HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2020-10-30OCTOBER 30, 2020
SPECIAL MOAB CITY COUNCIL
GRAND COUNTY COMMISSION
ARCHES HOTSPOT REGION COORDINATING
COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING
12:30 P.M.
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED AND ENCOURAGED TO VIEW AND PARTICIPATE IN
THE ELECTRONIC MEETING BY VIEWING THE CITY ’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl00z0Zgdmz4y1FoI0l7CJA
Call to Order and Roll Call Attendance -Arches Hotspot Region
Coordinating Committee
Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Approval of Minutes - October
21, 2020
min -ahrcc -2020 -10 -21 draft.pdf
Call to Order and Roll Call Attendance - Moab City Council
ag -cc -2020 -10 -30 signed.pdf
Call to Order and Roll Call Attendance - Grand County
Commission
Citizens to Be Heard
We are receiving public comments by phone and online through
Zoom. Citizens are limited to two (2) minutes for comments.
Dial: 669 -900 -9128 Meeting ID: 850 6117 8107 Passcode (if
needed): 463557
Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85061178107?
pwd=u2e2l0pjagtvsxvxvmm0yjlvwk4rut09
Please note that when joining the meeting, you will be placed in
a waiting room and will be added to the meeting by the
moderator. Your comments will be recorded and on YouTube.
To have your written comments considered for the Citizens to
Be Heard portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the
form found here: http://bit.ly/publiccommentform
You must submit your comments by 11:00 AM on October 30,
2020. Please limit your comments to 400 words.
Presentation of Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee
Public Engagement Efforts - Lisa Church
Presentation of Concept Package and Transportation Project
Prioritization List - Commissioner Curtis Wells and Carly
Castle
project ranking results.pdf
final hotspot concept package.pdf
concept 1.attachment 1 downtown hotspot parking.pdf
concept 1.attachment 2 emma blvd dispersed and on -street parking
exhibit.pdf
concept 2.attachment 1 sv path map.pdf
concept 2. attachment 2 sidepath spreads svt.pdf
concept 2. attachment 3 spanish valley drive multi -use path typical
section.pdf
concept 2. attachment 4 full udot budget sheets svt.pdf
concept 2. attachment 5 spanish valley drive multi -use path
segment breakdown.pdf
concept 3 - attachment 1 moab shuttle transit outline.pdf
Action to Approve the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating
Committee's Recommended Transportation Project Concept
Package and Prioritization List - Commissioner Curtis Wells
a. Moab City Council
b. Grand County Commission
Discussion Regarding Resolutions Committing to Funding Years
Four and Five of the Transit Shuttle Pilot Project -
Commissioner Curtis Wells
draft transit shuttle joint resolution.pdf
Discussion of Potential Resolution in Support of a Bypass -
Mayor Emily Niehaus and Commissioner Curtis Wells
introduction to a bypass discussion.pdf
moab bypass findings.pdf
Adjournment
Consistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah
Code Ann. § 54 -2 -207(4), the Moab City Council Chair has issued written
determinations supporting the decision to convene electronic meetings of
the Council without a physical anchor location. Due to the health and safety
risks related to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic and considering public
health orders limiting in -person gatherings, the Moab City Council will
continue to hold meetings by electronic means.
Special Accommodations:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center
Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to
the meeting.
Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
1.
1.1.
Documents:
2.
Documents:
3.
4.
5.
6.
Documents:
7.
8.
Documents:
9.
Documents:
10.
OCTOBER 30, 2020SPECIAL MOAB CITY COUNCILGRAND COUNTY COMMISSION ARCHES HOTSPOT REGION COORDINATING COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING 12:30 P.M.THE PUBLIC IS INVITED AND ENCOURAGED TO VIEW AND PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTRONIC MEETING BY VIEWING THE CITY ’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl00z0Zgdmz4y1FoI0l7CJACall to Order and Roll Call Attendance -Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating CommitteeArches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Approval of Minutes - October 21, 2020 min -ahrcc -2020 -10 -21 draft.pdfCall to Order and Roll Call Attendance - Moab City Councilag-cc -2020 -10 -30 signed.pdfCall to Order and Roll Call Attendance - Grand County CommissionCitizens to Be Heard We are receiving public comments by phone and online through Zoom. Citizens are limited to two (2) minutes for comments. Dial: 669 -900 -9128 Meeting ID: 850 6117 8107 Passcode (if needed): 463557Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85061178107?pwd=u2e2l0pjagtvsxvxvmm0yjlvwk4rut09Please note that when joining the meeting, you will be placed in a waiting room and will be added to the meeting by the
moderator. Your comments will be recorded and on YouTube.
To have your written comments considered for the Citizens to
Be Heard portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the
form found here: http://bit.ly/publiccommentform
You must submit your comments by 11:00 AM on October 30,
2020. Please limit your comments to 400 words.
Presentation of Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee
Public Engagement Efforts - Lisa Church
Presentation of Concept Package and Transportation Project
Prioritization List - Commissioner Curtis Wells and Carly
Castle
project ranking results.pdf
final hotspot concept package.pdf
concept 1.attachment 1 downtown hotspot parking.pdf
concept 1.attachment 2 emma blvd dispersed and on -street parking
exhibit.pdf
concept 2.attachment 1 sv path map.pdf
concept 2. attachment 2 sidepath spreads svt.pdf
concept 2. attachment 3 spanish valley drive multi -use path typical
section.pdf
concept 2. attachment 4 full udot budget sheets svt.pdf
concept 2. attachment 5 spanish valley drive multi -use path
segment breakdown.pdf
concept 3 - attachment 1 moab shuttle transit outline.pdf
Action to Approve the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating
Committee's Recommended Transportation Project Concept
Package and Prioritization List - Commissioner Curtis Wells
a. Moab City Council
b. Grand County Commission
Discussion Regarding Resolutions Committing to Funding Years
Four and Five of the Transit Shuttle Pilot Project -
Commissioner Curtis Wells
draft transit shuttle joint resolution.pdf
Discussion of Potential Resolution in Support of a Bypass -
Mayor Emily Niehaus and Commissioner Curtis Wells
introduction to a bypass discussion.pdf
moab bypass findings.pdf
Adjournment
Consistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah
Code Ann. § 54 -2 -207(4), the Moab City Council Chair has issued written
determinations supporting the decision to convene electronic meetings of
the Council without a physical anchor location. Due to the health and safety
risks related to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic and considering public
health orders limiting in -person gatherings, the Moab City Council will
continue to hold meetings by electronic means.
Special Accommodations:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center
Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to
the meeting.
Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
1.1.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.4.
5.
6.
Documents:
7.
8.
Documents:
9.
Documents:
10.
OCTOBER 30, 2020SPECIAL MOAB CITY COUNCILGRAND COUNTY COMMISSION ARCHES HOTSPOT REGION COORDINATING COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING 12:30 P.M.THE PUBLIC IS INVITED AND ENCOURAGED TO VIEW AND PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTRONIC MEETING BY VIEWING THE CITY ’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl00z0Zgdmz4y1FoI0l7CJACall to Order and Roll Call Attendance -Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating CommitteeArches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Approval of Minutes - October 21, 2020 min -ahrcc -2020 -10 -21 draft.pdfCall to Order and Roll Call Attendance - Moab City Councilag-cc -2020 -10 -30 signed.pdfCall to Order and Roll Call Attendance - Grand County CommissionCitizens to Be Heard We are receiving public comments by phone and online through Zoom. Citizens are limited to two (2) minutes for comments. Dial: 669 -900 -9128 Meeting ID: 850 6117 8107 Passcode (if needed): 463557Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85061178107?pwd=u2e2l0pjagtvsxvxvmm0yjlvwk4rut09Please note that when joining the meeting, you will be placed in a waiting room and will be added to the meeting by the moderator. Your comments will be recorded and on YouTube. To have your written comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found here: http://bit.ly/publiccommentformYou must submit your comments by 11:00 AM on October 30, 2020. Please limit your comments to 400 words.Presentation of Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Public Engagement Efforts - Lisa ChurchPresentation of Concept Package and Transportation Project Prioritization List - Commissioner Curtis Wells and Carly Castle project ranking results.pdffinal hotspot concept package.pdfconcept 1.attachment 1 downtown hotspot parking.pdfconcept 1.attachment 2 emma blvd dispersed and on -street parking exhibit.pdfconcept 2.attachment 1 sv path map.pdfconcept 2. attachment 2 sidepath spreads svt.pdfconcept 2. attachment 3 spanish valley drive multi -use path typical section.pdfconcept 2. attachment 4 full udot budget sheets svt.pdfconcept 2. attachment 5 spanish valley drive multi -use path segment breakdown.pdfconcept 3 - attachment 1 moab shuttle transit outline.pdfAction to Approve the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee's Recommended Transportation Project Concept Package and Prioritization List - Commissioner Curtis Wellsa. Moab City Councilb. Grand County CommissionDiscussion Regarding Resolutions Committing to Funding Years Four and Five of the Transit Shuttle Pilot Project -Commissioner Curtis Wellsdraft transit shuttle joint resolution.pdfDiscussion of Potential Resolution in Support of a Bypass -Mayor Emily Niehaus and Commissioner Curtis Wellsintroduction to a bypass discussion.pdfmoab bypass findings.pdfAdjournmentConsistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. § 54 -2 -207(4), the Moab City Council Chair has issued written
determinations supporting the decision to convene electronic meetings of
the Council without a physical anchor location. Due to the health and safety
risks related to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic and considering public
health orders limiting in -person gatherings, the Moab City Council will
continue to hold meetings by electronic means.
Special Accommodations:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center
Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to
the meeting.
Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
1.1.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.4.5.6.Documents:7.8.Documents:9.Documents:10.
Page 1 of 2
October 21, 2020
ARCHES HOTSPOT REGION COORDINATING COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 21, 2020
The Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee held its Regular Meeting on the above
date. Consistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. §
54-2-207(4), the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Chair has issued written
determinations supporting the decision to convene electronic meetings of the Committee
without a physical anchor location. Due to the health and safety risks related to the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic and considering public health orders limiting in-person gatherings, the
Arches Hotspot Coordinating Committee will continue to hold meetings by electronic means. An
anchor location was not provided. An audio recording of the meeting is archived at
http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. A video recording is archived at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl00z0Zgdmz4y1FoI0l7CJA.
Regular Meeting—Call to Order and Attendance: Committee Chair Curtis Wells called
the Regular Meeting to order at 2:04 PM. Participating remotely were Committee Members
Curtis Wells, Kalen Jones, Jaylyn Hawks, Karen Guzman-Newton, Wes Shannon, and Evan
Clapper. Committee Member Mike Duncan was absent. City staff participating remotely were
Assistant City Manager Carly Castle, City Engineer Chuck Williams, City Planner Nora Shepard,
Communications and Engagement Manager Lisa Church, City Recorder Sommar Johnson, and
Deputy Recorder Kerri Kirk. County Staff participating remotely was Planning & Zoning
Director Mila Dunbar-Irwin. UDOT staff participating remotely were Region Planning Manager
Jeff Sanders, District Engineer Jared Beard, Region 4 Traffic Operations Engineer Robert
Dowell, and Region 4 Deputy Director Monte Aldridge.
02:58
Approval of Minutes: September 30, 2020, Regular Meeting, October 7, 2020,
Regular Meeting, October 7, 2020, Public Engagement—Approved
Motion: Committee Member Guzman-Newton moved to approve the minutes from September
30 and October 7. Committee Member Jones seconded the motion.
Vote: The motion passed 6-0 with Committee Members Wells, Shannon, Guzman-Newton,
Hawks, Clapper, and Jones voting aye. Committee Member Duncan was not present for the
vote.
Citizens to be Heard:
There were no citizens to be heard.
5:05
Report and Discussion of Public Engagement Efforts and Survey Results
Communications and Engagement Manager Church reviewed the latest survey results and
provided a communication and engagement update. Committee Member Guzman-Newton
thanked City staff for putting the open house together. Committee Member Jones thanked City
staff for putting the results of the engagement in a clear format. Committee Chair Wells thanked
Communication and Engagement Manager Church for the presentation. He agreed that the
town hall produced good discussion about the potential projects.
25:21
Discussion and Approval of Draft Concept Package, Including Dispersed Parking
Projects, Spanish Valley Multi-Use Path, and Transit Shuttle Pilot
Project—Approved
Discussion: Committee Chair Wells stated the purpose of this agenda item is to approve the
projects; the prioritization will be discussed on the next agenda item. Committee Member
Page 2 of 2
October 21, 2020
Hawks said there are two corridors that need consideration in Moab valley: Highway 191 and
Spanish Valley Drive. She said to consider congestion only on Highway 191 would be a mistake.
There was a discussion regarding suggested edits by the Committee and the process of
incorporation before the Joint City-County meeting on October 30. Committee Member Jones
said he submitted a PDF with comments and suggested edits to Assistant City Manager Castle.
He said the proposed projects address congestion across multiple modes of transportation in
multiple areas. UDOT Region 4 Deputy Director Aldridge agreed with Committee Member
Jones, and said the message is applicable to UDOT’s goals and objectives. There was a
discussion regarding the funding potential for aesthetics.
Assistant City Manager Castle said the Spanish Valley pathway project can be proposed as the
entire pathway, or a particular segment for funding. There was a discussion about clarifying the
pathway segments for funding. Aldridge said the engineer’s estimates would be sufficient for the
pathway segments.
Motion: Committee Member Jones moved to approve the draft concept package including
dispersed parking project, Spanish Valley multi-use path and transit shuttle pilot project in
substantially the form presented but with possible minor edits and word changes prior to
presentation to Council and Commission. Committee Member Hawks seconded the motion.
Vote: The motion passed 6-0 with Committee Members Wells, Shannon, Guzman-Newton,
Hawks, Clapper, and Jones voting aye. Committee Member Duncan was not present for the
vote.
45:20
Prioritization of Approved Final Transportation Projects
Assistant City Manager Castle reviewed the prioritization worksheet for the Committee to vote
on within the next couple of days. Committee Chair Wells requested the Committee email the
completed prioritization worksheets to Assistant City Manager Castle. He said the results will be
discussed and presented at the joint meeting to seek final approval by the City Council and
County Commission. There was discussion regarding the ranking system, considering the two
major corridors in Moab valley, and having the congestion criteria more weighted on the results.
Aldridge said the survey results could assist in showing congestion relief for the Spanish Valley
multi-use path project and the dispersed parking project. There was a discussion about the
weighted percent used for congestion relief in the Decision Lens software.
Committee Member Guzman-Newton expressed concern regarding what the community is
requesting versus the requirements for the funding. There was a discussion regarding
communicating the limitations and complexities of the funding to citizens.
Committee Member Hawks requested clarification for the potential funding allocation.
Committee Chair Wells proposed a meeting between City Manager Linares and Grand County
Commission Administrator Baird. Assistant City Manager Castle suggested budgeting as if the
funding is a grant that may be received.
Aldridge said the weighted percentage for congestion relief through Decision Lens was 54.5%.
He said the information was emailed to Assistant City Manager Castle, along with the other
criteria’s rankings.
Adjournment: Committee Chair Wells adjourned the meeting at 3:15 PM.
217 East Center Street
Moab, Utah 84532-2534
Main Number (435) 259-5121
Fax Number (435) 259-4135
Emily S. Niehaus
Tawny Knuteson-Boyd
Rani Derasary
Mike Duncan
Karen Guzman-
Newton
Kalen Jones
Mayor:
Council:
Memorandum
To: Councilmembers and Media
From: Mayor Emily S. Niehaus
Date: 10/27/2020
Re: Special Moab City Council/Grand County Commission/Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating
Committee Joint Meeting
The City of Moab will hold a Special Moab City Council/Grand County Commission/Arches
Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Joint Meeting on Friday, October 30, 2020 at
12:30 p.m. The purpose of this meeting will be:
1.Call to Order and roll call attendance —Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating
Committee
2.Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Approval of Minutes – October 21,
2020
3.Call to Order and roll call attendance —Moab City Council
4.Call to Order and roll call attendance —Grand County Commission
5.Citizens to be heard:
We are receiving public comments by phone and online through Zoom. Citizens are
limited to two (2) minutes for comments.
Dial: 669-900-3128 Meeting ID: 850 6117 8107 Password (if needed): 463557 Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85061178107?pwd=U2E2L0pJaGtvSXVxVmM0YjlvWk4r UT09
Please note that when joining the meeting, you will be placed in a waiting room and
will be added to the meeting by the moderator. Your comments will be recorded
and on YouTube.
To have your written comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of
the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found here:
http://bit.ly/publiccommentform
DocuSign Envelope ID: 840418C1-5310-4C43-AD53-8275DD96BA9B
You must submit your comments by 11:00 AM on October 30, 2020. Please
limit your comments to 400 words.
6. Presentation of Arches Hotspot Coordinating Committee Public Engagement
Efforts--Lisa Church
7. Presentation of Concept Package and Transportation Project Prioritization
List—Commissioner Curtis Wells and Carly Castle
8. Action to Approve the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee’s
Recommended Transportation Project Concept Package and Prioritization
List—Commissioner Curtis Wells
a. Moab City Council
b. Grand County Commission
9. Discussion Regarding Resolutions Committing to Funding Years Four and Five
of the Transit Shuttle Pilot Project—Commissioner Curtis Wells
10. Discussion of Potential Resolution in Support of a Bypass—Mayor Emily
Niehaus and Commissioner Curtis Wells
a. Narrative
b. Scope info
c. Cost info
d. Drawings
11. Adjournment
Mayor Emily S. Niehaus
Consistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. § 54-2-
207(4), the Moab City Council Chair has issued written determinations supporting the decision to
convene electronic meetings of the Council without a physical anchor location. Due to the health
and safety risks related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and considering public health orders
limiting in-person gatherings, Moab City Council will continue to hold meetings by electronic
means. The public is invited and encouraged to view the Council’s electronic meetings by viewing
the City’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl00z0Zgdmz4y1FoI0l7CJA.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting should
notify the Recorder’s Office at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259-5121 at least three (3) working days
prior to the meeting.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 840418C1-5310-4C43-AD53-8275DD96BA9B
Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee
Transportation Project Ranking Results
Page 1 of 8
Dear UDOT staff and members of the Utah Transportation Commission,
The Grand County Commission, City of Moab Mayor and City Council, and Arches Hotspot Region
Coordinating Committee would like to express our sincerest gratitude and appreciation to the State
Transportation Commission and to UDOT for the tremendous opportunity to participate in the
Recreational Hotspot Program established by Senate Bill 277 in 2017. This community is especially
grateful for UDOT’s graciousness and professionalism while the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating
Committee has spent the past eight months and twelve public meetings developing this Concept
Package for your consideration. While the discussion has been lively at times, the Recreational Hotspot
Program has provided a unique platform for our residents and businesses to contribute invaluable
input and creative thought toward transportation issues and ideas in the Moab area.
The projects now before you are a unique combination of basic, essential, and direct solutions; as well
as innovative, forward-thinking concepts that have the potential for growth and evolution over time.
Together, this suite of projects accomplishes the legislative mandates outlined in SB 277 — reducing
congestion, supporting economic development, and increasing recreation and tourism opportunities.
The Moab Community appreciates not only the opportunities presented by the Recreational Hotspot
Program, but also the history of transportation infrastructure investments made by UDOT, the
Transportation Commission, and the Utah Legislature into Southeastern Utah. Projects such as the
current north U.S. 191/Main Street widening, the lane and shoulder additions to the highway spanning
from Crescent Junction to the Colorado River, the improvements to Main Street in Moab’s downtown
corridor, the Mill Creek Parkway reconstruction, the approval for a roundabout off of 100 West, your
partnership in the Pack Creek bridge widening, and your investment in this area’s Regional
Transportation Plan have been invaluable to improving the quality of life for residents and enriching
the experience for those visiting the Moab region.
Grand County and the City of Moab are extremely grateful for the opportunity to present this Concept
Package to UDOT and the Transportation Commission, and this community appreciates your
consideration of our proposal. We look forward to continuing our partnership as these projects move
forward.
Sincerely,
Emily Niehaus
Mayor of Moab
Mary McGann
Grand County Commission Chair
Curtis Wells
Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee Chair
Page 2 of 8
PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED
n 2017, the Utah Legislature appropriated $100 million for transportation improvements in areas
with recreation and tourism activity that currently experience significant congestion. With that
criteria, UDOT established a prioritization process and the Transportation Commission identified
four areas that warranted further evaluation. The four areas are Zion, Little Cottonwood Canyon, Bear
Lake, and the Arches/Moab area. The Arches/Moab area was allocated $10,000,000 out of this
Hotspot Fund. To qualify for funding under the Hotspot criteria, proposed transportation projects
must meet goals established in the 2017 Legislature appropriation. They must (1) reduce congestion,
(2) support economic development, and (3) increase recreation and tourism opportunity.
The world-class recreational amenities in the Moab area have generated significant tourism activity.
All expectations are that this will continue to grow as Utah markets the destination. This level of
activity creates tremendous stress on Moab’s local transportation infrastructure. Moab’s Main Street
is particularly impacted because, unlike other recreation destination areas in Utah, it is also a major
freight traffic route. UDOT estimates 17,000 average annual daily traffic on Moab’s Main Street, with
truck traffic increasing by 4 percent each year. Increased pressure on Moab’s Main Street corridor is
associated with additional traffic migrating to the Spanish Valley Drive corridor as locals and tourists
seek an alternate route to escape the congestion. As traffic increases, user conflict escalates, and the
bike and pedestrian environment become more uninviting and dangerous This is a great concern to
local residents and business owners and has created a safety issue for motorists, cyclists, and
pedestrians.
In April 2020, the City of Moab convened the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee to
identify and develop local transportation project ideas. This Committee developed projects related to
reducing friction between different transportation uses, maintaining community vision, and
improving options along the U.S. 191 and Spanish Valley Drive corridors. Three projects and related
cost estimates were developed and have emerged as finalists for recommendation by the Arches
Hotspot Committee. These projects were subsequently confirmed by the Moab City Council and
Grand County Commission.
I
Page 3 of 8
CONCEPT 1: DISPERSED PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE
& EMMA BOULEVARD AREA
Description of Transportation Issue
There are currently approximately 150 parallel parking spots in the downtown section of Main Street.
These primarily provide parking for the storefront businesses along Main Street that characterize the
Main Street atmosphere. There is friction as vehicles slow down to enter stalls or even stop to back
into these stalls. Traffic tends to slow down, and drivers feel unsafe as people enter or leave their
vehicles. To relocate this parking and relieve the friction there must be a replacement as many of the
storefront businesses rely on that parking.
Project Description
The Arches Hotspot Coordinating Committee
developed concepts to create additional on-
street parking in Moab’s downtown core. The
purpose is to create appealing and functional
streetscapes that strengthen community life,
expand business opportunities, and mitigate
traffic congestion on and around the central
Main Street area.
The proposed dispersed parking project concept
uses a “complete streets” approach to redesign
downtown side streets in ways that encourage
greater pedestrian and bicycle activity while
also supporting the emerging needs of
businesses, transit, and traditional motor
vehicles. Streetscapes that include angled, parallel, and median parking are identified as being
particularly suited for providing additional parking and other valued streetscape features in the
downtown core. Parking in the Emma Boulevard area will include parking lots and parallel parking.
Hotspot Funding Goals
• Reduce Congestion: Downtown Dispersed
Parking will alleviate congestion by drawing
vehicles looking for parking off Main Street.
• Support Economic Development: The parking
will serve businesses on the north end of town
that lost street parking as a result of the UDOT
U.S. 191 North Main Street widening project. It
will also serve the business community located
in the downtown core.
• Increase Recreation and Tourism Opportunities:
More plentiful parking near Emma Boulevard
and in Downtown Moab will better
accommodate the influx of Moab visitors.
Center median
parking and
streetscape
concept –
Lancaster, CA.
Page 4 of 8
The Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee proposes that the dispersed parking project will
produce 155-188 new parking stalls, to be located along and adjacent to Emma Boulevard, and
between 100 South and 200 North, and between 100
West and 200 East. A map and concept-level design
of this dispersed parking project is attached to this
memorandum. The Emma Boulevard project adds
much-needed parking north of town. It was
previously approved by UDOT and the
Transportation Commission for Hotspot funding.
Design for Emma Boulevard is also included as an
attachment.
Dispersed Downtown Parking Concept
Project Budget
Cost per stall Total Project Cost
$33,000 to $38,000 $4.8 million to $7.2
million
A more detailed cost estimate, along with
project assumptions is attached to this
memorandum in the attachments.
Downtown Core Off-Main Street Parking Overview
Page 5 of 8
CONCEPT 2: SHARED USE PATH CONNECTING
SPANISH VALLEY TO MOAB
Description of Transportation Issue
The primary motivation for the Shared Use Path is to serve the needs of the Moab Valley’s residents
and has the added benefit of serving the needs of visitors as well. Twenty percent of the population of
Grand County lives within a quarter-mile of Spanish Valley Drive and an estimated 37 percent of
Spanish Valley residents within a quarter-mile of Spanish Valley Drive are younger than 15 or older
than 65, the age groups most likely to need non-auto options. Offering a safe option for active
transportation also allows working-age residents the opportunity to commute to work without a car.
In addition, 20 percent of the people living within this area are below the poverty line and could
greatly benefit from a decreased need for automobile-related costs.
Within the last several years, Spanish Valley Drive has become a gateway to multiple recreation
opportunities, bringing increased traffic – passenger vehicles, ATVs, jeeps, bikes, etc. It's no longer a
secret 'locals' route; it has been discovered and is heavily utilized by visitors. As such, any additions to
this pathway increase transportation options, reduce friction by physically separating users, and
increase access to recreation opportunities.
Project Description
The Spanish Valley Drive Pathway proposal is for
5.2 miles of paved, two-lane pathway adjacent to
Spanish Valley Drive from the intersection with
Mill Creek Drive at the north end to the Grand
County/San Juan County line at the south
terminus. The pathway will provide much-needed
safety improvements for bicyclists and
pedestrians who currently must use the narrow,
and at times nonexistent shoulder of the roadway,
and will encourage more active transportation
users who are frightened of sharing the road with
motorized vehicles — both residents and tourists
alike.
A multi-use path on Spanish Valley
Drive would tie into the many existing
paths and trails in the Moab area,
creating a continuous network for
both transportation and recreation.
While the current speed limit along
Spanish Valley Drive is relatively safe
in the case of an accident, the
possibility of speeding increases the
danger posed to pedestrians and
bicyclists significantly.
Hotspot Funding Goals
• Reduce Congestion: The project reduces
congestion by replacing car trips with bike trips.
• Support Economic Development: The project
supports economic development by increasing
pedestrian and bicycle transportation options to
areas that are targeted for future growth.
• Increase Recreation and Tourism Opportunities:
The project fulfills this goal by providing a safe
continuation of the northern pathway for
families, e-bikes, road bikers, pedestrians, and
equestrians, and by increasing access to high-
use recreational opportunities.
Page 6 of 8
The proposal is for a “sidepath” design, with 5 feet of separation between the roadway and a 10-
foot-wide, paved, and striped pathway. Minimal aesthetics are requested in the 5-foot buffer strip,
which would likely be simply paved as well and possibly rumble-stripped. There is the opportunity
for protective bollards or raised reflectors in the future, should they be needed. In the proposed
northern segment, there are only five right-of-way issues, with 85 percent of the needed width held
by one property owner. There is broad community support for this project, and issues obtaining
right-of-way are not anticipated.
One proposed segment – 1.25 miles in length –
would connect the existing Mill Creek Drive bike
lane to the new Arroyo Crossing affordable housing
development, which will have 300 new units at full
build-out. This segment would provide an important
commuter and recreational opportunity for many
residents and tourists alike and provide an
alternative means of getting to town — keeping cars
off the road and reducing congestion. The second
proposed segment would extend the pathway to Old
Spanish Trail Arena. Every foot more is progress
towards a much-needed, desired, and necessary
active transportation option for the Grand County
community and its guests.
Spanish Valley Shared Use Path
Project Budget
Mill Creek Drive
to Arroyo Crossing
(1.25 miles)
Mill Creek Drive to
San Juan County
(5.2 miles)
Estimated Cost
$1.87 million
Estimated Cost
$4.2 million
The detailed cost estimate for this project can
be found in the attachments.
Page 7 of 8
CONCEPT 3: SHUTTLE/TRANSIT PILOT PROGRAM
Description of Transportation Issue
The UDOT Arches Hotspot funding is to be used
to help areas that are experiencing significant
congestion through recreation and tourism. A
shuttle system can help greatly to relieve
congestion on US-191. As Grand County and
Moab grow, transit will be important for locals
and tourists. UDOT is studying the potential
demand for a shuttle system, including users,
routes, and frequency, to design a pilot program
funded by the UDOT Arches Hotspot program.
Project Description
UDOT has engaged transportation consultants to
develop details, costs, and benefits for a 3- to 5-
year pilot shuttle system that would test the
demand and viability of long-term transit for the
Mab community. It is assumed that for the pilot
period (2 to 5 years) the entire operation will be
“turn-key,” meaning that a contract operator will
be hired to operate the service, provide the
vehicles, store and maintain the vehicles, collect
and process fare revenue, etc.
Hotspot Funding Goals
• Reduce Congestion: A transit shuttle has the
potential to maximize Grand County residents’
ability to reach businesses as a customer or
employee without having to drive during the
peak seasons.
• Support Economic Development: A transit
shuttle will expand the access to town for low-
income employee housing development in
Spanish Valley by enabling those without
reliable transportation to reach businesses in
town from more affordable areas out of the city
center. It will also serve existing residential
areas that benefit lower-income families and
individuals.
• Increase Recreation and Tourism Opportunity:
This project allows visitors staying at hotels and
campgrounds in town to access businesses and
recreational amenities without clogging the
streets with additional vehicles.
Page 8 of 8
UDOT contemplates that the initial route will be along
U.S. 191. U.S. 191 / Main Street is the area's primary
transportation corridor, linking residences, tourist
accommodations, businesses, and recreational amenities.
While many residents and visitors utilize walking and
biking, there are not private vehicle alternatives to those for
whom these options are impractical.
UDOT and regional stakeholders are in the process of
conducting several transportation studies, including a
transit study, which is anticipated to begin in 2022. This pilot project will provide both short-term
congestion relief, and valuable data to inform the Transit Study and permanent program. Without
transportation alternatives and as growth continues, the region’s congestion issues will be
exacerbated. While Main Street/U.S. 191 is the primary focus of the transit study, other potential
routes throughout Grand County.
Shuttle/Transit Pilot
Project Budget
Years 1 to 3
$500,000 annually
UDOT Hotspot funds
would pay for the first
three years.
Years 4 and 5
$500,000 annually
Grand County & Moab
City are responsible
for the costs.
DOWNTOWN PARKING
PROJECT OVERVIEW
10-5-2020
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SS-1LOCATION 1: 100 SOUTH STREET
MEDIAN PARKING
DOWNTOWN PARKING
RECONFIGURATION
100 SOUTH STREET
10
0
E
A
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
10
0
W
E
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
100 SOUTH STREET
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SS-2LOCATIONS 2 & 3: CENTER
STREET MEDIAN PARKING
DOWNTOWN PARKING
RECONFIGURATION
CENTER STREET
10
0
E
A
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
10
0
W
E
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
CENTER STREET
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SS-3LOCATIONS 4 & 5: 100 EAST
STREET 60° PARKING
DOWNTOWN PARKING
RECONFIGURATION
100 EAST STREET
10
0
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
CE
N
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
10
0
S
O
U
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
100 EAST STREET
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SS-4LOCATIONS 6 & 7: 100 NORTH
STREET MEDIAN PARKING
DOWNTOWN PARKING
RECONFIGURATION
100 NORTH STREET 10
0
E
A
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
10
0
W
E
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
100 NORTH STREET
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF MOAB
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SS-5LOCATIONS 8 & 9: OUTLYING
STREETS MEDIAN PARKING
DOWNTOWN PARKING
RECONFIGURATION
100 NORTH STREET
10
0
E
A
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
10
0
W
E
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
200 NORTH STREET
20
0
E
A
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
([LVWLQJ 0HGLDQ &RPSRVLWH ,QFUHDVH &RPSRVLWHW\SH
(6 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQ
:&HQWHU
&RQYHUWH[LVWLQJVSDFHVWRUHORFDWHFXUERQ
QRUWKVLGH
(&HQWHU 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO
6( &RQYHUWH[LVWLQJDQJOHGVSDFHVWR
1( &RQYHUWH[LVWLQJDQJOHGVSDFHVWR
:1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
VW%/2&.(1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
:1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQ UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
QG%/2&.(1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
$QJOH3DUDOOHO0HGLDQ
$QJOH3DUDOOHO0HGLDQ
$QJOH3DUDOOHO0HGLDQ
([LVWLQJ 0HGLDQ &RPSRVLWH ,QFUHDVH &RPSRVLWHW\SH
(6 63ODQ 6HH6RXWKSODQ
:&HQWHU
&RQYHUWH[LVWLQJVSDFHVWRUHORFDWHFXUERQ
QRUWKVLGH
(&HQWHU 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO
6( &RQYHUWH[LVWLQJDQJOHGVSDFHVWR
1( &RQYHUWH[LVWLQJDQJOHGVSDFHVWR
:1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
VW%/2&.(1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
:1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQ UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
QG%/2&.(1 0HGLDQ
&RQYHUWWRPHGLDQSDUNLQJ SDUDOOHOURZ
PHGLDQSDUDOOHO UHORFDWHFXUERQQRUWKVLGH
$QJOH3DUDOOHO0HGLDQ
$QJOH3DUDOOHO0HGLDQ
$QJOH3DUDOOHO0HGLDQ
'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ&RXQW DVVXPLQJ6RXWK5HFRQVWUXFWLRQOD\RXW
'HVFULSWLRQ
3DUNLQJ7DEXODWLRQ
'5$)7
6WUHHW,QFUHDVH
'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ&RXQW
/RFDWLRQ
3RWHQWLDO3DUNLQJ7\SH 5HFRPPHQGHG3DUNLQJ$UUDQJHPHQWV
'HVFULSWLRQ
6WUHHW,QFUHDVH
6WUHHW,QFUHDVH
5HFRPPHQGHG3DUNLQJ$UUDQJHPHQWV
6WUHHW,QFUHDVH
6WUHHW,QFUHDVH
6WUHHW,QFUHDVH
/RFDWLRQ
3DUNLQJ$UUDQJHPHQW7\SH
6WDOOV 6WDOOV 6WDOOV
SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO
6WDOOV 6WDOOV 6WDOOV
SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO
6WDOOV 6WDOOV 6WDOOV
SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO
6WDOOV 6WDOOV 6WDOOV
SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO
6WDOOV 6WDOOV 6WDOOV
SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO
6WDOOV 6WDOOV 6WDOOV
SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO SHU6WDOO
6WUHHWV
6WDOOV
SHU6WDOO
6WUHHWV
7DEOH
(PPD%OYGHWF
6XPPDU\RI+RWVSRW3DUNLQJ&DSLWDO&RVWV
,QFO(PPD%OYG
6WDPSHG&RQFUHWH
'RZQWRZQ
5HJXODU&RQFUHWH
'RZQWRZQ
$VSKDOW'RZQWRZQ
,QFO(PPD%OYG
,QFO(PPD%OYG
6WUHHWV
,WHP 'HVFULSWLRQ 8QLW 8QLW&RVW 4XDQWLW\ &RVW 4XDQWLW\ &RVW 4XDQWLW\ &RVW
0RELOL]DWLRQ /6
7UDIILF&RQWURO /6
&RQVWUXFWLRQ/D\RXWDQG6WDNLQJ /6
$VSKDOW WKLFN 721
*UDQXODU%RUURZ WKLFN &<
8QWUHDWHG%DVH&RXUVH WKLFN &<
6LGHZDON 6)
7\SH$&XUEDQG*XWWHU /)
'HWHFWDEOH:DUQLQJ6XUIDFHV [IHHW ($
0RELOL]DWLRQ0HVVDJH&UHZ7KHUPRSODVWLF ($
/D\RXW3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ /6
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ7KHUPRSODVWLF0HVVDJHV ($
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ *$/
$HVWKHWLF7UHDWPHQWV *UHHQ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH VI /6
&RQWLQJHQF\/6
7RWDO&RVW 6WDOOV
(PPD%OYG2QVWUHHW'LVSHUVHG3DUNLQJ&DSLWDO&RVW(VWLPDWH
7DEOH
727$/$5($&267
&2673(567$//
0D[LQH$YH 6WDOOV 0LQQLH/HH%OYG 6WDOOV (PPD3DUNLQJ/RW 6WDOOV
,WHP 'HVFULSWLRQ 8QLW 8QLW&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW
0RELOL]DWLRQ /6
7UDIILF&RQWURO /6
&RQVWUXFWLRQ/D\RXWDQG6WDNLQJ /6
3DYHPHQW5HPRYDO 6<
5RDG([FDYDWLRQ&<
5HPRYH&XUEDQG*XWWHU /)
5HPRYH7UHH7UHH5RRW ($
5HPRYH%RXOGHU ($
5HPRYH%XVK ($
5HORFDWH6LJQDQG6LJQ3RVW ($
5HORFDWH0DLOER[($
5HORFDWH3RZHU3ROH ($
*UDQXODU%RUURZ WKLFN &<
8QWUHDWHG%DVH&RXUVH WKLFN &<
6WDPSHG&RQFUHWH WKLFN &RORU$RXWVLGHRIVWDOOV 6)
6WDPSHG&RQFUHWH WKLFN &RORU%6)
1HZ$VSKDOWLQFK 721
6HZHU0DQKROH$GMXVWPHQW ($
%ROODUG ($
6WUHHW/LJKW)L[WXUH ($
7\SH$&XUEDQG*XWWHU /)
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ3DLQW5HG&XUE /)
0RELOL]DWLRQ5HPRYDO(TXLSPHQW ($
5HPRYDO/RQJ/LQH :DWHU%ODVW /)
5HPRYDO3DYHPHQW0HVVDJH
ZKLWHOLQH ($
5HPRYDO3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ5HG&XUE :DWHU%ODVW /)
/D\RXW3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ /6
3DYHPHQW3DUNLQJ:KLWH3DUNLQJ6WDOO *$/
3DYHPHQW3DUNLQJ<HOORZ *$/
0RELOL]DWLRQ0HVVDJH&UHZ7KHUPRSODVWLF ($
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ7KHUPRSODVWLF0HVVDJHV ($
$HVWKHWLF7UHDWPHQWV 7%' /6
&RQWLQJHQF\/6
6WUHHWV6WDOOV
7DEOH
'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ&DSLWDO&RVW(VWLPDWH
6WDPSHG&RQFUHWH
727$/352-(&7&267
&2673(567$//
6WUHHWV 6WDOOV 6WUHHWV6WDOOV
1XPEHU 'HVFULSWLRQ 8QLW 8QLW&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW
0RELOL]DWLRQ /6
7UDIILF&RQWURO /6
&RQVWUXFWLRQ/D\RXWDQG6WDNLQJ /6
3DYHPHQW5HPRYDO 6<
5RDG([FDYDWLRQ&<
5HPRYH&XUEDQG*XWWHU /)
5HPRYH7UHH7UHH5RRW ($
5HPRYH%RXOGHU ($
5HPRYH%XVK ($
5HORFDWH6LJQDQG6LJQ3RVW ($
5HORFDWH0DLOER[($
5HORFDWH3RZHU3ROH ($
*UDQXODU%RUURZ WKLFN &<
8QWUHDWHG%DVH&RXUVH WKLFN &<
&RQFUHWH WKLFN 6)
1HZ$VSKDOWLQFK 721
6HZHU0DQKROH$GMXVWPHQW ($
%ROODUG ($
6WUHHW/LJKW)L[WXUH ($
7\SH$&XUEDQG*XWWHU /)
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ3DLQW5HG&XUE /)
0RELOL]DWLRQ5HPRYDO(TXLSPHQW ($
5HPRYDO/RQJ/LQH :DWHU%ODVW /)
5HPRYDO3DYHPHQW0HVVDJH
ZKLWHOLQH ($
5HPRYDO3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ5HG&XUE :DWHU%ODVW /)
/D\RXW3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ /6
3DYHPHQW3DUNLQJ:KLWH3DUNLQJ6WDOO *$/
3DYHPHQW3DUNLQJ<HOORZ *$/
0RELOL]DWLRQ0HVVDJH&UHZ7KHUPRSODVWLF ($
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ7KHUPRSODVWLF0HVVDJHV ($
$HVWKHWLF7UHDWPHQWV 7%' /6
&RQWLQJHQF\/6
'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ&DSLWDO&RVW(VWLPDWH
6WUHHWV6WDOOV
7DEOH
6WUHHWV 6WDOOV 6WUHHWV6WDOOV
727$/352-(&7&267
&2673(567$//
5HJXODU&RQFUHWH
1XPEHU 'HVFULSWLRQ 8QLW 8QLW&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW 4XDQWLW\&RVW
0RELOL]DWLRQ /6
7UDIILF&RQWURO /6
&RQVWUXFWLRQ/D\RXWDQG6WDNLQJ /6
3DYHPHQW5HPRYDO 6<
5RDG([FDYDWLRQ&<
5HPRYH&XUEDQG*XWWHU /)
5HPRYH7UHH7UHH5RRW ($
5HPRYH%RXOGHU ($
5HPRYH%XVK ($
5HORFDWH6LJQDQG6LJQ3RVW ($
5HORFDWH0DLOER[($
5HORFDWH3RZHU3ROH ($
*UDQXODU%RUURZ WKLFN &<
8QWUHDWHG%DVH&RXUVH WKLFN &<
$VSKDOW WKLFN 721
6HZHU0DQKROH$GMXVWPHQW ($
%ROODUG ($
6WUHHW/LJKW)L[WXUH ($
7\SH$&XUEDQG*XWWHU /)
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ3DLQW5HG&XUE /)
0RELOL]DWLRQ5HPRYDO(TXLSPHQW ($
5HPRYDO/RQJ/LQH :DWHU%ODVW /)
5HPRYDO3DYHPHQW0HVVDJH
ZKLWHOLQH ($
5HPRYDO3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ5HG&XUE :DWHU%ODVW /)
/D\RXW3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ /6
3DYHPHQW3DUNLQJ:KLWH3DUNLQJ6WDOO *$/
3DYHPHQW3DUNLQJ<HOORZ *$/
0RELOL]DWLRQ0HVVDJH&UHZ7KHUPRSODVWLF ($
3DYHPHQW0DUNLQJ7KHUPRSODVWLF0HVVDJHV ($
$HVWKHWLF7UHDWPHQWV 7%' /6
&RQWLQJHQF\/6
$VSKDOW
'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ&DSLWDO&RVW(VWLPDWH
727$/352-(&7&267
&2673(567$//
6WUHHWV 6WDOOV 6WUHHWV6WDOOV6WUHHWV6WDOOV
7DEOH
0HGLDQ0DWHULDO ([SHQVH 6WUHHWV 6WUHHWV 6WUHHWV
(OHFWULFLW\
0LVFHOODQHRXV
7RWDO<HDUO\&RVW
'HVLJQ/LIH&RVW <HDUV
(OHFWULFLW\
0LVFHOODQHRXV
7RWDO<HDUO\&RVW
'HVLJQ/LIH&RVW <HDUV
(OHFWULFLW\
6WULSLQJ DYJDQQXDOFRVWIRU\UF\FOH
&KLS6HDO DYJDQQXDOFRVWIRU\UF\FOH
0LVFHOODQHRXV
7RWDO<HDUO\&RVW
'HVLJQ/LIH&RVW <HDUV
0DLQWHQDQFH&RVW(VWLPDWH
7DEOH
6WDPSHG&RQFUHWH
5HJXODU&RQFUHWH
$VSKDOW
6XSSOHPHQWDO,QIRUPDWLRQ6KHHWWR$FFRPSDQ\WKH'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ
5HFRQILJXUDWLRQ3ODQ6HWIRU+RWVSRW)XQGLQJ
,QWKHSURFHVVRIGHVLJQLQJDQGZRUNVKRSSLQJWKH 'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ5HFRQILJXUDWLRQ
SODQVLWLVGHVLUDEOHWKDWDOOSDUWLFLSDWLQJSDUWLHVKDYHFRQYHQLHQWDFFHVVWRUHOHYDQW
OHJDOFULWHULDDQGGHILQLWLRQVDVVHWIRUWKLQWKH 0RDE0XQLFLSDO&RGH 0& DQG 8WDK
&RGH7LWOH 0RWRU9HKLFOHV 8& 7KLVOLVWZLOOEHH[SDQGHGDVQHHGHGGXULQJWKH
GHYHORSPHQW RIWKHUHFRQILJXUDWLRQSODQV'HVFULSWLRQVDUHSDUDSKUDVHGZLWK
UHIHUHQFHVWRWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHVHFWLRQVLQFRGHIROORZLQJLQSDUHQWKHVHV
&URVVZDONV FDQEHPDUNHGRUXQPDUNHG/RFDWLRQVRIXQPDUNHGFURVVZDONVDUH
LQIHUUHGZKHUH DWOHDVWRQHVLGHZDON ODWHUDOO\LQWHUVHFWVWKHURDGZD\ 8& D
-D\ZDONLQJ FURVVLQJ LV SURKLELWHG DWDQ\SRLQWRWKHUWKDQDPDUNHGFURVVZDONRQEORFNV
DEXWWHG RQERWKVLGHV E\ VLJQDOL]HG LQWHUVHFWLRQV3HGHVWULDQVPXVW\LHOGWRDOOYHKLFOHV
RQWKHURDGZD\ZKHQFURVVLQJRXWVLGH RIDPDUNHGRUXQPDUNHGFURVVZDON 8& D
3DUNLQJ PHDQVVWDQGLQJDYHKLFOHZKHWKHURFFXSLHGRUQRW3DUNLQJ LVSURKLELWHG LQ
IURQWRIGULYHZD\V ZLWKLQIHHWRIDILUHK\GUDQW DQGZLWKLQ IHHWRIDFURVVZDON
7HPSRUDULO\VWRSSLQJDYHKLFOH WRORDGXQORDGSURSHUW\RUSDVVHQJHUV LV QRWFRQVLGHUHG
SDUNLQJ 8& D
3DUNLQJVSDFHV PXVWQRWEHOHVVWKDQ IHHWORQJDQG IHHWZLGH 0&
3HGHVWULDQV LQFOXGHDOOSHUVRQVWUDYHOLQJRQIRRWRULQDZKHHOFKDLU 8& D
5HIHUHQFHV
KWWSV KLJKZD\VDIHW\XWDKJRYSHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHVDIHW\SHGHVWULDQVDIHW\DQGODZV
KWWSV OHXWDKJRY[FRGH7LWOH&KDSWHU$DKWPO
KWWSV PRDEPXQLFLSDOFRGHV
+RWVSRW'HVLJQ
$VVXPSWLRQV
x 1RSDUNLQJZLWKLQIHHWRIDFURVVZDON
x 0LQLPXPWUDYHOODQHZLGWKLVIWZKLFKZLOOSURYLGHDGHTXDWHVSDFH
IRUDFFHVVWRDGMDFHQWSDUNLQJVSDFHVDVZHOODVURRPIRUELF\FOHV
x 0HGLDQSDUNLQJLVFRQWLQXRXVDQGWKHUHIRUHSUHFOXGHVYHKLFOHVIURP
H[LWLQJOHIWRXWIURPGULYHZD\V$ORQJWKHVDPHOLQHVYHKLFOHVFDQQRW
HQWHUDQ\GULYHZD\VE\ZD\RIDOHIWWXUQ7KHVROHH[FHSWLRQLVWKH
EUHDNLQWKHPHGLDQDWWKHHDVWGULYHZD\RIWKH0RDE,QIRUPDWLRQ
&HQWHUSDUNLQJORW
x 7UHHVRURWKHUSHUPDQHQWODQGVFDSLQJDUHRQO\SURSRVHGZKHQQRW
LQFRQIOLFWZLWKPDMRUXWLOLWLHV
x 7KHGHVLUHGPHGLDQSDUNLQJFURVVVHFWLRQLVIHHWZLGH7KLV
LQFOXGHVWZR IWSDUDOOHOSDUNLQJODQHVWZRIWWUDYHOODQHVDQG
IWPHGLDQSDUNLQJ([LVWLQJFXUEWRFXUEZLGWKVDUHJHQHUDOO\OHVVWKDQ
WKLVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI&HQWHU6WUHHW HDVWRI0DLQ6WUHHW ,Q
ORFDWLRQVZKHUHWKHURDGLVWREHZLGHQHGWRILWWKHSURSRVHGPHGLDQ
SDUNLQJVRPHH[LVWLQJODQGVFDSLQJ LQFOXGLQJWUHHV ZLOOQHHGWREH
UHPRYHG7RWDOHVWLPDWHGTXDQWLW\RIWUHHVSURSRVHGWREHUHPRYHGLV
VL[
x $OOH[LVWLQJOHIWWXUQWKURXJKDQGULJKWWXUQODQHVIURPVLGHVWUHHWV
RQWR0DLQ6WUHHWKDYHEHHQNHSWDVLVGXHWRWUDIILFYROXPHV
x 0HGLDQSDUNLQJZLOOEHGHOLQHDWHGZLWKVWDPSHGG\HGFRQFUHWHLQ
SODFHRIH[LVWLQJDVSKDOW
x $OOSDUNLQJZLGWKVDUH IHHW%XIIHUVWULSVIRUPHGLDQSDUNLQJDUH
IHHWZLGH
x $OOFXUEVLGHDQJOHGSDUNLQJLVDWGHJUHHV
x 3DUDOOHOSDUNLQJOHQJWKLVEHWZHHQDQGIHHW
CH
A
P
T
E
R
4
|
P
H
Y
S
I
C
A
L
L
Y
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
E
D
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
4-11
A sidepath is a bidirectional shared use path located
immediately adjacent and parallel to a roadway. Sidepaths
can offer a high-quality experience for users of all ages and
abilities as compared to on-roadway facilities in heavy traffic
environments, allow for reduced roadway crossing distances,
and maintain rural and small town community character.
Sidepath Sidepath
Sidepaths serve
bidirectional pedestrian
and bicyclist travel.
Roadway Separation
An unpaved separated
space from the roadway
enhances comfort and
promotes visibility at
crossings.
Intersection Treatments
Geometric design at intersections
slows motorists and prioritizes
bicyclists and pedestrians.
SM
A
L
L
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
R
U
R
A
L
M
U
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
SM
A
L
L
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
R
U
R
A
L
M
U
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
4-12
• Completes networks where high-
speed roads provide the only
corridors available.
• Fills gaps in networks of low-stress
local routes such as shared use
paths and bicycle boulevards.
• Provides a more appropriate facility
for users of all ages and abilities than
shoulders or mixed traffic facilities
on roads with moderate or high
traffic intensity.(i)
• Encourages bicycling and walking in
areas where high-volume and high-
speed motor vehicle traffic would
otherwise discourage it.(ii)
• Maintains rural character through
reduced paved roadway width
compared to a visually separated
facility.(iii)
• Very supportive of rural character
when combined with vegetation
to visually and physically separate
the sidepath from the roadway.
BENEFITS
CONSIDERATIONS
• Requires a wide roadside
environment to provide for
separation and pathway area
outside of the adjacent roadway.
MO
T
O
R
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
V
O
L
U
M
E
(A
D
T
)
MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)
For use inside of built-up areas
to provide a dedicated space for
pedestrians.
Land Use
For use on roads with high volumes,
and moderate-to high-speed motor
vehicle traffic.
Speed and Volume
For use on arterial links on the
regional or local biking and
walking network
Network
2k
4k
6k
8k
10k
12k
10 20 30 40 50
SIDEPATH
HIGHWAY
LOCAL
COLLECTOR
APPLICATION
CH
A
P
T
E
R
4
|
P
H
Y
S
I
C
A
L
L
Y
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
E
D
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
4-13
Widths and design details of sidepath
elements may vary in response to the
desire for increased user comfort and
functionality, the available right-of-
way, and the need to preserve natural
resources.
PATHWAY
Sidepath width impacts user comfort
and path capacity. As user volumes or
the mix of modes increases, additional
path width is necessary to maintain
comfort and functionality.
•Minimum recommended pathway
width is 10 ft (3.0 m). In low-
volume situations and constrained
conditions, the absolute minimum
sidepath width is 8 ft (2.4 m)
•Provide a minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m)
clearance to signposts or vertical
elements.
GEOMETRIC DESIGN
Sidepaths offer a low-stress experience
for bicyclists and pedestrians on network
routes otherwise inhospitable to walking
and bicycling due to high-speed or high-
volume traffic.
ROADWAY SEPARATION
Separation from the roadway should
be informed by the speed and
configuration of the adjacent roadway
and by available right-of-way as
illustrated in Figure 4-9.
•Preferred minimum separation width
is 6.5 ft (2.0 m). Minimum separation
distance is 5 ft (1.5 m).
•Separation narrower than 5 ft is
not recommended, although may
be accommodated with the use
of a physical barrier between the
sidepath and the roadway. The
barrier and end treatments should
be crashworthy which may introduce
additional complexity if there are
frequent driveways and intersections.
Refer to the AASHTO Roadside
Design Guide 2011 for additional
information.
Figure 4-9. Where a minimum of 5 ft (1.5 m)
unpaved separation cannot be provided (top),
A physical barrier may be used between the
sidepath and the roadway (center). In extremely
constrained conditions for short distances, on-
roadway rumble strips may be used as a form
of separation (bottom).
Figure 4-8. Recommended dimensions for
sidepath width and unpaved separation distance.
Pathway Roadway Separation
8–12 ft (2.4–3.6 m)5 ft (1.5 m) min
5 ft (1.5 m) min
< 5 ft (1.5 m)
Rumble Strips
Sidepath
•On high-speed roadways, a separation
width of 16.5–20 ft (5–6 m) is
recommended for proper positioning
at crossings and intersections.
SM
A
L
L
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
R
U
R
A
L
M
U
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
4-14
GEOMETRIC DESIGN
MARKINGS SIGNS
LANDSCAPING
Trees and landscaping can maintain
community character and add value
to the experience of using a sidepath.
They provide shade for users during
hot weather and help to absorb
stormwater runoff.
• Provide a 3 ft (0.9 m) horizontal
clearance between trees and the
pathway to minimize pavement
cracking and heaving of the paved
surface. Consult a local arborist in the
selection and placement of trees.Figure 4-10. Even small trees can provide an
additional feeling of separation between the
sidepath and the roadway.
• When trees are desired within the
roadway separation area, consider
planting small caliper trees with a
maximum diameter of 4 inches
(100 mm) to alleviate concerns
about fixed objects or visual
obstructions between the roadway
and the pathway.(iv)
Sidepaths may include edgelines or
centerlines or be unmarked.
• Edge lines should be marked on
paths expecting evening use.
• Paths with a high volume of
bidirectional traffic should
include a centerline. This can help
communicate that users should
expect traffic in both directions and
encourage users to travel on the
right and pass on the left (Flink and
Searns 1993).
• Shared use paths are bidirectional
facilities and signs should be posted
for path users traveling in both
directions.
• It is important for signs that
only apply to the path to not be
interpreted as a guidance for
roadway travel lanes.
Lateral Offset
From Roadway
Horizontal Clearance
From Path 4 ft (1.2 m) min3 ft (0.9 m) min
South Lake Tahoe, CA–Population 21,380
Sidepath
CH
A
P
T
E
R
4
|
P
H
Y
S
I
C
A
L
L
Y
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
E
D
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
4-15
INTERSECTIONS
Operational and safety concerns exist
where sidepaths cross driveways and
intersections. Refer to section 5.2.2
of the AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 for an
identification of potential design issues.
Design crossings to promote awareness
of conflict points, and facilitate proper
yielding of motorists to bicyclists and
pedestrians.
DESIGN STRATEGIES
Collision risk increases as the speed
and volume of the parallel roadway
increase. The AASHTO Bike Guide
2012 lists a variety of design strategies
for enhancing sidepath crossings
including:
•Reduce the frequency of driveways.
•Design intersections to reduce driver
speeds and heighten awareness of
path users.
•Encourage low speeds on pathway
approaches.
•Maintain visibility for all users.
•Provide clear assignment of right-
of-way with signs and markings and
elevation change.
DESIGN DETAILS
A Maintain physical separation of
the sidepath through the crossing.
Sidepath separation distance may
vary from 5 ft–24 ft (1.5–7.0 m).
Refer to Table 4-2 .
•Use small roadway corner radii
to enforce slow turning speeds of
20 mi/h or less. On a high-speed
roadway, a deceleration lane may be
necessary to achieve desired slow
turning speeds.
Sidepath
Adjacent Road Speed Limit (Mi/h)Recommended Sidepath Separation
Distance at Crossings
< 25 mi/h 6.5 ft (2.0 m)
35–45 mi/h 6.5–16.5 ft (2.0–5.0 m)
≥ 55 mi/h 16.5–24 ft (5.0–7.0 m)
Table 4-2. Sidepath Separation Distance at Road Crossings(vii)
*Separation distance may vary in response to available right of way, visibility constraints and the
provision of a right turn deceleration lane.
Figure 4-11. Separation distance should be selected in response to speed and traffic intensity.
The pathway may need a shift in horizontal alignment in advance of the crossing to achieve
desired separation distance. As speeds on the parallel roadway increase, so does the preference
for wider separation distance.
B The roadway and path
approaches to an intersection
should always provide enough
stopping sight distance to obey
the established traffic control, and
execute a stop before entering
the intersection (AASHTO Bike
Guide 2012).
•Configure crossings with raised
speed table or “dustpan” style
driveway geometry to create vertical
deflection of turning vehicles. This
physically indicates priority of path
travel over turning or crossing traffic
and helps reduce the risk associated
with bidirectional sidepath use.(v)
C Where possible, include raised
median island on the cross street
to provide additional safety and
speed management benefits.
•Use crosswalk markings to indicate
the through crossing along the
pathway. Continental crosswalk
markings are preferred for
increased visibility. At low-volume
residential driveways, crosswalk
markings may be omitted.vi
•Use stop or yield line markings
in advance of the crossing to
discourage encroachment into the
crosswalk area.
B A
C
SM
A
L
L
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
R
U
R
A
L
M
U
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
SM
A
L
L
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
R
U
R
A
L
M
U
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
4-16
IMPLEMENTATION
Where sufficient roadway width or right
of way is available, designers should
consider the simultaneous provision of
both sidepaths and bicycle accessible
shoulders to serve a diverse range of
user types.
ACCESSIBILITY
Figure 4-12. Transition from a sidepath on one side to shoulders on each side of the road.
A sidepath is intended for use
by pedestrians and must meet
accessibility guidelines for walkways
and curb transitions. Sidepaths are
required to be accessible by all users,
including those with mobility devices
and visually-impaired pedestrians.
D
Minor Street Crossings
Give sidepaths the same priority as
the parallel roadway at all crossings.
Attempts to require path users to yield
or stop at each cross-street or driveway
promote noncompliance and confusion,
and are not effective. Geometric
design in these cases should promote
a high degree of yielding to path users
through geometric design.
• Landscaping, barriers, or other
visual obstructions should be low to
provide unobstructed sight of the
crossing from the major street. Both
motorists and path users should
have a clear and unobstructed view
of each other at intersections and
driveways.
• Consider using a R10-15 RIGHT TURN
YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS at street
crossings with right turn interactions.
Connections with On-Street Bikeways
Where a sidepath terminates, it may be
necessary for path users to transition to a
facility on the opposite side of the road.
D Designs should consider the desire
for natural directional flows, and
the potential for conflicts with
adjacent traffic. Use median islands
and horizontal deflection of the
roadway travel lanes to slow motor
vehicle traffic and offer improved
crossing conditions for path users.
Sidepath
CH
A
P
T
E
R
4
|
P
H
Y
S
I
C
A
L
L
Y
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
E
D
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
4-17
The Ennis schools are located in the heart of town, though there were
few pedestrian and bicycle facilities connecting to them. In 2010, local
nonprofit Madison Byways organized a program to identify safer routes
to school.
The project resulted in a network of walking and biking facilities
including a sidepath, sidewalks, and bicycle boulevards on residential
streets. This network of facilities is called the Mustang Trail, named for
the Ennis school mascot.
The central location of the schools means the bike and pedestrian
network benefits the entire community, connecting neighborhoods to
schools, businesses, and other services.
Critical factors for success included strong leadership by Madison
Byways and a collaboration effort that engaged schools, residents,
businesses, and public agency representatives. Numerous activities
were held to increase awareness of the Mustang Trail, including monthly
Farmer’s Markets, the 4th of July parade, and annual 5K run/walk.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS
Ennis, Montana
COMMUNITY CONTEXT
Rural destination community,
especially in the summer, with a
population of 880 in the town limits
and 3,291 within the school district.
KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS
Sidepaths and sidewalks were
constructed where previously
there were no pedestrian facilities.
The sidepath transitions from a
concrete path in central Ennis to an
asphalt path further west, toward a
subdivision.
ROLE IN THE NETWORK
The facilities connect neighborhoods
to school and businesses
throughout the community. In this
small town, residential streets that
connect neighborhoods to schools
can be shared by people walking,
biking, and driving.
FUNDING
Funded by grants from three Federal
funding programs: Safe Routes to
School (SRTS), Recreational Trails
Program (RTP), and allocated
through Madison County from
the Community Transportation
Enhancement Program (CTEP). Local
fundraising provided matching funds
for the grants.
For more information, refer to the
City of Ennis:
http://www.ennismontana.org /
CASE STUDY | SIDEPATH
SM
A
L
L
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
R
U
R
A
L
M
U
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
SM
A
L
L
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
R
U
R
A
L
M
U
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
4-18
Sidepath
FOOTNOTES
i The AASHTO Bike Guide states that “children often prefer
and/or are encouraged to ride on sidepaths because they
provide an element of separation from motor vehicles” (2012,
p.1-4). Some researchers have found that young riders on
sidepaths or sidewalks have a lower crash rate than that
of older riders. The researchers speculate that this may be
related to lower speeds, group travel or heightened awareness
by motor vehicle operators. Wachtel, Alan., Lewiston, Diana,
1994).
ii The AASHTO Bike Guide notes that roadways with high-
volume and high-speed motor vehicle traffic “might discourage
many bicyclists from riding on the roadway…” (2012, p.
5-10). This idea is supported by the “Four Types of Types of
Transportation Cyclists” concept, which estimates 60 percent
of the population is interested in riding but concerned about
the safety risk of high-speed and high-volume roadways
(FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide, 2015).
iii A visual preference survey in rural Maine found that narrow
roads were positively contributing to perceptions of rural
character and that it was “somewhat” important to conserve
this landscape characteristic. (Walker, A., Ryan, R. 2008.)
iv The AASHTO Green Book does not classify trees that will grow
to below 4 inches (100 mm) diameter as a fixed object, and
trees of this width may be placed within the clear zone (2011,
p. 7-6). Trees should be placed outside of the lateral offset of
roadways.
On roadways with a curb and gutter, a minimum lateral
offset of 18 inches (0.5 m) should be provided. On facilities
without a curb and with a shoulder width less than 1.2 m
[4 ft], a minimum lateral offset of 1.2 m [4 ft] from the edge
of the traveled way should be provided. (AASHTO Green
Book). Trees should be placed carefully as to not cause visual
obstructions for turning motorists.
v Researchers have found that raised crossings of sidepaths
reduces bicyclist crash risk by 51 percent (Schepers 2011).
vi An FHWA study of crosswalk marking styles find that high-
visibility crosswalk markings are the preferred marking type at
uncontrolled marked crossings (FHWA, 2013). Other research
indicates that simple transverse lines markings are “essentially
not visible” when viewed from a standard approaching vehicle
(ITE, 2010).
vii This table is based off of statements from the AASHTO Bike
Guide and research from the State of Florida, which indicate
that separation distance should increase as speeds increase.
Values are based on safety research related to roadway
separation distances and, design standards from the Dutch
CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic 2006.
The AASHTO Bike Guide states that “… in locations where
the sidepath parallels a high-speed roadway and crosses a
minor road, it is advisable to move the crossing away from the
intersection to a mid-block location. By moving the crossing
away from the intersection, motorists are able to exit the
high-speed roadway first, and then turn their attention to
the pathway crossing.” (2012, p.5-11). The phrase “mid-block
location” may imply a separation distance of at least one car
length, 19.5 ft (6.0 m), from the parallel roadway.
WORKS CITED
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design
Specifications. 2014.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. Roadside Design Guide. 2011.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. 2006.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). An Overview and
Recommendations of High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings Styles. 2013.
Flink, Charles, and Searns, Robert. Greenways: A Guide To Planning
Design And Development. 1993.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Sidepath Facility
Selection and Design. 2005.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Technical Committee
109-01. Pavement Marking Patterns Used at Uncontrolled
Pedestrian Crossings. 2010.
Schepers et al. Road factors and bicycle—motor vehicle crashes at
unsignalized priority intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Volume 43, Issue 2, 2011.
Walker, A., Ryan, R. Place attachment and landscape preservation in
rural New England: A Maine case study. 2008.
Wachtel, Alan., Lewiston, Diana. Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor
Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. 1994.
PHOTO CREDIT
Page 4-14. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Page 4-17. Western Transportation Institute
Research conducted for the Florida Department of
Transportation indicates that, to maximize safety, separation
of the sidepath from a roadway should increase as road
speeds increase. The Florida data suggest that at lower
adjacent road speeds, a smaller separation produces crash
rates lower than those of the adjacent road, while that
threshold is reached at greater separations for high-speed
facilities (Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Sidepath Facility Selection and Design. 2005).
Safety research conducted on crash history at separated bike
lanes (which function similarly to sidepaths) identify 6.5–16.5
ft (2.0–5.0 m) as the optimal roadway separation distance for
safe interactions (Schepers 2011).
The Dutch design manual for bicycle facilities prefers a wide
separation of 19.5–23 ft (6.0–7.0 m) for use outside of built-
up areas and on roads operating above 35 mi/h (60 km/h)
(CROW 2006, p. 231-232).
2.00'2.00'
SHARED USE PATH
DESIGN SPEED 30 M.P.H.
-4.00:1
-4.00:1-4.00:1
-4.00:1
2.00:
1
2.00:
1
10.00'
EX. LANE
10.00'
EX. LANE
10.00'
SHARED USE PATH
2.00'
NOTE:
1.6" UNTREATED BASE COURSE
2.2" HOT MIX ASPHALT, 4" UNTREATED BASE COURSE
2%
2 1
4.17'
Preliminary Design Criteria
Design Element Proposed Value Comment
Trail Width 10' Min
Shoulder Width 2' Min
Roadway Clear Zone 5' Min
Profile Grades 4.5% Max
EXCEPTIONS:
8.5% STA.:51+00 to 54+00
6.5% STA.:40+00 to 47+00
Lateral Offset to Obstruction 2' Min
Note: Design Criteria was compiled in accordance with UDOT and AASHTO Shared Path Design Guides.
Additional investigation and study may result in exemptions to minimum widths which could reduce
impacts to existing features.
3.00'
10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
EX-01
SP
A
N
I
S
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
S
H
A
R
E
D
U
S
E
P
A
T
H
EX
-
0
1
19
0
2
-
2
3
0
10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
H:
\
J
D
\
P
r
o
j
\
1
9
0
2
-
2
3
0
\
d
w
g
\
T
S
_
1
8
0
8
-
3
5
0
.
d
w
g
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
NO
.
DA
T
E
RE
M
A
R
K
S
SC
A
L
E
:
UP
D
A
T
E
D
:
NU
M
B
E
R
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
COUNTY
SHEET NO.
RE
C
O
M
M
:
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
DA
T
E
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
DW
G
N
A
M
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
QU
A
L
I
T
Y
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
R
E
V
I
E
W
DA
T
E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
GI
S
-
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
1.
8
0
0
.
7
4
8
.
5
2
7
5
w
w
w
.
j
o
n
e
s
a
n
d
d
e
m
i
l
l
e
.
c
o
m
Jo
n
e
s
&
D
e
M
i
l
l
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
CI
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
-
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
-
T
E
S
T
I
N
G
GRAND
GR
A
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
1"
=
4
'
10/19/2020 Page 2 of 58 Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Prepared By:Trent Date 7/8/2019
Proposed Project Scope:
Approximate Route Reference (BEGIN) =E Millcreek Dr.(END) =San Juan County Line
Project Length =5.205 miles 27,480 ft
Current FY Year (July-June) =2019
Assumed Construction FY Year =2021
Construction Items Inflation Factor =1.10 2 yrs for inflation
Assumed Yearly Inflation for Engineering Services (PE and CE) (%/yr) =3.25%
Assumed Yearly Inflation for Right of Way (%/yr) =4.0%
Items not Estimated (% of Construction) =20.0%
Preliminary Engineering (% of Construction + Incentives) =8.0%this might be too high, see what it comes out to
Construction Engineering (% of Construction + Incentives) =8.0%
Construction Items Cost Remarks
Public Information Services $5,200
Roadway and Drainage $1,418,284
Traffic and Safety $41,380
Structures $761,500
Environmental Mitigation $5,000
Subtotal $2,231,364
Items not Estimated (20%)$446,273
Construction Subtotal $2,677,637
P.E. Cost P.E. Subtotal $214,211 8%
C.E. Cost C.E. Subtotal $214,211 8%
Right of Way Right of Way Subtotal $205,700
Utilities Utilities Subtotal $100,000
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Subtotal $0
Cost Estimate (ePM screen 505)
P.E.$214,000 $228,000
Right of Way $206,000 $222,000
Utilities $100,000 $110,000
Construction $2,678,000 $2,952,000
C.E.$214,000 $228,000
Aesthetics 0.75%$20,000 $22,000
Change Order Contingency 9.00%$243,000 $268,000
UDOT Oversight 5.00%$151,000 $166,000
Miscellaneous $0 $0
TOTAL $3,826,000 TOTAL $4,196,000
$139.23 $152.69
TOTAL $3,826,000 TOTAL $4,196,000
1 8
2 9
3 10
4 11
5 12
6 13
7 14
PROPOSED COMMISSION REQUEST
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
Cost Estimate - Concept Level
2019 2021
Spanish Valley Drive Multi-Use Path
PER LINEAR FOOT COST
Project Assumptions/Risks
10/19/2020 Page 3 of 58
Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Year Rate Recommended
Rate
Cumulative
Inflation Factor
2019 6.5%0.0%1.00
2020 5.5%5.5%1.06
2021 4.5%4.5%1.10
2022 4.0%4.0%1.15
2023 3.5%3.5%1.19
2024 3.5%3.5%1.23
2025 3.5%3.5%1.27
2026 3.5%3.5%1.32
2027 3.5%3.5%1.36
2028 3.5%3.5%1.41
2029 3.5%3.5%1.46
2030 3.5%3.5%1.51
2031 3.5%3.5%1.56
2032 3.5%3.5%1.62
2033 3.5%3.5%1.67
2034 3.5%3.5%1.73
2035 3.5%3.5%1.79
2036 3.5%3.5%1.86
2037 3.5%3.5%1.92
2038 3.5%3.5%1.99
2039 3.5%3.5%2.06
2040 3.5%3.5%2.13
2041 3.5%3.5%2.20
2042 3.5%3.5%2.28
2043 3.5%3.5%2.36
2044 3.5%3.5%2.44
2045 3.5%3.5%2.53
2046 3.5%3.5%2.62
2047 3.5%3.5%2.71
2048 3.5%3.5%2.80
Please contact UDOT Estimate Support with any questions (801-965-4708).
Inflation
JECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE P
10/19/2020 Page 4 of 58
Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Item Quantity Units Price Cost Remarks
Mobilization 1 lump $207,804.00 $207,804.00 Usually 7-10% of construction
Traffic Control 1 lump $103,910.00 $103,910.00 Usually 3-5% of construction
Maintenance of Traffic 1 lump $20,780.00 $20,780.00 Usually 1% of construction
Dust Control and Watering 1 lump $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Borrow 4,242 ton $35.00 $148,470.00
Remove Fence 7,215 foot $3.00 $21,645.00
Remove Pipe 400 foot $15.00 $6,000.00
Clearing and Grubbing 1 lump $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Roadway Excavation 1,500 cu yd $30.00 $45,000.00
Untreated Base Course 6,933 ton $25.00 $173,325.00
HMA - 1/2 Inch 3,638 ton $120.00 $436,560.00
Concrete Valley Gutter 4,350 sq ft $10.00 43500
Landscape Repair 41,500 sq ft $2.00 $83,000.00
Fence 7,215 foot $6.00 $43,290.00
$1,368,284
Loose Riprap 100 cubic yard $300.00 $30,000.00
Drainage Pipe - 18 inch, Smooth, Leak-Resistant 400 foot $50.00 $20,000.00
$50,000
Public Information Services 1 lump $5,200.00 $5,200 Usually 0.25% of construction
Roadway and Drainage
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
10/19/2020 Page 5 of 58
Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Item Quantity Units Price Cost Remarks
Pavement Marking Paint 668 gallon $35.00 $23,380.00
Pavement Message 10 each $200.00 $2,000.00
Sign Type A-1, 12 Inch X 36 Inch 20 each $500.00 $10,000.00
Relocate Sign Less Than 20 Square Feet 20 each $300.00 $6,000.00
$41,380
Traffic, Safety & ITS
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
10/19/2020 Page 6 of 58
Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Item Quantity Units Price Cost Remarks
New Structure 1 lump sum $114,000.00 $114,000.00
Retaining Wall 3,700 foot $175.00 $647,500.00 Assumed Length, 7' tall
$761,500
Structures
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
10/19/2020 Page 7 of 58
Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Item Quantity Units Price Cost Remarks
Broadcast Seed 3 acre $2,000.00 $5,000.00
$5,000
Environmental and Landscaping
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
10/19/2020 Page 8 of 58
Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Item #Item Quantity Units Price Cost Remarks
Utilities
Relocate Utilities 1 Lump $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Utilities Subtotal $100,000
Right-of-way
Urban/Suburban Residential 51,425 sq ft $4.00 $205,700.00
Right-of-Way Subtotal $205,700
Utilities, Right of Way, and Incentives
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
10/19/2020 Page 9 of 58 Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
Material Assumptions Oil
MaterialBorrow 130 lb/cf Area Lift Area Area Area Area
Granular Backfill Borrow 130 lb/cf sy in sy sy sy sy Choose Either Ton or Vol
Granular Borrow 142 lb/cf 4,311.03 8.66 #DIV/0!3,577.76 #DIV/0!3,333.33 5.33 3,333.33 1.50 Manually Input
UTBC 138 lb/cf 1,666.67 3.35 Linked to Roadway Item
HMA 148 lb/cf 2,083.67 4.18 #DIV/0!1,729.25 #DIV/0!1,611.11 2.58 1,611.11 0.72OGSC135lb/cf 805.56 1.62
Asphalt Binder 6.10%OGSC 33,094.37 66.45 #DIV/0!27,465.26 #DIV/0!25,588.89 40.94 25,588.89 11.49Prime Coat 249 gal/ton 0.50 gal/sy 12,794.44 25.69
Tack Coat 240 gal/ton 0.07 gal/sy
Emulsified Asphalt LMCRS-2 250 gal/ton 0.40 gal/sy
Flush Coat 245 gal/ton 0.11 gal/sy42gal/cy GB
51 gal/cy UTBC 110 #DIV/0!0 49 14
45 gal/cy Borrow/Embankment
This section
calculates the extra area per
foot of the side slope
material due to the 2%
cross-slope
Pavements 2,091.33
Depth Width Vol Depth Width Vol Depth Width Depth Width Depth Depth Area Depth Area
ft ft in ft cy in ft cy in ft in ft in Tons sy in sy in sy GB UTB HMA SMA GB UTB HMA SMA
Sta 10+00 to 40+00 3,000 10.0 2 1/4 4.00 12.93 479.00 892.38 2.00 0 10.73 397.13 3,333.33 1.0999 0.55 0.55 0.06 0.00 0.0000 0.4889 0.0611 0.0000
Sta 10+00 to 40+00 3,000 5.0 0 0 6.00 5.00 277.78 517.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sta 40+00 to 54+50 1,450 10.0 2 1/4 4.00 12.93 231.52 431.32 2.00 0 10.73 191.95 1,611.11 1.0999 0.55 0.55 0.06 0.00 0.0000 0.4889 0.0611 0.0000Sta 40+00 to 54+50 1,450 5.0 0 0 6.00 5.00 134.26 250.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sta 54+50 to 284+80 23,030 10.0 2 1/4 4.00 12.93 3,677.15 6,850.53 2.00 10.73 3,048.64 25,588.89 1.0999 0.55 0.55 0.06 0.00 0.0000 0.4889 0.0611 0.0000Sta 54+50 to 284+80 23,030 5.0 0 0 6.00 5.00 2,132.41 3,972.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0 0 6,933 12,915 3,638 0 0 0 30,534 0 0
Earthwork Water
VolLengthDepthWidthVolLengthDepthWidthVolTonsLengthDepthWidthVolTonscy
ft in ft cy ft in ft cy ft in ft cy 0 0 0
Sta 10+00 to 40+00 3,000 0.50 10.0 46.30 6,933 353,583 354
Sta 10+00 to 40+00 3,000 0.50 5.0 23.15 2,417 108,765 109Sta 40+00 to 54+50 1,450 0.50 10.0 22.38 1,450 36.00 10.0 1,611.11 2,827.50 0 0 0
Sta 40+00 to 54+50 1,450 0.50 5.0 11.19 1,450 36.00 5.0 805.56 1,413.75 463
Sta 54+50 to 284+80 23,030 0.50 10.0 355.40
Sta 54+50 to 284+80 23,030 0.50 5.0 177.70
TOTALS 637 2,417 4,242 0 0
Pavement Marking Paint Pavement Marking Application Rates
ft ft ft gal 190Sta 10+00 to 40+00 3,000 2 1 0 9000 72 760
Sta 40+00 to 54+50 1,450 2 1 0 4350 36 95Sta 54+50 to 284+80 23,030 2 1 0 1,200 70290 560 190
TOTALS 83,640 668
Misc. Volume Calculator
4,150 10 41,500
2,800 10 28,0001,450 3 4,350
1 8
2 9
3 10
4 11
5 12
6 13
7 14
Total Volume Notes
Tons
TOTALS
Borrow
Granular Backfill Borrow/Embankment
Side slope length
factor
Volume (ft^3/ft)
Side Slope Area
Volume Location Length Width
TOTALS
Material
Roadway
Median Striping Striping Type
Granular Borrow
Depth
Estimate does not include storm water system improvement costs
Broadcast Seed Areas
Concrete Valley Gutter (sta 40+00 to 54+50)
Project Assumptions/Risks
Lanscape Repair Area-Residential areas
Side SlopeLength
HMA
Sta 54+50 to 284+80Sta 54+50 to 284+80
Cost Estimate Summary of Assumptions
Granular Borrow
Unit Weights
Misc. Area Calculator
Chip Seal Emulsion
Roadway
Flush Coat
Tons Tons
Tack Coat
Tons
OGSC Tack Coat
SMA
Tons
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
Granular Backfill Borrow/EmbankmentBorrow
ft/galLengthEdges to
be Striped
No. Travel
Lane
Separation
Lines
Inter-
section
Adjustment
Untreated Base Course
No. of Sides
with Wedge
Pavement
Top
Width Tons
# of apps
TOTALS
Roadway
Sta 10+00 to 40+00
Prime Coat
Sta 10+00 to 40+00
Sta 40+00 to 54+50
gal
# of Joints
Untreated Base Course
Prints on 11x17 - adjust print layout after column/row adjustments are completed.
Tons Tons Asphalt Binder
OGSC Chip Seal, Micro-
Surfacing, or
Bonded Wearing
Course
TonsTons
Intersection
SolidBroken
Median
1,000 gal
PCCP Rotomilling
Side Slope Area Triangle
Sta 40+00 to 54+50
Area Location WidthLength Total Area Notes
Application Rates
Roadway Excavation
Length Pavement
Marking Paint
Roadway
Water
10/19/2020 Page 10 of 58 Concept Level Est Form
Rev. 5/30/2017
2017 Specification Incentive Quantity Unit Max Unit
Incentive Max Incentive Adjustment Factor Assumed Incentive
02701 - Smoothness See below - Section 1.8 1 Lump $0.00 /Lump $0.00 0.75 $0.00
00221S - Bidding Contract Time Early Completion Incentive - Section 1.7.D.4 Cal'd /Cal'd $0.00 1 $0.00
00222S - Lane Rental Lane Rental Incentive - Section 1.8.B.1 Hours /Hour $0.00 1 $0.00
In Place Mat Density - Section 1.6.D.1 3,638 Ton $2.00 /Ton $7,276.00 0.85 $6,184.60
Gradtion/Asphalt Content - Section 1.6.D.1 3,638 Ton $2.00 /Ton $7,276.00 0.85 $6,184.60
Joint Density - Section 1.6.D.6 3,638 Ton $2.00 /Ton $7,276.00 0.85 $6,184.60
Asphalt Binder Content & Density - Section 1.6.D.1 0 Ton $2.50 /Ton $0.00 0.50 $0.00
Gradation - Section 1.6.D.1 0 Ton $2.50 /Ton $0.00 0.50 $0.00
Binder Content - Section 1.6.B.2 0 Ton $1.00 /Ton $0.00 0.85 $0.00
Gradation - Section 1.6.B.3 0 Ton $1.50 /Ton $0.00 0.85 $0.00
Binder Content - Section 1.6.C.3 30,534 /SQ YD $0.05 /Sq yd $1,526.70 0.85 $1,297.70
Gradation - Section 1.6.C.4 30,534 /SQ YD $0.06 /Sq yd $1,832.04 0.85 $1,557.23
Miscellaneous Community Coordination Incentive 1 Lump $0.00 /Lump $0.00 1 $0.00
Total:$21,408.73
Length 5.20 miles
Lanes
Category*
1 and 2 Incentive $0
Length 5.20 miles
Lanes
Category*
1 Incentive $0
Category 2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3 Bike Lanes
4
5
6
7
02744 - SMA
Incentives Calculator
02741 - HMA
Remarks
Use the Calculations below
PROJECT # 1902-230 PROJECT NAME: SPANISH VALLEY DRIVE MULTI-USE PATH
02786 - OGSC
02787 - Bonded Wearing Course
HMA, OGSC, BWC, & SMA Incentive
HMA, OGSC, BWC, & SMA Incentive
Max Incentive per Pavement Section
$500
Table 1
Smoothness Calculations (2017 Specification - 2701 and 02742S)
*Incentive applied to HMA, PCCP, OGSC, BWC, SMA
Category 1 1) Pavement surfaces having two or more opportunities for improving the ride.+
2) Portland cement concrete paving.
Definitions
Table 2
PCCP Incentive
PCCP Incentive
Max Incentive per Pavement Section
$1,000
Newly constructed pavement surfaces without two or more opportunities for improving ride.
+ Opportunity to improve ride:
1) Placing Granular Borrow, Untreated Base Course, Treated Base Course, Open-Graded Surface Course (OGSC), Bonded Wearing Course
(BWC), Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA), Cold-In-Place Recycling, Hot-In-Place Recycling, and each lift of paving.
3) Lane leveling is not considered an opportunity to improve the ride.
2) Rotomilling greater than 1.5 inches in depth.
Medians 8 ft and wider
Pavement Section - Each travel lane or median, 0.1 mile long.
Apply Incentive to Category 1 and 2 pavements longer than 1,000 ft in length, including:
All traffic lanes
Ramps
Incentive does not apply to the HMA surfaces on projects that include an OGSC, BWC, or SMA placed over the HMA surface.
Turn lanes
Tapers
Surfaces within 15 ft of bridge decks and approach slabs not paved as part of the contract
Bridges and approach slabs with final riding surfaces placed as part of the contract
Do not apply Incentive to:
Pavements shorter than 1,000 ft
Shoulders
Medians narrower than 8 ft
Horizontal curves with a centerline curvature radius less than 900 ft and areas within the superelevation transitions to these short radius
curves
Paved Path Cost $660,000.00
Structures Cost (Retaining Walls for Elevated path) $650,000.00
Drainage $80,000.00
ROW Cost $70,000.00
Construction Contingency 10%$146,000.00
Preconstruction Engineering $128,480.00
Construction Engineering $128,480.00
Total Estimated Cost $1,862,960.00
NOTES
1
2
3
Minimum North End + Connection to Mulberry 1.25 miles (6600 ft)
5 total land owners, 1 owner with majority (85%)
17,500 sf of ROW needed estimated $4/sf
ROW costs can be reduced through coordination and negotiation with land owners.
Paved Path Cost $1,550,000.00
Structures Cost (Retaining Walls for Elevated path) $650,000.00
Drainage $150,000.00
ROW Cost $197,400.00 $47300( If
Construction Contingency 10%$254,740.00
Preconstruction Engineering 8%$224,171.20
Construction Engineering 8%$224,171.20
Total Estimated Cost $3,250,482.40
NOTES
1
2
49,350 sf of ROW needed estimated $4/sf (11825 with no buffer zone)
ROW costs can be reduced through coordination and negotiation with land owners.
Spanish Valley Multi Use Trail to Old Spanish Trail Arena 2.94 Miles (1
no buffer zone on typical section)
15500 ft)
2180 South 1300 East | Suite 220 | Salt Lake City, UT 84106 | (801) 463-7600 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2020
To: Jeff Sanders, Monte Aldridge, Carly Castle and Karen Guzman-Newton
From: Jon Nepstad, Jason Miller and Paul Jewel
Subject: City of Moab – Shuttle Transit Sketch Plan Outline
Outline
Fehr and Peers will prepare a Technical Memorandum which City staff can submit to council. It is
assumed that for the pilot period (2-4 years) the entire operation will be “Turn Key”, meaning that
a contract operator will be hired to operate the service, provide the vehicles, store and maintain
the vehicles, collect and process fare revenue, etc.
This “Sketch Plan”1 Concept Report for shuttle service will have an outline that looks like the
following:
1. Cover Page
2. Acknowledgement Page (responsible staff from city, county, state and consulting team)
3. Section 1 – Project Background
o What has brought the city to this point and why does it want to move forward
with a plan for shuttle services?
4. Section 2 – Demand Assessment
o In this section we will outline what we know about the need for a local shuttle
service. This section will be based exclusively on existing data and information.
5. Section 3 – Proposed System
1 As a Sketch Plan this Technical Memorandum will not include the standard approach to transit planning
and will not, by choice, have the rigorous demand analysis, service justifications or multiple scenarios one
might expect to find in similar project. This is by design as time is of the essence and staff would like to
present some basic plan to the council within the next five weeks.
Moab Shuttle Transit Concept Report 9/28/2020
Page 2 of 2
o This section will describe the conceptual route(s), operating parameters (hours,
days, frequency, etc.), proposed vehicle type (e.g. 20’ light duty away, etc.),
proposed fare(s)
6. Section 4 – Financial Plan
o We will create a basic MS Excel spreadsheet to project system revenues, capital
and operating costs for a Turnkey 100% contracted operation and an in-house
operation. The in-house costs are being provided for comparison purposes only.
7. Section 5 – Sample RFP
o This last section will include a sample contact operation RFP which the City can
modify as needed.
Process
Jason Miller will serve as the Fehr & Peers Project Manager and Lead Planner. He can start
working on the project as soon as the first week of October, or as soon as UDOT Consultant
Services can process a contract.
A draft version of the Sketch Plan can be presented to the Recreation HotSpots Committee in
electronic format (MS Word and Adobe PDF versions) three weeks after Notice to Proceed. A
final version of the Sketch Plan will be delivered electronically ten days after comments.
CITY OF MOAB, UTAH
GRAND COUNTY, UTAH
Joint Resolution No. 2020-XX
COMMITTING TO FUNDING YEARS FOR FOUR AND FIVE OF A
“RECREATIONAL HOTSPOT” TRANSIT SHUTTLE PILOT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, safe and efficient transportation and transit systems creates foundations for
economic growth, reduced congestion, and serving recreation activities; and
WHEREAS, the creation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure is a core
responsibility of local government; and
WHEREAS, recreation and tourism associated with Arches and Canyonlands National Parks
and surrounding public lands is a significant economic impact on the Moab area; and
WHEREAS, visitation to the Moab region has risen exponentially over the past decade,
increasing to more than three million visitors annually; and
WHEREAS, the dramatic increase in visitation has caused traffic and parking congestion in
Moab on Highway-191, and on City of Moab streets and Grand County roads; and
WHEREAS, parking and traffic congestion in the Moab region causes safety hazards for
motorists, bicycles, and pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, parking and traffic congestion in the Moab area negatively impacts the quality of
the visitor experience and the quality of life for residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moab’s General Plan Element 7.4.e “encourage(s) efforts to provide a
shuttle system serving downtown Moab and key tourism destinations and accommodations;” and
WHEREAS, in 2017 the Utah State Legislature passed SB 277—Highway General Obligation
Bonds, which, in part, identifies $100 million to be used by UDOT for projects that (1) have
significant economic development impact associated with recreation and tourism, and (2) address
significant needs for congestion mitigation, known as “recreational hotspots” on UDOT’s
Transportation Infrastructure list; and
WHEREAS, the Arches/Moab area was allocated $10,000,000 out of this “recreational hotspot”
fund for transportation projects fulfilling the statutory criteria outlined in SB 277; and
WHEREAS, UDOT has engaged a transportation consultant team to develop details, costs, and
benefits for a three- to five-year pilot shuttle system that would test the demand and viability of
long-term transit for the Moab community.to develop a transit shuttle system; and
WHEREAS, the Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee, Grand County Commission,
and Moab City Council have recommended the transit shuttle system be included as one of the
transportation projects to be submitted to UDOT for consideration by the Transportation
Commission for SB 277 funding.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Moab City Council and Grand County
Commission that:
1. The City of Moab and Grand County support the pilot project being developed by UDOT
to establish a transit shuttle system for downtown Moab and to operate the system for
three years.
2. The City of Moab and Grand County are committed to the long-term success of transit in
the Moab area.
3. If the transit shuttle system is healthy and viable at the conclusion of the first three years
of operation as anticipated, the City of Moab and Grand County will provide funding for
the operation of the system for years four and five of the project, up to approximately
$500,000 per year.
This resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
Recent Bypass History
After the passage of SB 277 in 2017, members of the Grand County Commission and the Moab
City Council convened to discuss the prospect of seeking funding for a re-visioned U.S. 191
bypass around downtown Moab. Officials recognized that the need for a bypass was driven by
the continued buildup of congestion on U.S. 191 and around Moab’s Main Street and
surrounding neighborhoods.
In 2018, UDOT commissioned consultants Fehr & Peers to conduct a study to understand the
need for a bypass and determine conceptual routes, costs, and benefits. Informal consensus
between the two bodies focused on Alternatives “1D and 1A” – routes that would require a new
bridge at the southern portal of the Colorado River to connect Potash Road and Kane Creek
Boulevard. An ‘alternative’ to Alternatives 1D and 1A was also explored, where bypass traffic
would not travel down Kane Creek but instead go directly into a tunnel and travel for a few
miles under the rim and exit south of the residential areas and back onto Hwy 191. This was the
only concept presented that would not have a negative impact on any residential
neighborhoods. To be clear, the concept alternative that received consensus was a tunnel,
where the bypass would be completely underground.
As of 2016, traffic counts through Moab had reached approximately 17,000 vehicles per day
traveling through downtown, with 36 percent of those vehicles being semi-trucks. Using
historic figures as a baseline, the study determined that the average vehicle growth rate was
expected to increase by 2 percent each year, while semi-truck traffic was expected to grow at a
rate of 4 percent annually. Approximately 75 percent to 85 percent of the “cut-through traffic”
– drivers who would prefer to re-route around downtown Moab – was estimated to be
commercial trucks, which is approximately 4,000 to 5,000 trucks per day. The remaining 20
percent to 30 percent of non-commercial traffic is estimated to be approximately 2,000 to
3,500 vehicles per day traveling through downtown Moab via U.S. 191.
The study conducted by Fehr & Peers estimated that the cost to complete a U.S. 191 bypass
around Moab would be between $75 million to $125 million depending on the route.
The concept of a second bridge and a tunnel in 2018 seemed excessive. However the traffic
congestion Moab experienced this fall is a compelling reason to look hard at this alternative
concept today. Fehr & Peers initially explored a cost estimate in 2018 for this new bridge and
tunnel alternative concept. In order for Moab to continue to explore this bypass option, the
Grand County Transportation Plan must be amended.
Why Consider A Bypass Now
The Mayor and I are committed to the concept and the benefits to the local community, our
tourism economy, and UDOT’s transportation needs and responsibilities by re-routing semi-
truck and other pass-through traffic from U.S. 191 around the downtown Moab area. We are
equally as committed to an enhanced level of public engagement and developing a final project
that prioritizes neighborhood integrity and character.
With the continuing trends of increased visitation and congestion, it is now critical that City
and County policymakers utilize vision and a pro-active approach toward a direct solution to
our congestion problems in the Moab Valley.
Sincerely,
Curtis Wells
Grand County Council
Emily S. Niehaus
Mayor of Moab
Moab Bypass Study
FINDINGS – MAY 30, 2018
Agenda
1. Alternatives Overview
a. Alternative 1A
b. Alternative 1D
2. Benefits
3. Costs
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1D
Benefits
Benefits - Traffic Data
2016 Traffic Volumes
◦17,000 Vehicles per day south of downtown
◦36% Trucks (6,000 trucks per day)
Historic Growth
◦2% Growth per year
◦Trucks growing at 4% per year
Cut-Through
◦75-85% Commercial (4K-5K trucks per day)
◦20-30% Non-commercial traffic (2K-3.5K
vehicles per day)
Benefits – Modeling Results
-1
4
%
-3
9
%
-1
7
%
-2
1
%
-1
4
%
-2
2
%
-1
7
%
-3
4
%
Benefits – Modeling Results
Who Uses the Bypass?
◦No truck restrictions assumed on Main Street
◦40-45% of traffic on Bypass are trucks
◦This equates to roughly 3,000 – 3,500 trucks per day, or
about ½ of the trucks on Main Street
◦75-80% of eligible trucks use the bypass
◦Adding truck restrictions on Main Street would increase the
volume using the bypass
Benefits – Travel Time
Benefits – Travel Time
Costs - Assumptions
1. For Both Alignments
a. Assumed no ROW Costs north of Colorado River
b. Values used are conceptual and will be further refined through environmental and
design process
c. Assumed a thick pavement section to accommodate truck volumes
1. Alternative 1A
a. Includes full reconstruction of Kane Creek Drive and Potash Road
2. Alternative 1D
a. Assumes new alignment does not require major utility relocations
b. Includes some significant cuts/retaining walls
c. Includes full reconstruction of Potash Road
Costs
Alternative 2018 $ 2030 $
Alternative 1A $85.5 M $132.4 M
Alternative 1D $89 M $137.8 M
Additional Costs (2018 $) $ Per LF 5000’ Length
Sound Walls $250 $1.3 M
Tunneling $25 K $125 M