1. January 8, 2014 FMATS College Road Corridor Study FMATS Technical Committee Update

2. Traffic Operations LOS Summary West Segment East Segment Middle/Transition Area

3. Overview – Background of the Corridor FMATS Non-motorized plan identified a need for improved bicycle facilities Highest pedestrian, bicycle & transit use in Fairbanks Regional function replaced by the Johansen Expressway Many opportunities Many challenges

4. Key Reasons for a Change Mult-use sidewalks are not optimal for bicycles, especially for higher-speed cyclists AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities: – “In General it is undesirable for bicyclists to ride on sidewalks.” – “There is significantly higher incidence of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes with bicyclists riding on the sidewalk than with bicyclists operating on the roadway.”

5. Overview – Study Constraints 1.Maintain adequate available capacity through 2035. 2.No (or minimal) impact right-of-way 3.Must improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and level of service

6. Technical Analysis - Traffic Review Drop after Johansen const. Relatively stable traffic volume 2035 Projections

7. Safety Review (Motor Vehicle Crash Comparison) & LT Lanes Safety was a key focus throughout the process 29% Crash Reduction

8. Key Technical Analysis Findings Safety could be improved on the 4-lane sections by changing them to 3 lanes with a turn lane (29% crash reduction). No loss in traffic functionality through 2035 with 3 lanes on West and Middle Segments (LOS B & C in 2035) Bicycle level-of-service is poor (LOS D/E) and will be improved to LOS B/C with a bicycle lane

9. Project Alternatives Development Alternatives Development Advisory Group Meetings Public Meetings Technical analysis + Geometric review of roadway and intersections + Evaluation criteria/PAG input + Input from 1 st public meeting

10. Evaluation Criteria Mobility for All Users – Capacity (V/C ratio) & LOS for motorized vehicles – Multi-modal LOS (Bicycle & Pedestrian) – Transit facilities and accessibility Local Access – Maintaining acceptable access to businesses Safety – Predicted impacts on crashes – Type and design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities Streetscape – Aesthetically pleasing – Ease of maintenance Right-of-Way / Land-use Impacts – Amount of right-of-way – Impacts to natural environment – Impacts to built environment Flexibility of Implementation Cost Effectiveness

11. Input from First Public Meeting Traffic High speeds and narrow lanes Need for center turn lane Focus on safety at key locations (e.g. Farmers Market, Creamers Field, Artisans Courtyard) Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit Divided opinion between separated path and on-street bike lanes Not enough crosswalks Option of a separated path to the north on a different alignment Land-Use An “opportunity” corridor Commercial access is important for retailers Create a stronger neighbor- hood feel to the road Maintenance Drainage and maintenance is an existing issue Consider funding and maintaining landscaping Must be easy to maintain

12. Four General Options Were Evaluated 1.No-build (for comparison) 2.Restripe the existing curb-to-curb to add Bicycle Lanes – Requires 4-Lane to 3-Lane conversion west of the Johansen 3.Create multi-use pathways on both sides (move curbs inward) – Requires 4-Lane to 3-Lane conversion west of the Margaret 4.Create multi-use pathway on north side (move north curb inward) – Requires 4-Lane to 3-Lane conversion west of the Margaret NOTE: ALL OPTIONS WILL GENERALLY FIT WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF WAY

13. Summary of Findings (Options 1 & 2) 1.No-build: – Lowest cost – Does not improve safety for automobiles 2.Restripe the existing curb-to-curb to add Bicycle Lanes – Next lowest cost to the No Build – Significantly improves safety and level of service for bicycles – Improves safety for automobiles in existing 4-lane roadway sections with 3- lane option – Does not impact functionality of College Road

14. Summary of Findings (Option 3) 3.Create multi-use pathways on both sides (move curbs inward) – Most costly (moves curbs ) – Modestly improves safety for bicycles – Improves safety for automobiles in existing 4- lane roadway sections with 3-lane option – Maintenance of buffer are between road and pathway is an issue – Does not impact functionality of College Road

15. Summary of Findings (Option 4) 4.Create multi-use pathway on north side (move north curb inward) – Second most costly (moves one side of curbs) – Modestly improves safety for bicycles – Requires greater pedestrian and bicycle crossings of roadway – Improves safety for automobiles in existing 4-lane roadway sections with 3-lane option – Maintenance of buffer area – Potential railing in the buffer area (safety and maintenance) – Does not impact functionality of College Road

16. West Segment: Conceptual Options - Overall No-Build Lowest Cost Bicycle Lanes Highest Rated

17. West Segment: Rankings Project Advisory Group Scoring (lowest is best): W2 Restripe 3 Lanes with Bicycle Lanes = score 1.9 W3 Multi-Use Paths Both Sides = score 2.5 W4 Multi-Use Paths North Side = score 2.8 W1 No Build = score 2 Public (most votes is best): W2 Restripe 3 Lanes with Bicycle Lanes = 39 votes W1 No Build = 15 votes W3 Multi-Use Paths Both Sides = 4 votes W4 Multi-Use Paths North Side = 1 vote

18. Middle Segment: Conceptual Options - Overall No Build Lowest Cost Bicycle Lanes Highest Rated

19. Middle Segment: Rankings Project Advisory Group Scoring (lowest is best): M2 Restripe 3 Lanes with Bicycle Lanes = score 2.1 M3 Multi-Use Paths Both Sides = score 2.4 W1 No Build = score 2.8 W4 Multi-Use Paths North Side = score 3.0 Public (most votes is best): M2 Restripe 3 Lanes with Bicycle Lanes = 35 votes M1 No Build = 25 votes M3 Multi-Use Paths Both Sides = 7 votes M4 Multi-Use Paths North Side = 1 vote

20. East Segment: Conceptual Options - Overall No-Build Lowest Cost Bicycle Lanes Highest Rated

21. East Segment: Rankings Project Advisory Group Scoring (lowest is best): E3 Multi-Use Paths Both Sides = score 2.3 E2 Restripe 3 Lanes with Bicycle Lanes = score 2.4 E1 No Build = score 2.6 E4 Multi-Use Paths North Side = score 3.1 Public (most votes is best): W2 Restripe 3 Lanes with Bicycle Lanes = 34 votes W1 No Build = 23 votes W3 Multi-Use Paths Both Sides = 7 votes W4 Multi-Use Paths North Side = 1 vote

22. Summary of Recommendations Recommendation: Install bicycle lanes on all study segments: Vehicular Safety: Crash reduction from 3-lane conversion Traffic Functionality: The ability to serve future demand through 2035 is unaffected Bicycle Safety: Best safety for both pedestrians and bicycles Slower speed bicycles and children will be allowed to remain on the sidewalk Corridor Consistency: The corridor connects activity centers Cost Effectiveness: Can be installed along the entire corridor without changing the outside curbs Minimal Maintenance Impact: Will not significantly affect the maintenance costs or snow removal process

23. Implementation Near Term: Add bicycle lanes to the West Segment Incorporate them into existing projects to the extent possible. Temporarily terminate them at the Johansen Expressway (transition to existing sidewalk) Medium Term: Add bicycle lanes in the Middle Segment Will require small amount of right-of-way on north side near Johansen Expressway off-ramp Temporarily terminate them at the Johansen Expressway (transition to existing sidewalk) Long-Term: Add bicycle lanes to the East Segment Try to incorporate the bicycle lanes into a future rehabilitation project to reduce costs. Additional coordination with development proposals in Bentley Trust area and the railroad crossing will be needed.

24. Implementation Table in Draft Memorandum

25. Where Do We Go from Here? Finalize recommendations Draft and final report

26. Questions?