DIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY

DIXIE HIGHWAYACCESS STUDY

TECHNICAL REPORTAPRIL 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

01.01.

02.02.

03.03. 5151

9

5INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARYEXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY

PLANNING PROCESSPLANNING PROCESS

Project IntroductionProject PurposeProject Goals

Natural Environment OverviewHuman Environment OverviewEnvironmental ConclusionSafety & Crash AnalysisTransit Service & AccessibilityLand Uses & DemographicsCommunity Inventory, Stakeholders, & Local ContextPhysical InventoryWalkshed AnalysisCorridor Strengths & Needs SummarySpatial & Gap AnalysisUser Profi les

Stakeholder EngagementSummary of FeedbackFunctional Standards

667

101010182326303539444647

525254

DIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY2

DIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY

04.04.

05.05.

06.06.

5757

105105

143143

SCREENING SUMMARYSCREENING SUMMARY

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONSPROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

NEXT STEPS & IMPLEMENTATIONNEXT STEPS & IMPLEMENTATION

Alternatives DevelopmentScreening Purpose & MethodologyCrums Lane Screening SummaryRockford Lane Screening SummaryGagel Avenue Screening SummaryValley Station Road Screening Summary

Project SheetsCrums LaneRockford LaneGagel AvenueValley Station Road

Next Steps & Implementation

585963748494

106108116126134

144

DIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY 3




PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

667

Project IntroductionProject PurposeProject Goals




The Dixie Highway Access Study is envisioned to identify early in the project planning process, multimodal projects that address safety, mobility, access and connection along corridors adjacent to and intersecting with the Dixie Highway. The need for improved access in the corridors – Crums Lane, Rockford Lane, Gagel Avenue and Valley Station Road is a direct result of the Transforming Dixie Highway Project.

The Transforming Dixie Highway Project was derived from the Dixie Highway Corridor Master Plan, taking several of the recommended transformational improvements and building consensus with the project partners on the current project components (Figure 1-1). It includes three primary elements:

▪ ITS / Signal System and Technology Upgrades;

▪ Complete Streets and Safety/Access Management Improvements; and

▪ Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

The investment in the BRT line, and the needs for improved access in each of the study corridors is driving components for the Dixie Highway Access Study (Figure 1-3).

PROJECT INTRODUCTIONPROJECT INTRODUCTION PROJECT PURPOSEPROJECT PURPOSE

Figure 1-1. The Dixie Highway Project was envisioned from the Dixie Highway Corridor Master Plan.

The purpose of the Dixie Highway Access Study is to identify projects that will improve safety, mobility, and intermodal access along Crums Lane, Rockford Lane, Gagel Avenue and Valley Station Road by identifying pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular improvements (focusing on operations and safety) and prioritizing them in the corridor to improve multimodal connections to destinations along Dixie Highway.

PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVE SAFETY / ACCESSIMPROVE SAFETY / ACCESS

BIKE VEHICULAR

+ +

WHAT DOES THIS STUDY EVALUATE?WHAT DOES THIS STUDY EVALUATE?The Dixie Highway Access Study will evaluate and make recommendations for improvements to the following:



PROJECT GOALSPROJECT GOALS

Figure 1-2. Project goals. Figure 1-3. Dixie Highway Access Study corridors.

The project’s goals include (Figure 1-2):

▪ Safety:Safety: Improve safety for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles along the project corridors by providing improved connections to Dixie Highway.

▪ Mobility:Mobility: Improve mobility for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles along the project corridors that enhance accessibility, connectivity, and pedestrian circulation to Dixie Highway and the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line.

▪ Intermodal Access:Intermodal Access: Provide safe access to the Dixie Highway BRT line from destinations in and on the project corridors that increase transportation choices, especially non-motorized options.

▪ Connections:Connections: Prioritize improvements that support connections to the BRT line as well as key destinations along Dixie Highway such as employment, shopping, schools and public facilities in order to maximize access to and usage of non-motorized and intermodal options.

SAFETY

MOBILITY CONNECTIONS

INTERMODAL ACCESS

GOALSGOALS

GAGEL AVENUEGAGEL AVENUE

VALLEY STATION ROADVALLEY STATION ROAD

ROCKFORD LANEROCKFORD LANE

CRUMS LANECRUMS LANE

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY

10101018232630

353944

4647

Natural Environmental OverviewHuman Environmental OverviewEnvironmental ConclusionSafety & Crash AnalysisTransit Service & AccessibilityLand Uses & DemographicsCommunity Inventory, Stakeholders, & Local Context

Physical InventoryWalkshed AnalysisCorridor Strengths & Needs Summary

Spatial & Gap AnalysisUser Profi les


CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Note: The following chapter is a summary for the full report.


NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARYOVERVIEW SUMMARY

HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARYOVERVIEW SUMMARY

The study area as encompassed by the four corridors is in an existing urbanized area that has been disturbed and contains very limited, if any ecological resources. Habitat areas for federally listed species including the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and gray bat are very limited in the study area due to very small amounts of habitat areas, including individual trees and stand of trees, where they do exist. Streams, floodplains and some wetlands are all present to some degree in various locations in the study area and corridors. Where there are water-related features present, they may have been impacted or are otherwise compromised by human activity, urbanization and/or run-off by development on or immediately adjacent to them.

Much of the study area in the four corridors is characterized by single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, open space, parks and various public uses including schools, colleges and houses or worship. Environmental Justice (EJ) populations, particularly as they relate to minority and low income populations, are found in the area. An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) database search indicated that, in keeping with the urban nature of the area, several potential hazardous materials sites or underground storage tanks (USTs) may also exist within the study areas. Most sites are located near major intersections with Cane Run Road, Dixie Highway and Manslick Road, although some appear in other parts of the corridors as well. Historic resources, which are protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, include historic structures/sites and archaeological sites. Some

of these sites that exist within the study area are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or are eligible for listing. Previous archaeological surveys directed that there are some archaeological sites present in the study area which are known to be within or adjacent to the four study corridors, although limited locational information about them is typically available.

The study area is in attainment for all transportation criteria air quality pollutants with the exception of the 8-hour Ozone (2015) standard. Improvements which add pedestrian and bicycle access are exempt from air quality analysis. Regarding traffi c noise, improvements to access that were proposed along these roadways are not considered Type 1 projects under current policy. Therefore, traffi c noise analysis is not necessary for these type of projects proposed within the study area.

A summary of the environmental features is contained in Table 2-1. For more information on the Human and Natural Environments, see the full Existing Conditions & Environmental Overview document.

This summary of environmental features provided suffi cient information for early identifi cation of potential issues that may arise during the development phase of future projects within the study areas (Figures 2-1 - 2-4). These types of projects, i.e., access improvement projects, typically have minimal eff ects to the environment, thus requiring NEPA documentation as a CE for Minor Projects which was developed by the FHWA and KYTC programmatic process for CEs.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSIONENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSION


ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORYCATEGORY CRUMS LANE CRUMS LANE ROCKFORD LANEROCKFORD LANE GAGEL AVENUEGAGEL AVENUE VALLEY STATION VALLEY STATION

ROADROAD

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTNATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Streams

5 intermittent 6 intermittent (Cane Run) 1 perennial (Upper Mill Creek)

None 1 intermittent 2 perennial

Floodplains - 100 Year3 crossings 5 crossings None 1 crossing (but not

within primary study areas)

Wetlands – National Wetland Inventory

1 - freshwater forested/shrub wetland habitat (PFO1C)

None None 3 – 2 freshwater ponds (PUBHh), 1 freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1C)

Threatened & Endangered Species

“Potential” bat habitat” suitable summer habitat unlikely

“Potential” bat habitat; limited suitable summer habitat



HUMAN ENVIRONMENTHUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Air Quality Jeff erson designated as nonattainment for 8-hour Ozone; Transportation criteria pollutants “Project with Low Potential MSAT Eff ects”. Projects exempt from air quality analysis.

Noise Noise sensitive land uses comprised primarily of high density residential. Not a Type 1 project. No noise analysis anticipated.

Land Use*

** Not all land uses are listed; therefore, percent totals do not equal 100

48% single family residential use

5% multi-family use

5% commercial use

14% public/semi-public use

8% parks/open space use


4% multi-family use

12% commercial use


5% vacant


7% multi-family use

10% commercial use


8% parks/open space use

16% vacant


9% multi-family use

15% commercial use


Environmental Justice Census Tract # Census Tract # Census Tract # Census Tract #

Minority % > County %

43.01

126.01

126.03

126.04

128.02

125.01

126.04

123.02

125.01

None

Table 2-1. Environmental Constraints Summary by Study Area.



Low-income % > County %

43.01

126.01

126.03

128.02

125.01

125.02

125.03

127.02

45

123.02

125.01

None

ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORYCATEGORY CRUMS LANE CRUMS LANE ROCKFORD LANEROCKFORD LANE GAGEL AVENUEGAGEL AVENUE VALLEY STATION VALLEY STATION

ROADROAD

HUMAN ENVIRONMENTHUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Community Facilities and Services

2 schools

2 cemeteries

6 places of worship

3 schools

1 college

1 cemetery

6 places of worship

1 school

1 college

3 places of worship

4 schools

1 college campus

3 cemeteries

7 places of worship

Parks - Section 4(f) Properties / Section 6 (f) Properties

2 parks – Shively City Park and Farnsley Golf Center (closed course, now open space)

1 park – Cane Run ParkNo publicly open parks;

Iroquois Golf CourseNone

Farmland No lands classifi ed as farmland under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981

Historic Structures

1 site eligibility undetermined

2 sites demolished

1 site not reported or NA

2 sites NRHP listed (JF 25 and JF 38)


3 sites eligible


2 sites eligible

1 site NRHP listed (JF 72)

3 sites eligibility undetermined

Archaeology (Previous Surveys) 3 6 None 1

Hazardous Materials/USTs (EDR Database Search)

383 data returns (points), 145 with Crums Lane addresses

269 data returns (points), 95 with Rockford Lane addresses

133 data returns (points), 21 with Gagel Avenue addresses

198 data returns (points), 49 with Valley Station Road addresses

Table 2-1. Environmental Constraints Summary by Study Area.


Figure 2-1. Environmental Constraints Crums Lane.



Figure 2-2. Environmental Constraints Rockford Lane.


Figure 2-3. Environmental Constraints Gagel Avenue.



Figure 2-4. Environmental Constraints Valley Station Road.


SAFETY & CRASH ANALYSISSAFETY & CRASH ANALYSIS

Historical crash data for the four study area roadways/corridors (Crums Lane, Rockford Lane, Gagel Avenue, Valley Station Road) were obtained via the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) Collision Data Stored in Spatial Database Engine (SDE) for fi ve consecutive years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). Included within this data are specifi c information and attributes regarding travel mode, crash severity, manner of collision, and roadway surface condition(s). In the fi ve years examined, there were a total of 5,292 crashes within the four study areas (1,625 crashes in Crums, 1,012 crashes in Gagel, 1,744 crashes in Rockford, and 911 crashes in Valley Station study areas). There were 104 pedestrian-related crashes and 22 bicyclist-related crashes during the same period of analysis, with 10 fatalities and 17 serious injuries.

Statistics for all crashes are shown in Figure 2-5 and the pedestrian and bicycle related crashes are shown in Figure 2-6.

The crash severity is measured by K A B C O injury classifi cation scale. The K A B C O codes and corresponding meanings in decreasing severity order are:

▪ K – Fatal - indicates the person was killed as a result of the collision and died within 30 days of the collision.

▪ A - Incapacitating Injury – injury which prevents the person from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities he/she was capable of performing prior to the collision.

▪ B – Non-Incapacitating Injury - injury such as minor lacerations, bruises and abrasions.

▪ C - Possible Injury – injury which is not evident to the eye

▪ O - Property Damage Only

Figure 2-5. Total Crashes for Four Study Areas.

Figure 2-6. Pedestrian & Bicyclist Related Crashes.



Figures 2-7 - 2-10 display more information about the types of crashes and their locations within each corridor. The maps show a clustering of crashes typically near major intersections and at major cross streets. For more information on Crashes, see the full Existing Conditions & Environmental Overview document.

Figure 2-7. Crash Density Map for Crums Lane.

The following maps and legends depict crash locations and the occurrence of crashes, expressed as density, compared to all roadways inside the buff ered area (the red dashed outline). The legend depicts how the crash density at the locations compare to a “typical” bell-shaped distribution of crash density. The more intense the color, the further away from the mean the density is at that location, with warmer colors (yellow, orange and red) indicating more crashes at that particular location.


Figure 2-8. Crash Density Map for Rockford Lane.



Figure 2-9. Crash Density Map for Gagel Avenue.


Figure 2-10. Crash Density Map for Valley Station Road.



TRANSIT SERVICE & TRANSIT SERVICE & ACCESSIBILITYACCESSIBILITY

Dixie Highway and several of the four study area corridors have existing Transit Authority of River City (TARC) fi xed route transit bus lines running along them, as of late 2019. Those routes in the study area include, two routes along Dixie Highway:

▪ Route 18 – Dixie – Preston Highway Route

▪ Route 50X – Dixie Express Route

Routes that intersect Dixie Highway or run along roadways in the study area include:

▪ Route 19 – Muhammad Ali Boulevard(operating along Dixie Highway and CrumsLanes)

▪ Route 20 – Riverport Circulator (operatingalong Rockford Lane, Dixie Highway, andCane Run Road)

▪ Route 25 – Oak – Westport Crosstown Route(crossing Dixie Highway at Dumesnil Street)

▪ Route 27 – Hill Street Route (crossing DixieHighway at Hill Street)

▪ Route 29 – Eastern Parkway Route (operating along Dixie Highway and Berry Boulevard,Cane Run Road and Rockford Lane)

▪ Route 54X – Manslick Express (Operatingalong Gagel Avenue and Manslick Road)

▪ Route 63 – Crums Lane Route (operatingalong Crums Lane)

Table 2-2 summarizes the existing transit operation in the study area.

The Dixie Highway Corridor Master Plan called for the operation of a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along Dixie Highway. The now active BRT (the Rapid) service consists of 37 distinctive BRT stations, new branded buses, queue jump lanes, signal priority, and sidewalk improvements. The

BRT line operates along Dixie Highway from Bethany Lane in the south to 2nd Street in downtown Louisville via Broadway, 9th Street and Jeff erson Street. A map of the route is in Figure 2-11.

For more information on Transit Service, see the full Existing Conditions & Environmental Overview document.


EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONEXISTING TRANSIT OPERATION

ROUTEROUTE WEEKDAY # OF WEEKDAY # OF TRIPSTRIPS

WEEKEND # OF WEEKEND # OF TRIPSTRIPS

WEEKDAY WEEKDAY HEADWAYS (AM HEADWAYS (AM PEAK/MIDDAY/PEAK/MIDDAY/

PM PEAK/NIGHT)PM PEAK/NIGHT)

WEEKEND WEEKEND HEADWAYSHEADWAYS

WEEKDAY # OF WEEKDAY # OF PASSENGERSPASSENGERS

WEEKEND # OF WEEKEND # OF PASSENGERSPASSENGERS

1818 141 72 Sat/70 Sun 15 30 6,200 2,900 - 4,200

50X50X 8 Ma 4 AM/4 PM trips N/A 55 N/A

1919 81 50 15/25/15/60 40-60 2,400 1,500-1,050

2020 32 N/A 40 N/A 155 n/a

2525 52 29 40/45/35/60 70 1,300 700-600

2727 42 32 40/60/45/45 60 800 525-400

2929 56 29 36/36/36/40 60-75 1,200 750-600

54X54X 8 N/A 4 AM/4 PM trips N/A 25 N/A

6363 43 26-24 35/70/35/70 60-120 900 500-400

Table 2-2. Existing Transit Operation.



Figure 2-11. Dixie BRT Route and Stops (Source - https://louisvilleky.gov/government/new-dixie-highway/bus-rapid-transit-planned-stops).


Land uses vary throughout the four study areas but single-family residential is the prominent use that radiates from the four corridors. There are pockets of multi-family housing, typically apartments, as well as commercial, public and semi-public spaces (typically schools), and some park and open space lands. Closer to Dixie Highway, the land uses tend to be commercial, although there is a mixture of other uses.

While Zoning determines allowable land uses, Form Districts provide guidance on scale, pattern,

and the form of those uses. The Louisville Land Development Code (LDC) sets out design standards for each of the districts in order to guide development towards a scale, pattern, and form that is desired.

The area around the intersection of Dixie Highway and Crums Lane (Figure 2-12) is designated as Town Center Form District. The Town Center Form District is intended to be a compact pattern with a mixture of uses of moderate intensity that are developed around an identifi able core. They

Figure 2-12. Land Use Crums Lane.

LAND USES & DEMOGRAPHICSLAND USES & DEMOGRAPHICS



are typically located at intersections of major thoroughfares and development is oriented towards the street. The pattern, density, and intensity of use is intended to gradually lessen towards the edges to transition into lower intensity form districts. The remainder of the Crums Lane corridor is characterized by Traditional Workplace Form District and Traditional Neighborhood Form District. Both districts are intended to accommodate a mixture of uses within a scale and pattern that is representative of the existing character. See Dixie Highway Corridor Master Plan

for mention of future town centers along the Dixie Highway Corridor.

The Gagel Avenue, Rockford Lane, and Valley Station Road corridors (Figures 2-13 - 2-15) are all predominantly characterized by the Neighborhood Form District which is intended to protect the existing character of the neighborhood while still providing the opportunity to develop activity centers at appropriate locations. The activity centers are opportunities to incorporate a mixture of uses around strategic locations like major

Figure 2-13. Land Use Rockford Lane.


Figure 2-14. Land Use Gagel Avenue.

intersections within this form district. Finally, the three intersections of Gagel Avenue, Rockford Lane, and Valley Station Road with Dixie Highway are designated Suburban Marketplace Corridor Form District that includes medium to high density and includes a mixture of uses from commercial, shopping centers, and offi ce development. Buildings are typically set back from the road along these corridors.

Valley Station Road also has an area of civic uses centered around Jeff erson Community College Southwest that is designated as Campus Form

District. This also includes Frost/Stuart Middle School and Jewish Hospital Southwest. The Campus Form District is a focused area of commercial, offi ce, and residential uses that should be compact and walkable with strong internal circulation and connectivity.



POPULATION DENSITYPOPULATION DENSITY

Population density, or how many people are within a square mile, is a factor that can influence mobility. Areas that have a higher population density have the potential to generate more trips by walking, biking, or transit other than areas that are less dense when those opportunities and facilties (sidewalks, paths, and bus routes) are provided. The population density also varies along the four corridors with more dense population existing near Crums Lane (over 4,000 people per square mile). Population density decreases along Gagel Avenue and Rockford Lane to portions that have over 4,000 people per square mile (northside

Figure 2-15. Land Use Valley Station Road.

of Gagel Avenue and southside of Rockford Lane) and portions that range from 1,000-4,000 people per square mile (southside of Gagel Avenue and northside of Rockford Lane). Finally, the least dense population is along Valley Station Road with that study area being between 1,000-4,000 people per square mile.


NO VEHICLES AVAILABLE NO VEHICLES AVAILABLEHOUSEHOLDSHOUSEHOLDS

Another demographic factor that can influence mobility is the availability of vehicles within a household (Figure 2-16). Along the four corridors, the percent of households with no vehicle available varies.

▪ Crums Lane: Ranges from 33% withouta vehicle (east of Dixie Highway) to 17%without a vehicle (southside of Crums Lane)to 9% without a vehicle (northside of CrumsLane).

▪ Gagel Avenue: Ranges from 12% withouta vehicle (at Dixie Highway) to 9% withouta vehicle (southside of Gagel Avenue) to6% without a vehicle (northside of GagelAvenue).

▪ Rockford Lane: Ranges from 12-13% withouta vehicle (at Dixie Highway) to 10% withouta vehicle (northside of Gagel Avenue) to 9%without a vehicle (southside of RockfordAvenue).

▪ Valley Station Road: Ranges from 7% without a vehicle (northside of Gagel Avenue) to2% without a vehicle (southside of ValleyStation Road).

COMMUNITY INVENTORY, COMMUNITY INVENTORY, STAKEHOLDERS, AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS, AND LOCAL CONTEXT CONTEXT

that are active in the four study areas. Those community entities are displayed in the following Figures 2-17 - 2-20 for each study area.

When evaluating the social, cultural, and institution aspects of each study area, an inventory of community resources was undertaken. This was done to identify entities who could potentially help promote planned improvements and promote active transportation and transit mobility options in the area. These partners focus on community resources, non-profi ts, schools, churches, and other endeavors, and include some public agencies

Figure 2-16. Another demographic factor that can influence mobility is the availability of vehicles within a household.



Figure 2-17. Community Inventory Crums Lane.

Crums Lane/Garrs Lane (Figure 2-17)Crums Lane/Garrs Lane (Figure 2-17)

▪ Bradford Pointe Apartments▪ Butler Traditional High School▪ Metro Parks (Watterson Lake Park)▪ River of Life Church of God▪ Schaff ner Traditional Elementary School▪ Shively Heights Baptist Church▪ Shively, Mayor & Parks Offi ces▪ St. Paul Baptist Church▪ St. Pauls Church▪ St. Paul Evangel Lutheran Church

▪ Southside Christian Child Care▪ All Around Healthcare


Figure 2-18. Community Inventory Rockford Lane.

Rockford Lane (Figure 2-18)Rockford Lane (Figure 2-18)

▪ Church of God Dixie Valley▪ Farnsley Middle School▪ Lees Lane Baptist Church▪ Metro Parks (Cane Run Park)▪ Rockford Lane Baptist Church▪ Rockford View United Baptist Church▪ Shively Church of Christ▪ Signature HealthCARE at Rockford Rehab▪ Weller-Williams Environmental School▪ Western High School



Gagel Avenue (Figure 2-19)Gagel Avenue (Figure 2-19)

▪ Advanced ENT and Allergy▪ Georgetown Manor Nursing Home▪ Grace Church▪ Gutermuth Elementary School▪ Lyons Missionary Baptist Church▪ Shawnee Christian Church▪ Pic-Pac Supermarket▪ Grace Praise and Worship▪ Kentucky Meditation Center and Buddhist

Vihara

Figure 2-19. Community Inventory Gagel Avenue.


▪ Walmart▪ KentuckyOne Health Medical Center Jewish

Southwest

Other Dixie Highway Community PartnersOther Dixie Highway Community Partners

▪ The Louisville Dream center▪ Sun Valley Community Center▪ Valley Hope Center▪ Jeff erson County Clerk’s offi ce

Figure 2-20. Community Inventory Valley Station Road.

Valley Station Road (Figure 2-20)Valley Station Road (Figure 2-20)

▪ Jeff erson Community & Technical College(JCTC)

▪ Medora Christian Church▪ Park Terrace Health Campus▪ Prairie Village Church of Christ▪ Southside Christian Preschool▪ Southwest Assembly of God▪ Stuart Academy / Layne Elementary School▪ Symphony at Valley Farms Retirement▪ Valley Farms Apartments



PHYSICAL INVENTORYPHYSICAL INVENTORY

Figure 2-21. Bike & Pedestrian Facilities Crums Lane.

a small stretch just south of the Southland Terrace Shopping Center on the back side of the southern most businesses. This area is dominated by large and wide paved loading areas and is largely open with multiple entrance and exit points. As of Fall 2019, Metro Public Works has added sidewalks in this section on the north side.

SIDEWALK FACILITIES*SIDEWALK FACILITIES*

Crums Lane (Figure 2-21)Crums Lane (Figure 2-21)

According to the KIPDA Online Resource Center1, and verifi ed from windshield observations, there are sidewalks for most of the section of Crums Lane from Manslick Road west to Dixie Highway, largely on the north side. There is also small sections of sidewalk on the south side in the 1550 block associated with a TARC stop. The only exception is

1https://kipda.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=1cc46f03531f4b478f19f2d4a2121252

*Note: The maps in this section were developed withinformation available from KIPDA that was current as ofApril 2019 and may not depict recent additions.


Figure 2-22. Bike & Pedestrian Facilities Rockford Lane.

or missing sidewalks are especially visible on the north side of the roadway, near the intersection with Fern Lea Road, and the segment from the American Legion driveway to Valley View Drive. When present, the sidewalks tend to only be 3 to 4 feet wide, although some newer ones appear to be wider. Several sections appear to be overgrown, especially near Butler High School. There’s an unsignalized mid-block crossing near Butler High school and another one near Schaff ner Elementary School. Uncontrolled mid-block crossings are signed as a school crossing and have a traffi c guard present at arrival and dismissal.

The existing legacy sidewalks in this portion of Crums lane tend to be overgrown with grass and debris as well as somewhat narrow. There is an unsignalized mid-block pedestrian crossing about 145 feet east of the marked crosswalk at the intersection of Dixie Highway, near Mary Queen of Peace church. The sidewalk on the south side picks up again near this location. There is an additional mid block crossing east of the railroad tracks near several industrial buildings. On the west side of Crums Lane from Dixie Highway to Cane Run Road, the sidewalks are largely present and intact on both sides with intermittent small gaps. Identifi ed gaps



Figure 2-23. Bike & Pedestrian Facilities Gagel Avenue.

businesses. Metro Government constructed approximately 200 feet of new sidewalk along Rockford Lane near Dover Road in early 2020, which currently is shown in the KIPDA database as a missing section. Some sections lack curb and gutter. There are three unsignalized crosswalks, all of which are for schools - Western High School, Waller-Williams Environmental School, and Notre Dame Academy.

The crossing for Western and Waller-Williams are midblock and the crossing for Notre Dame is at James R. Meder Road. There’s also a sidewalk on the south side starting near Duane Avenue running

RoRockfckfoorrdd L Laneane (F (Figigurure 2e 2-22-22))

On Rockford Lane, there are 3 to 4 foot sidewalks, mostly on the north side. Many of the sections are overgrown with grass and debris. There are sections that lack sidewalks near Rockford Plaza, but there are places to walk in paved areas that serve as unfettered access. There is a section of new sidewalk on the south side at Graston Lane near a TARC stop. Also, in the 2300 block near Quinn Drive, there are some sets of stairs with sidewalks that are not Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant. There are issues with access management in the 2300, 2700 and 4700 blocks respectively, with open access to commercial


Figure 2-24. Bike & Pedestrian Facilities Valley Station Road.

▪ the side-slopes lead to guardrail near the edge of pavement

▪ in flat sections there is no place to cross the road at a protected crossing

▪ mail boxes and utility poles are typically close to the edges of pavement.

There is a flashing yellow beacon at Estate Drive. There are some culverts at 817 (parallel to road), 826, 906, 1521, and just east of the railroad tracks in rail right of way (parallel to the road). There are marked crosswalks at the signal of Gagel Avenue and Manslick Road, but no ADA way to get to them – no sidewalks and no ramps. The existing commercial development including parking and

almost all the way to Cane Run Road. There are also some new wider sidewalk sections that have been installed with tactile end strips, specifi cally near intersections at various points along the corridor


With the exception of several sections of sidewalk near the intersection with Dixie Highway and Manslick Road, Gagel Avenue is largely devoid of sidewalks. The opportunities to build sidewalks are quite challenging due to various conditions including:

▪ the presence of signifi cant ditch lines on both sides of the roadway at several locations



some landscaping is very near the right of way near Dixie Highway.


There is 3-foot sidewalk close to Stonestreet Road on the north side, all the way to 3rd Street Road. Sidewalks are on both sides of the roadway near Stuart Middle School and there are slope issues on the north side before the sidewalk terminates just east of Eve Adam Drive. In the same location the sidewalk transitions to only being present on the south side, before stopping near Scrim Avenue. The sidewalk picks back up again just east of Amrona Avenue on the north side of the road adjacent to a service/local access road. At Renaissance Valley Way, the sidewalk is present on both sides and extends westward to Dixie Highway.

In a couple of locations there is shrubbery and trees close to the road (4700, 4705, and 4701), which hinders sight distance. There are existing marked crosswalks and pedestrian push buttons at the Stonestreet Road signal, however the ramps and sidewalks do not currently meet ADA accessibility standards. There are similar ADA accessibility concerns at the intersection with Stuart Middle School.

There is a marked uncontrolled mid-block crosswalk at Grafton Hall Rd as well as Bentford Drive.

Walkshed analysis was performed using the existing street network and sidewalk data from LOJIC (Louisville and Jeff erson County, Kentucky Information Consortium). Schools, pedestrian facilities (mainly sidewalks) and bus transit locations are considered by programming new service area tool through network analysis in ArcGIS. Maps were generated for each study area to show the gaps and needs for pedestrian & bike facilities in Figures 2-25 - 2-28.

WALKSHED ANALYSISWALKSHED ANALYSIS


Figure 2-25. Walkshed Analysis for Sidewalks Crums Lane.

STUDY AREA WALKSHEDSSTUDY AREA WALKSHEDS

Crums Lane (Figure 2-25)Crums Lane (Figure 2-25)

The existing sidewalk and local road network - local roads can be used as a pedestrian path - provide a considerable walkshed for the Crums Lane study area. Figure 2-25 shows that most of the area is covered by a 30-minute walking radius. The only exceptions occurred along the I-264, southern Crums Lane communities and east Dixie Highway from 7th Street Road to Manslick Road. This situation is understandable for I-264 for its limited access along the main corridor. However, Southern Crums Lane communities and East Dixie Highway

area are experiencing a lack of pedestrian facilities because the current network is not extended to the above areas.

The accessibility for public transit displays the same general pattern as the sidewalk system in the study area as the bus stops are typically built along the sidewalks. Most communities within Crums Lane study area are able to reach the bus stops within 30 minutes walk. However, near Manslick Road it could have improved access with an expanded sidewalk network. Schaff ner Elementary School has the broadest service area while the Butler Traditional High School and Mill Creek Elementary School have limited access and can be only reached by communities from the northern portion of the study area.



Figure 2-26. Walkshed Analysis for Sidewalks Rockford Lane.

Rockford Lane (Figure 2-26)Rockford Lane (Figure 2-26)

The Rockford Lane study area is largely covered by a 30 minute walkshed. The only exception is Martin Ave in the middle-north as it connects to Dover Road which does not have a sidewalk.

The accessibility for public transit displays the same pattern as bus stops are built along the sidewalks. Communities within Rockford Lane study area are able to reach the bus stops within 30 minute walk.

The existing pedestrian and bike facilities adequately service the Rockford Lane study area.

There is room for improvement, however, in the form of more and wider sidewalks, ADA upgrades at intersections, and improved signage and pavement markings in relation to the pedestrian network.


Figure 2-27. Walkshed Analsysis for Sidewalks Gagel Avenue.


The pedestrian and bike network in Gagel Avenue study area is the least developed when compared to the other study areas. The area west of Dixie Highway has decent walkability with most of the study area being covered with a 20 minute walking radius. Gagel Avenue has the most room for improvement as is shown in Figure 2-27.

The bus stops along Dixie Highway can be accessed by residents who live west of the railroad crossing, but a large portion of the area’s access to transit is limited. The eastern side of the study area has even more limited access to transit. Only adjacent

property owners can access those routes. The linkages between Gagel Avenue/sidestreets and nearby communities are poor. The walkshed analysis shows that residents in the area have long travel times and unless the sidewalk network is enhanced, that will continue to be the case.

There is one public school within this study area. The range of where students can walk to the school is reasonable if they live in the surrounding neighborhoods.



Figure 2-28. Walkshed Analysis for Sidewalks Valley Station Road.


Sidewalks are present along Dixie Highway and Valley Station Road, but there are several gaps in the network. Figure 2-28 below shows the existing sidewalk network as being disjointed, specifi cally near Valley Traditional High School. However, the study area is largely covered by a 30 minute walk time.

There are several bus stops along Dixie Highway, with the bus stops on the north providing better service to the nearby residents. Connectivity and accessibility can be improved if these gaps in the network are removed. There are four public

schools within the Valley Station Study Area. Three of the schools have decent accessibility while non-automobile travel methods are less desirable for Valley Traditional High School.


CORRIDOR STRENGTHS & NEEDS CORRIDOR STRENGTHS & NEEDS SUMMARYSUMMARY

The Dixie Highway study areas have some components of a non-motorized network, but it is lacking in several areas. There are gaps in the network that diminish the overall connectivity between origins and destinations, and it is not uncommon to have sidewalk on only one side of the road (Figure 2-29). The level of connectivity to Dixie Highway could be improved and the facilities are often non-compliant with ADA standards. Despite these shortcomings, there is an existing network that can be built upon as was determined in the Existing Conditions Analysis. These conditions include:

▪ Each corridor provides a vehicle-centric backbone that can be used to more easily expand upon the non-motorized network (sidewalks, bicycle lanes, shared use paths, etc.), as well as to develop options to address vehicle safety and operations

▪ Three corridors (Crums Lane, Rockford Lane and Valley Station Road) have some very basic non-motorized facilities, which include intermittent sidewalks on at least one side of the road. They currently serve as a piecemeal system

▪ All four corridors serve mostly single family residential areas, with some multi-family units in select areas, as well as a variety of destinations (schools, commercial/shopping areas, places of worship, parks/recreation areas, etc.) that could be in proximity to a pedestrian-oriented system reachable by non-motorized means if improvements were to be made.

▪ There is a moderate number of people who would potentially benefi t from improved access in the study areas. Improved access would not only better facilitate internal mobility but connectivity to the now operational Dixie BRT Line. The improvements would also enhance overall non-motorized mobility within southwest Jeff erson County.

▪ Three of the four corridors currently serve an existing transit / bus route in some fashion.

▪ In addition to the sidewalks that do exist, there are areas of parking lots and other paved areas which function as de facto sidewalks or paths along the road.

▪ There are several crosswalks in each study area, some at mid-block and some at major intersections.

Specifi c to each corridor, Table 2-3 identifi es the strengths that need to be considered during the planning and development process to identify potential improvements.

Figure 2-29. Dixie Highway study areas have some components of a non-motorized network or system.



The four study areas also have various needs and challenges in terms of bicycle and pedestrian access. These needs and challenges include:

▪ Gagel Avenue lacks any type of sidewalks along the majority of the study area, except for small sections very close to Dixie Highway and along Manslick Road near the shopping area on the north side.

▪ All four corridors lack any signed or marked bicycle facilities. There are few opportunities for safe and eff ective cycling short of bicycling on the sidewalk or directly in the roadway, neither of which are particularly desirable or safe options. Note Note that according to Louisville Metro Code of that according to Louisville Metro Code of ordinances, No person 11 years of age or ordinances, No person 11 years of age or older shall operate a bicycle on the sidewalk. older shall operate a bicycle on the sidewalk. § 74.01§ 74.01

▪ Other challenges for pedestrians include street crossings. While there are some marked crosswalks throughout the corridor, the majority of these need to be updated, enhanced or relocated (such as some non-school-related mid-block crossings) and made fully ADA compliant.

Table 2-3. Study Area Existing Conditions Summary.

Note: The table above only represents conditions along the study area roadways and not necessarily at or near the intersections with Dixie Highway.

EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY

STUDY AREA DIRECTIONEXISTING SIDEWALK COVERAGE

EXISTING MULTIMODAL

ORIGIN SOURCESEXISTING MULTIMODAL DESTINATIONS

Crums LnNorth 55% 2 Multi-unit

housing complexes

3 Schools, 5 Places of Worship, 2 Commercial Zones, 1 Park, 1 Healthcare Facility, 1 transit

line #63South 77%

Rockford LnNorth 79% 2 Multi-unit

housing complexes5 Schools, 8 Places of Worship, 1 Commercial

Zone, 1 transit line #29South 46%

Gagel AveNorth 8% 6 Multi-unit

housing complexes1 School, 3 Places of Worship, 1 Commercial

Zone, 1 Park, 1 transit line partially #54South 0%

Valley Station RdNorth 30% 3 Multi-unit

housing complexes5 Schools, 6 Places of Worship, 2 Commercial

Zones, 1 Healthcare FacilitySouth 66%


SPATIAL & GAP ANALYSISSPATIAL & GAP ANALYSIS

four corridors are frequently using or accessing Dixie Highway. On a smaller scale within each of the four study areas, residents also have a need to access the nearby schools, churches, commercial and other residential areas along a particular corridor. These spatial relationships reinforce the need to provide more widespread, consistent and safe facilities for both pedestrians and bicycles within the corridors and from the corridors to Dixie Highway.

When identifying gaps it is critical to identify where facilities (mainly sidewalks) exist and if they meet the design standard (typically widths, slopes and vertical requirements) needed for safety and access. The following table highlights the existing facilities along each corridor and identifi es if the corridor meets the functional standard required, and if they are multimodal or not. Most of the facilities do not meet the project’s functional standards, and are not ADA accessible, nor are there provisions for bicycles. Some facilities pose a barrier, e.g. stairs, or may even impose a trip hazard. The physical relationship between where

people live and where they work and play has an important role in determining the needs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Through the Existing Conditions Analysis, the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities were inventoried for the four study area corridors. While most people are traveling by cars in the study areas, there is a need and demand for safe facilities for walking and biking (Figure 2-30). This can be seen through observations in the corridor of residents walking and a few bicycles operating in the roadway, and the ridership and pedestrian activities associated with TARC routes.

Trip generators, mainly single family and multi-family residential units were identifi ed to review travel patterns associated with the various land uses along these corridors. With a heavy concentration of commercial uses along Dixie Highway, these four corridors are connected in terms of a spatial relationship – meaning people who live along these

Figure 2-30. While the majority of people are traveling by cars in the study areas, there is a need and demand for safe facilities for walking and biking.



As is evident from Table 2-4, Gagel Avenue is the corridor with the most gaps identifi ed. The three other corridors have some facilities, but they typically do not meet current standards or ones established for this study. None of the corridors have provisions for bicycles.

GAPS

STUDY AREA DIRECTION FACILITIES AT ACCEPTABLE STANDARD

COVERAGE OF EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

Crums LnNorth - None

South - None

Rockford LnNorth - None

South - None

Gagel AveNorth x None

South x None

Valley Station RdNorth - None

South - None

Table 2-4. Study Area Facility Gaps. LEGEND

x

-

Adequate sidewalk coverage and no accessibilty issues

Some sidewalk coverage with ADA accessibility issues

Low sidewalk coverage with limited ADA accessibility

Users in the area include residents, students, workers, worshipers, visitors and others who access the variety of community-oriented facilities and destinations within the study areas for daily travel or for recreation and health. The information below off ers a snapshot of some of the typical needs of those users.

StudentsStudents

Student users are a particularly important user group as they tend to be younger, less experienced pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore more vulnerable in crashes with motor vehicles. As is evident from the Existing Conditions Analysis, there are a number of schools in the study areas, including elementary, middle, and high schools.

Additionally, there is a special needs school on Rockford Lane. Some facilities exist in the immediate area next to the schools but there is a lack of continuous facilities that extend farther away and into the adjacent neighborhoods. Because of policies about student assignment, not all students who live near a particular Jeff erson County Public School actually attend that school. Therefore, precisely determining the demand for local walkability to schools is diffi cult. It is safe to say however, that conditions could be improved for this profi le group.

USER PROFILESUSER PROFILES


Individuals Lacking Vehicle AccessIndividuals Lacking Vehicle Access

Another user profi le group to consider are nearby residents who don’t have access to a vehicle. These individuals sometimes have limited or fi xed incomes and rely on travel by foot, bicycle and/or transit to get where they need to go for daily living. Having safe and connected facilities from places where they live to nearby transit stops, work locations, educational institutions, shopping, and retail is very important. Local TARC transit service is available internally within some of the study areas, so access from where people live to local stops is important. Access from the study area to the Dixie Highway corridor is also important for transit users as the BRT service provides improved connections to downtown Louisville and other routes in the TARC system. Research across the United States has shown that most, if not all, transit trips typically begin and/or end with a pedestrian trip as well.

ElderlyElderly

Similarly, older residents who may not be able to aff ord a vehicle and/or are not able to operate one are another important user group to take into account (Figure 2-31). Younger and older residents increasingly rely on others for rides. When those options are not available, they often walk partially or entirely to their destinations.

Recreation/Health UsersRecreation/Health Users

Another segment of residents in the area that are of concern are ones that use non-motorized facilities for recreational travel or to derive health benefi ts. Studies have shown that areas with improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities are healthier and safer for residents as they provide an option other than driving. More and more research has focused on the connection between urban development patterns, the built environment and health. There is evidence that walking and cycling for recreation and health are benefi cial for residents of all ages, and facilities that make this possible are needed in the study areas.

Figure 2-31. Older residents who may not be able to aff ord a vehicle and/or are not able to operate one are another important user group to take into account.

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING PROCESS

525254

Stakeholder EngagementSummary of FeedbackFunctional Standards




Stakeholder engagement activities were undertaken throughout the duration of the project and feedback from stakeholders internal to and external to the project were both used in all levels of project development, screening/analyses and project prioritization. Specifi c activities to engage stakeholders during the study included:

▪ Meeting with the Shively Mayor Beverly Chester Burton (7/15/19)

▪ Meeting with members representing the Southwest Dream Team (7/15/19)

▪ Meeting with Members of Louisville Metro Council Members and/or staff of District 3 Keisha Dorsey, District 12, Rick Blackwell, District 15 Kevin Triplett, and District 25 David Yates (July, 2019)

▪ Briefi ng to the Shively City Council (8/5/19)

▪ Two public meetings (8/8/2019 and 11/11/19) (Figures 3-1 -3-3)

▪ Web survey through a link on Metro’s web site (active from 9/1/19 to 11/10/19)

▪ Project Team Meetings with representatives from Metro Public Works, Traffi c and Planning, KYTC, TARC and HDR(throughout the duration of the project)

NeedsNeeds

Stakeholders almost universally recognized a need for improvements in the four corridors. Most support was for paths or wide sidewalks, typically on both sides of the road with a buff er, to provide improved interconnectivity for the origins and destinations within the study areas, and for better connectivity for Dixie Highway. Many people

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENTSTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACKSUMMARY OF FEEDBACK

indicated they do not walk the corridors today, but they recognized the need for these types of facilities. Access to transit and the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line was also recognized as a need. Additionally, there was support to address vehicular operations and safety issues on the corridors.

PROJECT OVERVIEWDIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY

The purpose of the Dixie Highway Access Study is to improve safety, mobility, and inter-modal access along Crums Ln, Rockford Ln, Gagel Ave, and Valley Station Rd by identifying pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular improvements and prioritizing connections to destinations along Dixie Highway. It is an outgrowth of the New Dixie Highway Project to tie major neighborhod corridors into TARC’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

The Dixie Highway Access Study will evaluate and make recommendations for improvements to the following:

PROJECT GOALS

WHAT DOES THIS STUDY EVALUATE?

Improve mobility for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles along the project corridors that enhance accessibility, connectivity, and pedestrian circulation to Dixie Highway and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line.

MOBILITY

Provide safe access to the Dixie Highway BRT line from destinations on the project corridors that increase transportation choices.

INTER-MODAL ACCESS

Improve safety for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles along the project corridors by providing improved connections to Dixie Highway.

SAFETY

Prioritize improvements that support connections to the BRT line as well as key destinations along Dixie Highway such as employment, shopping, schools and public facilities in order to maximize access to inter-modal options.

CONNECTIONS

WHY ARE WE HERE?

Listing of potential projects with planning level costsPotential right-of way impactsTimeline / implementationPriorities

PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVE SAFETY / ACCESS

BIKE VEHICULAR

+ +

WHAT WILL THIS PROJECT PRODUCE?

WHAT IS THE PROJECT SCHEDULE?

JUNE 2019 Stakeholder Interviews & Existing Conditions

AUGUST 2019 Public Meeting #1

LATE AUGUST 2019 Initial Alternatives

LATE SEPTEMBER 2019 Refined Alternatives

MID NOVEMBER 2019 Public Meeting #2

MID DECEMBER 2019 Draft Report

Figure 3-1. Public Meeting #1, Project Overview.



Issues and SupportIssues and Support

There was little to no support for bicycle facilities, especially bike lanes in the street or for neighborways. Many stakeholders felt that sidewalks and paths would be better, get more use and are/were more widely needed, and would be a better investment of funds. Stakeholders expressed concerns about pedestrian safety and

mentioned the unsafe conditions associated with people walking in the streets or crossing mid-block at unsignalized crossings. They also identifi ed the need for improvements to ramps, signs, pavement markings, etc., at larger intersections of the corridors with Dixie Highway, Cane Run Road and Manslick Road. A need for some new crosswalks was mentioned, especially in the online survey. Walking in the roadway was particularly mentioned

PROJECT OVERVIEWDIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY

Cane R

un R

d

Rockford Ln

Gra

ston

Ave

I-264

Dixie H

wy

Dixi

e Hw

y

Stonestreet Rd

Dee

ring

Rd

Valley Station Rd

Gagel Ave

Dixie H

wy

Man

slic

k R

d

Valley Station Rd

Gagel Ave

Rockford Ln

Cane R

un Rd

Crums Ln

7th Street R

d

Man

slic

k R

d

Dixi

e Hw

y

I-264

I-264

Garrs Ln

STUDY AREASCrums Ln1

2

3

4

Fig 1. Crums Ln at Schaff ner Dr

Fig 2. Rockford Ln at Rockford Plaza

Fig. 3. Gagel Ave at London Dr

Fig. 4. Valley Station Rd at Stonestreet Rd

FACILITY PREFERENCEDIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY 4

STAT

ION

VOTE HERE VOT EFOR SIDEWALKFOR SIDEWALKS WALK

PATH SIDEWALK

Would you rather have a path or sidewalk?1

FOR BUFFERFOR BUFFERFERVOTE HERE VOT E

FOR NO BUFFERFOR NO BUFFERER

BUFFER NO BUFFER

Would you rather have a buffer between the road and the sidewalk or no buffer between the road and the sidewalk?

2

OR

OROR OR

BIKE LANEPATH SHARROW

VOTE HERE VO REFOR BIKE LANEFOR BIKE LANEFOR PATHFOR PAPATATHH FOR SHARROWFOR SHARRROWOW

Would you rather have bikes use a path, bike lane, or sharrow?3

OR

OR

Figure 3-2. Public Meeting #1, Facility Preference. Figure 3-3. Public Meeting #2, Project Overview.


during the discussions for Gagel Avenue. Concerns were brought up regarding high vehicular speeds and crashes during the discussions for nearly all of the corridors.

PriorityPriority

Areas closer to Dixie Highway and the investments in the same that have been going on the past few years were thought generally to be a high priority. In terms of corridor priority, Crums Lane and Rockford Lane were typically ranked as one and two respectively, though sometimes that ranking was flipped. Valley Station Road was mentioned largely in the middle, although it received less priority in the web survey. Since Valley Station Road has somewhat wider right of way, it was thought it may provide more opportunity for immediate projects and perhaps more manageable costs. Gagel Avenue was typically mentioned as the third or fourth priority, and is primarily thought of as a corridor for vehicles, excluding the segment west of the railroad crossing. Most stakeholders recognized that improvements to Gagel Avenue, given the existing condition of the roadway, its rural character and terrain, and use as a cut through, might encompass a rebuild of the entire

Figure 3-4. Online Survey.

The project team developed a set of functional design standards that provided guidance over the course of the study as alternatives and projects were subsequently developed and screened. The functional standards were not intended to limit the potential design solutions. Rather, they were developed to off er more of an “ideal” design or aspirational design.

Given for example, right-of-way constraints, location of utilities, and the location of existing buildings, some of the alternatives developed during this study deviated from the functional standards when it was deemed appropriate, i.e., to avoid these impacts and/or to minimize costs. As the study progressed it became clear that in-street bike facilities would not be included in the fi nal recommendations, and therefore, all functional standards related to bike lanes were not considered in the project development and screening levels. The same applies to multi-use paths. All design solutions that were advanced included either a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk depending on the location of right-of-way lines. A 6’ sidewalk comes with the added benefi t of being able to accommodate a cyclist and a pedestrian if the two were to cross paths. An urban curb and gutter section is used where appropriate, however, an urban section is not used for every segment. The design standards ultimately used for the sidewalks in all four corridors is depicted in Figures 3-5 - 3-7.

FUNCTIONAL STANDARDSFUNCTIONAL STANDARDS

roadway, and that this was likely a costly long-term project. The corridor rankings information from the web survey is depicted in Figure 3-4.



Figure 3-5. Desirable Sidewalk with Curb.

Figure 3-7. Minimum Sidewalk with Curb (Sidewalk Away from Curb).

Figure 3-6. Minimum Sidewalk with Curb (Sidewalk Adjacent to Curb).

Alternatives DevelopmentScreening Purpose & MethodologyCrums Lane Screening SummaryRockford Lane Screening SummaryGagel Avenue Screening SummaryValley Station Road Screening Summary

CHAPTER 4: SCREENING SUMMARY

585963748494




The defi nition of each alternative was based on the previously introduced Functional Standards which identifi ed the most desirable conditions and ideal typical section details.

MotorizedMotorized

The development of motorized alternative options for each of the study corridors began with a meeting of the project team where several guiding principles were established. The project team then used those guiding principles to develop alternatives that could target problems specifi c to each corridor. Motorized alternative options varied from larger, more expensive options like roadway reconfi gurations; road diets, turn lanes, or changes in access, to smaller and cheaper options such as upgrading signage and pavement markings.

The project team undertook two distinct alternative development processes, one for non-motorized alternatives and a second for motorized alternatives. The primary focus of the study is on enhancing multimodal non-motorized access within each area. However, it was important to consider the vehicular aspect as well because it can aff ect what happens with planning, design and development of future multimodal projects.

Non-MotorizedNon-Motorized

The development of diff erent conceptual alternative options for each of the study corridors took place during an interactive session where the project team thought through a range of multimodal, non-motorized alternatives. This development process used the information documented in the Existing Conditions report to create a range of alternatives for each study corridor (Figure 4-1). During the alternative development process it was imperative to be inclusive of all multimodal options and not eliminate any potential alternative prior to the fi rst screening level.

One goal of the project team was to build upon the existing multimodal network in each study area and identify multiple alternative options that would improve safety and access, or both, for pedestrians and cyclists who use these facilities. Additionally, the team wanted to improve interconnectivity between origins and destinations within the study areas, and to enhance access to the Dixie BRT service.

Alternatives ranged from higher cost and more robust options, such as in-street bicycle facilities and sidewalks on one or both sides of the road, to lower cost and less robust options, like simply fi lling in existing sidewalk gaps. Additionally, a No Build / Do Nothing option was also included for all study areas.

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

Figure 4-1. The project team used data collected during the fi eld visit to make informed decisions during the alternative development process.



Figure 4-2. The graphic conceptually shows the screening process used in this study.

The study used a three-level evaluation, screening and ranking process (see Figure 4-2) to screen and ultimately rank and prioritize the alternatives. Non-motorized and motorized alternative options underwent the same evaluation and screening process in principle, but the criteria for the two types of alternatives was not always identical.

LEVEL 1LEVEL 1 UNIVERSEUNIVERSE FATALFATALFLAWFLAW

LEVEL 2LEVEL 2 CONCEPTUALCONCEPTUAL SCREENINGSCREENINGANALYSISANALYSIS

LEVEL 3LEVEL 3 REFINEDREFINED RANKING/RANKING/PRIORITYPRIORITY

ALL ALTERNATIVESALL ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATIONEVALUATION

SCREENING PURPOSE & SCREENING PURPOSE & METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY


LEVEL 1 SCREENING ANALYSISLEVEL 1 SCREENING ANALYSIS

The focus of the Level 1 screening was a qualitative, fatal flaw analysis of each alternative option. Both the non-motorized and motorized alternatives underwent a Level 1 screening. The goal of the Level 1 analysis was to advance only the alternative options that were supportable, feasible and proportional to the need or issue that was being addressed.


The Level 1 non-motorized screening used six (6) considerations to screen each alternative option. They were:

1. 1. Costs:Costs: Order of magnitude capital costs, determined by taking an inventory of the existing facilities and projecting the total cost for each alternative option

2. 2. Right-of-Way:Right-of-Way: The need for additional right-of-way, determined by examining the location of existing property lines and multimodal facilities (as portrayed from existing data sources), and approximating the location of new multimodal facilities

3. 3. Stakeholder support:Stakeholder support: Stakeholder support, determined through one-on-one and group meetings with local elected offi cials, other stakeholders representing the business community, and the general public to establish the level of support for each type of alternative

4. 4. Utility relocation:Utility relocation: The need for major utility relocation, determined by reviewing the presence of existing overhead and underground utilities, and determining potential conflicts and needs for relocation

5. 5. Drainage:Drainage: The need for major drainage work, determined by locating existing drainage facilities and analyzing the changes needed to maintain or improve drainage based on the assumed cross-section for each type of option

6. 6. Railroad crossings:Railroad crossings: The need to cross and/or otherwise impact existing or to provide new/improved railroad crossings

MotorizedMotorized

Motorized alternative options underwent a capacity, safety and speed analysis for the Level 1 screening. The Annual Average Daily Traffi c (AADT) of each corridor and turning movement counts at select intersections were used to analyze capacity. Five (5) years of crash data (2013-2017) were used to locate crash problems. Speed data was analyzed for several purposes. It was used to determine if traffi c calming measures were needed, and to identify areas of congestion, i.e. very low travel speeds could indicate a problem with capacity. Additionally, it was used to determine if speeds and crashes were interrelated.

Figure 4-3. Bicycle and Pedestrian focused improvements are designed to improve accessibility within the corridors and to the new Dixie BRT service.



The specifi c considerations for each alternative option were as follows:

1. 1. Right-of-Way Impact:Right-of-Way Impact: Potential impacts to right-of-way were identifi ed

2. 2. Costs:Costs: Order of magnitude costs were determined

3. 3. Impact on Non-Motorized Facilities: Impact on Non-Motorized Facilities: Some motorized alternative options, e.g. roadway widening, would impact where non-motorized facilities could be located. Additionally, it could mean that non-motorized facilities would require additional right-of-way if both motorized and non-motorized alternative options are pursued in the future

4. 4. Degree of Diffi culty to Implement:Degree of Diffi culty to Implement: Utility relocation, acquisition of right-of-way, and high cost projects are more diffi cult to complete as they take more time. Low cost projects that don’t require utility relocation or right-of-way acquisition are typically easier to implement


The Level 2 screening was used to further refi ne the list of alternatives that were retained after the fi rst level of screening. This level of analysis was focused on costs, safety, access, capacity, and other impacts in order to identify the alternatives that produced benefi ts and were implementable.

The corridors were broken down into segments and analyzed at the segment level during this level of screening. The makeup of each corridor is not uniform throughout, so breaking them down further allowed for the project team to have more freedom to identify and match the physical characteristics of the segments to potential improvements that could be considered. Additionally, breaking each corridor into smaller segments was the next logical step in the project identifi cation process. The Level 2 screening produced at least one project for every segment of every corridor that would undergo a fi nal level of screening.

Screening CriteriaScreening Criteria

Non-motorized and motorized alternatives were screened using the same criteria at this level, unlike the previous Level 1 screening. The specifi c criteria used in the Level 2 screening were:

▪ Construction Costs

▪ Right-of-Way Costs

▪ Utility Costs

▪ Bike/Ped Safety

▪ Vehicular Safety

▪ Bike/Ped Access

▪ Roadway Capacity

▪ Environmental Impact

▪ Visual Impact

Each criterion was scored from 1 (Little Positive Impact/High Cost) to 5 (High positive impact/

Figure 4-4. This study is an opportunity to identify the need for motorized improvements to these corridors.


Figure 4-5. The focus of the Level 2 screening was on cost, safety, access, and capacity.

Low Cost). Weights were applied to each criterion ranging from 1 to 3. Bike/Ped impacts were weighted higher given that this was a multimodal centric study. Conversely, motorized impacts were given less weight.

This level of analysis was largely qualitative with only vehicular safety impacts being quantifi ed. The vehicular safety benefi ts were quantifi ed by using known countermeasures found in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) or the Crash Modifi cation Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse. Applicable countermeasures with known CMFs were used to determine the expected reduction in crashes due to the countermeasure. Crashes are measured by severity on the K A B C O scale, with K (fatal) being the most severe and O (property damage only) being the least severe. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) has assigned each crash severity a comprehensive value. KYTC’s comprehensive values were used to determine the total benefi t that each countermeasure would produce.


A third, and fi nal, level of screening was used to prioritize the projects that passed through the Level 2 screening. The priority of each project was ranked as either Low, Medium, or High. Conceptually, the Level 3 screening was identical to the Level 2 screening. Each remaining project was scored on several criteria, with each criterion being weighted. The criteria used for the Level 3 screening were:

▪ Pedestrian Benefi ts

▪ Costs – Design, Right-of-Way, Utility, and Construction (D, R, U, C)

▪ Access to Transit Routes/Stops

▪ Land Uses, i.e. origins and destinations

▪ Stakeholder Support

▪ Roadway Benefi t-Cost Analysis

Additional details of each project can be found in the project sheets. They provide a summary, cost, concept plan, and considerations for each project. The cost includes all phases – D, R, U, C – in 2019 constant dollars. A 50% contingency was used for all construction costs. The fi nal costs are expressed in a range due to the uncertainty present at the planning stage of project development.

Note: The following sections describe the non-motorized and motorized options, and subsequent screening and conclusions. They are arranged by corridor.





Seven alternative options were developed for the Crums Lane study area, including a No Build / Do Nothing option (Fig. 4-6). The details are shown in Table 4-1. The table is organized by most impactful alternative at the top to the least impactful at the bottom.

MotorizedMotorized

The analysis of speeds on Crums Lane did not show a need for traffi c calming measures to be pursued. An 85th percentile of higher than 40mph was not reached between 7am to 7pm. The safety analysis confi rmed what was found in the speed analysis; high speeds were largely a non-issue. The crashes on the corridor showed there to be benefi t in converting portions of Crums Lane from a four-lane to a three-lane section, with one travel lane in either direction and a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) in the center. One potential three-lane section would be converted via a road diet, while the others would involve some widening. A mini roundabout was also considered in the same section where a road diet was proposed. Other alternatives screened included added warning signage, ADA accessibility improvements at signalized intersections, and improving/removing existing unsignalized crosswalks. The motorized Level 1 screening is shown in Table 4-2.

LEVEL 1 SCREENING RESULTSLEVEL 1 SCREENING RESULTS

In street bicycle facilities received no support from stakeholders and were removed from consideration following the Level 1 screening. All other non-motorized options were carried to the next level of screening. The mini roundabout at Mae Avenue was the only motorized alternative removed from consideration after the Level 1 screening. Therefore, the following alternative options that passed through the fi rst level of screening are:

1. Multi-Use path on one side and sidewalk on other side

2. Sidewalk on both sides

3. Sidewalk on one side only

4. Fill in the gaps

5. All motorized options – sans mini roundabout at Mae Avenue

CRUMS LANE SCREENING CRUMS LANE SCREENING SUMMARYSUMMARY

Figure 4-6. Seven alternative options were developed for the Crums Lane study area.



The results of the Level 2 screening can be found in Table 4-3. After the Level 1 screening it was decided to divide each of the study corridors into smaller segments. The Crums Lane segments were:

▪ Segment 1 (Cane Run to Cheviot)

▪ Segment 2 (Cheviot to Janell)

▪ Segment 3 (Janell to Dixie)

▪ Segment 4 (Dixie to Manslick)

Segment 1 (Cane Run to Cheviot)Segment 1 (Cane Run to Cheviot)

Two alternatives scored equally: 1) motorized improvements only and 2) sidewalk on both sides of the road plus motorized improvements. It was decided that alternative two would be chosen as it was more in line with the study goals of enhancing multimodal access, but the non-motorized and motorized components would be considered separate at the next screening level.

Segment 2 (Cheviot to Janell)Segment 2 (Cheviot to Janell)

Sidewalk on one side of the road combined with motorized improvements scored the highest in segment 2. The sidewalk in this segment would start on the north and switch to the south at an enhanced unsignalized crosswalk at Schaff ner Elementary. From there it would continue to the intersection with Janell Road.

Segment 3 (Janell to Dixie) & Segment 4 Segment 3 (Janell to Dixie) & Segment 4 (Dixie to Manslick)(Dixie to Manslick)

Sidewalk on one side of the road combined with motorized improvements received the highest score in segments 3 and 4. The proposed sidewalk would run entirely on the south side of Crums Lane in these segments.


Five alternatives were screened for the four Crums Lane segments, two in segment one and one each in the other segments. The results can be found in Table 4-4. The screening process resulted in three high priority projects and two medium priority projects. These results were compatible with the prior screening levels and feedback received during stakeholder engagement. During the Level 3 screening process the project team was informed that a sidewalk had recently been constructed in segment 4 of Crums Lane. Therefore, the No Build / Do Nothing option is the fi nal recommendation for that segment.


CRUMS LANE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENINGCRUMS LANE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING

CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVECONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE OF COSTOF COST

IS ROW ANTICIPATED?

IS IT SUPPORTED BY

STAKEHOLDERS?

ARE MAJOR UTILITY RELOCATION

ANTICIPATED?

IS MAJOR DRAINAGE WORK ANTICIPATED?

ARE NEW / WIDER RAILROAD

CROSSINGS REQUIRED?

Multi-Use Path & SidewalkMulti-Use Path & Sidewalk

Construct a multi-use path on the southside and a new sidewalk on the northside, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$$$$ - Very High Costs

Sidewalks & Bike LanesSidewalks & Bike Lanes

Construct new sidewalks on both the north and southsides and reconfi gure/widen roadway to include bike lanes, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.


Sidewalks, No Bike LanesSidewalks, No Bike Lanes

Construct new sidewalks on both the north and southsides, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$$$ - High Costs

Sidewalk South OnlySidewalk South Only

Construct one new sidewalk(s) on only the southside, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$$ - Moderate Costs

Fill In Gaps, North & SouthFill In Gaps, North & South

Construct new sidewalks on both sides of the road only where there are currently no sidewalks are present; new sidewalks would include all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Within sections of existing sidewalks, only upgrade ADA ramps, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$ - Low Costs

Fill In Gaps, South OnlyFill In Gaps, South Only

Construct new sidewalks only on the southside of the road where the least number of gaps exist and only where there are currently no sidewalks are present; new sidewalks would include all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Within sections of existing sidewalks, only upgrade ADA ramps, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$ - Low Costs

No Build / Do NothingNo Build / Do Nothing Do not construct any new bicycle or pedestrian facilities along the corridor. N/A

Table 4-1. Crums Lane Non-Motorized Level 1 Screening.



CRUMS LANE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING

CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION MAGNITUDE OF COST

IS ROW IS ROW ANTICIPATED?ANTICIPATED?

IS IT IS IT SUPPORTED BY SUPPORTED BY

STAKEHOLDERS?STAKEHOLDERS?

ARE MAJOR UTILITY ARE MAJOR UTILITY RELOCATION RELOCATION

ANTICIPATED?ANTICIPATED?

IS MAJOR DRAINAGE IS MAJOR DRAINAGE WORK ANTICIPATED?WORK ANTICIPATED?

ARE NEW / WIDER ARE NEW / WIDER RAILROAD RAILROAD

CROSSINGS REQUIRED?CROSSINGS REQUIRED?

Multi-Use Path & SidewalkYes, given the need

for the multi use paths and sidewalk

High. This seems to be the preferred

option

Yes, given the need to widen the right-

of-way

Yes, given the need for new right-of-way and likely conversion

to curb and gutter

Yes, new and wider crossing needed

Sidewalks & Bike LanesYes, given the need for bike lanes and

sidewalks

Low. There is no current support for

in-street bicycle facilities


of-way


to curb and gutter


Sidewalks, No Bike LanesLikely, given the need for sidewalks on both

sides

Medium. New sidewalks are

supported if the multiuse path cannot

be constructed

No, assuming improvements will not impact major

utilities

No, assuming the existing section is

retained

Yes, but similar crossing to what

exists anticipated

Sidewalk South OnlyLikely, given the need for sidewalks on the

southside

Medium. Sidewalks are supported if the

multiuse path cannot be constructed


utilities


retained


exists anticipated

Fill In Gaps, North & SouthLikely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

both sides

Medium. This would be supported if

other options are not feasible


utilities


retained


exists anticipated

Fill In Gaps, South OnlyLikely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

the south side




utilities


retained


exists anticipated

No Build / Do Nothing No No No No No


CRUMS LANE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENINGCRUMS LANE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING

LOCATIONLOCATION ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONALTERNATIVE SOLUTION PROBLEMS(S) / ISSUES(S) ADDRESSEDPROBLEMS(S) / ISSUES(S) ADDRESSED IMPACT TO ROW? POTENTIAL COSTS IMPACT TO NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES? ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT

Crums Lane and Cane Run Road Crums Lane and Cane Run Road intersectionintersection

ADA accessibility improvements to curbs, signs, signal heads, etc. ADA accessibility

Crums Lane Road Diet from Cane Run Crums Lane Road Diet from Cane Run intersection to Cheviot Driveintersection to Cheviot Drive

Reduce cross section from 4 lanes (2 each direction) to 3 lanes (1 each direction with center TWLTL)

Safety, crashes, turning vehicles, accessibility

Crums Lane widening from Cheviot Crums Lane widening from Cheviot Drive to Schaff ner Elementary School Drive to Schaff ner Elementary School entrance, also includes crosswalk entrance, also includes crosswalk improvementsimprovements

Widen cross section from s lanes (1 each direction) to 3 lanes ( 1 each direction with center TWLTL)


Crums Lane at Butler Traditional High Crums Lane at Butler Traditional High SchoolSchool

Improve existing, unsignalized midblock crossing Safety

Crums Lane widening from just west Crums Lane widening from just west of Fern Lea Road to Park Row Driveof Fern Lea Road to Park Row Drive


Safety, crashes, turning vehicles, accessibilityw

Crums Lane and Janell Road Crums Lane and Janell Road intersection intersection

Add turn lane(s), restripe crosswalks, add refuge island


Crums Lane at the curve near the Crums Lane at the curve near the American Legion Dixie Post 220American Legion Dixie Post 220

Curve warning signs in both directions approaching the existing curve Safety, crashes

Just east of Dixie Intersection near Just east of Dixie Intersection near CVS and the Mary Queen of Peace CVS and the Mary Queen of Peace Parish ChurchParish Church

Remove existing, unsignalized, midblock crosswalk Safety

Just east of RR tracks near Paradise Just east of RR tracks near Paradise Tomato KitchenTomato Kitchen


Crums Lane and Manslick Road Crums Lane and Manslick Road intersectionintersection


Table 4-2. Crums Lane Motorized Level 1 Screening.



CRUMS LANE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING

LOCATION ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION PROBLEMS(S) / ISSUES(S) ADDRESSED IMPACT TO ROW?IMPACT TO ROW? POTENTIAL COSTSPOTENTIAL COSTS IMPACT TO NON-MOTORIZED IMPACT TO NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES?FACILITIES? ABILITY TO IMPLEMENTABILITY TO IMPLEMENT

Crums Lane and Cane Run Road intersection Limited $ Not likely Easy to implement

Crums Lane Road Diet from Cane Run intersection to Cheviot Drive Unknown $$ Unknown

Easy to implement, could be done with repaving of

roadway

Crums Lane widening from Cheviot Drive to Schaff ner Elementary School entrance, also includes crosswalk improvements

Unknown $$ UnknownEasy to implement, could be done with repaving of

roadway

Crums Lane at Butler Traditional High School No $ Yes Easy to implement

Crums Lane widening from just west of Fern Lea Road to Park Row Drive Unknown $$ Unknown


roadway

Crums Lane and Janell Road intersection Unknown $$ Unknown


roadway

Crums Lane at the curve near the American Legion Dixie Post 220 No $ No Easy to implement

Just east of Dixie Intersection near CVS and the Mary Queen of Peace Parish Church

No $ Yes Easy to implement

Just east of RR tracks near Paradise Tomato Kitchen No $ Yes Easy to implement

Crums Lane and Manslick Road intersection Limited $ Not likely Easy to implement


CRUMS LANE LEVEL 2 SCREENINGCRUMS LANE LEVEL 2 SCREENING

SECTIONSECTION ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION COSTSCOSTS ROW COSTSROW COSTS UTILITY UTILITY

COSTSCOSTSBIKE/PED SAFETY

VEHICULAR SAFETY

BIKE & PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS

ROADWAY CAPACITY

ENVIRONMENT IMPACT

VISUAL IMPACT TOTAL

Segment 1: Segment 1: Cane Run - CheviotCane Run - Cheviot

Road Diet Only 4 5 5

Path on South & Sidewalk on North 1 1 1

Sidewalk on Both Sides 2 2 2

Path on South & Sidewalk on North + Road Diet 1 1 1

Sidewalk on Both Sides + Road Diet 1 2 2

Segment 2: Cheviot - Segment 2: Cheviot - JanellJanell

Roadway Add New Center Lane 5 5 5



Sidewalk on South 4 4 4

Path on South & Sidewalk on North + Roadway 1 1 1

Sidewalk on Both Sides + Roadway 2 2 2

Sidewalk on North + Roadway 4 3 4

Segment 3: Segment 3: Janell - DixieJanell - Dixie

Roadway Add New Center Lane 5 5 5



Sidewalk on South 4 4 4



Sidewalk on South + Roadway 4 3 4

Segment 4: Dixie - Segment 4: Dixie - ManslickManslick

Roadway Improvements Only 5 5 5




Table 4-3. Crums Lane Level 2 Screening.



CRUMS LANE LEVEL 2 SCREENING

SECTION ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ROW COSTS UTILITY

COSTSBIKE/PED BIKE/PED SAFETYSAFETY

VEHICULAR VEHICULAR SAFETYSAFETY

BIKE & BIKE & PEDESTRIANPEDESTRIAN

ACCESSACCESS

ROADWAY ROADWAY CAPACITYCAPACITY

ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTIMPACT

VISUAL VISUAL IMPACTIMPACT TOTALTOTAL

Segment 1: Cane Run - Cheviot

1 5 1 1 5 1 60

4 1 4 3 1 4 41

4 1 4 3 2 4 51

5 5 5 5 1 5 55

5 5 5 5 2 3 60

Segment 2: Cheviot - Janell

1 4 1 1 5 1 62

4 1 4 3 1 4 41

4 1 4 3 2 4 51

3 1 2 2 4 2 59

5 4 5 5 1 5 54

5 4 5 5 2 5 64

4 4 4 4 4 3 72

Segment 3: Janell - Dixie

1 4 1 1 5 1 62

4 1 4 3 1 4 41

4 1 4 3 2 4 51

3 1 2 2 4 2 59

5 4 5 5 1 5 54

5 4 5 5 2 5 64

4 4 4 4 4 3 72

Segment 4: Dixie - Manslick

1 3 1 1 5 1 61

5 3 5 5 1 5 53

5 3 5 5 2 5 63

3 3 4 4 4 3 66

RECOMMENDATION PHASE 2 RECOMMENDATION

PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATION


CRUMS LANE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGCRUMS LANE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTIONSECTION ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITSPEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES)COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT ACCESS TO TRANSIT

ROUTES/STOPSROUTES/STOPSLAND USES/ORIGINS &

DESTINATIONSSTAKEHOLDER

SUPPORT ROADWAY BCA TOTAL PRIORITY

Segment 1: Segment 1: Cane Run - CheviotCane Run - Cheviot

Road Diet Only 1 5 3

Sidewalk on Both Sides + Road Diet 5 2 3

Segment 2: Cheviot - Segment 2: Cheviot - JanellJanell


Segment 3: Segment 3: Janell - DixieJanell - Dixie


Segment 4: Dixie - Segment 4: Dixie - ManslickManslick


Table 4-4. Crums Lane Level 3 Screening.



CRUMS LANE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTION ALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT

ROUTES/STOPSLAND USES/ORIGINS & LAND USES/ORIGINS &

DESTINATIONSDESTINATIONSSTAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER

SUPPORTSUPPORT ROADWAY BCAROADWAY BCA TOTALTOTAL PRIORITYPRIORITY

Segment 1: Cane Run - Cheviot

1 5 5 34 MED

3 5 5 43 HIGH

Segment 2: Cheviot - Janell 4 5 2 37 MED

Segment 3: Janell - Dixie 4 5 3 49 HIGH

Segment 4: Dixie - Manslick 3 5 3 46 HIGH




Seven alternative options were developed for the Rockford Lane study area, including a No Build / Do Nothing option (Fig. 4-7). The details can be seen in Table 4-5. The table is organized by most impactful alternative at the top and least impactful at the bottom.

MotorizedMotorized

The 85th percentile speeds for Rockford Lane were largely within 5 mph of the posted speed limit of 35 mph, indicating that traffi c calming is not needed for the corridor. Rockford Lane had the most crashes during the study period so it had the most room for improvement of the four corridors. Rear end and angle collisions made up most of the crashes in the corridor. Potential motorized improvements to Rockford Lane include converting from a four-lane to a three-lane section in select sections, managing access, improving ADA accessibility, and improving/removing unsignalized crosswalks, among other improvements. More information can be found in Table 4-6.


In street bicycle facilities received no support from stakeholders and were removed from consideration following the Level 1 screening. All other non-motorized options were carried to the next level of screening. Therefore, the following alternative options that passed through the fi rst level of screening are:




4. Fill in the gaps

5. All motorized options

ROCKFORD LANE SCREENING ROCKFORD LANE SCREENING SUMMARYSUMMARY

Figure 4-7. Seven alternative options were developed for the Rockford Lane study area.




The results of the Level 2 screening can be found in Table 4-7. After the Level 1 screening it was decided to divide each of the study corridors into smaller segments. The Rockford Lane segments were:

▪ Segment 1 (Cane Run to Imperial)

▪ Segment 2 (Imperial to Graston)

▪ Segment 3 (Graston to Dixie)

Segment 1 (Cane Run to Imperial), Segment 2 Segment 1 (Cane Run to Imperial), Segment 2 (Imperial to Graston) & Segment 3 (Graston (Imperial to Graston) & Segment 3 (Graston to Dixie)to Dixie)

Each Rockford Lane segment had the same alternative option score the highest. The recommended alternative included a sidewalk on one side of the road with the proposed motorized alternative options included. In all segments the sidewalk is proposed to be on the north side of Rockford Lane.


One alternative was screened for each segment on Rockford Lane. The results can be found in Table 4-8. The screening produced two high priority segments and one low priority segment. During the Level 3 screening the project team decided to modify one of the segment 1 motorized projects. The alternative that was initially considered was a minor widening to accommodate a three-lane section, but after more review the project was changed to access management. It was decided that access management better fi t the goals of the study and should produce comparable benefi ts to the previously recommended project.


ROCKFORD LANE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENINGROCKFORD LANE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING


IS ROW ANTICIPATED?

IS IT SUPPORTED BY

STAKEHOLDERS?


ANTICIPATED?



CROSSINGS REQUIRED?


Construct a multi-use path on the northside and a new sidewalk on the southside, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.







$$$ - High Costs


Construct one new sidewalks on only the northside including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$$ - Moderate Costs

Fill In GapsFill In Gaps


$ - Low Costs

Fill In Gaps, North OnlyFill In Gaps, North Only

Construct new sidewalks only on the northside of the road where the least number of gaps exist and only where there are currently no sidewalks are present; new sidewalks would include all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Within sections of existing sidewalks, only upgrade ADA ramps, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$ - Low Costs


Table 4-5. Rockford Lane Non-Motorized Level 1 Screening.



ROCKFORD LANE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING










Multi-Use Path & Sidewalk Yes, given the need for the multi use path


option


of-way


to curb and gutter

N/A

Sidewalks & Bike Lanes Yes, given the need for bike lanes




of-way


to curb and gutter

N/A


sides



be constructed


utilities


retainedN/A


northside




utilities


retainedN/A

Fill In GapsLikely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

both sides




utilities


retainedN/A

Fill In Gaps, North OnlyLikely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

the south side




utilities


retainedN/A

No Build / Do Nothing No No No No N/A


ROCKFORD LANE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENINGROCKFORD LANE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING


Rockford Lane and Cane Run Road Rockford Lane and Cane Run Road intersectionintersection


Rockford Lane at Clarion CourtRockford Lane at Clarion CourtWiden cross section from 5 lanes (1 each direction) to 3 lanes ( 1 each direction with center TWLTL)


Rockford Lane just west of Teaneck Rockford Lane just west of Teaneck LaneLane

Curve warning signs in both directions approaching the existing curve Safety, crashes

Rockford Lane from Saddlebrook Lane Rockford Lane from Saddlebrook Lane to Imperial Terraceto Imperial Terrace

Widen cross section from 5 lanes (1 each direction) to 3 lanes ( 1 each direction with center TWLTL)


Rockford Lane at Waller Williams Rockford Lane at Waller Williams Environmental SchoolEnvironmental School


Rockford Lane at Western High schoolRockford Lane at Western High school Improve existing, unsignalized midblock crossing Safety

Rockford Lane near Quinn DriveRockford Lane near Quinn Drive Access management, intersection improvements Safety, access

Rockford Lane from Quinn Drive to Rockford Lane from Quinn Drive to James R. Meder RoadJames R. Meder Road



Rockford Lane at James R. Meder Rockford Lane at James R. Meder RoadRoad


Rockford Lane at Hillside DriveRockford Lane at Hillside Drive Add left turn bay in eastbound direction Safety, accessibility

Rockford Lane and Dixie HighwayRockford Lane and Dixie Highway Close business entrance of former Rite Aid drug store Safety, accessibility

Table 4-6. Rockford Lane Motorized Level 1 Screening.



ROCKFORD LANE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING


Rockford Lane and Cane Run Road intersection Limited $ Not likely Easy to implement

Rockford Lane at Clarion Court Unknown $$ UnknownEasy to implement, could be done with repaving of

roadway

Rockford Lane just west of Teaneck Lane No $ No Easy to implement

Rockford Lane from Saddlebrook Lane to Imperial Terrace Unknown $$ Unknown


roadway

Rockford Lane at Waller Williams Environmental School No $ Yes Easy to implement

Rockford Lane at Western High school No $ Yes Easy to implement

Rockford Lane near Quinn Drive Unknown $$$ Unknown Unknown

Rockford Lane from Quinn Drive to James R. Meder Road Unknown $$ Unknown


roadway

Rockford Lane at James R. Meder Road No $ Yes Easy to implement

Rockford Lane at Hillside Drive Unknown $$ Unknown Unknown

Rockford Lane and Dixie Highway No $ No Easy to implement


ROCKFORD LANE LEVEL 2 SCREENINGROCKFORD LANE LEVEL 2 SCREENING


COSTSCOSTSBIKE/PEDSAFETY

VEHICULARSAFETY

BIKE &PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS

ROADWAYCAPACITY

ENVIRONMENTIMPACT

VISUALIMPACT TOTAL

Segment 1: Segment 1: Cane Run - Imperial Cane Run - Imperial


Path on Both Sides + Roadway 1 1 1

Sidewalk on Both Sides + Roadway

2 2 2


Segment 2: Imperial - Segment 2: Imperial - GrastonGraston


Path on Both Sides 2 2 2


Sidewalk on North 3 3 3




Segment 3: Graston - Segment 3: Graston - DixieDixie





Table 4-7. Rockford Lane Level 2 Screening.



ROCKFORD LANE LEVEL 2 SCREENING

SECTION ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTIONCOSTS ROW COSTS UTILITY




ACCESSACCESS




Segment 1:Cane Run - Imperial

1 5 1 4 5 1 63

5 5 5 4 1 5 55

5 5 5 4 2 5 65

3 5 3 4 4 3 69

Segment 2: Imperial -Graston

1 5 1 1 5 1 63

1 1 5 1 3 2 43

5 1 5 1 3 2 51

3 1 3 1 3 3 51

5 5 5 5 1 5 55

5 5 5 5 2 5 65

3 5 3 3 4 3 66

Segment 3: Graston -Dixie

1 5 1 1 5 1 63

5 5 5 5 1 5 55

5 5 5 5 2 5 65

3 5 3 3 4 3 66




ROCKFORD LANE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGROCKFORD LANE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTIONSECTION ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITSPEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES)COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT ACCESS TO TRANSIT




Segment 1: Segment 1: Cane Run - Cane Run - ImperialImperial


Segment 2: Segment 2: Imperial - GrastonImperial - Graston




Table 4-8. Rockford Lane Level 3 Screening.



ROCKFORD LANE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTION ALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT




Segment 1:Cane Run -Imperial

3 4 3 28 LOW

Segment 2:Imperial - Graston 3 4 4 41 HIGH

Segment 3: Graston -Dixie 5 4 5 41 HIGH




Ten alternative options were developed for the Gagel Avenue study area, including a No Build / Do Nothing option (Fig. 4-8). The details of the Level 1 screening are shown in Table 4-9. The table is organized by most impactful alternative at the top and least impactful alternative at the bottom.

MotorizedMotorized

The analysis of Gagel Avenue showed one signifi cant problem that could be identifi ed in all three areas of analysis – speed, safety, and capacity. Vehicles traveling westbound seem to slow down signifi cantly once they reach the railroad crossing, which also happens to be in the middle of a horizontal curve. Travel speeds in that section of Gagel Avenue are slower in general during all hours, but they are especially slow during the PM peak hours. These slower speeds suggest there is congestion and a potential capacity issue during the PM peak.

The capacity analysis of the Dixie Highway and Gagel Avenue intersection showed long queue lengths and high delays for vehicles turning from Gagel Avenue onto Dixie Highway. Additionally, while analyzing the crashes, there was a clear pattern with rear end collisions just past the curve heading westbound. Therefore, two alternative options were proposed to mitigate the issues outlined above. One, a less expensive option, is to place queue detection after the curve and use warning flashers to alert oncoming drivers that there is an extended queue and potentially stopped traffi c that cannot be seen from the start of the curve. The second, a more expensive option, is to widen the Gagel Avenue approach at Dixie Highway. This will increase capacity and reduce the queue lengths, thus giving drivers more time to react when they come around the curve.

Other alternative options included enhanced signage, with an ITS component, at several intersections with sight distance concerns, and ADA accessibility improvements. More information can be found in Table 4-10.

Figure 4-8. Ten alternative options were developed for the Gagel Avenue study area.





1. Roadway rebuild with multi-use path andsidewalks

2. Multi-Use path on one side and sidewalk onother side



5. Fill in the gaps

6. Neighborways or sharrows



The results of the Level 2 screening can be found in Table 4-11. After the Level 1 screening it was decided to divide each of the study corridors into smaller segments. The Gagel Avenue segments were:

▪ Segment 1 (Dixie to London)

▪ Segment 2 (London to Estate)

▪ Segment 3 (Estate to Manslick)

Segment 1 (Dixie to London)Segment 1 (Dixie to London)

The recommended alternative that came out of the Level 2 screening for segment 1 was a sidewalk on one side with the proposed motorized alternatives. The sidewalk is proposed to be on the north as there are existing, modern facilities present within the segment.

Segment 2 (London to Estate) & Segment 3 Segment 2 (London to Estate) & Segment 3 (Estate to Manslick)(Estate to Manslick)

Two alternatives scored equally as high: 1) Motorized improvements only and, 2) Sidewalk on one side with motorized improvements. It was decided to move forward with second alternative for both segments, but separate the non-motorized and motorized components in the screening that followed. The transition between segment 1 and segment 2 is to be determined at a later point in the project process.


Five alternatives on Gagel Avenue were screened to determine priority. The results can be found in Table 4-12. The screening resulted in one high priority, two medium priority projects and two low priority projects. The rankings that came from the screening are in agreement with the goal of the study. The high priority segment is located closest to Dixie Highway, and the two low priority projects are motorized only.


GAGEL AVENUE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING, PART 1GAGEL AVENUE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING, PART 1


IS ROWANTICIPATED?

IS ITSUPPORTED BY

STAKEHOLDERS?

ARE MAJOR UTILITYRELOCATION

ANTICIPATED?

IS MAJOR DRAINAGEWORK ANTICIPATED?

ARE NEW / WIDERRAILROAD

CROSSINGS REQUIRED?

Roadway Rebuild with Multi-Use Roadway Rebuild with Multi-Use Path & SidewalksPath & Sidewalks

Reconstruct the roadway to correct safety issues, including geometric issues. Within new roadway right-of-way, construct a multi-use path on the northside and a new sidewalk on the southside, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$$$$$ - Highest Costs

Multi-Use Path, Not Adjacent to Multi-Use Path, Not Adjacent to RoadwayRoadway

Construct a multi-use path that would connect destinations and residential nodes between Dixie Highway and Manslick Road. This facility would not be adjacent to Gagel Avenue with a likely alignment through the adjacent neighborhoods and/or properties. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.



Construct a multi-use path on the northside and a new sidewalk on the southside, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not correct geometric design issues within roadway. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.







$$$ - High Costs

Sidewalk North OnlySidewalk North Only


$$ - Moderate Costs



$$ - Moderate Costs

Table 4-9. Gagel Avenue Non-Motorized Level 1 Screening, Part 1.



GAGEL AVENUE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING, PART 1

CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION MAGNITUDEOF COST









Roadway Rebuild with Multi-UsePath & Sidewalks

Yes, substantial right-of-way needed

Medium. Only as a longer-term solution


of-way


to curb and gutter


Multi-Use Path, Not Adjacent toRoadway

Yes, substantial right-of-way needed



of-way


to curb and gutter


Multi-Use Path & Sidewalk Yes, substantial right-of-way needed



of-way


to curb and gutter


Sidewalks & Bike Lanes Yes, substantial right-of-way needed




of-way


to curb and gutter


Sidewalks, No Bike Lanes Yes, substantial right-of-way needed


Likely, but depends on location(s) of

utilities


to curb and gutter


Sidewalk North Only Yes, substantial right-of-way needed



utilities


to curb and gutter


Fill In Gaps

Likely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

both sides



utilities

Likely, but depends on design



GAGEL AVENUE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING, PART 2GAGEL AVENUE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING, PART 2


IS ROW ANTICIPATED?

IS IT SUPPORTED BY

STAKEHOLDERS?


ANTICIPATED?



CROSSINGS REQUIRED?

Fill In Gaps, South OnlyFill In Gaps, South Only

Construct new sidewalks only on the southside of the road where the least number of gaps exist and only where there are currently no sidewalks are present; new sidewalks would include all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Within sections of existing sidewalks, only upgrade ADA ramps, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$$ - Medium Costs

Neighborways or SharrowsNeighborways or Sharrows

Place pavement markings along low-volume neighborhood or residential roadways that could be used for bicycle and pedestrian access to Dixie Highway and not require users to use Gagel Avenue as the primary route. No dedicated families for bicycles or pedestrians would be provided but railroad crossing(s) would be upgraded. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$ - Low Costs


Table 4-9. Gagel Avenue Non-Motorized Level 1 Screening, Part 2.

Table 4-10. Gagel Avenue Motorized Level 1 Screening.

GAGEL AVENUE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENINGGAGEL AVENUE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING


Gagel Avenue and Dixie HighwayGagel Avenue and Dixie Highway Widen Gagel Avenue approach Safety, accessibility

Gagel Avenue near Atteberry CourtGagel Avenue near Atteberry Court Curve warning signs in both directions approaching the existing curve Safety, crashes

Gagel Avenue and Sanders LaneGagel Avenue and Sanders Lane Intersection improvements Safety, sight distance, crashes

Gagel Avenue and Estate DriveGagel Avenue and Estate Drive Intersection improvements Safety, sight distance, crashes

Gagel Avenue and Manslick RoadGagel Avenue and Manslick Road Intersection improvements, ADA accessibility Safety, accessibility



GAGEL AVENUE NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING, PART 2










Fill In Gaps, South OnlyLikely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

both sides



utilities

Likely, but depends on design


Neighborways or SharrowsNo, all improvements

will be in existing right-of-way

High. Supported only as a short term

solution

No, all improvements on surface of existing

streets

No, all improvements will be in existing

right-of-way

No, will utilize existing crossing


GAGEL AVENUE MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING


Gagel Avenue and Dixie Highway No $ No Easy to implement

Gagel Avenue near Atteberry Court No $ No Easy to implement

Gagel Avenue and Sanders Lane No $ No Easy to implement

Gagel Avenue and Estate Drive No $ No Easy to implement

Gagel Avenue and Manslick Road No $ No Easy to implement


GAGEL AVENUE LEVEL 2 SCREENINGGAGEL AVENUE LEVEL 2 SCREENING



VEHICULARSAFETY

BIKE &PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS

ROADWAYCAPACITY

ENVIRONMENTIMPACT

VISUALIMPACT TOTAL

Segment 1: Segment 1: Dixie - LondonDixie - London



Rebuild 1 1 1

Segment 2: Imperial - Segment 2: Imperial - GrastonGraston


Neighborways + Roadway 4 4 4


Rebuild 1 1 1



Neighborways + Roadway 4 4 4


Rebuild 1 1 1

Table 4-11. Gagel Avenue Level 2 Screening.

*Phasing is a suggestion. The project teamfocused on aspects in this corridor that were moreimplementable than others.



GAGEL AVENUE LEVEL 2 SCREENING

SECTION ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ROW COSTS UTILITY




ACCESSACCESS




Segment 1: Dixie - London

1 4 1 1 5 1 62

3 4 3 3 4 3 65

5 5 5 5 1 5 55

Segment 2: Imperial - Graston

1 4 1 1 5 1 62

2 4 1 1 5 1 55

3 4 3 3 4 3 62

5 5 5 5 1 5 55

Segment 3: Graston - Dixie

1 4 1 1 5 1 62

2 4 1 1 5 1 55

3 4 3 3 4 3 62

5 5 5 5 1 5 55




GAGEL AVE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGGAGEL AVE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTIONSECTION ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITSPEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES)COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT ACCESS TO TRANSIT




Segment 1: Segment 1: Dixie - LondonDixie - London

Sidewalk on North + Roadway* 3 3 3

Segment 2: Segment 2: London - Estate DrLondon - Estate Dr



Segment 3: Segment 3: Estate Dr - ManslickEstate Dr - Manslick



Table 12. Gagel Ave Level 3 Screening.

* Note that for the Gagel segment one project, the crossing of the railroad will be broken out separately inthe project sheets, but was assumed to be contained in segment 1 during the level 3 screening. The costs ofthe railroad crossing project are not expected to be exorbitantly high, but the coordination with the railroadwill take additional time and resources, and that is important to consider when the project progresses in thefuture.



GAGEL AVE LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTION ALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT




Segment 1:Dixie - London 4 2 5 40 HIGH

Segment 2:London - Estate Dr

1 1 3 26 LOW

3 2 3 36 MED

Segment 3:Estate Dr - Manslick

1 1 3 26 LOW

3 2 3 39 MED




Seven alternative options were developed for the Valley Station Road study area, including a No Build / Do Nothing option (Fig. 4-9). The details can be found in Table 4-13. The table is organized by most impactful at the top and least impactful at the bottom.

MotorizedMotorized

The speed analysis of Valley Station Road showed the 85th percentile speed to be around 5 mph or more under the posted speed limit. The posted speed limit from Dixie Highway to just past Deering Road is 35 mph. It is raised to 45 mph after Deering Road and maintained at that speed for the remainder of the study area. The segment of Valley Station Road from Dixie Highway to the railroad crossing was dense with angle crashes. It is an area with many access points and heavy congestion during certain periods of the day. It is anticipated that widening the Valley Station Road approach at Dixie Highway, along with making some operational changes, should reduce the queues and, therefore, the crashes. Sight distance is an issue for a short segment, with some driveways being hidden by foliage. Enhanced signage, ADA accessibility improvements, and the removal of select unsignalized crossings were some of the alternative options considered. Table 4-14 shows a summary of the motorized Level 1 screening.






4. Fill in the gaps


VALLEY STATION ROAD VALLEY STATION ROAD SCREENING SUMMARYSCREENING SUMMARY

Figure 4-9. Seven alternative options were developed for the Valley Station Road study area.




The results of the Level 2 screening can be found in Table 4-15. After the Level 1 screening it was decided to divide each of the study corridors into smaller segments. The Valley Station Road segments were:

▪ Segment 1 (Dixie to Grafton)

▪ Segment 2 (Grafton to 3rd Street Road)

▪ Segment 3 (Valley to Stonestreet)

Segment 1 (Dixie to Grafton Hall), Segment 2 Segment 1 (Dixie to Grafton Hall), Segment 2 (Grafton Hall to 3rd Street Road), & Segment (Grafton Hall to 3rd Street Road), & Segment 3 (Valley to Stonestreet)3 (Valley to Stonestreet)

The same alternative for each segment, a sidewalk on one side with applicable motorized improvements, received the highest score. The sidewalk is proposed to be on the south side in each segment.


Three segments on Valley Station Road were screened to determine priority. The detailed results can be found in Table 4-16. One medium priority and two low priority segments came out of the screening. These results were in line with the information that was gathered in prior levels of analysis and stakeholder engagement.


VALLEY STATION ROAD NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENINGVALLEY STATION ROAD NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING


IS ROWANTICIPATED?

IS ITSUPPORTED BY

STAKEHOLDERS?

ARE MAJOR UTILITYRELOCATION

ANTICIPATED?

IS MAJOR DRAINAGEWORK ANTICIPATED?

ARE NEW / WIDERRAILROAD

CROSSINGS REQUIRED?


Construct a multi-use path on the southside and a new sidewalk on the northside, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.



Construct new sidewalks on both the north and south sides and reconfi gure/widen roadway to include bike lanes, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.



Construct new sidewalks on both the north and south sides, including all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$$$ - High Costs



$$ - Moderate Costs



$ - Low Costs

Fill In Gaps, North OnlyFill In Gaps, North Only

Construct new sidewalks only on the northside of the road where the least number of gaps exist and only where there are currently no sidewalks are present; new sidewalks would include all ADA upgrades, crosswalks, intersection upgrades, pavement markings and signage. Within sections of existing sidewalks, only upgrade ADA ramps, pavement markings and signage. This alternative does not include facilities for bicycles other than on-road. Additional lighting to be provided where it is needed.

$ - Low Costs


Table 4-13. Valley Station Road Non-Motorized Level 1 Screening.



VALLEY STATION ROAD NON-MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING

CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION MAGNITUDEOF COST









Multi-Use Path & Sidewalk Yes, given the need for the multi use path


option


of-way


to curb and gutter


Sidewalks & Bike Lanes Yes, given the need for bike lanes




of-way


to curb and gutter



sides




utilities


retained



northside



be constructed


utilities


retained


Fill In GapsLikely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

both sides




utilities


retained


Fill In Gaps, North OnlyLikely, given the need to fi ll in the gaps on

the northside




utilities


retained




VALLEY STATION ROAD MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENINGVALLEY STATION ROAD MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING

LOCATIONLOCATION ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONALTERNATIVE SOLUTION PROBLEMS(S) / ISSUES(S) ADDRESSEDPROBLEMS(S) / ISSUES(S) ADDRESSED IMPACT TO ROW? POTENTIAL COSTS IMPACT TO NON-MOTORIZEDFACILITIES? ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT

Valley Station Road and Dixie HighwayValley Station Road and Dixie Highway Widen Valley Station approach, move existing crosswalk Safety, accessibility

Valley Station Road and Deering RoadValley Station Road and Deering Road Improve ADA accessibility Safety, accessibility

Valley Station Road and Grafton Hall Valley Station Road and Grafton Hall RoadRoad


Valley Station Road from Grafton Hall Valley Station Road from Grafton Hall Road to Millers LaneRoad to Millers Lane

Widen cross section from 5 lanes (1 each direction) to 3 lanes ( 1 each direction with center TWLTL)


Valley Station Road near Dodge LaneValley Station Road near Dodge Lane Curve warning signs in both directions approaching the existing curve Safety, crashes

Valley Station Road at the entrance to Valley Station Road at the entrance to Stuart Middle SchoolStuart Middle School Improve ADA accessibility Safety, accessibility

Valley Station Road at Bentford DriveValley Station Road at Bentford Drive Improve existing, unsignalized midblock crossing Safety

Valley Station Road and Stonestreet Valley Station Road and Stonestreet RoadRoad Improve ADA accessibility Safety, accessibility

Table 4-14. Valley Station Road Motorized Level 1 Screening.



VALLEY STATION ROAD MOTORIZED LEVEL 1 SCREENING


Valley Station Road and Dixie Highway No $ No Easy to implement

Valley Station Road and Deering Road No $ No Easy to implement

Valley Station Road and Grafton HallRoad No $ Yes Easy to implement

Valley Station Road from Grafton HallRoad to Millers Lane Unknown $$ Unknown


roadway

Valley Station Road near Dodge Lane No $ No Easy to implement

Valley Station Road at the entrance toStuart Middle School No $ No Easy to implement

Valley Station Road at Bentford Drive No $ Yes Easy to implement

Valley Station Road and StonestreetRoad No $ No Easy to implement


VALLEY STATION ROAD LEVEL 2 SCREENINGVALLEY STATION ROAD LEVEL 2 SCREENING



VEHICULARSAFETY

BIKE &PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS

ROADWAYCAPACITY

ENVIRONMENTIMPACT

VISUALIMPACT TOTAL

Segment 1: Dixie - Segment 1: Dixie - GraftonGrafton




Segment 2: Grafton - Segment 2: Grafton - 3rd Street Rd3rd Street Rd





Segment 3: Valley - Segment 3: Valley - StonestreetStonestreet





Table 4-15. Valley Station Road Level 2 Screening.



VALLEY STATION ROAD LEVEL 2 SCREENING

SECTION ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTIONCOSTS ROW COSTS UTILITY




ACCESSACCESS




Segment 1: Dixie -Grafton

1 1 1 1 5 1 59

5 1 5 5 2 5 61

3 1 3 3 4 3 62

Segment 2: Grafton -3rd Street Rd

1 5 1 1 5 1 63

5 5 5 5 1 5 55

5 5 5 5 2 5 65

3 5 3 3 4 3 66

Segment 3: Valley -Stonestreet

1 1 1 1 5 1 59

5 1 5 5 1 5 51

5 1 5 5 2 5 61

3 1 3 3 4 3 65



* Note that the phasing noted above is rather subjective, but based on thecollective knowledge and judgment of the project team regarding whenpotentially to execute projects.


VALLEY STATION ROAD LEVEL 3 SCREENINGVALLEY STATION ROAD LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTIONSECTION ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITSPEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES)COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT ACCESS TO TRANSIT




Segment 1: Segment 1: Dixie - GraftonDixie - Grafton


Segment 2: Segment 2: Grafton - 3rd Street RdGrafton - 3rd Street Rd


Segment 3: Segment 3: Valley - StonestreetValley - Stonestreet


Table 4-16. Valley Station Road Level 3 Screening.



VALLEY STATION ROAD LEVEL 3 SCREENINGSECTION ALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN BENEFITS COSTS (ALL PHASES) ACCESS TO TRANSIT




Segment 1:Dixie - Grafton 4 2 4 41 HIGH

Segment 2:Grafton - 3rd Street Rd 3 2 4 25 LOW

Segment 3:Valley - Stonestreet 2 2 1 28 LOW

Crums Lane

Project Sheets Gagel Avenue

Rockford Lane Valley Station Road

CHAPTER 5: PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS


CHAPTER 5: PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

108

106 126

116 134

108110

126128

116118

134136

111

129

119 137

112

130

120 138

113114115

131

132

121122123124

139140141

Project OverviewSidewalk Project 1: Cane Run Rd - Cheviot Dr

Project OverviewSidewalk Project 1: Dixie Highway - London Dr

Project OverviewSidewalk Project 1: Cane Run Rd - Imperial Terrace

Project OverviewSidewalk Project 1: Dixie Highway - Grafton Hall

Sidewalk Project 2: Cheviot Dr - Janell Rd

Pedestrian Crossing at the P&L Railroad

Sidewalk Project 2: Imperial Terrace - Graston Ave

Sidewalk Project 2: Grafton Hall - 3rd Street

Sidewalk Project 3: Janell Rd - Dixie Highway

Sidewalk Project 2: London Dr - Estate Dr

Sidewalk Project 3: Graston Ave - Dixie Highway

Sidewalk Project 3: 3rd Street - Stonestreet Rd

Roadway Project 1Roadway Project 2Roadway Project 3

Sidewalk Project 3: Estate Dr - Manslick Rd

Roadway Project 1

Roadway Project 1Roadway Project 3Roadway Project 4Roadway Project 5

Roadway Project 1Roadway Project 2Roadway Project 3


The following sheets contain specifi c projects that emerged from the screening process. The projects are organized into the four respective study corridors included in this study (Fig. 5-1). Project sheets are intended to serve as a planning tool for those who wish to initiate a project identifi ed in this study. The project recommendations and priority levels are reflective of information available at the time of this study and the results of screening process.

Each sheet identifi es a priority level that reflects the screening process and criteria used. The priority level is reflective of information currently available; as additional resources are made available or local community needs change, the project priorities will need to shift accordingly.

Each of the sheets contains a brief summary to highlight the project parameters, considerations, and costs. The costs are planning-level estimate organized into the four cost phases (Design, ROW, Utilities, and Construction). Total costs are presented and ranges to recognize the variability of project costs. Further refi nement of the costs will occur during the subsequent project phases for each project.

Although a total build up cost was calculated for the projects, the ultimate cost is expressed as a range. The low-end of the range was established by adding together costs for design, right-of-way, utilities, construction, and adding a 50% contingency. Another 10% was added to the low-end range to develop a high end cost range number since several variables can

CRUMS LN

3RD S

T RD

CANE RUN RD

MAN

SLIC

K RD

TERR

Y RD

CAMP GROUND RD

LEES LN

GREENWOOD RDST ANDREWS CHURCH RD

GENE SNYDER FREEWAY

7TH ST RDCRUMS LN

GAGEL AVE

ROCKFORD LN

VALLEY STATION RD

DIXI

E HW

Y

264

PROJECT SHEETS

PROJECT SUMMARYPROJECT SUMMARY

Figure 5-1. The projects are organized into the four respective study corridors included in this study.


impact total cost during the design phase such as materials/methods used, design accommodations, and expanded scope of work. Some costs show a greater range expressed to reflect substantial cost implications based on design decisions.

and estimated. A minimum cost of right of way estimated at $30,000, and used to account for actual right of way needs, right of way services, deed research, etc. Utility impacts, were also estimated and in some instances, a 50% to 200% contingency was added to these costs to account for unknowns with regard to utilities. This was especially true for locations involving intersections.

Design costs were typically estimated at 10% of the inflated construction costs, or at least $25,000 per project to potentially account for consultant-led design services. Exceptions to this were made for very minor sign installation costs where it was assumed that the design could be done in-house by a public agency. A construction inspection cost of 7% of the total construction cost was also added to account for fi eld inspection activities, requests for information, coordination during construction and some additional engineering during construction. All of these costs were also rounded to the neared $5,000 to obtain a “low end” estimate. The “low” end total estimates were then multiplied by another 10% to obtain a “high” end estimate. This typically accounted for some additional unknowns on the roadway related projects, minor inflation of pricing, etc., and the diff erences between a fi ve foot wide and six foot wide sidewalk for those projects. Lastly, in all cases, the costs estimates are in constant 2019 dollars and not adjusted for inflation.

Planning level project cost estimates were developed for many of the projects identifi ed. The only exceptions are for the ADA-related intersection improvements. Cost estimates were not identifi ed for these types of projects at this time since the exact nature of what improvements are needed is still somewhat unknown. From initial fi eld observations, some improvements may involve other changes to nearby drainage, utility impacts and other potential impacts that may or may not be mitigated through design.

Costs estimates for projects were develop for all project phases D – Design, R – right of way, U-utility, C – construction, and each proposed improvement was treated as a stand-alone project. A unit cost multiplied by the # of units or needed line item(s) in a build-up pricing approach was used with costs derived from recent bid tabulations for similar projects. The estimates were also based on very limited fi eld observations and relied mostly on desk top research from aerial photographs, PVA data and other data sets readily available, e.g. LOJIC. No surveys or other hard data determination was undertaken.

Given the uncertainty at this very early stage in project development, a 50% construction cost contingency was utilized. Where applicable, the need for right of way, typically temporary construction easements, but sometimes permanent right of way needs was also quantifi ed

COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGYCOST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY


Figure 5-2. Crums Lane, Non-Motorized and Roadway Improvements.

PROJECT OVERVIEWCRUMS LANECRUMS LANE

SEGMENT 1SEGMENT 1Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on both sides of the roadway from Cane Run Road to Cheviot Drive. This also includes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements at the intersection with Cane Run Road and implementing a road diet. The road diet would include restriping the existing four-lane roadway section to accommodate one travel lane in each direction, plus a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL), from Cane Run Road to Cheviot Drive. The restriped outside shoulders in this segment could be used to accommodate a bike lane if desired.

SEGMENT 2SEGMENT 2Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Cheviot Drive to Janell Road. This also includes widening the existing cross-section to a three-lane section with one travel lane in each direction and a TWLTL, plus a turning lane into Schaff ner Elementary School, before tapering back down to two lanes.

SEGMENT 3SEGMENT 3Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Janell Road to Dixie Highway. This also includes widening the existing cross-section to a three-lane section with one travel lane in each direction and a TWLTL. Intersection improvements at the intersection of Janell Road and Crums Lane and the installation of curve warning signage near Park Row Drive and Hillview Avenue is also included in this segment.

SEGMENT 4SEGMENT 4There is no sidewalk project proposed for segment 4 since Metro recently constructed a sidewalk on the north side of the roadway. Various roadway improvements are recommended for this segment however, which include removal of the existing mid-block unsignalized crossing just east of Dixie Highway (near the church) and the one near the existing manufacturing facility further east. This also includes the installation of curve warning signs west of Manslick Road and improvements to ADA accessibility at the intersection of Crums Lane and Manslick Road. There is not a project sheet detailing these improvements as they could be constructed largely with operations and or maintenance personnel.


CRUMS LANECRUMS LANEMAP KEYMAP KEY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPEPROJECT TYPE PROJECT SHEETPROJECT SHEET COSTCOST PRIORITYPRIORITY

1 New sidewalk from Cane Run Rd to Cheviot Dr Sidewalk Pg. 110 $585,000 - $685,000 High

2 New sidewalk from Cheviot Dr to Janell Rd Sidewalk Pg. 111 $320,000 - $375,000 High

3 New sidewalk from Janell Rd to Dixie Hwy Sidewalk Pg.112 $100,000 - $110,000 High

4No project identifi ed as

Metro has recently built a sidewalk in this location

N/A N/A - -

A* ADA Improvements Pedestrian Accessibility N/A - -

B Road Diet Roadway Safety Pg. 113 $100,000 - $110,000 High

C Widen to 3-lane sectionRoadway & Pedestrian

SafetyPg. 114 $390,000 - $435,000 Medium

C Widen to 3-lane sectionRoadway & Pedestrian

SafetyPg. 115 $510,000 - $565,000 High

D Intersection ImprovementsRoadway

Capacity & Safety

Pg. 115 --** --**

EInstall curve warning

signage near Park Row Dr and Hillview Ave

Roadway Safety N/A $5,000 - $7,500 Medium

EInstall curve warning

signage west of Manslick Rd


F* Mid-block crosswalk removal

Pedestrian Safety N/A - -

Table 5-1. Crums Lane Project Index.

* Cost and priority were not determined for these projects. For the ADA improvements the cost is assumed to be captured in the range provided for sidewalk segment 1. The removal of the midblock crossings is likely to be completed by Metro. Cost is inclusive of design service, construction / fabrication / installation and construction management.

** Costs for Project D are included in Costs for Project C directly above (see page 115), and the priority is also High.


Priority

Construct a continuous sidewalk on both sides of Crums Lane from Cane Run Road to Cheviot Drive. This project includes 2,965 linear feet of sidewalk.

Figure 5-3. Crums Lane Sidewalk Project 1.

CRUMS LANESIDEWALK PROJECT 1: CANE RUN RD- CHEVIOT DR

• Lack of continuous sidewalks• Bridge pier protection or reflectors may be

needed to accentuate the presence of the bridge piers

• Design $50,000 $60,000• ROW N/A N/A• Utilities N/A N/A• Construction $535,000 $625,000

Total $585,000 $685,000

HIGHHIGH

Cane

Run

Rd Hartlage Ct

26426426426426466626466464

Can

Can

CanaaCan

Cann

Caae

Re

Re

Re

Re

Re

RRe

Re

RRe

RRe

RRRe

Re

un

unununununuuuuuuuuuuuRdRdRdRdRdRdRd

HarHarHarHarHarHarHarrHaraHarrtlatlatlatlattlaltttlatlatlatlagege gege gege gegge eege CtCtCtCtCtCtCtCtCtCtCCCtCtCC

RECOMMENDATIONS/ SOLUTIONSRECOMMENDATIONS/ SOLUTIONS

Project Type: Sidewalk

Project Solution: 5’ or 6’ sidewalk

Freeman Ave

Sunflower Ave

Poppy Ave

Cheviot Dr

Burrell Dr

N

PROJECT SUMMARY NOTES/CONSIDERATIONS

PROJECT COST LOW HIGH


PriorityHIGHHIGH

PROJECT SUMMARY

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the north side of Crums Lane from Cheviot Drive to Janell Road. This project includes 3,300 linear feet of sidewalk.

• Lack of continuous sidewalks• ROW cost only assumes temporary easement

will be needed


CRUMS LANESIDEWALK PROJECT 2: CHEVIOT DR - JANELL RD

PROJECT COST

• Design $25,000 $30,000• ROW $30,000 $30,000• Utilities N/A N/A• Construction $265,000 $315,000

Total $320,000 $375,000




Hartlage CtC

heviot Dr

Burrell Dr

Schaff ner Dr

Fern Lea Rd

Janell Rd

North Ln

N

NOTES/CONSIDERATIONS

LOW HIGH


Priority


CRUMS LANESIDEWALK PROJECT 3: JANELL RD - DIXIE HIGHWAY




Janell Rd

Park Row Dr

Park Dr

7th

Stre

et R

d

Dixie H

ighway

Hillview

Ave

Connection to existing sidewalk

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the south side of Crums Lane from Janell Road to Dixie Highway. This project includes 485 linear feet of sidewalk.

• Lack of continuous sidewalks

PROJECT COST


Total $100,000 $110,000


HIGHHIGH

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH


Priority

PROJECT SUMMARY

Figure 5-6. Crums Lane Roadway Project 1.

CRUMS LANEROADWAY PROJECT 1

Segment 1 is currently a four-lane section with two lanes in each direction. A road diet using restriping would convert the segment to three-lanes with one drive lane in each direction plus a two-way left turn lane. This project is expected to increase roadway safety by reducing rear end and angle crashes.

• Road was repaved within the last several years• Project would likely need to be done via

waterblasting.• This project has a high Benefi t/Cost ratio.• The AADT in this segment is in the range of

10,000 to 11,000 vehicles per day.• Most crashes in this segment are angle and

rear end intersection crashes.• Examine a need for guardrail under I-264.

PROJECT COST


Total $100,000 $110,000

Cane

Run

Rd

Hartlage Ct

Freeman Ave

Sunflower Ave

Poppy Ave

Cheviot Dr

264

Hartlage Ct

See Below

N


Project Type: Roadway Safety

Project Solution: Road Diet


HIGHHIGH

LOW HIGH


Priority




Project Type: Roadway & Pedestrian Safety

Project Solution: Modify to 3-lane section & improved crossing at Schaff ner Elementary

Schaff ner Dr

Burrell Dr

Cheviot D

r

Burrell Dr

Hartlage Ct

See Below

N

The intersection of Crums Ln and Cheviot Dr/ Hartlage Ct is where the four-lane section ends. The existing geometry and striping confi guration appears to be contributing to crashes in this area. A consistent three lane section should increase safety for both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian safety should be improved with the enhanced crosswalk at Schaff ner Elementary.

• Benefi t/Cost Ratio > 1• Aimed at increasing roadway and pedestrian

safety• Enhances access to Schaff ner Elementary• Urban cross-section is used to limit utility

impacts.

PROJECT COST


Total $390,000 $435,000


MEDIUMMEDIUM

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH


Priority

PROJECT SUMMARY





Project Solution: Restripe to 3-lane section & pedestrian improvements and a left turn bay

Fern Lea Rd

Janell Rd

Park Row D

rSee Below

N


Project includes restriping the road from two to three lanes. The amount of pavement being added with this project is limited due to the presence of a wide shoulder on the north side of Crums Lane for most of this segment. Intersection improvements at Janell Road are included in this project. Those improvements are improving pedestrian accommodations, managing access at the intersection, and adding a left turn bay.

• Vehicle and pedestrian safety-orientedproject

• Access management would be preferred nearthe multi-unit housing area, but that wouldbe diffi cult to accomplish without parcelconsolidation and/or site redevelopment.

• Urban cross-section is used to limit utilityimpacts.

PROJECT COST


Total $510,000 $565,000

HIGHHIGH

LOW HIGH


PROJECT OVERVIEWROCKFORD LANEROCKFORD LANE

Figure 5-9. Rockford Lane, Non-Motorized and Roadway Improvements.

SEGMENT 1SEGMENT 1Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Cane Run Road to Imperial Terrace. This also includes ADA accessibility improvements at the intersection with Cane Run Road, restriping the existing four lane section to a three-lane section with one travel lane in each direction plus a TWLTL near Clarion Court, and the installation of curve warning signs at Clarion Court and Teaneck Lane. This segment also includes access management improvements near Dover Road.

SEGMENT 2SEGMENT 2Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Imperial Terrace to Graston Avenue. This also includes converting the existing cross-section to a three lane section with one travel lane in each direction and a TWLTL, from Quinn Drive to James R. Meder Road.

SEGMENT 3SEGMENT 3Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Graston Avenue to Dixie Highway. This also includes the previously mentioned conversion from two-lanes to three-lanes from Quinn Drive to James R. Meder Road, constructing a left-turn bay from Rockford Lane onto Hillside Drive, to existing crosswalks, and access management at the former drug store to include making the existing south driveway only with a left turn only permitted at that location.


ROCKFORD LANEROCKFORD LANEMAP KEYMAP KEY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPEPROJECT TYPE PROJECT SHEETPROJECT SHEET COSTCOST PRIORITYPRIORITY

1 New sidewalk from Cane Run Rd to Imperial Terrace Sidewalk Pg. 118 $380,000 - $455,000 High

2 New sidewalk from Imperial Terrace to Graston Ave Sidewalk Pg. 119 $310,000 - $370,000 Medium

3 New sidewalk from Graston Ave to Dixie Hwy Sidewalk Pg. 120 $360,000 - $425,000 High

A* ADA Improvements Pedestrian Accessibility N/A - -

B Lane reconfi guration - 4 lanes to 3 lanes

Roadway Safety Pg. 121 $45,000 - $55,000 Low

CInstall warning signage

from Clarion Ct to Teaneck Ln


D* Crosswalk Enhancement Pedestrian Safety N/A - -

E* Mid-block crosswalk removal


F Access management Roadway Safety Pg. 122 $760,000 - $840,000 High

G Install left turn bay Roadway Safety Pg. 124 $250,000 - $290,000 Medium

H Alter access at Dixie Hwy intersection

Roadway Capacity N/A $55,000 - $65,000 High

I Widen to 3-lane sectionRoadway & Pedestrian

SafetyPg. 123 $590,000 - $670,000 Medium

Table 5-2. Rockford Lane Project Index.

* Cost and priority were not determined for these projects. For the ADA improvements the cost is assumedto be captured in the range provided for sidewalk segment 1. The removal of the midblock crossings is likelyto be completed by Metro. Cost is inclusive of design service, construction / fabrication / installation andconstruction management.


Priority

Figure 5-10. Rockford Lane Sidewalk Project 1.

ROCKFORD LANESIDEWALK PROJECT 1: CANE RUN RD - IMPERIAL TERRACE

Dov

er R

d




Clar

ion

Ct

Cane Run Rd

Tean

eck L

n

Dov

er R

d

Imperial Terrace

See Below

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Cane Run Road to Imperial Terrace. This project includes 3,590 linear feet of sidewalk.

• Lack of continuous sidewalk• ROW cost includes possible temporary

easement• The guardrail near Saddlebrook Ln should

be analyzed to determine if it meets currentstandards

• The area just west of Kevin Ct should befurther analyzed to determine if a guardrail isneeded

• As of March 2020, Metro has constructeda segment of sidewalk on the NW cornerof Dover Rd and Rockford Lane runningapproximately 200 feet to the west.

PROJECT COST

• Design $35,000 $40,000• ROW $0 $15,000• Utilities N/A N/A• Construction $345,000 $400,000

NOTES/CONSIDERATIONSPROJECT SUMMARY

HIGHHIGH

Total $380,000 $455,000

LOW HIGH


Priority

PROJECT SUMMARY

Figure 5-11. Rockford Lane Sidewalk Project 2.

ROCKFORD LANESIDEWALK PROJECT 2: IMPERIAL TERRACE - GRASTON AVE




Impe

rial T

erra

ce

Graston AveD

uane AveJean Ave

Elmhurst Ave

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Imperial Terrace to Graston Avenue. This project includes 2,770 linear feet of sidewalk.

• Lack of continuous sidewalk• The guardrail inbetween Duane Ave and

Van Hoose Rd should be further analyzed to determine if it meets the current standards

PROJECT COST


Total $310,000 $370,000


MEDIUMMEDIUM

LOW HIGH


Priority

Figure 5-12. Rockford Lane Sidewalk Project 3

ROCKFORD LANESIDEWALK PROJECT 3: GRASTON AVE - DIXIE HIGHWAY




Graston Ave

Grandview

Dr

James R M

eder Rd

Dixie H

wy

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Graston Avenue to Dixie Highway. This project includes 3,150 linear feet of sidewalk.

• Lack of continuous sidewalk• ROW cost assumes only a temporary easement

is needed

PROJECT COST

• Design $30,000 $35,000• ROW $30,000 $30,000• Utilities $15,000 $30,000• Construction $285,000 $330,000

Total $360,000 $425,000


HIGHHIGH

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH


Priority

PROJECT SUMMARY

Figure 5-13. Rockford Lane Roadway Project 1.

ROCKFORD LANEROADWAY PROJECT 1 LOWLOW

This project includes removing a narrow median and restriping to a three-lane section in this short segment. There is also a need to look at warrants for guardrail placement, design and types of end treatments.

Cane Run Rd

Clario

n Ct



Project Solution: Mill, remove median, and restripe to accomodate TWLTLN

• Benefi t/Cost ratio > 1• No additional impervious area is being

added• Cross-section is not widened• Aimed at reducing angle crashes at Clarion

Ct intersection• No major impacts to ROW, utilities, or

drainage expected

PROJECT COST


Total $45,000 $55,000


LOW HIGH


Priority


ROCKFORD LANEROADWAY PROJECT 3



Project Solution: Access Management

Dov

er R

d

Imperial Terrace

Pedestrian Bridge

N

This project includes modifying access to several properties on Rockford Lane near Dover Road.

• More investigation of the ROW lines is needed

• There is a pedestrian bridge that is recommended to be removed. A culvert extension would be required if that is completed.

• Need to examine existing guardrail near Saddlebrook Lane and near Van Hoose Road.

PROJECT COST


Total $760,000 $840,000


HIGHHIGH

LOW HIGH


Priority

PROJECT SUMMARY

Figure 5-15. Rockford Ln Roadway Project 4.


Project 4 on Rockford Lane includes modifying a two-lane section and converting it to three lanes. Additionally, some minor access management measures are recommended at the intersection with Graston Avenue to prevent the apartment driveway from interfering with intersection traffi c (curb delineators, signage, etc.). There is also a need to look at warrants for guardrail placement, design and types of end treatments.

• It is recommended that any pavementwidening be done to the south of RockfordLn to limit utility conflicts

• Benefi t/Cost ratio > 1• Urban cross-section is recommended• Project is aimed at reducing rear-end and

angle crashes

PROJECT COST


Total $590,000 $670,000


Graston Ave

James R M

eder Rd



Project Solution: Mill, remove median, and restripe to accomodate TWLTLN

MEDIUMMEDIUM

LOW HIGH


Priority





Project Solution: Add left turn bay

Grandview

Dr

Hillside D

r

Stonestr

eet Ave

N

• Benefi t/Cost ratio > 1• Roadway geometry is likely contributing to

crash trends• It is recommended that any widening be done

to the south to limit utility conflicts

PROJECT COST


Total $250,000 $290,000


MEDIUMMEDIUM

This project includes widening to provide a left turn bay at the Hillside Drive intersection on Rockford Lane. This project was developed to reduce the number of rear-end crashes at the intersection.

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH


PROJECT OVERVIEWGAGEL AVENUEGAGEL AVENUE

Figure 5-17. Gagel Avenue, Non-Motorized and Roadway Improvements.

SEGMENT 1SEGMENT 1Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Dixie Highway to London Drive. This also includes a separate project to cross the existing railroad tracks with a sidewalk in coordination with the railroad. On the roadway side, this includes expanding the Gagel Avenue approach at the Dixie Highway intersection to include a right-turn lane to address queuing and delay. Upstream from this intersection, an intelligent transportation systems (ITS) based queue detection and warning system with flashers would be installed to warn of stopped or queued vehicles at the intersection.

SEGMENT 2SEGMENT 2Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from London Drive to Estate Drive. This also includes installing an additional ITS based conflict warning system (watch for stopped or turning vehicles) as appropriate at Sanders Lane and Estate Drive, respectively.

SEGMENT 3SEGMENT 3Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Estate Drive to Manslick Road. This includes ADA accessibility improvements at the intersection of Gagel Avenue with Manslick Road.


GAGEL AVENUEGAGEL AVENUEMAP KEYMAP KEY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPEPROJECT TYPE PROJECT SHEETPROJECT SHEET COSTCOST PRIORITYPRIORITY

1 New sidewalk from Dixie Hwy to London Dr Sidewalk Pg. 128 $240,000 - $280,000 Medium

1 Pedestrian Crossing of the P&L Railroad Sidewalk Pg. 129 $65,000 - $75,000 Medium

2 New sidewalk from London Dr to Estate Dr Sidewalk Pg. 130 $370,000 - $415,000 Low

3 New sidewalk from Estate Dr to Manslick Rd Sidewalk Pg. 131 $305,000 - $345,000 Low

A Widen Gagel Ave approach at Dixie Hwy

Roadway Capacity and

SafetyPg. 132 $205,000 - $280,000 Low

BInstall queue detection on

WB Gagel Ave approach upstream of Dixie Hwy

Roadway Safety N/A $50,000 - $55,000 Low

C Install intersection conflict warning system


C Install intersection conflict warning system


D* ADA Improvements Pedestrian Accessibility N/A - -

Table 5-3. Gagel Avenue Project Index.

* Cost and priority were not determined for these projects. For the ADA improvements the cost is assumedto be captured in the range provided for sidewalk segment 1. The removal of the midblock crossings is likelyto be completed by Metro. Cost is inclusive of design service, construction / fabrication / installation andconstruction management.


Priority

Figure 5-18. Gagel Avenue Sidewalk Project 1.

GAGEL AVENUESIDEWALK PROJECT 1: DIXIE HIGHWAY- LONDON DR




Dixie H

ighway

Atterberry Ct

London Dr

Colony Ct

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the roadway from Dixie Highway to London Drive. This project includes 1,235 linear feet of sidewalk.


PROJECT COST

• Design $25,000 $25,000• ROW N/A N/A• Utilities $10,000 $20,000• Construction $140,000 $160,000

Total $175,000 $205,000


MEDIUMMEDIUM

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH


PriorityMEDIUMMEDIUM

PROJECT SUMMARY


GAGEL AVENUEPEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT THE P&L RAILROAD

Atterberry Ct

Box Culvert



Project Solution: 6’ sidewalk across railroad right-of-wayN

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the north side of roadway. The existing paved ditch with ~6’x4’ reinforced concrete box culvert will need extending. Coordination with railroad will be necessary.

• Drainage ditches on east and west side of railroad tracks

• Extend culvert on east side of railroad tracks• Provide accessible crossing• Utilities includes railroad coordination:

email and phone correspondence, and an on-site meeting with the Paducah & Louisville (P&L) RR.

PROJECT COST

• Design $25,000 $25,000• ROW N/A N/A• Utilities $10,000 $10,000

• Construction $30,000 $40,000

Total $65,000 $75,000


LOW HIGH


Priority


GAGEL AVENUESIDEWALK PROJECT 2: LONDON - ESTATE DR




Estate Dr

Sanders LnLondon Dr

Staff ord Ave

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the south side of Gagel Avenue from London Drive to Estate Drive. This project includes 2,650 linear feet of sidewalk.


PROJECT COST


Total $370,000 $415,000


LOWLOW

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH


Priority

PROJECT SUMMARY


GAGEL AVENUESIDEWALK PROJECT 3: ESTATE DR - MANSLICK RD




Estate Dr

De Mel Ave

Manslick Rd

N

LOWLOW

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the south side of Gagel Avenue from Estate Drive to Manslick Road. This project includes 2,350 linear feet of sidewalk.


PROJECT COST


Total $305,000 $345,000


LOW HIGH


Priority

Figure 5-22. Gagel Avenue Roadway Project 1.

GAGEL AVENUEROADWAY PROJECT 1

Dixie H

ighway

Klages Ave


Project Type: Roadway capacity & safety

Project Solution: Widening Gagel at Dixie Hwy IntersectionN

This project includes widening to add a right-turn lane on Gagel Avenue at Dixie Highway. Long queue lengths in the afternoon peak are contributing to crashes as vehicles come around a curve upstream of this intersection. This project is expected to increase both roadway capacity and safety.

• Project is driven by both capacity and safety• Benefi t/Cost ratio > 1• Additional ROW investigation is needed

PROJECT COST


Total $205,000 $280,000


LOWLOW

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH


Priority



PROJECT OVERVIEWVALLEY STATION ROADVALLEY STATION ROAD

Figure 5-23. Valley Station Road, Non-Motorized and Roadway Improvements.

SEGMENT 1SEGMENT 1Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Dixie Highway to Grafton Hall Road. This also includes expanding the Valley Station Road approach at the intersection with Dixie Highway, improving the ADA accessibility at Deering Road, removing an unsignalized, mid-block crosswalk, and installing a left-turn lane for Valley Station Road at Amrona Avenue.

SEGMENT 2SEGMENT 2Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Grafton Hall Road to 3rd Street Road. This also includes installing left turn lanes along Valley Station Road at Scrim Avenue/ Millers Lane respectively, as well as the installation of appropriate warning signs to the west of Dodge Lane.

SEGMENT 3SEGMENT 3Construct a 5’ or 6’ sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from 3rd Street Road to Stonestreet Road. This also includes ADA accessibility improvements at the intersection of Valley Station Road and 3rd Street Road and at Stonestreet Road, and the removal of an unsignalized mid-block crosswalk.


VALLEY STATION ROADVALLEY STATION ROADMAP KEYMAP KEY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPEPROJECT TYPE PROJECT SHEETPROJECT SHEET COSTCOST PRIORITYPRIORITY

1 New sidewalk from Dixie Hwy to Grafton Hall Rd Sidewalk Pg. 136 $310,000 - $350,000 Medium

2 New sidewalk from Grafton Hall Rd to 3rd Street Rd Sidewalk Pg. 137 $370,000 - $440,000 Medium

3New sidewalk from 3rd

Street Rd to Stonestreet Rd

Sidewalk Pg. 138 $205,000 - $235,000 Medium

A Widen Valley Station Rd approach at Dixie Hwy

Roadway Capacity and

SafetyPg. 139 $285,000 - $345,000 Medium

B* ADA Improvements Pedestrian Accessibility N/A - -

C* Mid-block crosswalk removal


DInstall left turn bays at

Grafton Hall Rd and Amrona Ave


D Install left turn bays at Scrim Ave/Millers Ln


E Install warning signage, cut tree line


Table 5-4. Valley Station Road Project Index.

* Cost and priority were not determined for these projects. For the ADA improvements the cost is assumed to be captured in the range provided for sidewalk segment 1. The removal of the midblock crossings is likely to be completed by Metro. Cost is inclusive of design service, construction / fabrication / installation and construction management.


Priority

Figure 5-24. Valley Station Road Sidewalk Project 1.

VALLEY STATION ROADSIDEWALK PROJECT 1: DIXIE HIGHWAY- GRAFTON HALL RD




Grafton Hall

Valley Farms Blvd

Deering Rd

Dixie H

ighway

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Dixie Highway to Grafton Hall Road. This project includes 2,695 linear feet of sidewalk.


PROJECT COST


Total $310,000 $350,000


MEDIUMMEDIUM

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH



PROJECT SUMMARY


VALLEY STATION ROADSIDEWALK PROJECT 2: GRAFTON HALL RD - 3RD ST




Grafton H

all

Millers Ln

Am

rona Ave Scrim

Ave

Dodge

Ln

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Grafton Hall Road to 3rd Street. This project includes 3,590 linear feet of sidewalk.


PROJECT COST


Total $370,000 $440,000


LOW HIGH


PriorityVALLEY STATION ROADSIDEWALK PROJECT 3: 3RD ST - STONESTREET RD





Fireside Dr

Bentford Dr

Praire Dr Stonestr

eet Rd

N

Construct a continuous sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from 3rd Street to Stonestreet Road. This project includes 1,995 linear feet of sidewalk.


PROJECT COST


Total $205,000 $235,000


MEDIUMMEDIUM

PROJECT SUMMARY

LOW HIGH



PROJECT SUMMARY

VALLEY STATION ROADROADWAY PROJECT 1

Figure 5-27. Valley Station Road Roadway Project 1.

Dixie H

ighway


Project Type: Roadway capacity & safety

Project Solution: Widen Valley Station Road at Dixie Hwy and move crosswalkN

This project is driven by both roadway capacity and safety. Widening the Valley Station Rd approach and moving the location of the crosswalk associated with the exclusive pedestrian phase will retain the safety benefi ts that come with the exclusive phase, while increasing the capacity of the intersection and reducing crashes upstream of the intersection.

• Benefi t/Cost ratio > 1• The exclusive pedestrian phase is retained

with this improvement• More ROW investigation is needed for this

project• Nearly 50% of the crashes upstream of this

intersection on Valley Station Rd are angle crashes. A reduction in queue lengths should reduce the number of crashes.

PROJECT COST


Total $285,000 $345,000


LOW HIGH


PriorityVALLEY STATION ROADROADWAY PROJECT 2




Project Solution: Adding left turn bays

Grafton Hall Rd

Amrona Ave

N

This project includes the addition of left-turn bays where Valley Station Road intersects both Grafton Hall Road and Amrona Avenue. Most of the crashes in this segment are rear-ends, several of which are high severity.

• Mostly rear-end crashes; several are high severity

• Additional ROW investigation is needed

PROJECT COST


Total $455,000 $525,000


LOWLOW

LOW HIGH


Priority

PROJECT SUMMARY

VALLEY STATION ROADROADWAY PROJECT 3




Project Solution: Add left turn bays

Millers Ln

Scrim

Ln

Am

rona Ave

See Below

N

This project includes adding left-turn bays at the Valley Station Road intersection with Millers Lane/Scrim Avenue. It is focused on improving roadway safety.

LOWLOW

• Benefi t/Cost ratio > 1• Several high-severity crashes at this

intersection• Mostly rear-end crashes• Further ROW investigation is needed

PROJECT COST


Total $225,000 $270,000


LOW HIGH

CHAPTER 6: NEXT STEPS & IMPLEMENTATION

144 Next Steps & Implementation




Since this project is at the planning and conceptual level, it is very early in the traditional project development stage of planning, environmental clearance (if needed), design, and construction. In order for the projects to be implemented and constructed, the individual conceptual level projects identifi ed in this document would need more planning, engineering, design, potentially environmental analysis and/ or clearance, and ultimately project funding; before leading to letting and ultimately construction (Figure 6-2).

Some projects are small and relatively easy to implement such as the installation of new signs and could be done within the operations of existing transportation agencies with their own personnel during routine maintenance and operations activities. Others such as restriping the roadway, could be accomplished when KYTC repaves the roadway(s), as is the case for converting the existing four lane section to a three lane section on Crums Lane for example (Figure 6-1). If the repaving date is outside of the window that project sponsors would otherwise want to execute a project like this, or had already happened, sponsors may choose to develop plans and hire a contractor to water blast the existing pavement markings and restripe the roadway.

In almost all instances, Metro Government or KYTC staff or other transportation planning, environmental and design professionals would need to take these existing project concepts to a further level. This includes adding more details about them, including developing more precise project limits and parameters, developing plans suitable for letting and construction, and developing more precise cost estimates based on known right of way and other physical constraints and potential impacts such as the location/relocation of utilities. In addition, more coordination with various stakeholders would be needed including local elected offi cials of Metro Government, City of Shively, and individual

property and business owners, institutions in the corridors (schools, churches, etc.), other partners (TARC, railroads, utilities), as well as the general public.

At this point in project development, no future project funding has been identifi ed. It would be wise for Metro Government, KYTC, and other project sponsors to get individual or groups of projects identifi ed and begin further planning and programming so that they can become an “offi cial” part of the region’s transportation planning process. This process administered by the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA), likely includes getting a project or a group of similar projects onto a project evaluation form so that they may be scored and considered for the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and/or the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) as appropriate.

Project sponsors could also seek grant funding or other funding, some of which is administered by KIPDA and or KYTC through programs such as: Transportation Alternative Program (TAP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. There may also be other sources, including local funds or when projects come to fruition through synergy with other activity such as the case with road repaving/resurfacing or when new private development takes place.

Figure 6-1. Restriping the roadway could be accomplished when KYTC repaves the roadway(s).

NEXT STEPS & IMPLEMENTATIONNEXT STEPS & IMPLEMENTATION



Figure 6-2. Project Development Schedule.

Identify Funding OpportunitiesIdentify Funding Opportunities

Project Letting & ConstructionProject Letting & Construction

OperationsOperations

Program Projects for TAP or Program Projects for TAP or STBG FundingSTBG Funding

Develop Construction Plans & Develop Construction Plans & Specifi cationsSpecifi cations

Further Project Development & Further Project Development & Refi nementRefi nement

• Engineering

• Costing

• Stakeholder Engagement

• Environmental Clearance

1

2

3

4

5

6 PRO

JEC

T D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

SCH

EDU

LEPR

OJE

CT

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T SC

HED

ULESTEPSTEP

STEPSTEP

STEPSTEP

STEPSTEP

STEPSTEP

STEPSTEP

DIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY

Documents

Transcript of DIXIE HIGHWAY ACCESS STUDY