Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 1 3 rd Technical Task Force meeting Regional Nonmotorized Transportation System Plan Thursday April 3 rd 2014 Steer Davies Gleave 1900 Wazee Street, Suite 250, Denver, CO

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Agenda Ι Welcome and Introduction Ι Project Update Ι Existing Conditions Ι Identified Routes Ι Prioritization Criteria Ι Review Next steps Ι Close 2 2

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Project Update Ι Data collection completed (including website outreach, GIS displays and on the ground data collection) Ι Existing conditions report being finalized Ι A number of routes identified from the existing conditions data, and amendments from partner staff (PPACG, El Paso County, City of Colorado Springs and City of Woodland Park) Ι 73 DRAFT nonmotorized routes identified during this process 3

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 4 Existing Conditions Ι A comprehensive roundup of nonmotorized conditions in the region Ι Key data collected included: ■ Competency Levels ■ Pedestrian and cyclist accidents over the past 10 years ■ Rates of cycling, walking and transit to work ■ Employees place of work and home in the region ■ School locations ■ Existing nonmotorized trails ■ Proposed nonmotorized trails ■ Existing on road cycle infrastructure ■ Existing sidewalk coverage ■ Transit stops ■ Individual area analysis ■ Individual trail analysis Ι The report will be available for download by the end of April

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 5 Key Observations: Off-Road Large number of high volume and high speed roads create segregation and barriers to nonmotorized travel throughout the region. Region enjoys an extensive multiuse trail network, with the Pikes Peak Greenway acting as the north/south spine of the network.

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan The surface type and quality of these trails can differ significantly depending on both the trail, and the section of the trail in question. 6 Key Observations: Off-Road Where the trail network interacts with the road network (e.g., at intersections or where the trail crosses the motorized network) there are different standards of crossing infrastructure in place.

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan In many parts of the region, cyclists rely on nonexclusive shoulders to provide a measure of safety and distance from motorized vehicles. 7 Key Observations: On-Road No protected on-road bicycle lanes in the region, which provide separation between bicycles and cars via a physical barrier (such as pylons or planters), or a painted buffer area. On- road cycling system is fragmented and of differing standards.

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 8 While some areas of the region have a complete and well maintained sidewalk system, others are either lacking sidewalks or have sidewalks that are of poor quality. Key Observations: On-Road Numerous areas throughout the region where informal ‘sidewalks’ have been created by people walking alongside key routes where no sidewalk exists.

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 9 The design of the road network can also create impediments and difficult conditions for pedestrians, especially where pedestrians wish to cross the road. Key Observations: On-Road

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Draft Identified Routes 10 Key principles include: Ι Fill in nonmotorized network gaps Ι Attract the heaviest use by nonmotorized modes through connecting people to places via the shortest route Ι Remove major barriers to nonmotorized transportation Ι Improve cyclist and pedestrian safety Ι Provide regional links Ι Input from partner jurisdictions

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Example Route 10: Big Stratton Reservoir to Downtown Colorado Springs 3.5 miles 11

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 12 ConditionsDescription Fill in nonmotorized network gaps The route runs through a number of neighborhoods that currently are not linked by either current or proposed nonmotorized trails or routes. The area also has high levels of difficult to navigate roadways causing barriers to nonmotorized transportation. Attract the heaviest use by cyclist and pedestrians Within ¼ mile of route: Schools: 3 Employment Centers: 5 Parks: 3 Other: 9 Remove major barriers to nonmotorized transportation I US Highway 115 I Lake Avenue I I25 Improve cyclist and pedestrian safety High rate of accidents: 63 historic pedestrian and cyclist accidents per mile (particularly along Nevada Ave. between I25 & Lake Avenue) Provide a regional link The route will connect the communities to the Pikes Peak Greenway, and provide a link to Downtown Colorado Springs. The route links the communities of Gold Camp/Broadmoor/Seven Falls/Cheyenne Mountain, Stratmoor Hills, Stratton Meadows and Downtown Colorado Springs.

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 13 Example Route 13: Falcon to Woodmen 12 miles

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan 14 ConditionsDescription Fill in nonmotorized network gaps There is currently no nonmotorized trail or route connecting Falcon to the rest of the nonmotorized network. This is a key regional gap. Attract the heaviest use by cyclist and pedestrians Within ¼ mile of route: Schools: 1 Employment Centers: 5 Parks: 1 Other: 7 Remove major barriers to nonmotorized transportation I Woodmen Road I Marksheffle Road I North Powers Boulevard I Austin Bluffs Parkway I Lexington Drive I North Academy Boulevard Improve cyclist and pedestrian safety Medium rate of accidents: 3.9 historic pedestrian and cyclist accidents per mile Provide a regional link The route will connect the communities Falcon to the Pikes Peak Greenway, and a number of other communities in the process. The route links the communities of Falcon, Cimarron Hills (Columbine Estates, Norwood, Vista Grande), Village Seven, Rustic Hills and Palmer Park.

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Prioritization Criteria Ι Next step is to prioritize identified routes. The top 10 routes will be taken forward for more detailed improvement planning. Ι Prioritization process requires the development of criteria. The previous Technical meeting kicked off this process. Ι Discussions with the Project Management Team identified key evaluation categories for prioritizing the routes: ■ Mobility – how well the route improves the movement of people in and around the region. ■ Network Connectivity – how well the route improves connectivity of the regional network. ■ Livability – how well the route promote livability in the region. ■ Deliverability – how feasible it is that the route can be constructed. 15

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Mobility Criteria Ι Improves safety Ι Grade change on the route Ι Safe connections for minority, low income & aging communities Ι Proximity to transit 16

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Network Connectivity Criteria Ι Interregional connections Ι Intraregional connections Ι Connectivity (to existing infrastructure) Ι Uses existing infrastructure/provides missing link 17

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Livability Criteria Ι Connections to residential areas Ι Connection to employment areas Ι Active routes to major destinations Ι Addresses existing physical barriers Ι Provides an alternative to congested roadways 18

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Deliverability Criteria Ι Synergy with planned motorized routes Ι Funding source Ι Rails to Trails (former rail alignments) Ι Construction costs 19

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Questions Does the list of criteria need to be narrowed? & Are any of the criteria redundant? 20

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Next steps… 21 Prioritized List of Routes & Accompanied Improvements Late-June 2014 Specific Improvements May-June 2014 Route Segmentation Early-May 2014 Route Prioritization & Ranking Mid-April 2014 Route Identification Early-April 2014

Nonmotorized Regional System Plan Thank You! 22