranks #17 at 1,686 average Sunday riders and the CX Line ranks #34 at 466 average Sunday Riders.
Exhibit 6-3 provides route-level average weekday passengers per vehicle service hour (PPSH) from July to September 2010, which is a measure of service productivity. The routes are sorted from highest to lowest.
8 Note that CX service only began in March 2010 and has likely not reached its full potential ridership. In the six months from July 2010 through December 2010, the CX line’s monthly growth averaged 4.7 percent, hitting 25,740 in December 2010.
42 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 6-3: Route-Level Average Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0 CX 109 202 201 107 115 206 204 103 110 215 113 101 210 102 105 108 117 219 203 111 213 106 218 208 214 209 104 212 217 211 119 207 402
Source: RTC Monthly Ridership Statistics, July through September 2010. Notes: Excludes routes that operate on the Strip. Routes 408 and 409 are not shown due to lack of functional data.
Of the 34 RTC routes for which data is available, Route 106 ranks #22 at 28.4 weekday PPSH and the CX Line ranks #34 at 12.8 weekday PPSH.
For Saturdays, Route 106 ranks #18 among the 34 RTC routes at 26.5 PPSH and the CX Line ranks #34 at 12.9 PPSH. For Sundays, Route 106 ranks #19 at 21.2 PPSH and the CX Line ranks #33 at 12.3 PPSH.
It should be noted that PPSH is not necessarily the most relevant performance metric for express routes such as the CX, for which average passenger trip lengths tend to be significantly longer than local routes. A more useful metric could be average passenger load, but this data is not available.
Exhibit 6-4 shows the top ten locations in the study area with respect to Route 106 transit activity (average weekday ons and offs per vehicle trip).
43 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 6-4: Top Locations of Transit Activity in the Study Area
Source: RTC Weekday Ridership by Stop Data, March 2009, with the transit center added
The stop locations with the highest activity are:
#1: Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride Lot
#2 to #5: Durango/Elkhorn; Farm/Tule Springs; Durango/Dorrell; Durango/Deer Springs
#6 to #10: Ann/Drexel; Durango/Farm; Buffalo/Farm; Sky Pointe/Ranch House; Cimarron/Deer Springs
Exhibit 6-5 provides a schematic of the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride from the RTC Transit Guide.
44 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 6-5: Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride
Source: RTC Transit Guide, page 15, November 2010.
There are about 900 parking spaces at the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride. The exact utilization of the lot is not known, and the lot serves transit riders, private shuttle operators passengers, and carpoolers. Much of the CX Line ridership is generated by those who walk to the transit center, get dropped off, or use Route 106 as a feeder service. The utilization of other transit assets at the Transit Center (such as bicycle parking spaces) is also not available at this time. However, a field visit to the site did reveal a shortage of bicycle parking, with approximately ten bicycle rack spaces available, all of them in use. This shortage was corroborated by RTC’s security guard who noted that bicyclists often try to park their bikes against sign posts and use other casual parking locations. Both an indoor waiting area as well as multiple outdoor waiting shelters is available for RTC passengers. Sidewalk connections exist to the Transit Center on both Oso Blanca Road and Grand Montecito Parkway. The former connection is a temporary sidewalk made from recycled asphalt, and the latter is a standard sidewalk. No pedestrian impediments exist at the transit center.
45 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
Exhibit 6-6 shows the amenities available at the other top bus stop locations in the Study Area.
Exhibit 6-6: Existing Conditions at Top Study Area Transit Locations
Quadrant Shelter Sidewalks Other Durango/Elkhorn SB Yes No Issues -
Durango/Elkhorn EB No No Issues -
Farm/Tule Springs WB No No Issues -
Farm/Tule Springs EB No No Issues Narrow sidewalk/waiting area
Durango/Dorrell NB No No Issues No bus turnout
Durango/Dorrell SB No No Issues No bus turnout
Durango/Deer Springs NB Yes No Issues -
Durango/Deer Springs EB No No Issues -
Ann/Drexel EB No No Issues - Narrow sidewalk/waiting area; no Ann/Drexel WB No No Issues bus turnout Durango/Farm NB No No Issues -
Durango/Farm SB No No Issues -
Buffalo/Farm SB No No Issues No bus turnout
Buffalo/Farm WB No No Issues No bus turnout
Sky Pointe/Ranch House NB No No Issues No bus turnout No sidewalk; Sky Pointe/Ranch House SB No No bus turnout no crosswalk Cimarron/Deer Springs NB No No Issues No bus turnout
Cimarron/Deer Springs EB No No Issues No bus turnout
6.3 Unmet Transit Needs
Population density and employment density are two factors that are indicative of transit potential. Higher densities, in the range of 4,500 population and/or employment per square mile, lead to increased transit ridership (Source: A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion, pages 92 and 93; Institute of Transportation Engineers or ITE, 1989). Guidelines in the ITE report regarding densities and transit service provision include:
46 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
A minimum level of local bus service (about one bus per hour) corresponds to population densities of 3,000 to 4,000 persons per square mile.
An intermediate level of local bus service (about two buses per hour) corresponds to population densities of 5,000 to 6,000 persons per square mile.
A frequent level of local bus service (about six buses per hour, or one bus every ten minutes) corresponds to population densities of 8,000 to 10,000 persons per square mile.
RTC provided year 2013 projections of population and employment densities in the study area by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). The source of this data is from the RTC travel demand model. Some of the TAZs in the study area have population densities of over 10,000 persons per square mile, which reflect good potential for frequent bus service. The most notable TAZs are:
The area with borders of Elkhorn Rd to the north, Durango Dr to the east, Deer Springs Way to the south, and Fort Apache Rd to the west.
The area with borders of Grand Teton Dr to the north, Fort Apache Rd to the east, Farm Rd to the south, and Hualapui Way to the west.
A number of other TAZs have population densities of 8,000 to 10,000 persons per square mile, which could also indicate potential for frequent bus service.
Employment densities in the study area are generally lower. The area with borders of Elkhorn Rd to the north, US 95 to the east, CC-215 to the south, and Durango Dr to the west has the highest employment densities in the study area, at about 7,500 persons per square mile. This area has the Montecito Marketplace and the Centennial Hills Medical Center. The remainder of the study area has significantly lower employment densities.
At the Centennial Hills Park and Ride there appears to be sufficient parking supply and sidewalk connectivity for the near term. However, the Transit Center needs additional bicycle parking. The current bicycle parking supply is quite small, and it impossible to gauge the bicycle parking demand without collecting data formally. However, many bicyclists will not make a trip when they cannot depend on the availability of secure parking at their destination. Consequently, providing surplus bicycle parking is often a better option than providing too little.
Exhibit 6-6 shows that in many cases the most frequently used bus stops in the Study Area do not have common bus stop amenities such as shelters, benches, and turnouts. In the next task, it will be necessary to evaluate the need and potential for providing such amenities at these key locations.
47 Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
A. APPENDIX
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category Transit Center Retail Park Oso Blanca School Durango Dr Rd N 30,900 Parkway Arterial 45 21 2 Signalized Highway Crossing High Centennial Retail Azure Dr Center Blvd E 13,000 Major Arterial 35 22 2 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate – High Deer Springs Hospital Durango Dr Way N 31,100 Parkway Arterial 45 29 0 Signalized Retail Moderate – High Deer Hospital Springs Retail Durango Dr Way S 31,100 Parkway Arterial 45 29 0 Signalized School Moderate - High Transit Center Retail Park School Durango Dr Elkhorn Rd N 30,000 Parkway Arterial 45 28 0 Signalized Hospital Moderate - High Transit Center Retail Park Durango Dr Elkhorn Rd S 30,000 Parkway Arterial 45 28 0 Signalized Hospital Moderate - High Transit Center Retail Park School Oso Blanca Hospital Durango Dr Rd S 30,900 Parkway Arterial 45 21 0 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate - High School Tropical Park Durango Dr Pkwy S 19,000 Parkway Arterial 45 14 2 Signalized Church Moderate - High Transit Center Retail Durango Dr US 95 N 25,000 Parkway Arterial 45 24 Incomplete Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate - High Transit Center Durango Dr US 95 S 25,000 Parkway Arterial 45 24 1 Signalized Retail Moderate - High
i Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category Highway Crossing Hospital Transit Center Park Retail Elkhorn Rd Durango Dr E 9,300 Major Arterial 35 18 2 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate - High Hospital Transit Center Park Retail Elkhorn Rd Durango Dr W 9,300 Major Arterial 35 18 2 Signalized School Moderate - High Centennial Ann Rd Center Blvd E 24,600 Major Arterial 45 23 0 Signalized Retail Moderate Centennial Ann Rd Center Blvd W 24,600 Major Arterial 45 23 0 Signalized Retail Moderate Retail Ann Rd US 95 E 27,500 Major Arterial 45 30 0 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate Retail Ann Rd US 95 W 27,500 Major Arterial 45 30 0 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate Azure Dr Tenay Way W 12,000 Major Arterial 35 5 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Deer Park Springs Library Buffalo Way N 7,500 Major Arterial 40 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Retail Moderate Deer Park Springs Library Buffalo Way S 7,500 Major Arterial 40 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Retail Moderate Centennial Center Blvd Ann Rd N 8,600 Major Arterial 35 26 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Grand Centennial Montecito Center Blvd Pkwy E 11,000 Major Arterial 35 N/A 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Centennial Tropical Center Blvd Pkwy N 15,000 Major Arterial 35 27 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Centennial Tropical Center Blvd Pkwy S 15,000 Major Arterial 35 27 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Centennial Pkwy Durango Dr E 8,400 Major Arterial 35 20 1 Signalized Retail Moderate Centennial Grand Retail Pkwy Montecito W 11,000 Major Arterial 35 N/A Incomplete Signalized Church Moderate
ii Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category Pkwy Park Park x2 School x2 Cimarron Rd Elkhorn Rd N 5,600 Minor Collector 35 4 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Park x2 School Cimarron Rd Elkhorn Rd S 5,600 Minor Collector 35 4 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Retail Cimarron Rd Farm Rd S 4,100 Minor Collector 35 N/A 2 Signalized School Moderate Retail Sky Pointe Library Cimarron Rd Dr N 2,800 Minor Collector 35 N/A 2 4-Way Stop Sign Park Moderate Durango Dr Ann Rd N 21,000 Parkway Arterial 45 3 2 Signalized Nothing Moderate Hospital Durango Dr CC-215 N 29,000 Parkway Arterial 45 25 0 Signalized Retail Moderate Hospital Durango Dr CC-215 S 29,000 Parkway Arterial 45 25 0 Signalized Retail Moderate Centennial Durango Dr Pkwy N 20,600 Parkway Arterial 45 17 0 Signalized Retail Moderate Centennial Retail Durango Dr Pkwy S 20,600 Parkway Arterial 45 17 0 Signalized Park Moderate Highway Crossing Durango Dr Farm Rd N 33,400 Parkway Arterial 40 19 0 Signalized Retail Moderate Highway Crossing Durango Dr Farm Rd S 33,400 Parkway Arterial 40 19 0 Signalized Retail Moderate Grand Retail Montecito Church Durango Dr Pkwy N 16,000 Parkway Arterial 45 N/A 0 Signalized Park Moderate Grand Retail Montecito Church Durango Dr Pkwy S 16,000 Parkway Arterial 45 N/A 0 Signalized Park Moderate Retail School Tropical Park Durango Dr Pkwy N 19,000 Parkway Arterial 45 14 0 Signalized Church Moderate Park Elkhorn Rd Buffalo Dr E 7,100 Major Arterial 35 6 2 Signalized School x2 Moderate
iii Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category Park Elkhorn Rd Buffalo Dr W 7,100 Major Arterial 35 6 2 Signalized School x2 Moderate Park Cimarron School x2 Elkhorn Rd Rd E 6,100 Major Arterial 35 1 2 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate Park School Cimarron Retail Elkhorn Rd Rd W 6,100 Major Arterial 35 1 2 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate Fort Retail Elkhorn Rd Apache Rd E 6,200 Major Arterial 35 N/A 2 4-Way Stop Sign School Moderate Fort Retail Elkhorn Rd Apache Rd W 6,200 Major Arterial 35 N/A 2 4-Way Stop Sign School Moderate Grand Elkhorn Rd Canyon Dr E 1,500 Major Arterial 35 N/A 2 4-Way Stop Sign Nothing Moderate Grand Montecito Centennial Retail Pkwy Pkwy N 5,300 Major Arterial 35 N/A 2 Signalized School Moderate Grand Retail Montecito Church Pkwy Durango Dr N 700 Major Arterial 35 N/A 2 Signalized Park Moderate Retail School Oso Blanca Transit Center Rd Durango Dr N 9,500 Frontage Street 45 10 2 Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate Oso Blanca Rd Farm Rd S 9,700 Frontage Street 45 N/A 2 Uncontrolled School Moderate Retail Cimarron Library Sky Pointe Dr Rd S 9,300 Frontage Street 35 N/A 2 4-Way Stop Sign Park Moderate Tenay Way Azure Dr N 10,300 Minor Collector 35 11 2 Signalized Retail Moderate Retail Centennial School Tropical Pkwy Center Blvd W 13,000 Major Arterial 35 22 Incomplete Signalized Highway Crossing Moderate Ann Rd Durango Dr E 10,000 Major Arterial 45 9 0 Signalized Nothing Low - Moderate Ann Rd Tenay Way E 23,400 Major Arterial 45 N/A 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Ann Rd Tenay Way W 23,400 Major Arterial 45 N/A 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Azure Dr Tenay Way E 12,000 Major Arterial 35 5 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate iv Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category School x2 Buffalo Dr Elkhorn Rd N 24,600 Major Arterial 40 8 0 Signalized Park Low - Moderate School Buffalo Dr Elkhorn Rd S 24,600 Major Arterial 40 8 0 Signalized Park Low - Moderate Centennial Pkwy Durango Dr W 8,400 Major Arterial 35 20 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Cimarron Rd Farm Rd N 4,100 Minor Collector 35 N/A 2 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Hospital Deer Springs Retail Way Durango Dr E 7,100 Major Arterial 30 7 0 Signalized School Low - Moderate Stop Sign w/ Fort Uncontrolled Cross Dorrell Ln Apache Rd E 600 Minor Collector 25 N/A 2 Street Nothing Low - Moderate Grand Durango Dr Teton Dr N 15,000 Major Arterial 40 16 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Grand Durango Dr Teton Dr S 15,000 Parkway Arterial 40 16 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate El Capitan Retail Way Durango Dr W 17,300 Frontage Street 35 13 0 Signalized Highway Crossing Low - Moderate El Capitan Grand Retail Way Teton Dr N 1,600 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign Highway Crossing Low - Moderate El Capitan Grand Retail Way Teton Dr S 1,600 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign Highway Crossing Low - Moderate El Capitan Way Horse Dr N 8,700 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Park Low - Moderate El Capitan Way Horse Dr S 8,700 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Park Low - Moderate Stop Sign w/ Grand Uncontrolled Cross Elkhorn Rd Canyon Dr W 1,500 Major Arterial 35 N/A 0 Street Nothing Low - Moderate Cimarron Farm Rd Rd E 6,900 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Cimarron Farm Rd Rd W 6,900 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Retail Farm Rd Durango Dr E 17,300 Minor Collector 35 15 0 Signalized Highway Crossing Low - Moderate
v Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category Stop Sign w/ Oso Blanca Uncontrolled Cross School Farm Rd Rd W 2,300 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Street Transit Center Low - Moderate Tule Farm Rd Springs Rd E 9,000 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Tule Retail Farm Rd Springs Rd W 9,000 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Signalized Highway Crossing Low - Moderate Fort Apache Rd Dorrell Ln N 1,300 Major Arterial 25 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Nothing Low - Moderate Fort Apache Rd Dorrell Ln S 1,300 Major Arterial 25 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Nothing Low - Moderate Fort Apache Retail Rd Elkhorn Rd N 1,800 Major Arterial 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign School Low - Moderate Fort Apache Retail Rd Elkhorn Rd S 1,800 Major Arterial 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign School Low - Moderate Gilcrease Ave Tee Pee Ln E 1,300 Minor Collector 30 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Nothing Low - Moderate Gilcrease Ave Tee Pee Ln W 1,300 Minor Collector 30 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Nothing Low - Moderate Grand Montecito Centennial Retail Pkwy Pkwy S 5,300 Major Arterial 35 N/A 0 Signalized School x2 Low - Moderate Grand Teton Dr Durango Dr E 5,000 Parkway Arterial 35 2 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Grand Teton El Capitan Retail Dr Way E 1,600 Major Arterial 35 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign Highway Crossing Low - Moderate Grand Teton El Capitan Retail Dr Way W 1,600 Frontage Street 35 N/A 1 4-Way Stop Sign Highway Crossing Low - Moderate Stop Sign w/ El Capitan Uncontrolled Cross Horse Dr Way E 700 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Street Park Low - Moderate Retail Park Oso Blanca Transit Center Rd Durango Dr S 9,500 Frontage Street 45 10 Incomplete Signalized Highway Crossing Low - Moderate Oso Blanca Rd Farm Rd N 9,700 Frontage Street 45 N/A Incomplete Uncontrolled Nothing Low - Moderate Stop Sign w/ Grand Uncontrolled Cross Severence Ln Canyon Dr E 1,100 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Street Nothing Low - Moderate
vi Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category Stop Sign w/ Grand Uncontrolled Cross Severence Ln Canyon Dr W 1,100 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Street Nothing Low - Moderate Retail Cimarron Library Sky Pointe Dr Rd N 9,300 Frontage Street 35 N/A Incomplete 4-Way Stop Sign Park Low - Moderate Stop Sign w/ Gilcrease Uncontrolled Cross Tee Pee Ln Ave N 500 Minor Collector 35 N/A Incomplete Street Nothing Low - Moderate Stop Sign w/ Gilcrease Uncontrolled Cross Tee Pee Ln Ave S 500 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Street Nothing Low - Moderate Tenay Way Ann Rd N 9,100 Minor Collector 35 N/A 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Tenay Way Azure Dr S 10,300 Minor Collector 35 11 0 Signalized Retail Low - Moderate Retail School Tropical Pkwy Durango Dr E 5,800 Major Arterial 35 12 0 Signalized Church Low - Moderate Retail School Church Tropical Pkwy Durango Dr W 5,800 Minor Collector 35 12 0 Signalized Park Low - Moderate Retail Deer Springs Cimarron Library Way Rd E 1,100 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign Park Low Deer Springs Hospital Way Durango Dr W 7,100 Minor Collector 25 7 0 Signalized Retail Low Deer Springs Way Tee Pee Ln E 2,700 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign School Low Deer Springs Way Tee Pee Ln W 2,700 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign School Low Stop Sign w/ Fort Uncontrolled Cross Dorrell Ln Apache Rd W 600 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Street Nothing Low Grand Canyon Dr Elkhorn Rd N 2,200 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Church Low Grand Canyon Dr Elkhorn Rd S 2,200 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Church Low Grand Canyon Severence N 3,000 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Nothing Low vii Part II Northwest U.S. 95 Evaluation of Mobility Needs Access Study
2010 Speed Crash Primary Secondary Intersection Daily Traffic Street Limit Count Bike Proximity/ Street Street Side (Vehicles) Category (MPH) Rank Lane(s) Intersection Type Connectivity Risk Category Dr Ln Grand Canyon Severence Dr Ln S 3,000 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Uncontrolled Nothing Low Grand Teton Dr Durango Dr W 5,000 Major Arterial 35 2 0 Signalized Retail Low Grand Teton Hualapai Dr Way E 900 Major Arterial 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign Park Low Stop Sign w/ El Capitan Uncontrolled Cross Horse Dr Way W 700 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 Street Nothing Low Grand Hualapai Way Teton Dr S 200 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign Park Low Deer Springs Tee Pee Ln Way N 1,200 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign School Low Deer Springs Tee Pee Ln Way S 1,200 Minor Collector 25 N/A 0 4-Way Stop Sign School Low Tule Springs Rd Farm Rd S 5,200 Frontage Street 35 N/A 0 Signalized Retail Low
viii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
PART III: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. On-Street Facility Alternatives ...... 4 2.1 Highway Overpasses and Interchanges ...... 4 2.2 Intersection Improvements ...... 9 2.3 Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings ...... 16 2.4 Intermediate Equestrian Trail Crossings ...... 24 2.5 Bicycle Lane Network Development ...... 27
3. Off-Street Facilities Alternatives ...... 35 3.1 Sidewalk Network Development ...... 35 3.2 Multi-Use Trail Network Development ...... 38 3.3 Equestrian Trail Network Development...... 47
4. Transit Improvement Alternatives ...... 54 4.1 Transit Center Improvements ...... 54 4.2 Bus Stop Amenities ...... 57 4.3 Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service ...... 62
5. Project Prioritization...... 65 5.1 Prioritization Criteria ...... 65 5.2 Prioritization Results ...... 66
6. Cost Estimation ...... 74 6.1 Cost Estimation Approach ...... 74 6.2 Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates ...... 75 6.3 Project Timeframes ...... 80
A. Appendix A ...... i
B. Appendix B ...... ix
C. Appendix C...... xvii
Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
1. INTRODUCTION
The Task 3 Technical Memorandum – Evaluation of Corridor Mobility Needs – documented the existing mobility needs within the Study Area. The report described mobility needs across a variety of modes and networks. The Task 4 Technical Memorandum addressed each of these mobility needs with specific proposed improvements. This report presents the final work resulting from the update and refinement of alternatives as part of Task 5. Exhibit 1-1 shows the overall project progress with the task covered by this report highlighted in pink.
Exhibit 1-1: Northwest US 95 Access Study Progress
2 3 1 Data Collection Evaluation of Mobility & Access Needs
4 Preliminary System Improvement Alternatives
TWG Meetings 5 Refinement of Alternatives Project Management
6 Final Report
The Task 3 report described mobility needs in three main categories. The first category, on- street alternatives, includes prospective improvements to highway overpasses, intersections, trail crossings, and the bike network. The second category of alternatives, off-street alternatives, included potential sidewalk and trail improvements. Lastly, the report presented the transit-related alternatives including improvements at bus stops throughout the Study Area and improvements targeting the facilities and accessibility of the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride.
The Task 4 Technical Memorandum: Preliminary Corridor Alternatives built directly on the Task 3 Technical Memorandum and presented a comprehensive set of alternatives to 1 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study address both current and future gaps in the planned Study Area transportation network. It also presented improvements to address current and potential future safety issues. The alternatives included both improvements already part of existing planning projects and proposed improvements that are not yet part of any infrastructure investment plan.
The consultant team presented preliminary concepts for Study Area improvements to the project Technical Working Group (TWG) at a meeting on May 10, 2011. Each issue was described in context and matched with a preliminary alternative. The TWG provided important feedback on which alternatives had fatal flaws, on which Study Area needs remained unaddressed by the set of preliminary alternatives, as well as on specific design issues. Subsequent to the meeting, TWG members provided the consultant team with additional materials related to the planning of major future projects in the Study Area.
In order to reach out to additional stakeholders in the Study Area, on May 10, 2011, the consultant team gave a presentation to the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) and the Lower Kyle Canyon CAC on the study’s scope and direction. The study received important input for the development of alternatives from this meeting and subsequent input by Council members. the consultant team also presented the project progress, concepts, and direction to the RTC’s Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee meeting on May 24, 2011.
After the Task 4 technical memorandum was submitted to RTC, the stakeholders reviewed the preliminary alternatives at the July 21, 2001 TWG meeting. Through the course of the meeting, the TWG members were able to offer their feedback about the alternatives, providing input to support the elimination and modification of alternatives. After the July 21, 2011 TWG meeting, stakeholders submitted their final comments. the consultant team also conducted additional field observations as well as several stakeholder meetings. The study’s progress was presented to the RTC’s Executive Advisory Committee on July 28, 2011. On the basis of this input and additional review by the consultant team, the alternatives were finalized and summarized in this report.
After the finalization of the proposed alternatives, the next step was to begin the process of formally programming the projects. This process included the development of a prioritization framework to identify a priority level and a proposed timeframe for each proposed project. It also includes the development of rough order of magnitude costs, a part of Task 5. This technical report on the proposed alternatives also presents the prioritization framework, the cost estimation process and results, and a notional programming of the projects.
This report parallels the organization as the Task 3 Technical Memorandum. First the report proposes improvements for the on-street travel network in Section 2. Next, Section 3 presents alternatives to address issues related to the off-street travel network. Then, Section 4 addresses current and future Study Area transit needs. After addressing the
2 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study issues identified in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum, Section 5 explains the prioritization framework, with the outcomes included in Appendix A. Finally, Section 6 explains the cost estimation approach and results, and the detailed estimates and data sources are included in Appendices B and C.
3 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
2. ON-STREET FACILITY ALTERNATIVES
This section presents potential projects intended to improve general street safety in the Study Area and to create a more comprehensive and connected travel network for alternate modes that use or cross the street network.
2.1 Highway Overpasses and Interchanges
The Study Area includes a significant portion of undeveloped land, especially in the northern portions of Quadrants 1 and 2. While the remaining gaps in the street network are mostly in these undeveloped areas, there are also several planned or proposed overpasses which remain unbuilt and are visible in green in Exhibit 2-1 below, along with the as yet unbuilt portions of the street network.
Exhibit 2-1: Planned Study Area Street Network
4 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The two planned overpasses are the Grand Teton Drive crossing of US 95 and the Fort Apache Road crossing of CC-215. The City of Las Vegas has also proposed two overpasses be included as part of the CC-215 and US 95 interchange which would connect Oso Blanca Road to Centennial Center Boulevard and would join the segments of Sky Pointe Drive across CC-215.
Grand Teton is the last major east-west arterial before Kyle Canyon Road and will eventually connect all the way to the City of North Las Vegas. The Grand Teton Drive overpass will provide an important east-west arterial connection in the Study Area matching the Elkhorn Road connection one mile to the south. The overpass will also better connect the residential neighborhoods to commercial services in the Town Center while reducing through traffic on the Durango Drive overpass.
Grand Teton Drive will provide an important alternate route for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing US 95. The overpass can best accommodate alternate modes if it includes sidewalks and shoulder lanes at least fourteen feet wide which include bicycle lanes. A sidewalk path at least eight feet wide on the north side of the overpass would provide a better connection between the multi-use trail segments on either side of the bridge. The design could also better serve alternate modes by minimizing the maximum grade on the overpass, especially on the east side of US 95. While the overpass will provide an important alternative to the existing subgrade equestrian crossing at Grand Teton Drive, some local equestrian stakeholders have requested that the subgrade crossing remain open since it provides a safer alternative for horses, which have trouble crossing bridges, especially with traffic.
While some project stakeholders have expressed interest in an interchange at Grand Teton Drive and US 95, rising traffic levels will likely not necessitate such a connection in either the short or medium terms. Eventually, an interchange at Grand Teton Drive could play a role in reducing congestion on the Durango Drive interchange and minimizing through traffic on local streets. However, several factors restrict the possible alternatives. Currently, no right-of-way has been acquired for an interchange at the overpass location. Housing on the southeast corner of Grand Teton Drive and US 95 reduces the space available for northbound ramps. Construction of a northbound ramp would eliminate the connection from Grand Teton Drive to the frontage road and obstruct the subgrade horse crossing. The frontage road would likely have to be routed onto the residential Ackerman Avenue. Finally, Grand Teton Drive is sufficiently close to both Durango Drive and Horse Drive that the construction of an interchange could lead to interfering traffic patterns between the two interchanges and a rise in roadway crash risk.
One lower impact alternative would include a northbound off-ramp onto Grand Teton Drive on the east side of US 95 and a southbound on-ramp on the west side. The undeveloped
5 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study parcel north of Grand Teton and east of US 95 is approximately 400 feet wide, which would be enough to accommodate the needed radius on a loop ramp. The off-ramp would require a signal to facilitate left turns onto Grand Teton Drive. The equestrian trail and drainage channel would both need to be re-routed slightly around the ramp. On the west side of US 95, the two undeveloped parcels on either side of Grand Teton Drive leave sufficient space for a southbound on-ramp, which would not necessarily require a controlled intersection. However, the left turn pocket for westbound vehicles making the turn from Grand Teton to the southbound on-ramp would have to be sufficiently long to ensure no spillover into the through lanes that would impact traffic and safety. This would necessitate a wider overpass design, since the left turn lane would at least partly extend onto the bridge. Exhibit 2-2 presents a conceptual schematic of a possible overpass. Note that the vacant land west of US 95 is privately held. The potential interchange described above is not yet planned, and further planning and consultation with stakeholders would be required before moving forward with the adoption of any such plan and the implementation of an interchange. In the long term, it represents an important option for managing traffic in the Study Area and minimizing traffic impacts on residential streets.
Exhibit 2-2: Conceptual Schematic of a Grand Teton Drive-US 95 Interchange
6 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Another overpass of CC-215 at Fort Apache Road is currently planned but remains unbuilt and unfunded. This overpass will provide better access to the west side of Quadrant 1 and help to ease traffic levels on Durango Drive. The most important aspect of the Fort Apache overpass of CC-215 is the connection it will provide for alternate mode travelers between Quadrants 1 and 2. The Las Vegas Beltway Trail is planned to cross CC-215 on Fort Apache Road, and the sidewalk path paralleling Fort Apache Road will connect from Centennial Parkway to Grand Teton Drive. Fort Apache Road’s lower number of lanes and lower speed limit mean that the street will be a safer route across CC-215 than Durango Drive. Alternatives for completing these transportation trail links are discussed in Section 3.2 of this report.
The interchange of US 95 and CC-215 currently represents the most significant existing barrier to travel for alternate modes in the Study Area. Exhibit 2-3 shows the preliminary design of the interchange presented in the Northwest US 95 Northwest Corridor Improvements Project Environmental Assessment (October 2007). The reconstruction of the interchange is an opportunity to incorporate traffic and alternate mode improvements to improve mobility across the two freeways between the four quadrants. However, the design in Exhibit 2-3 does not include any new links to facilitate non-freeway travel.
The City of Las Vegas has proposed the revision of the design to include the connection of both US 95 frontage roads across CC-215. Both connections – each visible in Exhibit 2-1 – would include bike lanes and sidewalks and provide alternate mode access to key Town Center retail and commercial areas. Together with the relatively short overpass of US 95 on Azure Drive, the crossings on Oso Blanca Road and Sky Pointe Drive will reduce the distance necessary to travel around the interchange, will better connect residents to key services, and will reduce traffic at the interchange by providing alternate routes on local streets.
7 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-3: Preliminary Design for the US 95/CC-215 Interchange Reconstruction
Source: Federal Highway Administration and Nevada Department of Transportation. Environmental Assessment FHWA-NV-EA 07.01. October 2007.
8 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-4 provides a summary of the proposed highway overpass and interchange alternatives.
Exhibit 2-4: Summary of Proposed Highway Overpass Alternatives
Intersection Alternative Description - Construct overpass for east-west connectivity - Include bike lanes and multi-use trail Overpass or Grand Teton / US 95 connection interchange - Include northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp (would need further study) - Construct overpass to provide residential neighborhood connectivity Fort Apache / CC-215 Overpass - Include bike lanes and multi-use trail connection - Construct overpass to provide access to Town Center services and minimize interchange Oso Blanca / CC-215 Overpass barrier - Include bike lanes - Construct overpass to provide access to Town Center services and minimize interchange Sky Pointe / CC-215 Overpass barrier - Include bike lanes
2.2 Intersection Improvements
Intersections are important locations where the off-street and on-street travel networks intersect, and they represent a disproportionate risk to both alternate mode and motor vehicle travelers relative to the remainder of the travel network. This section examines intersection improvements from three main perspectives: (1) identifying intersections that will need more intensive traffic control measures in the short, medium, or long term, (2) increasing the safety of pedestrian crossings, and (3) addressing conflicts among modes with respect to road space.
The top three intersections of concern in the Study Area are on Durango Drive. The busiest intersection based on vehicle cross-traffic in both directions is Durango Drive and Farm Road. The next busiest is Durango Drive and Oso Blanca Road, followed by Durango Drive and Elkhorn Road. All three intersections are identified as higher risk and demand intersections in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum. Because of Durango Drive’s width, it represents a significant barrier to many pedestrians. A study of past research by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety finds a median walking speed for elderly pedestrians of 3.03 feet per second9. At Elkhorn Road, a pedestrian may travel up to 120 feet to traverse Durango Drive. Over half of elderly
9 Stollof, E.; McGee, H.; Eccles, K. Pedestrian Signal Safety for Older Persons. Institute of Transportation Engineers and AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, July 2005. 9 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study pedestrians would need at least forty seconds to complete the crossing. Pedestrian countdown signals are in place at each of these intersections, a safety measure that has been shown to encourage faster crossing times for pedestrians. However, since the distance is so great, additional safety measures could be warranted.
One such measure is to install an additional pedestrian countdown signal in the median on Durango (the cross streets in each case are not so wide as to be considered an issue). For this measure to work, the crosswalk may need to be moved slightly away from the corners and closer to the terminal of the medians as shown by the red arrow on the south side of the Durango Drive and Elkhorn Road intersection in Exhibit 2-5. Retrofitting street corners to include two ramps rather than a single ramp helps to slightly shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians.
Exhibit 2-5: Conceptual Layout for Median Pedestrian Countdown Signal
10 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The conceptual layout uses zebra crosswalk markings to increase the crosswalk’s visibility to drivers and reduce the effects of asphalt bleeding on the markings. The City of Las Vegas has recently made such zebra stripe marking standard for sidewalks. Markings are typically updated as part of scheduled resurfacings. The median could also be extended slightly to minimize the displacement of the crosswalk across Durango; the red dot in the figure identifies the location of the additional pedestrian countdown signal.
The Durango Drive intersections with Farm Road, Oso Blanca Road, and Deer Springs Way would benefit from the same measures. The installation of additional countdown signals and the retrofit of sidewalk ramps would help slower pedestrians cross more safely. It is also worth noting that additional landscaping at these three busy intersections could also increase pedestrians’ comfort while they wait through long signal cycles. Spreading shade trees would offer more shade than the sparse palm trees which currently line this portion of Durango Drive. Decorative shade shelters on the corners are another option to enhance pedestrians’ comfort.
Unfortunately, most intersections on Durango cannot accommodate a pedestrian median refuge which is the safest alternative for slower pedestrians. Median refuges do exist at three highway ramp intersections with Durango, but there remain long gaps between these intersections that represent an important barrier to many pedestrians. Additionally, a median refuge is currently possible at the intersection of Durango Drive and northbound US 95. Exhibit 2-6 shows the median refuge on Durango Drive at the intersection with westbound CC-215.
Exhibit 2-6: Example of a Median Refuge on Durango Drive at CC-215
11 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
At Durango Drive and Farm Road, there is one potential opportunity to reconfigure the intersection to include a median refuge on the north side of the intersection to facilitate pedestrian access across Durango Drive. Currently, the left turn lanes from eastbound Farm Road to northbound Durango Drive and from southbound Durango to eastbound Farm Road have unused space for a future left turn lane. It may be possible use this extra right- of-way to construct a properly located pedestrian refuge in the median of the north side of the intersection while maintaining sufficient turn radiuses for vehicles turning from eastbound Farm to northbound Durango and from southbound Durango to eastbound Farm. Exhibit 2-7 shows the Farm-Durango intersection with the unused left turn space. Note that both of the turn directions are likely to experience lower traffic demand levels than other left directions at the intersection. The reserved capacity might not be necessary even in the long term, but further analysis would be required to determine the feasibility of such a project.
Exhibit 2-7: Unused Left Turn Space at the Farm-Durango Intersection
A second opportunity to potentially install a pedestrian median refuge is at the intersection of Dorrell Lane and Durango Drive. Currently, a median barrier allows left turns from Durango to Dorrell Lane, but a median barrier prevents through traffic. The current configuration prevents pedestrians from crossing the arterial despite the lack of a convenient nearby alternative. The intersection is an intermediate point between Elkhorn Road and Deer Springs Way and is adjacent to the local hospital and a variety of neighborhood services. Without safe, convenient crossing locations, the Town Center will not function effectively as a walkable urban neighborhood.
The City of Las Vegas may consider the use of this median barrier as a median refuge for pedestrians. A pedestrian actuated signal would allow pedestrians to cross each half of Durango Drive with a full 30 second signal cycle. Each signal could be synchronized with the other traffic signals to avoid the interruption of traffic flow when a pedestrian uses the
12 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study crosswalk. Exhibit 2-8 shows a conceptualization of pedestrian improvements at the Dorrell Lane and Durango Drive intersection.
Exhibit 2-8: Conceptual Layout for the Dorrell-Durango Intersection
Durango Drive also has a high number of driveways between Elkhorn Drive and Deer Springs Way. RTC’s Clark County Area Access Management report (2011) emphasizes the need for safe spacing between driveways on higher speed arterials. For 45 MPH routes, the recommended spacing is at least 360 lateral feet between driveways. The City of Las Vegas monitors traffic safety in coordination with the Metropolitan Police Department, and can identify and respond to specific issues as they arise.
Beyond the busiest stretch of Durango, other intersections also present serious issues. The intersection of Cimarron Road with Ann Road might immediately benefit from the installation of signals. Currently there is no traffic signal in place although there are a zebra crosswalk and some warning signs in place. The 45 MPH speed limit and higher traffic volume on Ann Road makes for a riskier crossing for pedestrians with no nearby alternatives. The presence of the Cimarron Rose Community Center and Park on the southwest corner of the intersection and pictured in Exhibit 2-9 makes this intersection a particular priority. Furthermore, traffic from residential neighborhoods on either side must make difficult left turns across multiple lanes of traffic. As a result, the intersection is a candidate for the installation of four-way, three phase signalization.
13 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-9: Crosswalk at the Cimarron-Ann Intersection
The intersection of Durango Drive and Racel Street faces a similar situation: a long section of a higher speed arterial without adequately controlled pedestrian crossings. Because Racel Street provides an uninterrupted connection from Fort Apache Road to Tenaya Way, it is more prone to through traffic than neighboring east-west streets. The lack of traffic controls at the Durango Drive intersection presents a risk for vehicles crossing on Racel. Installing traffic signals at the intersection would allow safe left turns from and cross traffic on Racel Street. The City of Las Vegas has programmed the installation of traffic signals at both locations for Fiscal Year 2012-13.
In the medium term after the completion of the US 95 overpass, Grand Teton Drive will likely function as a major arterial in the Study Area. A traffic signal at the intersection with Hualapai Way, a key north-south street in the Study Area that provides a connection south to CC-215 and features relatively dense development, would improve safety. While Grand Canyon Drive is not as significant a street as Hualapai Way, it does feed north to the Horse Drive interchange and is also a candidate location for the installation of traffic signals in the long term. Finally, the intersection with El Capitan Way is another candidate for traffic signals. North of Grand Teton Drive, El Capitan Way has fewer controlled intersections than Durango Drive. It also runs through a slightly denser neighborhood and will provide a shorter connection to the Durango Interchange from new residential neighborhoods in the northwest corner of Quadrant 2. As east-west traffic increases on Grand Teton Drive, these three intersections will likely require improved traffic control measures to maintain safety.
The Horse Drive interchange is already complete, and future development will make Horse Drive a busy arterial. In the medium to long term, the intersections of Horse Drive with
14 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Hualapai Way and Grand Canyon Drive could require traffic signals depending on the scale of future development in the northwest corner of the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-10 summarizes the proposed intersection improvement alternatives. Exhibit 2- 11 shows the location of each proposed alternative on a map. The locations on Durango Drive correspond to several of the busiest transit stops in the Study Area. Intersections that are safe for pedestrians facilitate access to transit.
Exhibit 2-10: Summary of Proposed Intersection Improvements Intersection Alternative Description - Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing Durango / Crosswalk distance Elkhorn improvements - Extend median and install median countdown signal - Use zebra striped crosswalk per CLV standard - Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing Durango / Deer Crosswalk distance Springs improvements - Extend median and install median countdown signal - Use zebra striped crosswalk per CLV standard Median refuge - Install pedestrian actuated traffic signals Durango / / traffic signal - Construct median pedestrian refuge as part of Dorrell installation median barrier - Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing Median refuge distance Durango / Farm installation - Use unused left turn lane space to allow installation of a median refuge on the intersection’s north side - Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing Durango / Oso Crosswalk distance Blanca improvements - Use zebra striped crosswalk per CLV standard Traffic signal - Install traffic signals Ann / Cimarron installation - Use zebra striped crosswalk per CLV standard Stop sign Durango / Racel - Install traffic signals installation Grand Teton / Traffic signal - Install traffic signals Grand Canyon installation Grand Teton / Traffic signal - Install traffic signals Hualapai installation Grand Teton / El Traffic signal - Install traffic signals Capitan installation Horse / Grand Traffic signal - Install traffic signals Canyon installation
Traffic signal Horse / Hualapai - Install traffic signals installation
15 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-11: Map of Proposed Intersection Improvements
2.3 Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings
In addition to improvements at signalized intersections, this section also focuses on uncontrolled pedestrian and trail crossings. As mentioned in the discussion of the Durango- Dorrell and Cimarron-Ann intersections, the wide gaps between existing pedestrian crossings on some streets is a critical mobility need in the Study Area. While some existing controlled intersections could be improved, there are uncontrolled intersections and intermediate locations where pedestrian crossings could be added or improved. This section identifies seven priority locations for such crosswalk improvements. 16 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
One such location is the Buffalo Drive and Ann Road intersection in Quadrant 3. A crosswalk currently exists to connect the sidewalk bike trail along Buffalo Drive across Ann Road to the sidewalk on the south side. The existing crosswalk, pictured in Exhibit 2-12, has faded transverse stripes, no warning signs for cross traffic, and lacks a ramp on the south side. The crosswalk was originally in place to provide access to a bus stop on the south side of Ann Road. With the removal of the bus stop, the crosswalk is no longer needed since it does not provide any additional connectivity. In order improve access to and from the multi-use trail terminus at Buffalo and Ann, an extension of the trail is proposed along the north side of Ann Road to Centennial Center Boulevard as shown in Exhibit 3-9. Should the crosswalk remain in place, it is recommended that standard ramps be used as well as better warning signs for cross traffic, and potentially a median refuge.
Exhibit 2-12: Crosswalk at the Buffalo-Ann Intersection
Another problematic location exists close by at the other end of the Buffalo Drive bike path where it terminates at Centennial Center Boulevard. This segment of Centennial Center Boulevard has no pedestrian crossings between Azure Drive and Ann Road despite the presence of a bus stop close by. The presence of retail centers on the east side of the arterial and residential neighborhoods on the west side as well as the street’s curvature suggest the need for a safe intermediate pedestrian crossing. Because of the presence the Buffalo Drive path and the potential for an additional intersecting path along the existing storm water drainage right-of-way, the location the driveway of 5785 Centennial Center Boulevard – shown in Exhibit 2-13 – would provide natural connectivity across the street. Construction of a pedestrian crossing would require the implementation of several complementary elements:
17 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
1) The northwestern side of the intersection has no turn pocket and could accommodate a pedestrian refuge. 2) A ramp would need to be installed on the east side of the street, and the ramp on the west side would need to adjusted. 3) A zebra crosswalk would need to be added. 4) Because of the street’s curvature, warning signs and pedestrian actuated warning signals could be installed at appropriate locations upstream of the crossing to give cross traffic sufficient advance warning of pedestrians using the crosswalk.
Exhibit 2-13: Potential Crosswalk Location on Centennial Center Boulevard
The City of Las Vegas has received a request by a private property owner to permit the installation of a signal nearby. The traffic signal would allow better access from the two driveways just to the east of the proposed pedestrian crossing and would provide sufficient accommodation for most pedestrian traffic. If the proposed trails in Exhibit 3-9 are completed, bicycle traffic would be able to proceed north to a safer crossing location with better visibility on the multi-use trail system.
In Quadrant 1, another location that faces similar issues as on Centennial Center Boulevard is the entrance to Mountain Ridge Park on Grand Montecito Parkway. Again, this location has a driveway on only one side, and the curvature of the arterial reduces visibility at the intersection. Despite the lack of a designated crossing, pedestrian traffic tends to cross at this location because Dorrell Lane provides a connection to the retail center on the west side of the street and the residential neighborhoods further west. Exhibit 2-14 shows the current intersection conditions. Like the location on Centennial Center Boulevard, the Grand Montecito location may eventually benefit from a traffic signal to provide access to an adjacent parcel. If this development proceeds, the City of Las Vegas can ensure multi-use trail access to and from Mountain Ridge Park across Grand Montecito Parkway.
18 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-14: Mountain Ridge Park Entrance on Grand Montecito Parkway
Like the proposed Centennial Center Boulevard crosswalk, this location would need a zebra crosswalk with ramps at both ends, a median refuge, and warning signs and a pedestrian actuated warning signal. Because of the position of the driveway and the presence of a left turn pocket on Grand Montecito Parkway, it is recommended that the crosswalk be positioned on the south side of the park’s entrance.
A third location resembles the Centennial Center Boulevard and Grand Montecito Parkway locations and would benefit from an intermediate pedestrian crossing. In Quadrant 1, Tonkinese Avenue connects a development onto Hualapai Way across from the Gilcrease Brothers Park in a relatively dense neighborhood. The intersection is uncontrolled on Hualapai Way and lacks a crosswalk. The two nearest crosswalk locations are significant distances away, and a crosswalk connecting across Hualapai Way at Gilcrease Avenue would provide a natural travel path for pedestrians to the park. The crossing would be best located on the north side of Tonkinese Avenue with a median refuge and warning signs. Because Hualapai has only two traffic lanes in each direction, a pedestrian actuated signal would be likely be unnecessary.
In Quadrant 2, Buffalo Drive is a relatively high speed arterial with a 40 MPH speed limit. Centennial Hills Park is an important neighborhood amenity with a library, picnic and play areas, sports fields, and a dog park and is adjacent to the Ralph Cadwallader Middle School. The main park entrance at the intersection of Buffalo Drive and Deer Springs Way currently has no crosswalk to connect to the residential neighborhood on the east side of Buffalo Drive and no convenient alternate crossing locations. The intersection is shown below in Exhibit 2-15. 19 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-15: Missing Crosswalk at the Buffalo-Deer Springs Intersection
The installation of a crosswalk on the south side of the intersection would facilitate safe travel to and from the park. In addition to warning signs, a pedestrian actuated signal might be appropriate for the intersection because of the existence of three traffic lanes running in either direction on Buffalo Drive. A three phase pedestrian actuated signal already exists at the fire station at Buffalo Drive and Wittig Avenue and is pictured in Exhibit 2-16.
Exhibit 2-16: Example of a Pedestrian actuated Signal in the Study Area
The fifth location identified as a priority location for intermediate crosswalk improvements is the segment of Elkhorn Road in Quadrant 2 adjacent to the Ralph Cadwallader Middle School shown in Exhibit 2-17. The two existing zebra crosswalks traverse four traffic lanes and a center turn lane on Elkhorn Road. The presence of two RTC bus stops and a school necessitate special attention to the safety of these two crosswalks. Although there are
20 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study already two warning signals in place, one for vehicle traffic each direction, installation of median refuges would further improve the crosswalks’ safety.
Exhibit 2-17: Pedestrian Crossing at the Ralph Cadwallader Middle School
One median refuge option is the Danish offset, which has already been deployed adjacent to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) on Maryland Parkway. The layout of the Danish offset requires pedestrians to face traffic once they have reached the median and before they cross the second half of the street. This safety measure has been shown to be effective in reducing pedestrian injuries at crosswalks. Exhibit 2-18 shows the Danish offset at the Maryland-Dumont Intersection near UNLV.
Exhibit 2-18: Example of Danish Offset Crosswalk in Las Vegas
Source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access – Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, Federal Highway Administration (2001) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/index.htm
21 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The final location with a short term need for an improved intermediate pedestrian crossing is on Tropical Parkway between Durango Drive and Centennial Center Parkway. The existing crosswalk is adjacent to two retail centers and the Northwest Career and Technical Center high school and is a good candidate for the construction of a pedestrian median refuge. Pedestrian and bicyclists would benefit from a safe median stopping point to safely cross the 35 MPH speed limit arterial. Since there is an existing median on this segment of Tropical Parkway, it should be straightforward to complete the pedestrian refuge.
Exhibit 2-19: Crosswalk on Tropical Parkway
Several of the intersections listed as higher risk in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum but not addressed in Section 2.2 do not face the same combination of high traffic, greater width, and higher speed limit as Durango. However, several were identified as candidates for the use of zebra crosswalk markings to improve crosswalk visibility and safety: - Durango Drive and Centennial Parkway - Centennial Center Boulevard and Azure Drive - Centennial Parkway and Grand Montecito Parkway.
In the less densely populated portion of Quadrant 2, two intersections could benefit from safer pedestrian crossings in the medium term. With the completion of the Horse Drive interchange with US 95, the intersection of El Capitan Way and Horse Drive may be experiencing additional traffic. This intersection falls within a fairly long segment of El Capitan Way that has no stops, traffic signals, or crosswalks. The installation of stop signs on El Capitan Way with zebra stripe crosswalks would provide a safe route for pedestrians across the four lanes of El Capitan Way.
The nearby intersection of Durango Drive and Brent Lane faces a similar situation: a higher speed arterial with a long section without adequately controlled pedestrian crossings.
22 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Because Brent Lane provides access to Floyd Lamb State Park as well as a connection to the Horse Drive Interchange, it is more prone to cross traffic than neighboring east-west streets. The lack of traffic controls at the Durango Drive intersection increases the risk for vehicles turning left leaving Floyd Lamb State Park and for vehicles crossing Durango Drive. The installation of stop signs would improve safety significantly with minimal impact on traffic in this less dense section of the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-20 summarizes the pedestrian crossing alternatives presented in Section 2.3 while Exhibit 2-21 maps the location of each improvement.
Exhibit 2-20: Summary of Proposed Crosswalk Improvements Location Alternative Description - Remove non-standard crosswalk Crosswalk Buffalo / Ann - Complete multi-use trail connection west to improvements the Centennial Center Blvd intersection - Install crosswalk and median refuge 5785 Centennial New intermediate - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal Center Boulevard crosswalk - Install warning signs - Install crosswalk Mountain Ridge New intermediate - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal Park Entrance crosswalk - Install warning signs Gilcrease Brothers New intermediate - Install crosswalk and median refuge Park crosswalk - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal - Install crosswalk Buffalo Deer New crosswalk and - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal Springs warning signal - Install warning signs Ralph Cadwallader Crosswalk - Install Danish offsets in crosswalks Middle School improvements Tropical Parkway Crosswalk - Construct median refuge Trail Crossing improvements - Install stop signs El Capitan / Horse New stop signs - Install zebra crosswalk
Durango / Brent New stop signs - Install stop signs
Durango / Deer Crosswalk - Use zebra crosswalk Springs improvements Durango / Crosswalk - Use zebra crosswalk Centennial improvements Centennial / Crosswalk - Use zebra crosswalk Grand Montecito improvements Centennial Center Crosswalk - Use zebra crosswalk / Azure improvements
23 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 21: Map of Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Improvements
2.4 Intermediate Equestrian Trail Crossings
Another location where the off-street and on-street travel networks interact in the Study Area is at uncontrolled trail crossings. There are two such equestrian crossings in Quadrant 2. Uncontrolled crossings are of concern on busy streets without alternate controlled crossing locations where higher vehicle speeds and poor judgment are more likely lead to crashes and injuries.
24 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The core trail network in Quadrant 2 connects the US 95 underpass at Grand Teton Drive to the eastern edge of the Study Area and to the southern edge of Floyd Lamb State Park. There are two critical trail crossings in this backbone system that remain uncontrolled.
Exhibit 2-22 provides a generic schematic of an appropriate crossing alternative. The crossing includes a trail approach where the equestrian can look for oncoming traffic, a curb ramp for easy transition to the road – preferably without the use of bright colors like the standard tactile yellow strips that can distract or upset a horse, and a demarcated crossing area with a horse friendly surface. The street approaches have warning signs and pavement markings drawing attention to the crossing location.
Exhibit 2-22: Schematic of a Typical At-Grade Equestrian Trail Crossing
Source: Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, Federal Highway Administration (2011) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/fspubs/07232816/toc.htm
The first is the crossing of Durango Drive at Ackerman Avenue. This segment of Durango Drive is a wide arterial with a speed limit of 40 MPH. Exhibit 2-23 shows how the trail stops at the sidewalk without guidance for equestrians or other trail users of how to reach the continuance of the trail directly across the street. Although no traffic control measures are in place to facilitate crossing, the natural action is nevertheless to directly cross the four traffic lanes of the busy arterial. Currently, the closest safe crossing is the signalized
25 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study intersection at Grand Teton Drive 550 feet to the south, not a viable alternative for equestrian travelers since there is only a sidewalk connection.
Exhibit 2-23: Missing Trail Crossing at the Durango-Ackerman Intersection
A pedestrian actuated signal with a second button height convenient for equestrians would provide trail users with a safe crossing option. The signal could either require traffic to fully stop using a three phase signal (as shown in Exhibit 2-16) or simply use flashing yellow warning lights. Parallel stripe crosswalk markings across Durango Drive and an advance stop line would encourage more gradual deceleration. Accessible ramps would allow an easy transition across the sidewalk; however, bright colors on the tactile strip can intimidate horses. Because this trail alignment is a long distance trail that connects to recreational amenities, the crossing would effectively serve recreational and transportation trail users as well as equestrians.
The second trail crossing connects the equestrian trail on the south side of Racel Street between Buffalo Drive and Cimarron Road to the south end of Floyd Lamb State Park. Currently, the decomposed granite trail terminates abruptly behind the sidewalk. As Exhibit 2-24 shows, trail users must cut through landscaping and across the crosswalk to reach the park access across the street. A single warning sign alerts drivers to the presence of the equestrian crossing. The proposed trail crossing would add additional warning signs in more visible locations, a zebra stripe crossing, and a curb cut on the north side of the road. One equestrian stakeholder noted the need for a wagon accessible park entrance on the north side of the crossing to allow access to Floyd Lamb State Park.
26 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-24: Proposed Trail Crossing Location on Racel Street
Exhibit 2-25 summarizes the proposed horse trail crossing improvements for the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-25: Summary of Proposed Trail Crossing Improvements
Location Alternative Description - Install ramps and striping Durango / Construct horse - Install warning signs Ackerman crossing - Install pedestrian/equestrian actuated signal
Racel St. Floyd Horse crossing - Install ramps and striping Lamb Entrance improvements - Install improved warning signs
2.5 Bicycle Lane Network Development
The final element of the on-street alternate mode network is the bicycle network. Bike lanes form the backbone of this network and are the focus of this section. The initial alternatives presented address strategic gaps in the bike lane network and recommend specific measures to reduce collisions involving bicycles and motor vehicles. The gap analysis takes into account planned bike lane striping for 2011 and the City of Las Vegas planned bike network.
In addition to the completion and extension of the bike lane network, existing bike lanes in the Study Area might benefit from some additional measures to improve safety. The Task 3 Technical Memorandum assigned a segment of Azure Drive with bike lanes a “moderate to high” risk score. Also, several Town Center street segments with bike lanes received a "moderate risk" score: - Grand Montecito Parkway between Elkhorn Road and Centennial Parkway, - Centennial Center Boulevard between Durango Drive and Ann Road, and - Elkhorn Road from Grand Canyon Drive to Tenaya Way. 27 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Although they have effective bicycle lanes in place, the segments' higher speed limits and higher bike traffic potential make them a potential target for additional safety measures. The relatively high number of busy driveways and cross streets mean these segments could benefit from additional signage informing travelers that the street is a bicycle route. Exhibit 2-26 shows key standard bicycle regulatory, warning, and guidance signs from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Exhibit 2-26: Key Bicycle Facility Signs
Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration (2009) http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/html_index.htm
Another possible measure to improve bicycle and general street safety on these three arterials is to lower the speed limit on each segment from 35 MPH to 30 MPH. For Grand Montecito Parkway, because Oso Blanca Road constitutes a high speed parallel alternative, a slightly lower speed limit of 30 MPH could be an appropriate measure to improve the street's safety. Likewise, Centennial Center Boulevard has available alternate routes including Durango Drive and Ann Road and the freeways and could see similar safety benefits from a 30 MPH speed limit. Azure Drive is an important crossing between 28 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Quadrants 3 and 4; however, Ann Road provides a nearby higher speed alternative for drivers making longer trips. Since Elkhorn Road is a critical east-west arterial, its 35 MPH is appropriate to ensure mobility for motor vehicles in the corridor.
Exhibit 2-27 shows a speed limit map of the Study Area including the revised speed limits for the segments of Grand Montecito Parkway, Centennial Center Boulevard, and Azure Drive. The map shows how the new speed limits would calm traffic in the core areas of the Town Center and encourage through traffic onto Durango Drive and higher speed periphery streets. The new map shows the speed limits on these segments reduced from 35 MPH to 30 MPH.
Exhibit 2-27: Map of Potential Study Speed Limit Revisions
29 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The City of Las Vegas has been working to address successive vehicle runoffs occurring on Centennial Center Boulevard. Heightened enforcement and the installation of rumble strips before curves has helped mitigate the problem. However, a small reduction in the speed limit could also contribute to improve roadway safety by addressing this issue.
Beyond the core Town Center area, there are a few critical gaps in the bike lane network that could be addressed in the near term. For instance, the south side of Elkhorn Road between the US 95 freeway overpass and Cimarron lacks a bike lane on the shoulder. As part of the next resurfacing, this lane could be completed by using some of the median space. A transition from a paved median to a hard median on the portion of Elkhorn in the Study Area east of the freeway crossing would increase roadway safety. A hard median would also create sufficient space to complete the bike lane, allow wider lanes, improve roadway aesthetics, and permit the installation of pedestrian refuges for the crosswalks on Elkhorn Road adjacent to the Ralph Cadwallader Middle School at Buffalo Drive. Exhibit 2- 28 shows the division of road space created by the existing median on Tropical Parkway.
Exhibit 2-28: Example of Median from Tropical Parkway
The Study Area's bike lane network does not conform entirely to the planned bike network. On planned routes, there are often interruptions and gaps in the bike lanes. There is also a significant distance of bike lanes on unplanned segments. Exhibit 2-29 shows the existing bike lane network including lanes scheduled to be completed in 2011.
30 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-29: Current Bike Lane Network
The map shows the problems with coverage and connectivity in the network. The incomplete bike lane network segments identified in Exhibit 2-30 adhere to the City of Las Vegas’ planned bike lane network but also include several additional segments. The proposed additional bike lane segments are intended to cover existing gaps and to provide connections among existing routes. In order to provide cyclists with the safest possible travel options, the proposed additional bike lanes include mostly lower speed street segments.
31 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 2-30: Existing, Planned, and Proposed Bike Lanes
Exhibit 2-31 provides a table of priority bike lane network gaps to address in the short term. These streets are part of the planned bike lane network and are either fully developed or are higher speed arterial segments where safety is a concern.
Exhibit 2-31: Proposed Priority Bike Lane Network Gaps to Be Addressed Segment Street Segment Start Location End Location Quadrant Length (ft) Echelon Point Grand Canyon Drive Horse Drive 1 18,710 Drive
32 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Segment Street Segment Start Location End Location Quadrant Length (ft)
Farm Road Oso Blanca Road Tee Pee Lane 1 6,480
Oso Blanca Road Farm Road Gilcrease Avenue 1 820
Horse Drive / Grand Canyon Iron Mountain 1 & 2 9,460 Fort Apache Road Drive Road Tule Springs Road / Farm Road Cimarron Road 2 4,920 Sky Pointe Drive
Buffalo Drive Elkhorn Drive Deer Springs Way 2 3,220
Deer Springs Way Cimarron Road Rosinwood Street 2 1,280
Elkhorn Road US 95 Cimarron Road 2 1,430
Farm Road / Racel Street Tule Springs Road 2 7,890 El Capitan Way Centennial Center Tropical Parkway Durango Drive 3 4,660 Boulevard Centennial Center Grand Montecito Fort Apache Road 3 6,840 Parkway Parkway
Sky Pointe Drive Azure Drive Ann Road 4 4,330
Tenaya Way Azure Drive Ann Road 4 6,950
Total - - - 76,990
One other bicycle network gap not mentioned above is the segment of Ann Road between Centennial Center Boulevard and Durango Drive. On this segment, Ann Road is a high speed arterial with narrow shoulder lanes that are sometimes no wider than twelve feet. Therefore, Ann Road is not suitable as a bike route. Bicycle guidance signs could be installed at the Centennial Center Boulevard and Durango Drive intersections in order to direct bicyclists to safer alternate routes. The proposed multi-use trail along the El Campo Grande utility alignment described in Section 3 would provide an excellent alternative. Alternately, the south side sidewalk could be widened to eight feet as proposed in Section 3.
The final issue identified with respect to the on-street bicycle network is the fading of bike lane markings based on asphalt bleeding (as opposed to paint wear). The City of Las Vegas and Clark County could consider developing maintenance standards for their respective bike 33 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study lane networks to ensure they are maintained regularly and the lane markings remain visible. Exhibit 2-32 shows an example of obscured bike lane markings on Centennial Center Parkway.
Exhibit 2-32: Faded Bicycle Lane Markings
34 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
3. OFF-STREET FACILITIES ALTERNATIVES
In this section, the proposed alternatives address the sidewalk and off-street multi-use and equestrian trail needs identified in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum. While on-street improvements focus more on safety, the preliminary off-street alternatives focus on closing sidewalk and trail gaps and on extending these networks in addition to addressing safety concerns.
3.1 Sidewalk Network Development
The main goal of sidewalk investment is to connect across undeveloped blocks to ensure pedestrian access to key locations. Because none of the four quadrants has reached complete build out, sidewalk gaps remain in each. Exhibit 3-1 provides an example of an existing gap in the Study Area’s sidewalk network: the photograph shows the sidewalk discontinuity on Durango Drive at the intersection with Oso Blanca Road. Despite the fact that the Durango Drive highway crossing is an important connection across US 95, there is no sidewalk approach to the overpass on either Oso Blanca Road or Durango Drive.
Exhibit 3-1: Sidewalk Gap at the Durango-Oso Blanca Intersection
Exhibit 3-2 provides a map of existing sidewalk gaps. The map also shows the proposed intersection and pedestrian crossing improvements for reference. Together, these improvements would promote more comprehensive pedestrian mobility within the Study Area.
35 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-2: Map of Existing Study Area Sidewalk Gaps
In some cases, sidewalk gaps do not constitute a barrier to pedestrians and prevent them from accessing key locations because there is a completed sidewalk segment on the opposite side of the street or an alternate route exists of comparable length along another block. However, there are a number of street segments where the current lack of sidewalk represents a barrier to pedestrian mobility. Exhibit 3-3 lists the segments identified as barrier segments based on the findings in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum.
36 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-3: Proposed Sidewalk Gaps to Be Addressed Side of Segment Street Segment Start Location End Location Street Length (ft) Grand Teton Oso Blanca Road Tee Pee Lane North Side 1,680 Durango Drive Elkhorn Road Oso Blanca Road East Side 1,090 Durango Drive Elkhorn Road Oso Blanca Road West Side 1,080 Oso Blanca Road Severence Lane Durango Drive West Side 610 Elkhorn Road Campbell Road Durango Drive North Side 570 Deer Springs Way Tee Pee Lane Fort Apache Road South Side 730 Deer Springs Way Campbell Road Durango Drive North Side 330 Deer Springs Way Campbell Road Durango Drive South Side 1,230 Farm Road Durango Drive Tule Springs Road South Side 970 Centennial Parkway Durango Drive Grand Montecito Parkway North Side 2,230 Centennial Parkway Durango Drive Southbound US 95 ramps South Side 1,510 Durango Drive Centennial Parkway Ann Road West Side 3,540 Tropical Parkway Durango Drive Centennial Center Boulevard North Side 930 Total ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,500
In the medium and long term, it is reasonable to expect that renewed development of empty parcels will ensure the completion of the sidewalk network. Therefore, in most locations, jurisdictions may consider the use of temporary sidewalks in lieu of more expensive permanent sidewalks constructed to all county specifications. Temporary sidewalks constructed from recycled asphalt are an effective lower cost alternative to permanent cement sidewalks. Where the street curb is already in place, jurisdictions often construct permanent sidewalks. Exhibit 3-4 provides an example of a temporary asphalt sidewalk while Exhibit 3-5 shows a map the proposed sidewalk gaps to be bridged.
Exhibit 3-4: Temporary Asphalt Sidewalk
37 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-5: Map of Proposed New Sidewalk Segments
3.2 Multi-Use Trail Network Development
Multi-use trails are a key element of both the recreation and transportation trails networks. The multi-use trail network covers gaps in the street grid for alternate mode travelers. A backbone network provides longer distance connections among neighborhoods and across the city to key destinations including schools, services, employment centers, and
38 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study recreational facilities. Multi-use trails also reduce the on-street portion of alternate mode trips and thereby improve travel safety for all modes.
Exhibit 3-6 shows the gaps in the planned multi-use trail network. The map also shows several opportunities to expand the transportation trails network using public right-of-way.
Exhibit 3-6: Multi-Use Trail Network Gaps
Most gaps can be attributed to undeveloped parcels where a developed has not completed infrastructure investments. In the case of other gaps, the developer did not complete the
39 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study planned trail segment. Finally gaps may be the result of a trail unassociated with any development and planned in a public right-of-way where the responsible public agency has not yet constructed. Gaps adjacent to planned developments represent a missed opportunity and are often the most difficult and expensive to close. Exhibit 3-7 shows which gaps are the responsibilities of private developers and which gaps are the responsibilities of public agencies.
Exhibit 3-7: Multi-Use Trail Network Gaps Due to Undeveloped Land
40 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-8 identifies priority segments for public agencies to complete. These segments emphasize completion of the longer distance backbone network along US 95 and CC-215 and the development of an alternative east-west route to Ann Road using existing public utilities right-of-way.
Exhibit 3-8: Proposed Priority Multi-Use Trail Segments Segment Segment Street Segment Description Status Length (ft) Las Vegas Beltway Segment paralleling CC‐215 from Grand Canyon Planned 8,500 Trail to Grand Montecito Parkway Connects trail segment behind Lowe's to the US 95 Corridor Planned 2,640 Grand Teton crossing Short trail segment to connect Cimarron Road March Brown and March Brown Avenue with the multi‐use trail Proposed 140 Avenue Connector directly to the north
Two trail segments using the stormwater El Campo Grande drainage right‐of‐way on El Campo Grande to Proposed 3,210 Trail connect to Centennial Center Boulevard
El Campo Grande‐ A trail segment around the remaining perimeter Proposed 3,080 Tropical Connector of the stormwater detention facility
Total ‐ ‐ 17,570
Ann Road is already one of the busiest arterials in the Study Area. With the continued development in Quadrant 3 and neighborhoods to its west, Ann Road will experience increased traffic volumes. With its higher volumes and higher speeds, the arterial is not a safe route for bicyclists and is an unpleasant alternative for pedestrians. However, the street provides an important connection across US 95 between two Town Center areas.
Although not an alternative in the current City of Las Vegas Transportation Trails Element, the El Campo Grande alignment with its existing public utility right-of-way would provide a parallel route to Ann Road that links with the existing trail routes on Buffalo Drive and Tropical Parkway. Another alternative would be to expand the sidewalk on the south side of Ann Road between Buffalo Drive and Cimarron Road to provide a sidewalk path accessible to bicycles and pedestrians.
Exhibit 3-9 shows the possible trail alignment along El Campo Grande. The El Campo Grande trail would connect the calm segments of El Campo Grande together to provide a safe east-west trail route. The trail would connect to the short Buffalo Drive trail segment in the southeast corner of Quadrant 3. A spur trail could connect the El Campo Grande trail
41 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study to the Tropical Parkway trail. A small connection trail at the end of March Brown Avenue and Cimarron Road could also link the east–west El Campo Grande trail with the Tropical Parkway trail.
Exhibit 3-9: Proposed Quadrant 3 Trail Connections, Option #1
The study Technical Working Group suggested that the trail wrap around the flood retention basin and facilitate bike and pedestrian travel in a variety of directions. A proposed short trail link along Ann Road would help route trail traffic off Ann Road up Buffalo Drive and onto the El Campo Grande trail.
Exhibit 3-10: Las Vegas Valley Water District Property on Tropical Parkway
42 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The Ann Road sidewalk path alternative would use existing street right-of-way on the south side of Ann Road to expand the standard five foot sidewalk to an eight or possibly nine foot transportation trail. The path would begin on the southwest corner of the intersection of Ann Road with Grand Montecito Parkway. The trail would continue west as far as Cimarron Road which provides not only north-south access but also connects to alternate east-west streets such as El Campo Grande.
Beyond the completion of the planned multi-use trail network, one important issue is the planned trail crossing of CC-215 on the Las Vegas Beltway Trail. Currently, between Quadrants 1 and 3 in the Study Area, there are no existing multi-use trails that connect underneath the freeways where the shoulder narrows. Potential crossing locations include Fort Apache Road, Durango Drive, and Grand Montecito Parkway. Of the two existing street connections – Durango Drive and Grand Montecito Parkway, only the latter has bike lanes in place. Both Grand Montecito Parkway and Durango Drive face the issue of limited sidewalk space beneath the freeway bridge. At Durango Drive, westbound bike and pedestrian traffic could be routed right along the western sidewalk on Durango to use the next crosswalk. Eastbound traffic would turn north onto the eastern sidewalk and cross under the freeway to reach the next crosswalk. Traffic could not be split at the Grand Montecito Parkway underpass, creating safety issues. Fort Apache, as a calm street with a 25 MPH speed limit represents the most promising opportunity for a trail crossing.
A typical overpass would only include standard five foot sidewalks and bike lanes as part of a sixteen foot shoulder lane. The Fort Apache Road overpass is an opportunity to provide a high quality link for trail users. As Exhibit 3-11 shows, on the north side of the overpass, the Las Vegas Beltway Trail will intersect with Fort Apache Road at an intermediate point. Without a controlled intersection, bicyclists turning left at the trailhead face a conflict with cross-traffic. Likewise, northbound bicyclists turning left onto the trail will also face conflicts from traffic in both directions.
43 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-11: Left Turn Conflicts for Bicyclists at the Fort Apache Overpass
One alternative, illustrated in Exhibit 3-12, is to provide a trail extension north to connect with the planned Fort Apache sidewalk path. Bicyclists traveling east on the Las Vegas Beltway to north on Fort Apache Road will turn left onto the trail and then cross the east side of Fort Apache Road at the intersection with Echelon Point Drive. Bicyclists traveling northbound on Fort Apache Road who want to turn west on the Las Vegas Beltway Trail can merge across the traffic lanes to a median bike box where they can stop and make the turn when safe. Warning signs would alert drivers in both directions the bicycle movement.
44 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-12: Option #1 - Alternative to Mitigate Bicyclist Left Turn Conflicts
Another option, shown in Exhibit 3-13, is to extend the sidewalk path on the west side of Fort Apache Road south to the intersection with Darling Road and the south side Beltway Trail terminus. This option would also route bicyclists traveling from eastbound on the Beltway Trail to northbound on Fort Apache Road left on the sidewalk path. Bicyclists turning right out of the trail terminus would still be directed into the southbound bike lane over the overpass. Bicyclists traveling northbound on Fort Apache wishing to turn left to ride westbound on the Beltway trail would cross the street at the intersection with Darling Road and use the sidewalk path on the overpass before turning left onto the trail. This alternative would require careful signage at each trail terminus. It is recommended that the posted speed limit on Fort Apache Road remain 25 MPH. 45 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-13: Option #2 - Alternative Mitigate Bicyclist Left Turn Conflicts
A second important concern for the development of the Las Vegas Beltway Trail is safety of the crossing location at Durango Drive. If possible, the planned trail could take advantage of the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection of Durango Drive with eastbound CC- 215. The large median refuge (shown in Exhibit 3-14) and smaller number of traffic turning directions make this crosswalk safer and more appropriate for higher alternate mode traffic volumes than the nearby intersection of Durango Drive and Centennial Parkway.
46 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-14: Median Refuge at the Durango-CC-215 Interchange
The final issue related to the Study Area’s trail network is the potential use of additional signage. Posting warning signs such as those in Exhibit 3-15 can improve safety by better regulating alternate mode traffic in the relatively narrow trail space. Key locations include trail termini and junctions. The City of Las Vegas and Clark County might also consider using trail guidance signs to assist travelers and raise awareness of the trail network’s coverage.
Exhibit 3-15: Example Warning Signs for Multi-Use Trails
3.3 Equestrian Trail Network Development
The equestrian network already has a backbone trail system within the Study Area with alignments and rights-of-way reserved to complete the system in the future. The equestrian trail network serves to connect the rural neighborhood preservation areas around the periphery of the Study Area and to provide access from core residential neighborhoods to recreational trail systems at the urban boundary.
47 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Equestrian trails serve primarily recreational purposes and are not ADA accessible. As a result, RTC does not provide funding for equestrian trail development. However, they are an important recreational amenity and ensure that equestrians have a safe, local riding option where they will not come into conflict with other modes. The primary challenge facing the equestrian trail network in the Study Area is the completion of the planned trail system shown in Exhibit 3-16.
Exhibit 3-16: Map of Planned and Proposed Equestrian/Soft-Surface Trails
48 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The map reflects the two proposed trail crossing improvements and the existing subgrade crossing at Grand Teton Drive. While the planned Grand Teton overpass is slated to include a grade-separated trail, it is recommended that the subgrade crossing of US 95 remain open for equestrians. The map also shows two proposed trail links not included the current trails plan. One potential trail connection would parallel the Las Vegas Beltway Trail west from Grand Canyon Drive at the edge of the Study Area in Quadrant 1 until the equestrian trail can connect to the western public lands. The other potential trail connection would link the El Capitan Way horse trail in Quadrant 2 to Floyd Lamb State Park along Log Cabin Way.
One option is to assure the use of the soft-surface trail network in the short term until it is completed by developers. Decomposed granite or another fine gravel surface could be spread as a temporary trail surface. Exhibit 3-17 shows the distance of each trail gap on Grand Teton Drive.
Exhibit 3-17: Proposed Temporary Equestrian Trail Segments Segment Street Segment Description Length (ft)
Grand Teton Drive Temporary connection from the Grand Teton 1,720 Segment 1 underpass to Tee Pee Lane.
Grand Teton Drive Temporary connection from Grand Canyon Drive 2,700 Segment 2 west to Hualapai Way.
The remaining issues facing the equestrian trail network in the Study Area relate to maintenance and design issues. With respect to design issues, equestrian stakeholders have raised the following design issues: 1. Appropriate buffer – equestrian trails should not only have a proper buffer space from the street (10 feet as specified in the City of Las Vegas Recreation Trails Element) but also with other potential hazards such as drainage channels. 2. Stable trail substrate – if a trail crosses an artificial feature on the trail such as a curb or a drainage channel, it is important that the trail surface be stable, without hollow resonance, and that the artificial feature avoid the use of high-contrast or bright colors. 3. Tree canopy – trees planted along equestrian trails should be chosen for appropriate height and canopy so as not to pose an obstacle to people on horseback. It is also important that vegetative materials not be poisonous to horses. 4. Trail barriers – certain trail barriers intended to stop trail use by motorcycles or other unwanted users can also inhibit legitimate trail uses such as horse-drawn carts, so trail barriers should be used only in appropriate contexts.
This input could be used to inform any revision of the City of Las Vegas Recreation Trails Element as well as any trail maintenance and rehabilitation projects throughout the Study 49 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Area and the region. The schematic in Exhibit 3-18 shows that the current master plan may not present sufficient detail on recreation trail design. The City of Las Vegas and Clark County may also consider evaluating their trail maintenance programs in light of these comments.
Exhibit 3-18: Typical Equestrian Trail Layout
Source: City of Las Vegas Master Plan Recreation Trails Element (2005)
Stakeholder input has also highlighted other challenges in the development of the equestrian trail network. Within and around the Study Area, jurisdictions should ensure that planned trails are appropriately implemented by developers. Development and redevelopment are the easiest time to construct trails at relatively low cost, and missing this window can result in much higher future costs to complete the trail system. Beyond the 50 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study planned trail system, opportunities may also arise to incorporate recreational and equestrian trails in public rights-of-way, especially to connect to important recreation destinations, such as open space areas, parks, and RNPs.
Exhibit 3-19 summarizes the proposed horse trail network improvements for the Study Area. The photograph in Exhibit 3-20 shows a horse trail gap on Severence Lane while the photograph in Exhibit 3-21 shows the horse trail gap on Grand Teton west of US 95.
Exhibit 3-19: Summary of Proposed Trail Crossing Improvements
Alternative Description - Create a temporary trail with a fine gravel surface to Temporary Grand Teton provide a temporary trail connection along Grand Trail Teton Drive
- Provide an equestrian trail connection parallel to the Beltway Trail Western Las Vegas Beltway Trail from Grand Canyon Drive to Connection public lands
- Provide an equestrian trail connection along Log Log Cabin Trail Cabin Way from the El Capitan Way equestrian trail Connection to Floyd Lamb State Park
- Address issues with trail design as opportunities Trail Design arise: tree choice, inadequate buffers, unstable Improvements substrates, and trail barriers
Revisions to Trail Design - Revise/amend trail design guidelines as appropriate Guidelines based on stakeholder input
51 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-20: Equestrian Trail Gap on Severence Lane
52 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 3-21: Equestrian Trail Gap on Grand Teton Drive
53 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
4. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Transit is an important transportation element in the Study Area because it represents the only alternative for some travelers to cross US 95 within the Study Area. For others it is the only option to reach more distant destinations outside the Study Area such as the Rancho Drive Corridor and central Las Vegas. This section presents alternatives to encourage multimodal travel, especially using the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride, to improve transit stop amenities in order to encourage transit use, and to improve transit performance. It also addresses possible future transit infrastructure needs.
4.1 Transit Center Improvements
The Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride is the hub for multimodal trips in the Study Area. For the transit center to function as effectively as possible, it is important to maximize its accessibility. The proposed alternatives in this section provide a variety of options to increase access to the transit center.
The most important current issue at the park-and-ride is a shortage of bicycle parking. The presence of a security guard at the transit station makes it a relative secure location to leave a bicycle. However, the facility currently has fewer than ten available bike parking spaces. Exhibit 4-1 shows all available spaces in the single bike rack occupied.
Exhibit 4-1: Full Bicycle Parking at the Centennial Hills Transit Center
54 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Biking is a popular, low-cost access option to transit, but it depends on the adequate supply of secure bike parking. Excess bike parking capacity is better because it gives bicyclists the assurance of finding secure parking at the transit facility. The large size of the park-and- ride facility leaves ample space for additional bike parking within sight of the transit center building. Exhibit 4-2 shows one potential location for additional spaces. The quality of the bike parking also matters, not only in terms of security. Exhibit 4-3 provides examples of higher and lower quality bike parking options. The addition 30 spaces – 2 to 15 additional racks depending on the type – would likely be a first increase in the supply of spaces. However, RTC must expect the future need for spaces to increase and plan accordingly to prevent demand from exceeding supply. Furthermore, the installation of a security camera monitoring the bike parking could be a good way to improve the perception of bike parking security at the park-and-ride.
Exhibit 4-2: Potential Location for Additional Bike Racks
Potential Bike Parking
55 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 4-3: Sample Bicycle Parking Guidelines
Source: Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Bicycle Parking Guidelines (2002)
56 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The second immediate opportunity to improve the performance of the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride is to increase the visibility of the facility. Additional guidance signs on Elkhorn, Durango, and US 95 could raise awareness of the facility and encourage its use as well as make it easier for travelers to find it.
Given the rapid growth rate of transit ridership at the station and the significant utilization of the parking facilities, RTC can expect strong future demand at the station. As parking utilization rises, RTC may need to consider parking enforcement strategies as well as demand management strategies. The latter might include preferred parking for carpools or other such measures. Another option is to replace surface parking with a raised parking structure. Parking structures have the additional benefit that they facilitate parking enforcement. While parking structure construction costs can be high, especially when measured by the cost per net space added, rising land costs may justify it in the future.
Exhibit 4-4 lists the proposed improvements for the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride.
Exhibit 4-4: Summary of Proposed Transit Center Improvements
Alternative Description Additional Bicycle - Install additional secure bicycle parking Parking
Additional Guidance - Install additional guidance signs to raise awareness and visibility Signs of the facility
Parking Expansion - Potential parking expansion in a raised structure
4.2 Bus Stop Amenities
While the transit center has the most frequently used bus stops in the Study Area because of the Centennial Express service, other bus stops in the Study Area account for a relatively high proportion of transit demand and deserve attention, too. The Task 3 Technical Memorandum examined the top nine stops in the Study Area and identified locations in each of the four quadrants. The alternatives proposed below present the most promising opportunities to improve bus stop amenities and accessibility in order to promote transit ridership, safety, and improved operations.
One issue at multiple busy transit stops is the lack of bus shelters. Exhibit 4-5 shows the northbound bus stop at Durango Drive and Farm Road, an important link across US 95. RTC should consider installing bus shelters in both the northbound and southbound directions at this intersection. The eastbound and westbound bus stops at the Farm Road
57 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study and Tule Springs Road intersection are also both candidate locations for the installation of bus shelters since these stops rank in the top ten transit locations in the Study Area.
Exhibit 4-5: Northbound Transit Stop at Durango Drive and Farm Road
A second issue facing many transit stops in the Study Area is the lack of bus turnouts. The most critical location lacking bus turnouts is the intersection of Durango Drive and Dorrell Lane. This section of Durango Drive has high density to support significant transit demand and higher speed limits and traffic volumes to warrant bus turnouts. The northbound bus stop has sufficient space for a bus turnout according to the RTC specification shown in Exhibit 4-6.
Exhibit 4-6: RTC Bus Turnout Specification
58 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The southbound bus stop at the Durango Drive and Dorrell Lane intersection – shown in Exhibit 4-7 – does not have sufficient space for a standard bus turnout in its current location. One option is to move the stop north of Dorrell Lane.
Exhibit 4-7: Southbound Bus Stop at the Durango Drive-Dorrell Lane Intersection
Other transit stop locations would also benefit from the construction of bus turnouts. However, given the cost of constructing a bus turnout, such improvements are unlikely to be warranted in the near term. These locations are along the important transit corridor of Grand Montecito Parkway and Centennial Center Parkway and are listed in Exhibit 4-10. As the Study Area continues to develop and if transit service levels are increased, buses stopping in traffic will pose an increased safety threat both to motor vehicles and to bicyclists using the bike lanes on Grand Montecito Parkway and on Centennial Center Parkway.
The third issue facing some bus stops in the Study Area is their location is undesirable for a transit stop. Exhibit 4-8 provides the example of the westbound stop at Ann Road and Drexel Road where there is no sidewalk space. Such a narrow waiting area represents a danger to disabled travelers waiting at the stop and a discomfort to other transit riders. The Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way published July 26, 2011 by the U.S. Access Board recommends at least eight feet of sidewalk space at transit boarding locations. Exhibit 4-9 shows the nearby location across Rio Vista Street where an empty parcel provides an opportunity to install a bus stop with additional sidewalk space. The southbound bus stop on Grand Montecito adjacent to CC- 215 could also benefit from relocation. The current location does not have a bus turnout and is isolated from services on Centennial Parkway. Since the parcel on the southeast corner of the Grand Montecito Parkway and Centennial Parkway intersection is undeveloped, future development could include a bus turnout. The bus would turn from Grand Montecito east onto Centennial Parkway and into the bus turnout. 59 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 4-8: Bus Stop at Ann Road and Drexel Road
Exhibit 4-9: Potential Bus Stop Location at Ann Road and Rio Vista Street
60 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 4-10 summarizes the proposed transit stop improvements for the Study Area, while Exhibit 4-11 shows the location of each proposed improvement on a map.
Exhibit 4-10: Summary of Proposed Improvements by Bus Stop
Bus Stop Improvements - Install a bus turnouts the northbound stop and move the southbound Durango / stop north of Dorrell Lane and install a bus turnout at the new Dorrell location
Durango / Farm - Install bus shelters at both the northbound and southbound stops
Farm / Tule - Install bus shelters at both the eastbound and westbound stops Springs
5705 Centennial - Move bus stop to right turn pocket 100 feet to the west Center
5850 Centennial - Install northbound bus turnout Center
Grand Montecito - Install northbound bus turnout and move southbound stop to the / Centennial southeast corner of the intersection on Centennial Center Blvd
Grand Montecito - Install northbound bus turnout / Rome
- Move westbound stop location east to the empty parcel at the Rio Ann / Drexel Vista intersection and install a bus shelter
Sky Pointe / - Install crosswalk and sidewalk waiting area to make the stop Ranch House accessible
61 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 4-11: Map of Proposed Transit Stop Improvements
4.3 Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service
Currently transit serves two primary purposes: (1) to provide a connection across US 95 to the Town Center areas and (2) to provide transportation along the corridor parallel to US 95 connecting to Rancho Drive and central Las Vegas. As development continues in the Study Area and its population expands, there may be a need to expand transit service.
One option is to simply increase frequencies on existing lines – route 106 and the Centennial Express. If this is in response to increased transit demand along the entire transit route, than higher bus frequencies is a good option. However, this strategy does not target the Study Area in particular, since most of the incremental vehicle service hours serve other areas of the transit lines. Furthermore, the largest increases in transit demand in the Study Area are likely to be in the relatively undeveloped northern portions of
62 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Quadrants 1 and 2. Currently, Quadrant 1 has the highest densities in the Study Area, and this trend is set to continue with further development.
A second option to improve transit service specifically in the Study Area would be to extend either Route 106 or the Centennial Express. An extension of an existing route is a relatively low cost option, since it adds a relatively small incremental trip time to each bus run. Any route extension should emphasize two aims: (1) increase service across US 95 and (2) cover new areas with higher density housing and important services. A second loop extending around Horse Drive would achieve both aims and could be added to either bus route. An extension of the Centennial Express would most likely link the planned Kyle Canyon Road park-and-ride to the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride and would constitute a small increase in service area coverage. RTC should ensure that the planned park-and-ride at Kyle Canyon Road is designed to minimize the time required to access the freeway ramps.
A third option to improve transit service in the Study Area is to create a new transit route. A long distance route passing through the Study Area might run either east-west or north- south. The most likely east-west route is along Ann Road. The most likely north-south route is along Grand Canyon Drive or Hualapai Way. A second possibility is a local circulator service resembling RTC’s other “Silver Star” services.
Whether transit is expanded through a new route, an extension of an existing route, or both, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County can help ensure that the proper infrastructure is in place. The most important element to provide higher quality service is to have bus turnouts in place with room for bus pads. Exhibit 4-12 shows the most likely routes for future transit service where bus infrastructure should be required. Bus turnouts with bus pads are most important adjacent to commercial centers, services such as libraries and medical centers, schools, and denser housing. These infrastructure elements are also very important to put in place on arterials to ensure smooth traffic flow and traffic safety. The proximity of the proposed Kyle Canyon Road park-and-ride facility to the Horse Drive interchange ensures that service on these routes could be easily integrated with that facility.
63 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Exhibit 4-12: Proposed Routes for Bus Infrastructure
Both Grand Canyon Drive and Hualapai Way can expect relatively dense future development that could support at least minimal transit service. The Horse Drive interchange is the northern most opportunity to extend transit to the north section of Quadrant 2 and provide service across US 95. The proposed routes can be used in order to plan the construction of bus infrastructure during the initial development, a much lower cost option than completing the infrastructure afterward. RTC will then be able to more easily extend service to new portions of the Study Area at its discretion.
64 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
5. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Sections 2, 3, and 4 describe a set of alternatives for improving mobility in the Study Area. All the proposed projects address a specific identified mobility need. However, in order to meet budget constraints and schedule projects effectively, it is helpful to have a prioritization framework in place. RTC and its partner jurisdictions are responsible for delivering a transportation investment program that maximizes the mobility benefits through time. Also, these agencies must ensure critical projects are built before lower priority projects. Therefore, RTC must prioritize projects in terms of overall importance and in terms of timeframe. This section develops a framework for project prioritization.
5.1 Prioritization Criteria
The project prioritization for this study employs a straightforward approach that calculates a score for each project based on key attributes. A higher score indicates the project should be considered a higher priority and therefore more likely to receive funding or to be built at an earlier date relative to other projects. For purposes of this study, it is not necessary to establish a strict rank order prioritization, where projects cannot receive the same score. Instead, the projects need only cluster into a modest number of buckets, with no single group containing an overwhelming share of projects. If too many projects receive a given score or fall into a narrow score range, then it becomes difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about their relative merit or priority.
The first step in the development of an objective prioritization framework is the selection of key project evaluation criteria. Each criterion should reflect a critical aspect of a project’s potential benefits based on stakeholders’ goals. The best criteria allow easy objective measurement and are independent of the other criteria. If criteria are too similar and measure similar attributes of a project, then this may constitute double-counting. The correlation of the scores leads to a bias for or against these projects.
Safety is the first prioritization criterion used. The TWG has recognized safety improvement as an important goal for the Study Area. A project is given a safety score of “1” if it addresses a safety issue identified in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum: Evaluation of Corridor Mobility Needs. Otherwise, the project receives a score of “0.” A project is considered to improve safety if the improvements would reduce the likelihood of a crash, collision, or other transportation-related hazard. Projects that address a safety need therefore receive a higher overall prioritization score.
The next prioritization criterion is whether the project improves access across the two Study Area highways: US 95 and CC-215. Improving access across these two highways is another explicit goal of the TWG and the study. A project improves mobility across the highways if
65 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study it provides a new direct connection not previously available to a particular mode or if it shortens the crossing distance for travelers using a particular mode and traveling in a particular direction across the freeways. All projects from Sections 2, 3, and 4 that facilitate mobility across the highways receive a score of “1,” while the remaining projects score “0.”
The third prioritization criterion examines whether the proposed improvements target pedestrians. Pedestrians are one of the broadest transportation constituencies, and the proposed pedestrian improvements all help to accommodate sensitive pedestrian groups including children, the disabled, and the elderly. A project benefits pedestrians if it improves the safety or comfort of any pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks, paths, or street crossings or if it provides new infrastructure for pedestrians. Any projects which make improvements for pedestrian infrastructure receive a score of “1” on this measure, while other projects score “0.”
The final criterion used in the prioritization framework is whether a project improves access to transit. The TWG has identified the accessibility and safety of transit stops and of the transit center as a fourth study priority. Projects that improve transit access promote transit ridership and improve the cost-effectiveness of RTC’s transit service. They also help to ensure that key corridors in the Study Area develop as a relatively transit supportive environment to accommodate travelers who do not have access to cars and provide a low- cost, accessible transportation option across and beyond the Study Area.
5.2 Prioritization Results
To reflect the fact that, overall, stakeholders do not necessarily accord each of the four goals described above equal importance, the prioritization framework assigns the four criteria different weights in calculating the overall prioritization score. A higher weight gives a particular criterion more importance in determining an alternative’s overall score. Safety is assigned a 35 percent weight while highway crossing improvements receive a 30 percent weight, pedestrian projects a 20 percent weight, and transit projects a 15 percent weight. Since the weights total 100 percent and each criterion has a binary “1” or “0” score, the total sum score for a given project is from a minimum of “0” to a maximum of “100.”
Because safety is recognized as an important goal not only by project stakeholders but also in local, regional, state, and national transportation policies, it receives the highest weight. The high weight reflects the overall high return on investment for safety improvements. As the central goal of the project, access across the freeways also receives a higher weight to its scores. On the other hand, pedestrian improvements and transit access are important but narrower goals within the context of the project, and therefore have lower scoring weights.
66 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
The most important attribute of the weights is their relative magnitude. In practice, none of the projects met more than two prioritization criteria. No project included both safety and highway crossing improvements. The weight values reflect safety as a dominating concern. Individually, none of the other criteria can match it. However, if a project scores on at least two other criteria, it at least matches the score of safety. Likewise, for highway crossing improvement projects, a combination of any two other criteria will rank higher. Pedestrian and transit-related improvements are important but are not high priority unless paired with another criterion. Based on the criteria weights, the projects fell into seven scoring groups summarized in Exhibit 5-1.
While project priority is an important consideration, project feasibility and ease of implementation are also important considerations in the programming process and are addressed in the subsequent section. Appendix A includes additional detail on each alternative as well as its prioritization score and suggested timeframe. Order of magnitude project cost estimates are developed in Section 6 where project timeframe is also suggested in more detail.
Exhibit 5-1: Summary of Project Prioritization by Project Area Rank Network Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Share On-Street Bicycle Lanes 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 15%
On-Street Highway Overpasses 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 5 6%
On-Street Equestrian Trail Crossings 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2%
On-Street Pedestrian Crossings 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13% Intersection On-Street 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 13% Improvements Off-Street Equestrian Trails 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 8 9%
Off-Street Multi-Use Trails 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 7 8%
Off-Street Sidewalks 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 13 14%
Transit Bus Stop Amenities 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 9 10%
Transit Transit Center 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3%
Transit Future Transit Service 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 6%
Total 24 22 5 1 16 14 7 89 100% Share 27% 25% 6% 1% 18% 16% 8% 100%
Projects ranked lower are higher priority based on their score. The maximum score was “55” and the minimum score was “0.” Exhibit 5-1 shows a significant number of the 89
67 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
total projects in the first two “high priority” score groups. These are the only projects that received a score in multiple categories. A significant number of projects are also in the “7” category meaning they received no points under any criterion. The projects are not grouped disproportionately in any one category, so the seven grades of priority do provide a useful distinction among projects.
Exhibit 5-2 shows the scores given each project for each scoring criterion. The table is arranged by the sections of this report and lists the prioritization score and project rank group for each project.
Exhibit 5-2: Project Alternative Scores Hwy Safety Xing Ped. Transit Project Project Section Alternative Projects Projects Projects Projects Score Rank Project Project Score Weights: 35% 30% 20% 15% Score Rank On-Street Alternatives – Highway Overpasses and Interchanges
Fort Apache / CC-215 – 2-1 0 1 1 0 0.5 2 Overpass
Oso Blanca / CC-215 – 2-1 0 1 1 0 0.5 2 Overpass
Sky Pointe / CC-215 – 2-1 0 1 1 0 0.5 2 Overpass
Grand Teton / US 95 – 2-1 0 1 0 0 0.3 4 Overpass
Grand Teton / US 95 - 2-1 0 0 0 0 0 7 Interchange
On-Street Alternatives – Intersection Improvements
Ann / Cimarron - Traffic Signal 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Installation
Durango / Deer Springs - 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Crosswalk Improvements
Durango / Dorrell - Traffic 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Signal Installation
Durango / Elkhorn - Crosswalk 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Improvements
Durango / Farm - Crosswalk 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Improvements
68 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Hwy Safety Xing Ped. Transit Project Project Section Alternative Projects Projects Projects Projects Score Rank
Durango / Oso Blanca - 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Crosswalk Improvements
Durango / Racel - Stop Sign 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Installation
Grand Teton / El Capitan - 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Traffic Signal Installation
Grand Teton / Grand Canyon - 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Traffic Signal Installation
Grand Teton / Hualapai - 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Traffic Signal Installation
Horse / Grand Canyon - Traffic 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Signal Installation
Horse / Hualapai - Traffic 2-2 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Signal Installation
On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings 5785 Centennial Center 2-3 Boulevard - New Intermediate 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Crosswalk Buffalo / Ann - Crosswalk 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Improvements
Buffalo / Deer Springs - New 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Crosswalk and Warning Signal
Centennial / Grand Montecito - 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Crosswalk Improvements
Centennial Center / Azure - 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Crosswalk Improvements
Durango / Brent - New Stop 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Signs
Durango / Centennial - 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Crosswalk Improvements
El Capitan / Horse - New Stop 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Signs
Gilcrease Brothers Park - New 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Intermediate Crosswalk
Mountain Ridge Park Entrance 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 - New Intermediate Crosswalk
69 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Hwy Safety Xing Ped. Transit Project Project Section Alternative Projects Projects Projects Projects Score Rank Ralph Cadwallader Middle 2-3 School - Crosswalk 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 Improvements Tropical Parkway Trail Crossing 2-3 1 0 1 0 0.55 1 - Crosswalk Improvements
On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Equestrian Crossings
Durango / Ackerman - 2-4 1 0 0 0 0.35 3 Construct Equestrian Crossing Racel St. Floyd Lamb Entrance 2-4 - Equestrian Crossing 1 0 0 0 0.35 3 Improvements
2-5 Buffalo Drive Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
On-Street Alternatives – Bicycle Lane Network
Centennial Center Parkway 2-5 1 0 0 1 0.5 2 Bike Lane
2-5 Deer Springs Way Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
2-5 Elkhorn Road Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
Farm Road / El Capitan Way 2-5 1 0 0 1 0.5 2 Bike Lane
2-5 Farm Road Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
2-5 Grand Canyon Drive Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
Horse Drive / Fort Apache 2-5 1 0 0 1 0.5 2 Road Bike Lane
2-5 Oso Blanca Road Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
2-5 Sky Pointe Drive Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
2-5 Tenaya Way Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
2-5 Tropical Parkway Bike Lane 1 0 0 1 0.5 2
Tule Springs Road / Sky Pointe 2-5 1 0 0 1 0.5 2 Drive Bike Lane
70 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Hwy Safety Xing Ped. Transit Project Project Section Alternative Projects Projects Projects Projects Score Rank
Off-Street Alternatives – Sidewalk Network Development
3-1 Durango Drive Sidewalk 0 1 1 0 0.5 2
3-1 Durango Drive Sidewalk 0 1 1 0 0.5 2
3-1 Centennial Parkway Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Centennial Parkway Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Deer Springs Way Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Deer Springs Way Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Deer Springs Way Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Durango Drive Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Elkhorn Road Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Farm Road Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Grand Teton Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Oso Blanca Road Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
3-1 Tropical Parkway Sidewalk 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
Off-Street Alternatives – Multi-Use Trail Networks
3-2 Las Vegas Beltway Trail 0 1 1 0 0.5 2
Improved Multi-Use Trail 3-2 1 0 0 0 0.35 3 Signage
3-2 El Campo Grande Trail 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
El Campo Grande-Tropical 3-2 0 0 1 0 0.2 5 Connector Trail
71 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Hwy Safety Xing Ped. Transit Project Project Section Alternative Projects Projects Projects Projects Score Rank March Brown Avenue 3-2 0 0 1 0 0.2 5 Connector Trail
3-2 US 95 Corridor Trail 0 0 1 0 0.2 5
Widening of Sidewalk on South 3-2 0 0 1 0 0.2 5 Side of Ann Road
Off-Street Alternatives – Equestrian Trail Network Development
Trail Design - Appropriate Trail 3-3 1 0 0 0 0.35 3 Buffers
Trail Design - Stable Trail 3-3 1 0 0 0 0.35 3 Substrate
Beltway Trail Western 3-3 0 0 0 0 0 7 Connection
Grand Teton Drive Equestrian 3-3 0 0 0 0 0 7 Trail Segment 1
Grand Teton Drive Equestrian 3-3 0 0 0 0 0 7 Trail Segment 2
3-3 Log Cabin Trail Connection 0 0 0 0 0 7
3-3 Trail Design - Trail Barriers 0 0 0 0 0 7
3-3 Trail Design - Tree Canopy 0 0 0 0 0 7
Transit Improvements – Transit Center Improvements
4-1 Additional Bicycle Parking 0 0 0 1 0.15 6
4-1 Additional Guidance Signs 0 0 0 1 0.15 6
4-1 Parking Expansion 0 0 0 1 0.15 6
Transit Improvements – Bus Stop Amenities
Bus Stop Improvements - Ann 4-2 1 0 0 1 0.5 2 / Drexel
Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 1 0 0 1 0.5 2 Durango / Dorrell
Bus Stop Improvements - Sky 4-2 1 0 0 1 0.5 2 Pointe / Ranch House
72 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Hwy Safety Xing Ped. Transit Project Project Section Alternative Projects Projects Projects Projects Score Rank Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 5705 Centennial Center
Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 5850 Centennial Center
Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Durango / Farm
Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Farm / Tule Springs
Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Grand Montecito / Centennial
Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Grand Montecito / Rome
Transit Improvements – Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service
Fort Apache Transit 4-3 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Infrastructure
Grand Canyon Drive Transit 4-3 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Infrastructure
Horse Drive Transit 4-3 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Infrastructure
Hualapai Way Transit 4-3 0 0 0 1 0.15 6 Infrastructure
4-3 Kyle Canyon Park-and-Ride 0 0 0 1 0.15 6
73 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
6. COST ESTIMATION
The next step in the programming of alternatives is the establishment of rough order of magnitude costs for each proposed alternative. Together the effectiveness measure provided by the prioritization score and the project cost estimate provide a comprehensive evaluation of an alternatives merit with respect to the existing transportation investment program. The two measures along with an estimate of the feasible timeframe for each alternative’s implementation support a recommendation for the initial programming of each project. Below is an explanation of the cost estimation approach followed by the results of the cost estimation.
6.1 Cost Estimation Approach
The proposed alternatives cover a wide variety of investments. However, each of the alternatives is a relatively straightforward improvement, so comparable project examples in from the last five years the Southern Nevada region typically exist for each alternative. As a result, the consultant team could rely on three straightforward sources to support the estimates: past reports, peer projects, and engineer’s estimates.
The cost estimation was divided between JPL Engineering and CH2M HILL, with JPL responsible for providing engineer’s estimates for specific alternatives. Cost estimate sources included past RTC reports, RTC contract costs, local agency capital investment program project estimates, regional cost databases, and bid sheets for comparable past projects. Appendix C shows the unit costs used for the cost estimates as well as their sources.
Larger projects tend to be addressed as lump sums based on engineer’s estimates or comparable projects. Many of the smaller projects were broken into discreet items for cost data were more easily available. With a unit cost approach, the quantities were estimated for each of the component construction elements. In the case of recommendations concerning planned projects, the cost estimates only address the marginal cost incurred on top of the planned project. The cost estimates are detailed in Appendix B and show the unit costs used where applicable. The cost estimates in Appendix B do not include the soft cost factors – design, agency program management, and contingency.
In the table in Exhibit 6-2, the consultant team has added three fixed factors on top of the construction costs to account for design costs, agency program management costs, and contingency. The design cost factor is twelve percent based on industry averages for such street and road projects. The agency program management costs are accounted for with an eight percent overhead factor. The contingency is set at ten percent since most of the alternatives involve relatively simple and low-risk improvements.
74 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
In most cases, the quantities were a distance in linear feet or a count of the component items. The product of the unit cost and the quantity produces the cost estimate for the component construction item. The sum of the component items creates an overall construction cost estimate for the alternative. Finally the design, program management, and contingency factors are all applied to generate the final cost estimate, listed in Exhibit 6-2 in the next section.
6.2 Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates
The proposed alternatives include a broad range of costs for the proposed alternatives. In order to provide an overall measure of cost-effectiveness, the analysis paired the project prioritization rank from Section 5 with the total project cost. In order to simplify the results, the alternatives have been placed into three groups for both cost and prioritization rank as shown in Exhibit 6-1. The table shows the highest priority projects in the top row, broken out by cost. The table shows a relative even distribution of projects by both cost and priority, which allows the RTC and local jurisdictions to select and add projects to the current investment program more easily.
Exhibit 6-1: Proposed Alternatives by Cost and Prioritization Rank Cost Magnitude Prioritization Rank $0-$10,000 $10,000-$250,000 $250,000 and up Total
Low Cost / Higher Medium Cost / Higher Higher Cost / 1-2 45 Priority: 13 Priority: 19 Higher Priority: 13
Low Cost / Medium Medium Cost / Higher Cost / 3-5 19 Priority: 7 Medium Priority: 6 Medium Priority: 6
Low Cost / Lower Medium Cost / Lower Higher Cost / Lower 6-7 21 Priority: 10 Priority: 7 Priority: 4
Total 30 32 23 85
Some projects, such as revisions to equestrian trail design guidance, would not require funding. On the other hand, the proposed highway crossing improvements would require significant additional planning and design and incur significant costs. The estimated cost of each alternative is a useful measure of the ease of implementation of a project. More costly projects likely require more complex design and implementation despite the fact that they may be more cost-effective than other options. Section 6-3 takes these factors in account in determining the recommended programming timeframe for each alternative.
Exhibit 6-2 documents the cost estimates for each individual alternative. In a couple of cases, related sidewalk improvements on a single street segment were grouped into a single
75 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
line item. As a result, the table below in Exhibit 6-2 lists only 85 alternatives instead of the full 89. Costs are fully parsed in Appendix B.
Exhibit 6-2: Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates for Proposed Alternatives Total Project Overall Project Section Alternative Cost Rank Assessment On-Street Alternatives – Highway Overpasses and Interchanges
2-1 Fort Apache / CC-215 - Overpass $650,000 2 Higher Cost / Higher Priority
2-1 Grand Teton / US 95 - Interchange $12,350,000 7 Higher Cost / Lower Priority
2-1 Grand Teton / US 95 - Overpass $2,366,000 4 Higher Cost / Medium Priority
2-1 Oso Blanca / CC-215 - Overpass $2,861,300 2 Higher Cost / Higher Priority
2-1 Sky Pointe / CC-215 - Overpass $2,873,000 2 Higher Cost / Higher Priority
On-Street Alternatives – Intersection Improvements
Ann / Cimarron - Traffic Signal 2-2 $552,500 1 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Installation Durango / Deer Springs - Crosswalk 2-2 $4,900 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Improvements Durango / Dorrell - Traffic Signal 2-2 $54,200 1 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Installation Durango / Elkhorn - Crosswalk 2-2 $4,900 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Improvements Durango / Farm - Crosswalk 2-2 $6,200 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Improvements Durango / Oso Blanca - Crosswalk 2-2 $2,600 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Improvements Durango / Racel - Traffic Signal 2-2 $552,500 1 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Installation Grand Teton / El Capitan - Traffic Signal 2-2 $552,500 1 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Installation Grand Teton / Grand Canyon - Traffic 2-2 $552,500 1 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Signal Installation Grand Teton / Hualapai - Traffic Signal 2-2 $552,500 1 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Installation Horse / Grand Canyon - Traffic Signal 2-2 $552,500 1 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Installation Horse / Hualapai - Traffic Signal 2-2 $552,500 1 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Installation On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings 5785 Centennial Center Boulevard - New 2-3 $48,000 1 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Intermediate Crosswalk
2-3 Buffalo / Ann - Crosswalk Improvements $150,500 1 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
76 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Overall Project Section Alternative Cost Rank Assessment Buffalo / Deer Springs - New Crosswalk 2-3 $45,100 1 Medium Cost / Higher Priority and Warning Signal Centennial / Grand Montecito - Crosswalk 2-3 $2,200 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Improvements Centennial Center / Azure - Crosswalk 2-3 $2,300 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Improvements
2-3 Durango / Brent - New Stop Signs $2,000 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority
Durango / Centennial - Crosswalk 2-3 $2,500 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Improvements
2-3 El Capitan / Horse - New Stop Signs $2,600 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority
Gilcrease Brothers Park - New 2-3 $48,100 1 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Intermediate Crosswalk Mountain Ridge Park Entrance - New 2-3 $48,000 1 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Intermediate Crosswalk Ralph Cadwallader Middle School - 2-3 $20,900 1 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Crosswalk Improvements Tropical Parkway Trail Crossing - 2-3 $3,000 1 Lower Cost / Higher Priority Crosswalk Improvements On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Equestrian Crossings Durango / Ackerman - Construct Medium Cost / Medium 2-4 $47,700 3 Equestrian Crossing Priority Racel St. Floyd Lamb Entrance - 2-4 $3,300 3 Lower Cost / Medium Priority Equestrian Crossing Improvements
On-Street Alternatives – Bicycle Lane Network Development
2-5 Buffalo Drive Bike Lane $25,500 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Centennial Center Parkway Bike Lane $54,200 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Deer Springs Way Bike Lane $10,100 2 Lower Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Elkhorn Road Bike Lane $11,300 2 Lower Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Farm Road / El Capitan Way Bike Lane $62,500 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Farm Road Bike Lane $51,400 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Grand Canyon Drive Bike Lane $148,300 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
Horse Drive / Fort Apache Road Bike 2-5 $75,000 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Lane
2-5 Oso Blanca Road Bike Lane $6,500 2 Lower Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Sky Pointe Drive Bike Lane $34,300 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
2-5 Tenaya Way Bike Lane $55,100 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
77 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Overall Project Section Alternative Cost Rank Assessment
2-5 Tropical Parkway Bike Lane $36,900 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
Tule Springs Road / Sky Pointe Drive 2-5 $39,000 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Bike Lane Off-Street Alternatives – Sidewalk Network Development Medium Cost / Medium 3-1 Centennial Parkway Sidewalk $36,400 5 Priority Medium Cost / Medium 3-1 Deer Springs Way Sidewalk $228,800 5 Priority
3-1 Durango Drive Sidewalk (at Oso Blanca) $634,800 2 Higher Cost / Higher Priority
3-1 Durango Drive Sidewalk (at Ann Road) $1,035,500 5 Higher Cost / Medium Priority
3-1 Elkhorn Road Sidewalk $5,600 5 Lower Cost / Medium Priority
3-1 Farm Road Sidewalk $9,500 5 Lower Cost / Medium Priority
Medium Cost / Medium 3-1 Grand Teton Sidewalk $16,400 5 Priority
3-1 Oso Blanca Road Sidewalk $6,000 5 Lower Cost / Medium Priority
3-1 Tropical Parkway Sidewalk $9,100 5 Lower Cost / Medium Priority
Off-Street Alternatives – Multi-Use Trail Network Development
3-2 El Campo Grande Trail $552,600 5 Higher Cost / Medium Priority
El Campo Grande-Tropical Connector 3-2 $530,300 5 Higher Cost / Medium Priority Trail Medium Cost / Medium 3-2 Improved Multi-Use Trail Signage $16,100 3 Priority
3-2 Las Vegas Beltway Trail $1,463,300 2 Higher Cost / Higher Priority
Medium Cost / Medium 3-2 March Brown Avenue Connector Trail $24,100 5 Priority
3-2 US 95 Corridor Trail $454,500 5 Higher Cost / Medium Priority
Widening of Sidewalk on South Side of 3-2 $705,900 5 Higher Cost / Medium Priority Ann Road
Off-Street Alternatives – Equestrian Trail Network Development
3-3 Beltway Trail Western Connection $618,800 7 Higher Cost / Lower Priority
Grand Teton Drive Equestrian Trail 3-3 $143,800 7 Medium Cost / Lower Priority Segment 1 Grand Teton Drive Equestrian Trail 3-3 $225,800 7 Medium Cost / Lower Priority Segment 2
78 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Overall Project Section Alternative Cost Rank Assessment
3-3 Log Cabin Trail Connection $217,400 7 Medium Cost / Lower Priority
Trail Design - Appropriate Trail Buffers 3-3 $0 3 Lower Cost / Medium Priority (plan revision) Trail Design - Stable Trail Substrate (plan 3-3 $0 3 Lower Cost / Medium Priority revision) Trail Design - Trail Barriers (plan 3-3 $0 7 Lower Cost / Lower Priority revision) Trail Design - Tree Canopy (plan 3-3 $0 7 Lower Cost / Lower Priority revision)
Transit Improvement Alternatives – Transit Center Improvements
4-1 Additional Bicycle Parking $4,300 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority
4-1 Additional Guidance Signs $1,300 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority
4-1 Parking Expansion $9,750,000 6 Higher Cost / Lower Priority
Transit Improvement Alternatives – Bus Stop Amenities Bus Stop Improvements - 5705 4-2 $42,100 6 Medium Cost / Lower Priority Centennial Center Bus Stop Improvements - 5850 4-2 $201,500 6 Medium Cost / Lower Priority Centennial Center
4-2 Bus Stop Improvements - Ann / Drexel $41,600 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority
Bus Stop Improvements - Durango / 4-2 $405,600 2 Higher Cost / Higher Priority Dorrell Bus Stop Improvements - Durango / 4-2 $403,000 6 Higher Cost / Lower Priority Farm Bus Stop Improvements - Farm / Tule 4-2 $68,000 6 Medium Cost / Lower Priority Springs Bus Stop Improvements - Grand 4-2 $78,000 6 Medium Cost / Lower Priority Montecito / Centennial Bus Stop Improvements - Grand 4-2 $0 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority Montecito / Rome (planned development) Bus Stop Improvements - Sky Pointe / 4-2 $31,100 2 Medium Cost / Higher Priority Ranch House
Transit Improvement Alternatives – Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service
Fort Apache Transit Infrastructure 4-3 $0 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority (planned development) Grand Canyon Drive Transit 4-3 $0 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority Infrastructure (planned development) Horse Drive Transit Infrastructure 4-3 $0 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority (planned development) Hualapai Way Transit Infrastructure 4-3 $0 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority (planned development) Kyle Canyon Park-and-Ride (planned 4-3 $0 6 Lower Cost / Lower Priority development) 79 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
This report does not address the identification of funding sources or the assignment of funding responsibility for the projects listed above. That is the responsibility of the local jurisdictions and RTC. However, several of the alternatives listed above have no stated cost estimate. In the cases where the alternative has “planned development” listed, it is assumed that the local jurisdiction will hold the developer responsible the infrastructure development. The other cases are policy change recommendations that can be accomplished administratively.
Exhibit 6-3 summarizes the total costs according to the type of improvement. Highway crossing improvements dominate in terms of cost but also provide key connections. Intersection improvements are a relatively high cost area but also an important element to improve overall street safety. The high total for the transit center is a reflection of a potential future parking structure to increase capacity.
Exhibit 6-3: Summary of Project Costs by Investment Type Number of Section Projects Total Cost 2-1 Highway Overpasses and Interchanges 5 $21,100,300 2-2 Intersection Improvements 12 $3,940,300 2-3 Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings 12 $375,200 2-4 Intermediate Equestrian Trail Crossings 2 $51,000 2-5 Bicycle Lane Network 13 $610,100 3-1 Sidewalk Network 9 $1,982,100 3-2 Multi-Use Trail Network 7 $3,746,800 3-3 Equestrian Trail Network 8 $1,205,800 4-1 Transit Center 3 $9,755,600 4-2 Bus Stop Amenities 9 $1,270,900 4-3 Future Transit Service 5 $0 Grand Total 85 $44,038,100
6.3 Project Timeframes
After establishing an initial prioritization and an estimated cost, the next step in programming projects is to separate them by timeframe. This section proposes a timeframe for the completion of each project. For purposes of this study, the projects have been placed in three timeframe groups: short term, medium term, and long term. The periods corresponding to these three timeframes are not exact. Short term is approximately within the next two years. Medium term projects would take place within two to ten years, and long term projects are more than ten years from completion. Because of the uncertainty of future development beyond the Study Area to the northwest, this study has emphasized the short and medium term. However, several projects do fall into the long term. Many projects are classified as “short to medium term” or “medium to long term.” These classifications recognize that the uncertainty in programming the project and reflect that the project could fall into either timeframe.
80 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
To determine the likely timeframe of each of the proposed projects, the prioritization framework takes several factors into account. Unlike the prioritization score, the placement of projects into distinct timeframes is not based on a strict scoring system. For individual projects, unique characteristics often determine a project’s timeframe. However, three main factors are important in determining the timeframe for most projects.
The project priority is the first factor in a project’s timeframe. Based on the prioritization results in the previous section, projects fall into seven groups of relative priority. High priority projects, those in priority groups “1” and “2,” have been placed in the earliest feasible timeframe.
The second factor used to determine a project’s timeframe is whether the project serves an immediate or future need. Projects meeting a future needs are classified as medium term or later. Projects may be higher priority but only a meet a future need. For instance, the Oso Blanca Road and Sky Pointe Drive connections are relatively high priority because they provide pedestrian connections and a connection over CC-215, but since they are a part of the future reconstruction of the interchange, they are classified as long term projects.
The final main factor in determining a project’s timeframe is the planning and development time needed for the project. The earliest feasible implementation date for a project is a binding constraint on each project’s timeframe. While this is the most subjective of the three factors, it is a necessary element to program a project for a particular timeframe. The cost estimates in Exhibit 6-2 are an important indicator of the level of effort to complete the planning and preliminary design of a project. Certain low cost projects such as the installation of striping and warning signs needs minimal planning while high cost projects such as the widening of a sidewalk on an overpass require significant design effort to minimize the extra cost of the additional structure and account for alternate modes traffic flows on the approaches.
Other considerations may also factor into how a project is programmed. These include the availability of funding, the project’s inclusion in existing transportation plans, and the prior completion of any design or other planning work. The proposed timeframe assigned to each project is listed as part of the table in Appendix A.
81 Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
A. APPENDIX A
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe - Construct overpass to provide residential On-Street Highway Fort Apache / CC-215 - neighborhood connectivity 2-1 50% 2 Short Facilities Overpasses Overpass - Include bike lanes and multi-use trail connection - Construct overpass for east-west On-Street Highway Grand Teton / US 95 - connectivity 2-1 30% 4 Medium Facilities Overpasses Overpass - Include bike lanes and multi-use trail connection
On-Street Highway Grand Teton / US 95 - - Construct northbound off-ramp and 2-1 0% 7 Medium Facilities Overpasses Interchange southbound on-ramp
- Construct overpass to provide access to On-Street Highway Oso Blanca / CC-215 - Town Center services and minimize 2-1 50% 2 Long Facilities Overpasses Overpass interchange barrier - Include bike lanes - Construct overpass to provide access to On-Street Highway Sky Pointe / CC-215 - Town Center services and minimize 2-1 50% 2 Long Facilities Overpasses Overpass interchange barrier - Include bike lanes
Ann / Cimarron - On-Street Intersection - Install traffic signals 2-2 Traffic Signal 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements - Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard Installation
- Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing Durango / Deer distance On-Street Intersection 2-2 Springs - Crosswalk - Extend median and install median 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Improvements countdown signal - Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard Durango / Dorrell - - Install pedestrian actuated traffic signals On-Street Intersection 2-2 Traffic Signal - Construct median pedestrian refuge as part 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Installation of median barrier
i Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe - Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing Durango / Elkhorn - distance On-Street Intersection 2-2 Crosswalk - Extend median and install median 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Improvements countdown signal - Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard Durango / Racel - On-Street Intersection 2-2 Traffic Signal Install traffic signals 55% 1 Short Facilities Improvements Installation Durango / Oso Blanca On-Street Intersection - Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing 2-2 - Crosswalk 55% 1 Short Facilities Improvements distance Improvements - Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing Durango / Farm - distance On-Street Intersection 2-2 Crosswalk - Use unused left turn lane space to allow 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Improvements installation of a median refuge on the intersection’s north side Grand Teton / El On-Street Intersection 2-2 Capitan - Traffic Signal Install traffic signals 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Installation Grand Teton / Grand On-Street Intersection 2-2 Canyon - Traffic Signal Install traffic signals 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Installation Grand Teton / Hualapai On-Street Intersection 2-2 - Traffic Signal Install traffic signals 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Installation Horse / Grand Canyon On-Street Intersection 2-2 - Traffic Signal Install traffic signals 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Installation Horse / Hualapai - On-Street Intersection 2-2 Traffic Signal Install traffic signals 55% 1 Medium Facilities Improvements Installation 5785 Centennial - Install crosswalk and median refuge On-Street Pedestrian Center Boulevard - 2-3 - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings New Intermediate - Install warning signs Crosswalk Buffalo / Ann - - Remove non-standard crosswalk On-Street Pedestrian 2-3 Crosswalk - Complete multi-use trail connection west to 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings Improvements the Centennial Center Blvd intersection
ii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe Buffalo / Deer Springs - Install crosswalk On-Street Pedestrian 2-3 - New Crosswalk and - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings Warning Signal - Install warning signs Centennial / Grand On-Street Pedestrian Short - 2-3 Montecito - Crosswalk Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard 55% 1 Facilities Crossings Medium Improvements Centennial Center / On-Street Pedestrian Short - 2-3 Azure - Crosswalk Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard 55% 1 Facilities Crossings Medium Improvements On-Street Pedestrian Durango / Brent - New 2-3 Install stop signs 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings Stop Signs Durango / Centennial - On-Street Pedestrian Short - 2-3 Crosswalk Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard 55% 1 Facilities Crossings Medium Improvements
On-Street Pedestrian El Capitan / Horse - - Install stop signs 2-3 55% 1 Short Facilities Crossings New Stop Signs - Install zebra crosswalk
Gilcrease Brothers Park On-Street Pedestrian - Install crosswalk and median refuge 2-3 - New Intermediate 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal Crosswalk Mountain Ridge Park - Install crosswalk On-Street Pedestrian Entrance - New 2-3 - Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings Intermediate - Install warning signs Crosswalk Ralph Cadwallader On-Street Pedestrian Middle School - 2-3 Install Danish offsets in crosswalks 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings Crosswalk Improvements Tropical Parkway Trail On-Street Pedestrian 2-3 Crossing - Crosswalk Construct median refuge 55% 1 Medium Facilities Crossings Improvements Durango / Ackerman - - Install ramps and striping On-Street Equestrian 2-4 Construct Equestrian - Install warning signs 35% 3 Medium Facilities Trail Crossings Crossing - Install pedestrian/equestrian actuated signal
iii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe Racel St. Floyd Lamb On-Street Equestrian Entrance - Equestrian - Install ramps and striping 2-4 35% 3 Medium Facilities Trail Crossings Crossing - Install improved warning signs Improvements On-Street Complete bike lane from Elkhorn Drive to Deer Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes Buffalo Drive Bike Lane 50% 2 Facilities Springs Way: 3,220 ft. Medium On-Street Centennial Center Complete bike lane from Fort Apache Road to Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Parkway Bike Lane Grand Montecito Parkway: 6,840 ft. Medium On-Street Deer Springs Way Bike Complete bike lane from Cimarron Road to Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Lane Rosinwood Street: 1,280 ft. Medium On-Street Elkhorn Road Bike Complete bike lane from US 95 to Cimarron Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Lane Road: 1,430 ft. Medium On-Street Farm Road / El Capitan Complete bike lane from Racel Street to Tule Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Way Bike Lane Springs Road: 7,890 ft. Medium On-Street Complete bike lane from Oso Blanca Road to Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes Farm Road Bike Lane 50% 2 Facilities Tee Pee Lane: 6,480 ft. Medium On-Street Grand Canyon Drive Complete bike lane from Horse Drive to Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Bike Lane Echelon Point Drive: 18,710 ft. Medium On-Street Horse Drive / Fort Complete bike lane from Grand Canyon Drive Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Apache Road Bike Lane to Iron Mountain Road: 9,460 ft. Medium On-Street Oso Blanca Road Bike Complete bike lane from Farm Road to Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Lane Gilcrease Avenue: 820 ft. Medium On-Street Sky Pointe Drive Bike Complete bike lane from Azure Drive to Ann Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Lane Road: 4,330 ft. Medium On-Street Complete bike lane from Azure Drive to Ann Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes Tenaya Way Bike Lane 50% 2 Facilities Road: 6,950 ft. Medium On-Street Tropical Parkway Bike Complete bike lane from Durango Drive to Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes 50% 2 Facilities Lane Centennial Center Boulevard: 4,660 ft. Medium Tule Springs Road / On-Street Complete bike lane from Farm Road to Short - 2-5 Bicycle Lanes Sky Pointe Drive Bike 50% 2 Facilities Cimarron Road: 4,920 ft. Medium Lane Complete temporary sidewalk from Durango Off-Street Centennial Parkway 3-1 Sidewalks Drive to Grand Montecito Parkway: 2,230 ft., 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk temporary asphalt
iv Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe Complete temporary sidewalk from Durango Off-Street Centennial Parkway 3-1 Sidewalks Drive to Southbound US 95 ramps: 1,510 ft., 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk temporary asphalt Complete temporary sidewalk from Tee Pee Off-Street Deer Springs Way 3-1 Sidewalks Lane to Fort Apache Road: 730 ft., standard 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk cement Complete temporary sidewalk from Campbell Off-Street Deer Springs Way 3-1 Sidewalks Road to Durango Drive: 330 ft., temporary 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk asphalt Complete temporary sidewalk from Campbell Off-Street Deer Springs Way 3-1 Sidewalks Road to Durango Drive: 1,230 ft., temporary 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk asphalt Complete temporary sidewalk from Elkhorn Off-Street Durango Drive 3-1 Sidewalks Road to Oso Blanca Road: 1,090 ft., standard 50% 2 Short Facilities Sidewalk cement Complete temporary sidewalk from Elkhorn Off-Street Durango Drive 3-1 Sidewalks Road to Oso Blanca Road: 1,080 ft., standard 50% 2 Short Facilities Sidewalk cement Complete temporary sidewalk from Centennial Off-Street Durango Drive 3-1 Sidewalks Parkway to Ann Road: 3,540 ft., standard 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk cement Complete temporary sidewalk from Campbell Off-Street 3-1 Sidewalks Elkhorn Road Sidewalk Road to Durango Drive: 570 ft., temporary 20% 5 Short Facilities asphalt Complete temporary sidewalk from Durango Off-Street 3-1 Sidewalks Farm Road Sidewalk Drive to Tule Springs Road: 970 ft., temporary 20% 5 Short Facilities asphalt Complete temporary sidewalk from Oso Blanca Off-Street 3-1 Sidewalks Grand Teton Sidewalk Road to Tee Pee Lane: 1,680 ft., temporary 20% 5 Short Facilities asphalt Complete temporary sidewalk from Severence Off-Street Oso Blanca Road 3-1 Sidewalks Lane to Durango Drive: 610 ft., temporary 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk asphalt Complete temporary sidewalk from Durango Off-Street Tropical Parkway 3-1 Sidewalks Drive to Centennial Center Boulevard: 930 ft., 20% 5 Short Facilities Sidewalk temporary asphalt
v Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe Complete two trail segments using the Off-Street stormwater drainage right-of-way on El Campo Medium - 3-2 Multi-Use Trails El Campo Grande Trail 20% 5 Facilities Grande to connect to Centennial Center Long Boulevard: 3,210 ft. Complete a trail segment on the perimeter of El Campo Grande- Off-Street the stormwater detention facility connecting Medium - 3-2 Multi-Use Trails Tropical Connector 20% 5 Facilities the Tropical Parkway trail alignment with the Long Trail El Campo Grande trail alignment: 3,080 ft. Off-Street Improved Multi-Use Add regulatory, warning, and guidance signs 3-2 Multi-Use Trails 35% 3 Medium Facilities Trail Signage at key trail locations
Complete the trail segment paralleling CC-215 Off-Street Las Vegas Beltway Medium - 3-2 Multi-Use Trails from Grand Canyon to Grand Montecito 50% 2 Facilities Trail Long Parkway: 8,500 ft.
Complete the short trail segment to connect Off-Street March Brown Avenue 3-2 Multi-Use Trails Cimarron Road and March Brown Avenue with 20% 5 Medium Facilities Connector Trail the multi-use trail directly to the north: 140 ft. Complete the trail segment connecting El Off-Street Medium - 3-2 Multi-Use Trails US 95 Corridor Trail Capitan Way north to the Grand Teton 20% 5 Facilities Long crossing: 2,640 ft. Widening of Sidewalk Widen the sidewalk on the south side of Ann Off-Street Medium - 3-2 Multi-Use Trails on South Side of Ann Road between Grand Montecito Parkway and 20% 5 Facilities Long Road Cimarron Road: 3,760 ft. Provide an equestrian trail connection parallel Off-Street Equestrian Beltway Trail Western Medium - 3-3 to the Las Vegas Beltway Trail from Grand 0% 7 Facilities Trails Connection Long Canyon Drive to public lands Grand Teton Drive Off-Street Equestrian Temporary trail connection from the Grand 3-3 Equestrian Trail 0% 7 Short Facilities Trails Teton underpass to Tee Pee Lane: 1,720 ft. Segment 1 Grand Teton Drive Off-Street Equestrian Temporary trail connection from Grand Canyon 3-3 Equestrian Trail 0% 7 Short Facilities Trails Drive west to Hualapai Way: 2,700 ft. Segment 2 Provide an equestrian trail connection along Off-Street Equestrian Log Cabin Trail Log Cabin Way from the El Capitan Way Medium - 3-3 0% 7 Facilities Trails Connection equestrian trail to Floyd Lamb State Park: Long 2,600 ft. vi Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe Trail Design - Address trail proximity to potential hazards Off-Street Equestrian Short - 3-3 Appropriate Trail such as drainage channels and maintain safe 35% 3 Facilities Trails Medium Buffers buffer distances. Add guidelines on trail materials and stability Off-Street Equestrian Trail Design - Stable for ramps, crossings, bridges, etc. to avoid Short - 3-3 35% 3 Facilities Trails Trail Substrate resonance and other characteristics unfriendly Medium to horses. Ensure trails do not include obstructions that Off-Street Equestrian Trail Design - Trail Short - 3-3 inhibit legitimate trail uses such as horse- 0% 7 Facilities Trails Barriers Medium drawn carts. Add recommended tree species to the City of Off-Street Equestrian Trail Design - Tree Short - 3-3 Las Vegas Recreation Trails Element 0% 7 Facilities Trails Canopy Medium emphasizing canopy trees. Additional Bicycle 4-1 Transit Transit Center Install additional secure bicycle parking 15% 6 Short Parking
Additional Guidance Install additional guidance signs to raise 4-1 Transit Transit Center 15% 6 Short Signs awareness and visibility of the facility
Potential parking expansion in a raised 4-1 Transit Transit Center Parking Expansion 15% 6 Long structure
Bus Stop Bus Stop Move bus stop to right turn pocket 100 feet to 4-2 Transit Improvements - 5705 15% 6 Medium Amenities the west Centennial Center Bus Stop Bus Stop 4-2 Transit Improvements - 5850 Install northbound bus turnout 15% 6 Medium Amenities Centennial Center Bus Stop Move westbound stop location east to the Bus Stop Short - 4-2 Transit Improvements - Ann / empty parcel at the Rio Vista intersection and 50% 2 Amenities Medium Drexel install a bus shelter Install a bus turnouts the northbound stop and Bus Stop Bus Stop move the southbound stop north of Dorrell 4-2 Transit Improvements - 50% 2 Medium Amenities Lane and install a bus turnout at the new Durango / Dorrell location
vii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Section Subsection Alternative Description Score Rank Timeframe Bus Stop Bus Stop Install bus shelters at both the northbound 4-2 Transit Improvements - 15% 6 Medium Amenities and southbound stops Durango / Farm Bus Stop Bus Stop Install bus shelters at both the eastbound and 4-2 Transit Improvements - Farm 15% 6 Medium Amenities westbound stops / Tule Springs Bus Stop Install northbound bus turnout and move Bus Stop Medium - 4-2 Transit Improvements - Grand southbound stop to the southeast corner of 15% 6 Amenities Long Montecito / Centennial the intersection on Centennial Center Blvd Bus Stop Bus Stop Install northbound bus turnout as part of new Short - 4-2 Transit Improvements - Grand 15% 6 Amenities development Medium Montecito / Rome Bus Stop Bus Stop Install crosswalk and sidewalk waiting area to 4-2 Transit Improvements - Sky 50% 2 Short Amenities make the stop accessible Pointe / Ranch House Future Transit Fort Apache Transit Require bus turnouts and bus pads in strategic Short - 4-3 Transit 15% 6 Service Infrastructure locations as part of new development Medium Future Transit Grand Canyon Drive Require bus turnouts and bus pads in strategic Short - 4-3 Transit 15% 6 Service Transit Infrastructure locations as part of new development Medium
viii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
B. APPENDIX B
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Highway Fort Apache Road / CC-215 Overpasses and Fort Apache / CC-215 - Overpass - Alternate Modes Lump 2-1 Interchanges Overpass Improvements 1 Sum $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Highway Overpasses and Grand Teton / US 95 - Grand Teton Drive / US 95 1/2 Lump 2-1 Interchanges Interchange Interchange 1 Sum $9,500,000 $9,500,000 $9,500,000 Highway Grand Teton Drive / US 95 Overpasses and Grand Teton / US 95 - Overpass - Alternate Modes Lump 2-1 Interchanges Overpass Improvements 1 Sum $1,820,000 $1,820,000 $1,820,000 Highway Oso Blanca Road / CC-215 Overpasses and Oso Blanca / CC-215 - Underpass - Alternate Modes Lump 2-1 Interchanges Overpass Improvements 1 Sum $2,201,000 $2,201,000 $2,201,000 Highway Sky Pointe Drive / CC-215 Overpasses and Sky Pointe / CC-215 - Overpass - Alternate Modes Lump 2-1 Interchanges Overpass Improvements 1 Sum $2,201,000 $2,201,000 $2,210,000 Intersection Ann / Cimarron - Traffic Lump 2-2 Improvements Signal Installation 4-way traffic signal installation 1 Sum $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Removal of the single corner pedestrian / ADA ramp and installation of 2 pedestrian / ADA Intersection Durango / Deer Springs - ramps, one for each crosswalk (to 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements shorten the crossing distance) 4 Each $500 $2,000 $3,800 Intersection Durango / Deer Springs - Standard white zebra stripe Linear 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements pedestrian crossing 390 Foot $5 $1,775 Intersection Durango / Dorrell - Traffic Pedestrian Warning Signal - 3 2-2 Improvements Signal Installation Phase 2 Each $17,000 $34,000 $41,700 Intersection Durango / Dorrell - Traffic Median Pedestrian Refuge 2-2 Improvements Signal Installation (Standard) 1 Each $7,700 $7,700 Removal of the single corner pedestrian / ADA ramp and installation of 2 pedestrian / ADA Intersection Durango / Elkhorn - ramps, one for each crosswalk (to 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements shorten the crossing distance) 4 Each $500 $2,000 $3,800 Intersection Durango / Elkhorn - Standard white zebra stripe Linear 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements pedestrian crossing 390 Foot $5 $1,775
ix Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Removal of the single corner pedestrian / ADA ramp and installation of 2 pedestrian / ADA Intersection Durango / Farm - ramps, one for each crosswalk (to 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements shorten the crossing distance) 4 Each $500 $2,000 $4,800 Intersection Durango / Farm - Standard white zebra stripe Linear 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements pedestrian crossing 110 Foot $5 $501 Intersection Durango / Farm - Median Pedestrian Refuge 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements (Standard) 1 Each $2,250 $2,250 Removal of the single corner pedestrian / ADA ramp and installation of 2 pedestrian / ADA Intersection Durango / Oso Blanca - ramps, one for each crosswalk (to 2-2 Improvements Crosswalk Improvements shorten the crossing distance) 4 Each $500 $2,000 $2,000 Intersection Durango / Racel - Traffic Lump 2-2 Improvements Signal Installation 4-way traffic signal installation 1 Sum $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Intersection Grand Teton / El Capitan - Lump 2-2 Improvements Traffic Signal Installation 4-way traffic signal installation 1 Sum $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Grand Teton / Grand Intersection Canyon - Traffic Signal Lump 2-2 Improvements Installation 4-way traffic signal installation 1 Sum $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Intersection Grand Teton / Hualapai - Lump 2-2 Improvements Traffic Signal Installation 4-way traffic signal installation 1 Sum $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Intersection Horse / Grand Canyon - Lump 2-2 Improvements Traffic Signal Installation 4-way traffic signal installation 1 Sum $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Intersection Horse / Hualapai - Traffic Lump 2-2 Improvements Signal Installation 4-way traffic signal installation 1 Sum $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Intermediate 5785 Centennial Center Pedestrian Boulevard - New Pedestrian Warning Signal - 3 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk Phase 2 Each $17,000 $34,000 $36,900 Intermediate 5785 Centennial Center Pedestrian Boulevard - New Median Pedestrian Refuge 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk (Standard) 1 Each $2,250 $2,250 Intermediate 5785 Centennial Center Pedestrian Boulevard - New Linear 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk Pedestrian Crossing Striping 70 Foot $5 $319 Intermediate 5785 Centennial Center Pedestrian Boulevard - New 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk Warning Sign Installation 2 Each $165 $330
x Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Intermediate Pedestrian Buffalo / Ann - Crosswalk Remove non-standard crosswalk 2-3 Crossings Improvements as part of next scheduled overlay 0 n/a $0 $0 $115,800 Intermediate Pedestrian Buffalo / Ann - Crosswalk Linear 2-3 Crossings Improvements Multi-Use trail 10' 1085 Foot $107 $115,845 Intermediate Buffalo / Deer Springs - Pedestrian New Crosswalk and Pedestrian Warning Signal - 3 2-3 Crossings Warning Signal Phase 2 Each $17,000 $34,000 $34,700 Intermediate Buffalo / Deer Springs - Pedestrian New Crosswalk and Linear 2-3 Crossings Warning Signal Pedestrian Crossing Striping 85 Foot $5 $387 Intermediate Buffalo / Deer Springs - Pedestrian New Crosswalk and 2-3 Crossings Warning Signal Warning Sign Installation 2 Each $165 $330 Intermediate Centennial / Grand Pedestrian Montecito - Crosswalk Linear 2-3 Crossings Improvements Pedestrian Crossing Striping 370 Foot $5 $1,684 $1,700 Intermediate Pedestrian Centennial Center / Azure - Linear 2-3 Crossings Crosswalk Improvements Pedestrian Crossing Striping 400 Foot $5 $1,820 $1,800 Intermediate Pedestrian Durango / Brent - New Stop 2-3 Crossings Signs Stop Sign Installation 4 Each $165 $660 $1,500 Intermediate Pedestrian Durango / Brent - New Stop 2-3 Crossings Signs Warning Sign Installation 4 Each $165 $660 Intermediate Pedestrian Durango / Brent - New Stop 2-3 Crossings Signs Stop Sign Pavement Striping 4 Per Lane $55 $218 Intermediate Pedestrian Durango / Centennial - Linear 2-3 Crossings Crosswalk Improvements Pedestrian Crossing Striping 410 Foot $5 $1,866 $1,900 Intermediate Pedestrian El Capitan / Horse - New 2-3 Crossings Stop Signs Stop Sign Installation 4 Each $165 $660 $2,000 Intermediate Pedestrian El Capitan / Horse - New 2-3 Crossings Stop Signs Warning Sign Installation 4 Each $165 $660 Intermediate Pedestrian El Capitan / Horse - New 2-3 Crossings Stop Signs Stop Sign Pavement Striping 4 Per Lane $55 $218
xi Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Intermediate Pedestrian El Capitan / Horse - New Linear 2-3 Crossings Stop Signs Pedestrian Crossing Striping 100 Foot $5 $455 Intermediate Gilcrease Brothers Park - Pedestrian New Intermediate Pedestrian Warning Signal - 3 2-3 Crossings Crosswalk Phase 2 Each $17,000 $34,000 $37,000 Intermediate Gilcrease Brothers Park - Pedestrian New Intermediate Median Pedestrian Refuge 2-3 Crossings Crosswalk (Standard) 1 Each $2,250 $2,250 Intermediate Gilcrease Brothers Park - Pedestrian New Intermediate Linear 2-3 Crossings Crosswalk Pedestrian Crossing Striping 85 Foot $5 $387 Intermediate Gilcrease Brothers Park - Pedestrian New Intermediate 2-3 Crossings Crosswalk Warning Sign Installation 2 Each $165 $330 Intermediate Mountain Ridge Park Pedestrian Entrance - New 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk Pedestrian Warning Signal 2 Each $17,000 $34,000 $36,900 Intermediate Mountain Ridge Park Pedestrian Entrance - New Linear 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk Pedestrian Crossing Striping 70 Foot $5 $319 Intermediate Mountain Ridge Park Pedestrian Entrance - New Median Pedestrian Refuge 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk (Standard) 1 Each $2,250 $2,250 Intermediate Mountain Ridge Park Pedestrian Entrance - New 2-3 Crossings Intermediate Crosswalk Warning Sign Installation 2 Each $165 $330 Intermediate Ralph Cadwallader Middle Pedestrian School - Crosswalk Median Pedestrian Refuge (Danish 2-3 Crossings Improvements Offset) 2 Each $7,695 $15,390 $16,100 Intermediate Ralph Cadwallader Middle Pedestrian School - Crosswalk Linear 2-3 Crossings Improvements Pedestrian Crossing Striping 160 Foot $5 $728 Intermediate Tropical Parkway Trail Pedestrian Crossing - Crosswalk Median Pedestrian Refuge 2-3 Crossings Improvements (Standard) 1 Each $2,250 $2,250 $2,300 Intermediate Durango / Ackerman - Equestrian Trail Construct Equestrian 2-4 Crossings Crossing Pedestrian Warning Signal 2 Each $17,000 $34,000 $36,700 Intermediate Durango / Ackerman - Equestrian Trail Construct Equestrian Linear 2-4 Crossings Crossing Equestrian Crossing Striping 85 Foot $5 $387
xii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Intermediate Durango / Ackerman - Equestrian Trail Construct Equestrian Construction of equestrian- 2-4 Crossings Crossing accessible sidewalk ramps 2 Each $1,000 $2,000 Intermediate Durango / Ackerman - Equestrian Trail Construct Equestrian 2-4 Crossings Crossing Warning Sign Installation 2 Each $165 $330 Intermediate Racel St. Floyd Lamb Equestrian Trail Entrance - Equestrian Linear 2-4 Crossings Crossing Improvements Equestrian Crossing Striping 45 Foot $5 $205 $2,500 Intermediate Racel St. Floyd Lamb Equestrian Trail Entrance - Equestrian Construction of equestrian- 2-4 Crossings Crossing Improvements accessible sidewalk ramps 2 Each $1,000 $2,000 Intermediate Racel St. Floyd Lamb Equestrian Trail Entrance - Equestrian 2-4 Crossings Crossing Improvements Warning Sign Installation 2 Each $165 $330 Bicycle Lane Linear 2-5 Network Buffalo Drive Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 3220 Foot $6 $19,642 $19,600 Bicycle Lane Centennial Center Parkway Linear 2-5 Network Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 6840 Foot $6 $41,724 $41,700 Bicycle Lane Deer Springs Way Bike Linear 2-5 Network Lane Bike Lane Painting 1280 Foot $6 $7,808 $7,800 Bicycle Lane Linear 2-5 Network Elkhorn Road Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 1430 Foot $6 $8,723 $8,700 Bicycle Lane Farm Road / El Capitan Linear 2-5 Network Way Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 7890 Foot $6 $48,129 $48,100 Bicycle Lane Linear 2-5 Network Farm Road Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 6480 Foot $6 $39,528 $39,500 Bicycle Lane Grand Canyon Drive Bike Linear 2-5 Network Lane Bike Lane Painting 18710 Foot $6 $114,131 $114,100 Bicycle Lane Horse Drive / Fort Apache Linear 2-5 Network Road Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 9460 Foot $6 $57,706 $57,700 Bicycle Lane Linear 2-5 Network Oso Blanca Road Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 820 Foot $6 $5,002 $5,000 Bicycle Lane Linear 2-5 Network Sky Pointe Drive Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 4330 Foot $6 $26,413 $26,400 Bicycle Lane Linear 2-5 Network Tenaya Way Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 6950 Foot $6 $42,395 $42,400 Bicycle Lane Linear 2-5 Network Tropical Parkway Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 4660 Foot $6 $28,426 $28,400 Bicycle Lane Tule Springs Road / Sky Linear 2-5 Network Pointe Drive Bike Lane Bike Lane Painting 4920 Foot $6 $30,012 $30,000 xiii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Sidewalk Centennial Parkway 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 2230 Foot $8 $16,725 $16,700 Sidewalk Centennial Parkway 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 1510 Foot $8 $11,325 $11,300 Sidewalk Linear 3-1 Network Deer Springs Way Sidewalk 5' Standard PCC Sidewalk 730 Foot $225 $164,250 $164,300 Sidewalk 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Deer Springs Way Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 330 Foot $8 $2,475 $2,500 Sidewalk 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Deer Springs Way Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 1230 Foot $8 $9,225 $9,200 Sidewalk Linear 3-1 Network Durango Drive Sidewalk 5' Standard PCC Sidewalk 1090 Foot $225 $245,250 $245,300 Sidewalk Linear 3-1 Network Durango Drive Sidewalk 5' Standard PCC Sidewalk 1080 Foot $225 $243,000 $243,000 Sidewalk Linear 3-1 Network Durango Drive Sidewalk 5' Standard PCC Sidewalk 3540 Foot $225 $796,500 $796,500 Sidewalk 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Elkhorn Road Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 570 Foot $8 $4,275 $4,300 Sidewalk 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Farm Road Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 970 Foot $8 $7,275 $7,300 Sidewalk 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Grand Teton Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 1680 Foot $8 $12,600 $12,600 Sidewalk 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Oso Blanca Road Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 610 Foot $8 $4,575 $4,600 Sidewalk 5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt Linear 3-1 Network Tropical Parkway Sidewalk Sidewalk Path 930 Foot $8 $6,975 $7,000 Multi-Use Trail Multi-Use Trail 14' with Linear 3-2 Network El Campo Grande Trail Landscaping 3210 Foot $132 $425,068 $425,100 Multi-Use Trail El Campo Grande-Tropical Multi-Use Trail 14' with Linear 3-2 Network Connector Trail Landscaping 3080 Foot $132 $407,854 $407,900 Multi-Use Trail Improved Multi-Use Trail 3-2 Network Signage Warning Sign Installation 75 Each $165 $12,375 $12,400 Multi-Use Trail Multi-Use Trail 14' with Linear 3-2 Network Las Vegas Beltway Trail Landscaping 8500 Foot $132 $1,125,570 $1,125,600 Multi-Use Trail March Brown Avenue Multi-Use Trail 10' with Linear 3-2 Network Connector Trail Landscaping 140 Foot $132 $18,539 $18,500 Multi-Use Trail Multi-Use Trail 10' with Linear 3-2 Network US 95 Corridor Trail Landscaping 2640 Foot $132 $349,589 $349,600 Multi-Use Trail Widening of Sidewalk on Multi-Use Trail 10' with Linear 3-2 Network South Side of Ann Road Landscaping 3760 Foot $132 $497,899 $543,000
xiv Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Multi-Use Trail Widening of Sidewalk on Linear 3-2 Network South Side of Ann Road Clearing and debris removal 3760 Foot $12 $45,120 Equestrian Trail Beltway Trail Western Linear 3-3 Network Connection 10' Equestrian Trail 7400 Foot $64 $475,968 $476,000 Equestrian Trail Grand Teton Drive Linear 3-3 Network Equestrian Trail Segment 1 10' Equestrian Trail 1720 Foot $64 $110,630 $110,600 Equestrian Trail Grand Teton Drive Linear 3-3 Network Equestrian Trail Segment 2 10' Equestrian Trail 2700 Foot $64 $173,664 $173,700 Equestrian Trail Linear 3-3 Network Log Cabin Trail Connection 10' Equestrian Trail 2600 Foot $64 $167,232 $167,200 Equestrian Trail Trail Design - Appropriate 3-3 Network Trail Buffers n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Equestrian Trail Trail Design - Stable Trail 3-3 Network Substrate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Equestrian Trail 3-3 Network Trail Design - Trail Barriers n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Equestrian Trail 3-3 Network Trail Design - Tree Canopy n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Bike Parking Racks - 5 racks with 4-1 Transit Center Additional Bicycle Parking 10 spaces 3 Each $1,100 $3,300 $3,300 4-1 Transit Center Additional Guidance Signs Install guidance signs 6 Each $165 $990 $1,000 Park-and-Ride Parking Structure - Per 4-1 Transit Center Parking Expansion 2 Level 500 Space $15,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities 5705 Centennial Center Bus Stop Shelter 1 Each $12,000 $12,000 $32,400 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities 5705 Centennial Center Bus Turnout Striping 1 Each $365 $365 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities 5705 Centennial Center Bus Stop Pad (including ROW) 1 Each $20,000 $20,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - Lump 4-2 Amenities 5850 Centennial Center Bus Turnout 1 Sum $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities Ann / Drexel Bus Stop Shelter 1 Each $12,000 $12,000 $32,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities Ann / Drexel Bus Stop Pad (including ROW) 1 Each $20,000 $20,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - Lump 4-2 Amenities Durango / Dorrell Bus Turnout 2 Sum $155,000 $310,000 $312,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - Lump 4-2 Amenities Durango / Dorrell Remove Bus Stop Shelter 1 Sum $2,000 $2,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - Lump 4-2 Amenities Durango / Farm Bus Turnout 2 Sum $155,000 $310,000 $310,000 xv Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Total Project Subsection Alternative Cost Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Cost Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities Farm / Tule Springs Bus Stop Shelter 2 Each $12,000 $24,000 $52,300 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities Farm / Tule Springs Bus Stop Pad (including ROW) 1 Each $20,000 $20,000 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities Farm / Tule Springs Bus Stop Pad 1 Each $8,250 $8,250 Bus Stop Improvements - Bus Stop Grand Montecito / Northbound Bus Turnout (No ROW 4-2 Amenities Centennial purchase) 1 Each $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Bus Stop Improvements - Bus Stop Grand Montecito / Southbound Bus Turnout - 4-2 Amenities Centennial Developer's Responsibility 1 Each $0 $0 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - Northbound Bus Turnout - 4-2 Amenities Grand Montecito / Rome Developer's Responsibility 1 Each $0 $0 $0 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities Sky Pointe / Ranch House Bus Stop Shelter 1 Each $12,000 $12,000 $23,900 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - 4-2 Amenities Sky Pointe / Ranch House Bus Stop Pad 1 Each $8,250 $8,250 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - Linear 4-2 Amenities Sky Pointe / Ranch House 5' Standard PCC Sidewalk 15 Foot $225 $3,375 Bus Stop Bus Stop Improvements - Linear 4-2 Amenities Sky Pointe / Ranch House Pedestrian Crossing Striping 60 Foot $5 $273 Future Transit Fort Apache Transit 4-3 Service Infrastructure n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Future Transit Grand Canyon Drive Transit 4-3 Service Infrastructure n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Future Transit Horse Drive Transit 4-3 Service Infrastructure n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Future Transit Hualapai Way Transit 4-3 Service Infrastructure n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Future Transit 4-3 Service Kyle Canyon Park-and-Ride n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
xvi Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
C. APPENDIX C
Units Estimated Unit Work Item Used Detailed Item Description Cost (2011 $) Cost Estimate Sources / Details CLV Master Plan rev 2005, 20' overall 10' Equestrian Decomposed granite equestrian trail with Linear Foot $64 width equestrian trail, clv standard, Trail standard fencing and typical landscaping with landscaping @ 6431.50/100 lf 4-way traffic City of North Las Vegas Capital Lump Sum Single mast arm $425,000 signal installation Improvement Plan Installation of standard sidewalk using 5' Standard PCC Linear Foot County's standard. No removal of any prior $225 4", engineer's estimate @ 45.00/sf Sidewalk sidewalk 5' Temporary Installation of a non-standard 5' recycled 2" recycled AC, 4" base, grading Recycled Asphalt Linear Foot asphalt path using County's standard. No $8 @1.50/sf Sidewalk Path removal of any prior sidewalk
Standard bike lane bounded by 2 striped on RTC cost estimates for 2011 bike lane Bike Lane Linear Foot $6 a 5-foot shoulder installations with CMAQ funds.
Bike Parking Installation of 5 inverted U-rack with bike NCHRP Report 552 and various peer Each $1,100 Racks parking capacity of 10 costs 2006 - 2010 Installation of a bus pad, including ROW Bus Stop Pad Each $20,000.00 Jones BLVD Corridor Study (2009) acquisition
Bus Stop Shelter Each Installation of a bus stop shelter $12,000.00 Jones BLVD Corridor Study (2009)
Installation of a bus turnout, including ROW Bus Turnout Each $155,000.00 Jones BLVD Corridor Study (2009) acquisition Bus Turnout Installation of bus stop striping at bus Each $365.00 Engineer's estimate Striping turnout Conversion of single sidewalk Removal of the single corner pedestrian / corner ramp to a ADA ramp and installation of 2 pedestrian / Each Corner $500.00 Engineer's estimate double ramp ADA ramps, one for each crosswalk (to (one facing each shorten the crossing distance) direction)
xvii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Units Estimated Unit Work Item Used Detailed Item Description Cost (2011 $) Cost Estimate Sources / Details Fort Apache Road Ft Apache / Horse Drive & US 95 / CC-215 The incremental cost of adding a multi-use interchange complete 6/2011, cost $27 Overpass - Lump Sum 8' sidewalk (versus 5') and sufficient $500,000.00 million - cost includes additional Alternate Modes shoulder for bike lanes in each direction sidewalk and restriping Improvements NB off-ramp and SB on-ramp connecting to an existing overpass on Grand Teton Drive Comparison to recent projects of similar of US 95. Includes the cost of 2 signaled Grand Teton scope: 2 signal intersections@482,000, intersections at each ramp terminus. Drive / US 95 Lump Sum $9,500,000.00 drainage@735,000, trail@33,000, add Includes the cost of moving flood drainage 1/2 Interchange ramps + widening + acc lane channel and multi-use trail between Grand @7,000,000, engineering @ 1,250,000 Teton Drive and Ackerman Ave. Includes highway engineering budget. Elkhorn road overpass included 810' Grand Teton The incremental cost of adding a multi-use span, 3 travel lanes, bike lanes, Drive / US 95 8' sidewalk (versus 5') and sufficient approach ramps, storm drain Overpass - Lump Sum shoulder for bike lanes in each direction, as $1,820,000.00 improvements, etc and cost approx $13 Alternate Modes well as the multi-use trail approach from million, assumption is that multi use Improvements Ackerman Ave. sidewalk added 14% cost to project.
Installation of a median refuge according to Median a typical "Danish offset" design with Pedestrian Each standard / ADA compliant walkway $7,695.00 Engineer's estimate Refuge (Danish geometry and including necessary safety Offset) elements. Assume no existing median
Installation of a standard median refuge Median according design with standard / ADA Pedestrian Each compliant walkway geometry and including $2,250.00 Engineer's estimate Refuge necessary safety elements. Assume there is (Standard) an existing median Multi-Use trail Linear Foot Asphalt paved transportation trail $64.35 Engineer's estimate 10' Multi-Use Trail Paved transportation trail per City of Las 20' overall width row, trail paved with 10' with Linear Foot Vegas Standard plus typical landscape $106.77 landscaping Landscaping buffers Multi-Use trail Linear Foot Asphalt paved transportation trail $90.00 Engineer's estimate 14'
xviii Part III Northwest U.S. 95 Proposed Alternatives Access Study
Units Estimated Unit Work Item Used Detailed Item Description Cost (2011 $) Cost Estimate Sources / Details Multi-Use Trail Paved transportation trail per City of Las 35' overall width multi-use row, with 14' with Linear Foot Vegas Standard plus typical landscape $132.42 landscaping Landscaping buffers Oso Blanca Road The incremental cost of adding a multi-use Cost of recent underpass project at / CC-215 8' sidewalk path (versus no sidewalk) and sunset, approx $13 million, assumption Underpass - Lump Sum $2,201,000.00 sufficient shoulder for bike lanes in each is that multi use sidewalk would add Alternate Modes direction 17% to cost of similar project. Improvements Park-and-Ride Construction cost per parking space of a Parking Structure Per Space $15,000.00 72,000 sf, 2 story, 200 spaces multi-story parking garage - 2 Level Pedestrian Standard white zebra stripe pedestrian Linear Foot $4.55 Engineer's estimate Crossing Striping crossing Comparison to engineer's estimate for Pedestrian Each Single mast arm, pedestrian actuated signal $17,000.00 project of similar scope, NDOT contract Warning Signal Crossing with flashing yellow yield signal 3458, 7/2011
Pedestrian Comparison to engineer's estimate for Each Single mast arm, pedestrian actuated signal Warning Signal - $17,000.00 project of similar scope, NDOT contract Crossing with 3 phases 3 Phase 3458, 7/2012
Elkhorn road overpass included 810' Sky Pointe Drive The incremental cost of adding a multi-use span, 3 travel lanes, bike lanes, / CC-215 8' sidewalk (versus no sidewalk) and approach ramps, storm drain Overpass - Lump Sum $2,210,000.00 sufficient shoulder for bike lanes in each improvements, etc and cost approx $13 Alternate Modes direction million, assumption is that multi use Improvements sidewalk added 17% cost to project. Each Travel Stop Sign Direction Installation of stop sign on a post, with stop RTC Sign Asset Management Study $165.00 Installation (NB, SB, line, and "stop ahead" warning sign (2010) EB, WB) Stop Sign Pavement Per Lane Standard white stripe stop line $54.60 Engineer's estimate Striping Warning Sign Installation of one "yield to pedestrians in RTC Sign Asset Management Study Each $165.00 Installation crosswalk" sign (2010)
xix Part IV Northwest U.S. 95 Agency Coordination and Outreach Access Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Part IV Northwest U.S. 95 Agency Coordination and Outreach Access Study
PART IV: AGENCY COORDINATION AND OUTREACH
1. Agency Coordination Plan ...... 1 1.1 Participating Agencies ...... 1 1.2 Coordination Activities ...... 1
2. Public Outreach ...... 3 2.1 Public Participation Requirements ...... 3 2.2 Public Outreach Strategy ...... 4
Part IV Northwest U.S. 95 Agency Coordination and Outreach Access Study
1. AGENCY COORDINATION PLAN
1.1 Participating Agencies
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) coordinated the Northwest US 95 Access Study. RTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the region and is responsible for programming federal money, regional transportation planning, and for all transit service and transit centers. The Northwest US 95 Access Study addresses infrastructure for which responsibility is split among three main governmental jurisdictions: . Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada is responsible for transit service and transit centers (including all related infrastructure) . The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is responsible for the US 95 Highway as most frontage road segments, ramps, and interchanges. NDOT’s Transportation Planning division is responsible for planning any improvements on NDOT right-of-way. Representatives are included in the project technical working group. . Clark County is responsible for CC-215 as well as for the street networks in unincorporated areas. The current project technical working group includes representatives from Clark County’s Public Works Department and Comprehensive Planning Department (both transportation planners from Land Use Planning and the Advanced Planning Trails Program) as well as from the District C Neighborhood Services office. . The City of Las Vegas is responsible for all other transportation infrastructure within its boundaries including some highway overpasses. Technical working group members from the City include representatives from the Planning Department, the Public Works Department, and from the office of the Ward 6 councilman.
The study also involved several government agencies on specific issues. One segment of the El Campo Grande multi-use trail alternative would make use of right-of-way that is part of a maintenance facility owned by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. A second segment of that proposed trail alignment would be on right-of-way adjacent to the Rancho Road Detention Basin and owned by the Clark County Regional Flood Control District. The equestrian trail network involves connections to Floyd Lamb State Park, so the Nevada Division of State Parks is another agency that should be included in the Coordination Plan.
1.2 Coordination Activities
The proposed alternatives from the Northwest US 95 Access Study are, in most cases, highly localized. For this reason, many proposed projects will require limited or no coordination on the part of various agencies. Beyond this initial Study effort, ongoing coordination is necessary in five main areas: - Public outreach - Project programming 1 Part IV Northwest U.S. 95 Agency Coordination and Outreach Access Study
- Highway overpass and interchange planning - Ongoing trails planning and prioritization - Transit infrastructure planning.
The projects proposed as part of this study must next be incorporated into existing transportation plans at the city, county, and regional levels. Public outreach is the first step in moving from conceptual project to inclusion into capital programs and preliminary design. RTC oversees regional transportation funding, coordinates regional transportation planning, and is required to lead public participation efforts and ensure coordination among all the agencies. RTC is the natural leader on this item to undertake tasks that might include hosting a dedicated website and organizing a workshop, which are further discussed in Section 2.2.
Once projects have undergone sufficient review and input by stakeholders, it is important to coordinate the inclusion of projects into the various jurisdictions’ and agencies’ plans. Again RTC is the natural agency to lead this process, because such coordination is one of RTC’s core functions: transportation programming. No new measures are necessary to augment the standard process. Once the public outreach process is complete, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County can move forward to apply to amend the Transportation Improvement Program and the Regional Transportation Plan so that RTC can program federal funding as appropriate.
The most important infrastructure investment in the Study Area still under design is the US 95 interchange with CC-215. The City of Las Vegas is already engaged with the lead project agency, NDOT, in the design process, reviewing preliminary designs. The City of Las Vegas is also in the process of completing design on two overpasses and can use a similar approach, soliciting stakeholder agencies for input as they move through the process. For example, the Fort Apache Road overpass of CC-215 should interface with the Las Vegas Beltway Trail in the County’s right-of-way. The City’s planners should submit the overpass plans to the County’s Trail Program to ensure the overpass meets their needs before moving to final design. In the case of a potential interchange at Grand Teton Road and US 95, the City of Las Vegas will have to coordinate closely with NDOT since the project will require joint design.
Trails planning in and around the Study Area may require more formal long term coordination, primarily between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County. The City of Las Vegas is completing its portion of the northwest trails network at a faster rate than Clark County because it can rely more effectively on developers to complete trail segments. Clark County may be able to work with the City of Las Vegas to prioritize remaining trail sections for public funding to create a more effective overall network. The jurisdictions could benefit from joint planning of a program to complete the trail network for both equestrian and multi-use trails that would avoid fragmentation in the near term.
2 Part IV Northwest U.S. 95 Agency Coordination and Outreach Access Study
Finally, both Clark County and the City of Las Vegas can solicit RTC’s input on transit infrastructure. New development is a critical phase to ensure low-cost investments in transit infrastructure are put in place to meet future needs. City and County land use planners can work with RTC to identify higher density corridors and important activity centers such as schools, medical centers, and retail centers that might benefit from future transit use. Such coordination can help to ensure future transit service is more efficient and productive and to create an integrated transit system.
The next subsection addresses more specific recommendations for RTC’s role in public outreach for the U.S. 95 access study.
2. PUBLIC OUTREACH
2.1 Public Participation Requirements
As part of its obligations as an MPO, RTC has a public participation plan in place for its regional transportation planning activities.10 This public outreach plan constitutes a part of RTC’s ongoing public participation efforts. The public outreach process is a necessary step to move projects proposed for the Northwest US 95 Access Study into the next planning stage. Public participation will help refine the proposed projects before they are approved as part of the region’s formal transportation investment program.
Federal regulations under SAFETEA-LU stipulate RTC must reach out to a broad set of stakeholders as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process. These include “citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties” (Title 23 §450.316 of the Code of Federal Regulations).
Another objective of the public outreach process is to promote the participation of and input from sensitive and vulnerable groups including people with disabilities, economically disadvantaged populations, and minorities. The public participation process is intended to ensure compliance with statutes prohibiting non-discrimination. These include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Title 23 §450.316 of the Code of Federal Regulations (part of SAFETEA-LU).
As the planning process moves forward, RTC can continue to include the project technical working group participants in the public participation process. The public outreach process
10 See Appendix 2 of the Regional Transportation Plan: http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/mpo/plansstudies/studies_reports.cfm. 3 Part IV Northwest U.S. 95 Agency Coordination and Outreach Access Study is also a chance to involve additional stakeholders. The public outreach process targets three tiers of stakeholders: (1) core stakeholders are directly responsible for project management, implementation, and operation; (2) interested stakeholders are those directly impacted by the projects with a high level interest; (3) the general public who might be impacted by the project but have no special interest.
The study’s technical working group has already brought in the core public agency stakeholders mentioned in Section 1.1 as well as other Study Area stakeholders. Interested stakeholders include some technical working group participants, but may also include some additional stakeholders. Unlike most areas of the Valley, the Northwest area is home to many horse owners, so equestrian facilities and their representatives form an active element of access planning in the area. RTC can engage interested stakeholders with direct outreach efforts. Interested stakeholders may include the following: - Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council - Kyle Canyon Citizens Advisory Council - City of Las Vegas Planning Commission - City of Las Vegas Traffic and Parking Commission - City of Las Vegas Senior Citizens Advisory Board - Horse Council of Nevada - Nevada Bicycle Advisory Board The outreach effort should also coordinate with the City of Las Vegas Ward 6 Councilman’s Office and the Neighborhood Services office for Clark County District C.
2.2 Public Outreach Strategy
The proposed alternatives in the Northwest US 95 Access Study do not include any projects with regional impact. Therefore, RTC can implement a local outreach effort. RTC may rely on the core stakeholders from the study’s technical working group to continue to participate throughout the outreach process and process the input received. The public outreach strategy has two tiers: (1) direct contact of interested stakeholders and (2) general public engagement through a limited number of workshops.
Identified interested stakeholders can be contacted directly to review the study report and submit comments. They can also be invited to participate in any planned workshop events. RTC can post the study to the agency’s website. The website can include the contact information for stakeholders to submit comments.
A workshop is an opportunity for both interested stakeholders and the general public to review the proposed alternatives and give agencies feedback. Any workshop must be an open public meeting with appropriate notice given and full accessibility. RTC should consider holding the event within or near the Study Area.
4 Part IV Northwest U.S. 95 Agency Coordination and Outreach Access Study
Other public board meetings of RTC, the City of Las Vegas, or Clark County can also be outreach opportunities. Agenda items are posted in public notices, and a presentation can be made to the committee, board, or council. Both the board members and those attending can make public comments and provide input. As public comments are received, RTC can coordinate with the appropriate local partners and core stakeholders to review the comments.
5