Northwest US 95 Access Study

Transcription

NORTHWEST US 95 ACCESS STUDY
FINAL PROJECT REPORT
CH2M HILL
with JPL Engineering
Las Vegas, Nevada
September 2011
NOTE: The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grants from the Federal
Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under
the Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f) of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report
do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I: Data Collection 1. Overview ............................................................................................ 1 2. Non-Motorized Modes ........................................................................... 4 3. Land Use .......................................................................................... 10 4. Motorized Traffic and Safety ................................................................ 14 5. Transit Supply and Demand ................................................................ 20 6. Additional Previous Studies ................................................................. 23 Part II: Evaluation of Mobility Needs 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 2. Roadway And Intersection Safety ........................................................... 5 3. On-Road Bicycle Facilities ................................................................... 16 4. Trails: Non-Equestrian And Equestrian .................................................. 22 5. Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................... 34 6. Transit Service and Facilities ............................................................... 40 A. Appendix ............................................................................................. i Part III: Proposed Alternatives 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 2. On-Street Facility Alternatives ............................................................... 4 3. Off-Street Facilities Alternatives ........................................................... 35 4. Transit Improvement Alternatives ........................................................ 54 5. Project Prioritization ........................................................................... 65 6. Cost Estimation ................................................................................. 74 A. Appendix A .......................................................................................... i B. Appendix B ........................................................................................ ix C. Appendix C ...................................................................................... xvii Part IV: Agency Coordination and Outreach 1. Agency Coordination Plan...................................................................... 1 2. Public Outreach ................................................................................... 3 Part I
Data Collection
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Part I
Data Collection
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
PART I: DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY
1. Overview .................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Description .............................................................. 1 1.2 Data Collection Summary...................................................................... 2 2. Non-Motorized Modes ................................................. 4 2.1 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada .......................... 4 2.2 City of Las Vegas ................................................................................. 6 2.3 Clark County ....................................................................................... 7 2.4 Nevada Department of Transportation .................................................... 9 3. Land Use ................................................................... 10 3.1 Regional Land Use Goals ..................................................................... 10 3.2 City of Las Vegas ............................................................................... 10 3.3 Rural Neighborhood Preservation Areas................................................. 11 4. Motorized Traffic and Safety ..................................... 14 4.1 NDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic ....................................................... 14 4.2 City of Las Vegas Turn Movement Counts .............................................. 17 4.3 Street Safety .................................................................................... 18 5. Transit Supply and Demand ...................................... 20 5.1 Transit Service Routes ........................................................................ 20 5.2 Transit Ridership ............................................................................... 20 6. Additional Previous Studies ...................................... 23 6.1 Capital Program and Transportation Priorities ........................................ 23 6.2 Transportation Goals and Priorities ....................................................... 23 6.3 List of Documents Reviewed ................................................................ 23 Part I
Data Collection Summary
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 Study Purpose and Description
Over the last decade, the northwest U.S. 95 corridor has experienced some of the fastest
growth in the Las Vegas region. As the U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor continues its rapid
urbanization and experiences increasing travel demand and possibly congestion, there is a
need to plan infrastructure to support travel by alternate modes, especially for short trips.
The purpose of the Northwest US 95 Access Study is to analyze barriers to mobility for
alternate modes in the Study Area and to develop alternatives for improvements. The
Study Area boundary is shown in Exhibit 1-1 below.
Exhibit 1-1: Northwest US 95 Study Area
Source: City of Las Vegas Map
1
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
A technical working group (TWG) was formed for the Northwest U.S. 95 Access Study in
order to establish the project goals, review the consultant team’s progress, and provide
input on proposed Study Area alternatives.
In establishing the TWG, RTC and the
consultant team attempted to include a variety of stakeholders who represent the diverse
perspectives and needs of the Study Area communities.
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) has funded this
planning effort and was the organizing and coordinating agency for this planning study. The
RTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the region. As such, RTC is responsible
for the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and the financial programming of
significant transportation capital projects. RTC plays a key role in regional planning,
including for alternate modes such as walking and bicycling. The RTC recently developed a
bicycle map for the region and a Bicycle and Pedestrian plan. RTC transit serves the
corridor including the Centennial Hills park-and-ride.
The Study Area includes several unincorporated neighborhoods around its periphery. These
are part of Clark County’s Lone Mountain Planning Area. The unincorporated areas included
in and adjacent to the Study Area are the Gilcrease neighborhood to the east of U.S. 95 and
the larger Lone Mountain neighborhood to the west of U.S. 95. These neighborhoods are
primarily zoned as rural neighborhood preservation areas. As unincorporated areas in Clark
County, their transportation facilities are administered by the county’s planning and public
works departments. The TWG included representatives from both of these departments, as
well as from the Town Board Liaison’s office for the Lone Mountain area which facilitates
connections between residents of Clark County District 3 and their county government and
services.
The majority of residents within the Study Area live within the City of Las Vegas, which also
accounts for the greater share of land within the Study Area. The City’s planning and public
works departments are responsible for transportation planning, operations, and
improvements within the Study Area, so the TWG included members from each of these
departments.
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) was the last key TWG participant. NDOT
is continuing a major reconstruction and widening of U.S. 95 in the corridor that will
dramatically impact vehicular traffic. NDOT was also a key source of safety and traffic data.
The TWG included a representative from NDOT’s District 1 office.
1.2 Data Collection
Following the project kick-off meeting held on October 27, 2010 with the TWG members,
the study team began collecting and analyzing data in order to help define potential
transportation improvements in future tasks. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes the data that was
2
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
collected, grouped into the following categories: Corridor Geometrics; Land Use; Traffic
Demand; Transit Supply and Demand; and Previous Studies.
Exhibit 1-2: Data Collected
Section
Category
Data Item
Sidewalk, bike lane, multi-use path, and
trails
Clark County,
City of Las
Vegas, RTC,
NDOT
Relevant local land use plans and
documents, including base & proposed
zoning
City of Las
Vegas, Clark
County
Traffic counts in Study Area, turning
movement counts at major intersections
NDOT, City of
Las Vegas
2.
Non-Motorized
Modes
3.
Land Use
4.
Traffic
Demand and
Safety
5.
Transit Supply
and Demand
6.
Previous
Studies
Received From
Transit ridership in Study Area
Planned capital improvements in Study
Area; existing alternate mode policies and
goals,
The remainder of this memo describes these items in more detail.
3
RTC
RTC, UNLV,
NDOT
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
2. NON-MOTORIZED MODES
2.1 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), Clark County and the
City of Las Vegas have developed strategic plans that address non-motorized travel. The
RTC adopted its first Bike Master Plan in 1996. The original plan designated 440 miles of
bike routes and 60 miles of bike lanes. In 2003, the RTC completed an Alternative Mode
Master Plan Study that recommended expanding the bicycle lane network to 735 centerline
miles and reducing the bike route network to 395 miles. The study also included an
ambitious plan for 634 miles of shared use paths. The 2003 Master Plan designated a much
more robust bicycle network in the Study Area, and the plan remains under development.
The vision statement for the current RTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Element (BPE),
updated in 2008, is to provide for a regional alternative mode network consisting of paths,
enhanced sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes that form an interconnected, non-motorized
transportation system for the Las Vegas Valley. The Plan calls for a system that shall be
designed, built and maintained in a manner that provides viable and safe alternatives to
motorized travel, linking the community’s residential areas to public facilities and providing
transit to areas where residents work, attend school and where both residents and visitors
recreate and shop. Exhibit 2-1 provides an outline of the BPE’s main goals.
Exhibit 2-1: Relevant BPE Goals
System Development
•Assure that the demand for Bikes on Buses and other mass transit modes can be fully accommodated •Assure availability of facilities that can secure bikes at transit terminals •Assure that pedestrians and bicyclists are provided continuous access to transit Design Development
•Work with local jurisdictions to create portals within subdivision walls to allow access to transit and other regional destinations •Improve tools to better evaluate, manage, implement and maintain alternative mode facilities Safety/ Security
•Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes across the Las Vegas Valley •Work with local jurisdictions to develop or implement enhanced regional street/sidewalk design standards that safely accommodate alternative mode travel Other Items
•Provide a reliable and adequate source of funding to implement non‐motorized travel facilities in the Las Vegas area. •Develop a process to review bicycle facilities to determine appropriateness of facilities with relation to changes in land use or roadway characteristics 4
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The BPE identifies three facility types for bicycles: (1) designated bicycle routes, (2) bicycle
lanes, and (3) shared use trails. Modification of a designated bicycle facility requires a
forty-five day public comment period. The BPE establishes firm criteria for incorporating new
bicycle routes into the BPE. These consist of the following:
▪ Continuity: the segment should improve the connectivity of the existing bicycle
network,
▪ Accessibility: the segment should be relatively free of conflict with motorized modes,
▪ Directness: the segment should provide efficient travel routes for bicyclists,
▪ Posted Speed Limit: the segment should have a posted speed limit of 35 miles per
hour or lower,
▪ Transit Access: the route should be within a quarter of a mile of a transit route,
▪ Surface Conditions: the route should be in an acceptable level of repair for bicyclists,
and
▪ Truck Traffic: the segment does not experience heavy truck traffic.
There are four classes of sidewalk designated by the 2008 BPE. Class 1 sidewalks have a
landscaped buffer to separate the pedestrian facility from the street. Class 2 sidewalks are
adjacent to the street without a buffer. Class 3 sidewalks are between a block wall and the
adjacent street without a buffer on either side. Finally, Class 4 sidewalks have a shoulder
but no sidewalk structure in place. The BPE created an initial sidewalk inventory, but it has
not been continuously maintained. Currently, the RTC is updating the inventory.
The BPE also identified pedestrian safety as a major challenge in the Las Vegas region.
Pedestrians in the region are involved in collisions at a higher rate compared to the nation’s
average. The plan identifies several priorities for future improvements for alternate modes.
One focus is to make the impact of wide major arterials on pedestrians a priority for future
investments to improve pedestrian mobility. Another priority is the continued establishment
of street medians and landscaped sidewalk buffers to reduce overall crashes and provide
physical, lateral separation for bicyclists and pedestrians.
A third priority is the
improvement of intersections for pedestrian safety. Secondary priorities include:
▪ To identify street segments with inappropriately high or un-posted speed limits,
▪ To continue to work to identify gaps in sidewalk infrastructure,
▪ To continue to work help local jurisdictions and HOAs create access for pedestrians
and bicyclists across block walls,
▪ To work with local jurisdictions to promote more and higher quality facilities for
pedestrians and bicyclists at their trip destinations, especially workplaces, and
▪ To investigate the implementation of complete streets in select locations.
RTC has provided GIS shape files of sidewalk assets in the Study Area from the agency’s
last sidewalk survey, completed in 2008. The consultant team is updating these maps
based on recent aerial photos and field confirmation.
5
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
2.2 City of Las Vegas
The City of Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan identifies two elements:
 Transportation Trails Element
 Recreational Trails Element.
The Transportation Trails Element establishes standards, guidelines, objectives, policies and
priorities for the location, development and maintenance of transportation trails in the city.
This effort is to establish a multi-modal non-motorized system (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists).
This Master Plan element of the plan identifies:
 Off-street multi-use transportation trail alignments, both multi-use non-equestrians and
pedestrian paths (Map No. 2),

On-street bicycle trails (Map No. 7) – Exhibit 2-2 provides an extract of the map – and

Multi-Use Trail Alignments for the Town Center Area (Map No. 6).
Exhibit 2-2: On-street Bicycle Train Alignments
Source: City of Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan (April 2009)
The Master Plan Recreational Trails Element, a companion plan to the Transportation Trails
Element, also establishes standards, guidelines, objectives, policies and priorities for the
location, development and maintenance of recreation trails in the city. However, the major
6
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
distinction between the Recreational Trails Element and Transportation Trails Element is the
ownership and maintenance of the trails. The City is required by state legislation to own and
maintain any recreation trail required of a development, while a transportation trail may be
own and maintained by a regional trail agency, a city department or a private interest
group. This element of the Master Plan identifies off-street recreational trail alignments,
both multi-use equestrian and multi-use equestrians trails (Map No. 2).
The Suggested School Route maps, developed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Division, are
prepared for the schools within the city’s jurisdication to distribute. The school routes
suggested took into account physical barriers such as railway lines, freeways and high
volume major arterial streets.
Transportation capital projects planned for the Study Area in the near term mostly included
improvements along U.S. 95. The City of Las Vegas’s Capital Improvement Plan includes
only a small number of total projects, detailed in Exhibit 2-3. Most of the projects include
pedestrian and bicycle elements to facilitate mobility.
Exhibit 2-3: City of Las Vegas Capital Improvement Projects in the Study Area
Project
Description
FY10
Budget
FY11
Budget
FY12
Budget
FY13
Budget
-
-
Farm Road - Tule
Springs
Completion of street
improvements: lighting, drainage,
curb/gutter, and sidewalks
$79,465
-
Grand Teton
Overpass at US 95
Construction of US 95 overpass on
Grand Teton
$40,201
-
Horse Drive at US
95 Interchange
Construction of an interchange
with US 95
$40.5M
$13.8M
Kyle Canyon
Interchange at US
95
Construction of a partial
interchange/overpass including
pedestrian improvements
$0.5M
$2.5M
US 95 at Tropical/
Azure Overpass
Landscaping
Landscape improvements in the
NDOT ROW
$0.3M
-
$3.0M
$5.0M
-
-
$13.7M
-
-
-
Source: City of Las Vegas 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan, FY2010-2014
2.3 Clark County
In 2007, Clark County developed the Clark County Equestrian Trail Study to specifically
identify and address the residents of unincorporated areas of Clark County wants and needs
for equestrian facilities. The Study Area examined the equestrian trail needs within two
general areas of US-95 access study: (1) On the west side of US-95 from Ann Drive to CC215 and (2) the eastside of US-95 with north/south boundaries from Iron Mountain to
7
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Centennial and east/west boundaries from Jones Boulevard to Man O’War. The purpose of
the Clark County Equestrian Trail Study is three-fold:
▪ Determine the need for equestrian facilities by surveying residents living in the RNPs,
▪ Identify how many horses are located in the RNPs, and
▪ Develop a plan that addresses the demand and needs with consideration for road
engineering, flood control and public safety.
Exhibit 2-4 presents a sample of the identification and mapping of the opportunities and
constraints that result from this effort. Note the flood conveyance opportunity.
Exhibit 2-4: Clark County Equestrian Trail Study
The Clark County Safe Route to School Program (SRTS) is part of the Federal Safe Routes to
School Program that provides a comprehensive, computerized traffic, pedestrian, and
8
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
bicycle plan for elementary and middle schools under the jurisdiction of unincorporated
Clark County.
Clark County addresses alternate modes mobility primarily through its land use planning
documents. For this reason, more details on Clark County’s pedestrian and bicycle planning
policy is set out in Section 3.
2.4 Nevada Department of Transportation
NDOT has only limited involvement in the Study Area. As described in the State Maintained
Highways of Nevada, Descriptions and Maps (January 2010), all NDOT maintained streets
are directly adjacent to U.S. 95. The frontage roads and overpasses maintained by NDOT
are built to City of Las Vegas standards and include shoulder bike lanes. Kyle Canyon Road
is also maintained by NDOT. Any east-west crossing of U.S. 95 will require cooperation with
NDOT. Exhibit 2-5 shows the various streets, ramps, and highway segments maintained by
NDOT in the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-5: Streets Maintained by NDOT in the Study Area
Source: State Maintained Highways of Nevada, Descriptions and Maps (January 2010)
9
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
3. LAND USE
3.1 Regional Land Use Goals
The review of land use planning documents began by examining regional level planning
studies. The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC), a coalition of local
governments in the Las Vegas Valley published the Regional Growth Summits Project
Report (March 2004) as a guide to development goals in the region.
One of the
“overarching objectives and actions” determined from the project is that the region should
do more to consider transportation, land use, and air quality together in planning.
RTC has provided GIS map layers containing current spatial estimates of population and
employment densities in the Study Area.
3.2 City of Las Vegas
The City of Las Vegas Master Plan 2020 - Land Use & Rural Neighborhoods Preservation
Element (adopted 09/2009) inventories and classifies the types of land uses in the city and
serves as a comprehensive plan for the most desirable utilization of land, while also
providing general plans to preserve the character and density of rural neighborhoods.
Included in this element is the City of Las Vegas’ Centennial Hills Town Center Land Use
Map (Exhibit 3-1), it identifies the land use within the corridor. Mixed-Use, Commercial
and Residential comprise the majority of the land uses within the corridor. The land uses
adjacent to US 95 and CC-215 include Commercial (both General and Service), Mixed Use
for Suburban and Main Street.
Moving away from the freeway, the land use shifts from medium to low density residential.
To the west, the residential density reflects land use consistent with Clark County’s Rural
Neighborhood Preservation designation. Included in the Land Use element is the zoning
reflecting the Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County, it
identifies a majority of the Study Area east of US-95 corridor as Planned Community
Development.
Other noteworthy uses within the Study Area limits includes: (1) the only Employment
Center use, which is located at the north end of the corridor near Grand Teton Drive and
Fort Apache Road and (2) Public Facilities which includes Mountain Ridge Park near Elkhorn
and Oso Blanca.
10
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-1: Centennial Hills Town Center Land Use
3.3 Rural Neighborhood Preservation Areas
This element also includes discussions of rural neighborhood preservation.
Rural
Neighborhood Preservation (RNP) areas are local neighborhoods with low density zoning and
are the subject of an interlocal agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County
in an effort to preserve a low density, rural feel in an increasingly urbanized region. For
example, streets are designed and built to a rural standard without sidewalks and few street
lights. These areas provide its residents with open space and wide view sheds of the
surrounding areas.
Exhibit 3-2 below is an astronaut photograph of the Study Area taken at night on
November 30, 2010. The brightly lit areas of the photo correspond to City of Las Vegas
development with the Study Area Town Center zone visible as the brightest spot along U.S.
11
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
95. The dark areas circled in red are the RNPs adjacent to the Study Area. Within the
corridor Study Area, there are two main areas of unincorporated Clark County, both zoned
as RNP areas. The first is the Lone Mountain RNP located west of US 95/ County 215
interchange, visible within the larger circle in Exhibit 3-2. The second is the Gilcrease RNP
on the eastern most boundary of the Study Area, visible as the dark area in the smaller
circle. The signature darkness of the RNPs is the result of fewer street lights, a result of the
areas’ adherence to Clark County’s special design standards for non-urban areas.
Exhibit 3-2: Nighttime Astronaut Photo of the Study Area
Source: NASA Earth Observatory Website13
Although most of the unincorporated areas in the Study Area are a part of RNPs, the
population and density of these areas continue to increase. Lone Mountain added 3,978
people between 2001 and 2007, a 36.2% increase in population while the surrounding
13 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=47687
12
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Centennial Hills area grew 75% to 171,500 residents. As Exhibit 3-3 shows, single family
homes predominant in Lone Mountain.
Exhibit 3-3: Land Uses in the Lone Mountain Planning Area (2006)
Land Use
Single Family
Multi-Family
Neighborhood Retail
Community Retail
Regional Retail
Hotel
Office
Industrial
Non-Retail/Other
Schools
Open Space
Acres
Share of Total
3,090
9
18
1
0
0
16
120
73
136
510
77.8%
0.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
3.0%
1.8%
3.4%
12.8%
Source: Clark County Existing Land Use (July 2006)
The Land Use Plan sets out several specific goals and supporting policies related to this
Study.
▪ Policy 1.4: “When block walls are used along the perimeter of developments, walking
connections should be provided on all sides of the development to avoid the creation
of isolated areas.”
▪ Policy 3.6: “Encourage the preservation of the rural character of the large lot areas
by implementing the provisions contained in the Minimum Road Design Standards for
Non-Urban Roadways handbook, as adopted by Clark County and available from
Clark County Public Works.”
▪ Policy 5.5: “Encourage multiple family developments to incorporate pedestrian and
bicycle circulation systems that connect to schools, recreation and commercial areas.
Multiple family developments should also connect with existing and planned trail
systems, parks, and open space.”
▪ Goal 13: “Encourage an integrated network of roads, mass transit (where feasible),
bicycle, and pedestrian routes in order to provide transportation choices and
alternatives in the Lone Mountain Area.”
▪ Policy 13.3: “Encourage ride sharing in areas of heavy travel demand.”
▪ Policy 13.5: “ Minimize traffic on local and residential streets by using cul-de-sacs
and curvilinear streets within subdivisions.”
13
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
4. MOTORIZED TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
4.1 NDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic
The NDOT 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County provides Annual Average Daily
Traffic (AADT) estimates at select count locations in the Las Vegas region, including the
Study Area for the Northwest US 95 Access Study. This data is collected by electronic
sensors. The exhibit below shows the locations of these sensors in and adjacent to the
Study Area. The numbers on the graphic in Exhibit 4-1 identify sensor locations, not
AADT.
14
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-1: NDOT Traffic Count Locations
Source: 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County, NDOT
For each count location, the 2009 Annual Traffic Report provides AADT estimates from the
years 2000 to 2009. Exhibit 4-2 shows an example of this data, including locations
(003)2075 and (003)2076 which are both on Grand Teton Drive.
15
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-2: Example of NDOT AADT Estimates by Count Location, 2000 to 2009
Source: 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County, NDOT
The consultant team mapped the AADT data to provide a useful visualization of 2009 traffic
patterns. Although the estimates are only available for certain routes, Exhibit 4-3 gives
some perspective of traffic patterns in the Study Area.
16
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-3: Visualization of 2009 NDOT AADT Estimates
4.2 City of Las Vegas Turn Movement Counts
Other relevant transportation data sources are turning movement counts and 24 hour
counts conducted by the City of Las Vegas at select times between the years 2007 and 2010
at select intersections in the Study Area. The counts include a peak morning hour and a
peak evening hour in 15 minute increments. Exhibit 4-4 shows an example of this data, for
Ann Road and US 95 Northbound.
17
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-4: Example of Turning Movement Counts
Source: City of Las Vegas, Department of Public Works
4.3 Street Safety
The most serious safety issue for travelers using alternate modes including bicycling and
walking is a collision with a motor vehicle. While other transportation hazards exist for
pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists, no local sources cover report safety data other than
for motor vehicles.
The consultant team submitted requests for traffic safety data to NDOT and the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department for key intersections in the Study Area. Exhibit 4-5 shows
the
locations
of
the
data
requested
from
NDOT’s
crash
data
program
(http://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/nv_crashes/).
18
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-5: Intersection Locations included in Safety Data Requests
Similar but more detailed crash data was also requested from the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department’s Traffic Division which has jurisdiction in the area.
The posted speed limits and the location of existing bicycle lanes also helps to better
characterize the safety issues present in the current street network in the Study Area. The
consultant team has created a speed limit map and is compiling a map of the existing
bicycle lane and trail network in the Study Area.
19
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
5. TRANSIT SUPPLY AND DEMAND
5.1 Transit Service Routes
The Study Area remains an area with limited transit service. Service revolves around the
Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride and includes one local route (Route 106 A
and B) and one commuter route (the ACE CX line). Exhibit 5-1 shows a map of service in
the Study Area (highlighted in pink).
Exhibit 5-1: Map of Transit Service in the Study Area
Source: RTC Transit Map, November 7, 2010
RTC has provided GIS shape files showing existing transit routes.
5.2 Transit Ridership
In October and November 2010, RTC provided transit data for the routes operating in the
Study Area (Route 106 and the C-Line), including average daily ridership, ons/offs by stop,
and on-time performance. Exhibit 5-2 shows the monthly ridership history on Route 106
from the years 2002 through 2010.
20
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 5-2: Route 106 Monthly Ridership History 2002 to 2010
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Totals
2002
48,854
45,314
47,401
41,765
39,851
38,201
40,549
41,894
41,169
43,990
41,667
46,527
517,182
2003
46,362
44,278
51,342
50,714
51,578
52,017
53,617
56,984
59,320
69,030
65,506
65,819
666,567
2004
60,068
53,347
63,728
69,722
72,511
73,674
74,303
77,355
75,817
78,221
72,134
71,980
842,860
2005
72,511
69,148
84,642
79,974
71,779
68,663
65,989
74,007
74,052
75,851
70,994
71,313
878,923
2006
71,583
67,453
73,247
72,691
78,661
73,097
74,960
76,151
74,501
76,116
74,507
72,096
885,063
2007
75,718
72,343
79,760
75,317
81,413
81,044
78,472
83,020
77,840
85,045
82,478
79,662
952,112
2008
83,883
74,743
77,899
76,863
85,048
89,300
95,694
96,959
88,733
91,667
83,967
82,607
1,027,363
2009
77,248
65,067
69,439
64,836
69,174
65,433
64,366
62,925
64,577
71,478
73,271
73,802
821,616
2010
73,291
68,624
73,376
67,874
67,385
64,230
68,707
70,422
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Source: RTC
Exhibit 5-3 shows passengers per service hour (PPSH) numbers for Route 106, the C-Line
(shown as Route 901), and other RTC routes from July to September 2010, separately for
weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
Exhibit 5-3: Passengers per Service Hour by Route, Jul to Sep 2010
Source: RTC
21
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 5-4 shows average daily passenger ons and offs by stop, as well as average daily
load, for Route 106A (the counter-clockwise direction) in the Centennial Hills area based on
March 2009 data.
Exhibit 5-4: Route 106A Average Daily Ons/Offs by Stop, March 2009 data
Route
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
106A
Stop ID
Stop Name
5411
5551
5552
3907
1035
3908
5735
4452
4453
4275
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
5195
5197
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5371
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5056
5292
5054
5053
3835
Ann / Rainbow
Ann / Rio Vista
Ann / Tenaya
Sky Pointe / Tenaya
Sky Pointe / Eagle Crest
Sky Pointe / Ranch House
Azure / Sky Pointe
Tenaya / Azure
Centennial / Tenaya
Sky Pointe / Target
Sky Pointe / Buffalo
Cimarron / Deer Springs
Cimarron / Odysseus
Elkhorn / Cimarron
Elkhorn / Conough
Buffalo / Elkhorn
Buffalo / Bridlehorne
Farm / Buffalo
Farm / Palm Grove
Farm / Cimarron
Farm / Nido
Farm / Tule Springs
Farm / Tule Springs
Durango / El Capitan
Durango / Oso Blanca
Durango / Elkhorn
Durango / Dorrell
Durango / Deer Springs
Durango / I-215 W Off Ramp
Centennial / Durango
Centennial / 8555 Centennial
Centennial / Grand Montecito
Centennial Ctr / Del Taco
Source: RTC
22
Total
Ons
26.82
24.07
45.81
18.49
57.95
43.43
25.45
34.13
1
115.52
8
97.3
12.2
30.95
19.4
32.81
27.68
144.21
20.1
91.87
31.6
243.04
8.14
198.57
100.26
414.99
297.35
213
8.83
109.65
5.1
43.45
1282.62
Total
Offs
112.94
149.33
136.57
74.87
58.99
178.43
120.54
53.88
16.62
177.58
14.26
93.61
44.38
93.2
36.27
48.89
33.61
185.21
48.42
88.69
53.3
244.43
42.86
144.75
136.5
293.34
180.07
209.04
16.56
77.25
16.82
40.8
1222.04
Avg.
Ons
1.4
1.3
2.3
0.9
3.1
2.2
1.3
1.7
0.1
6.1
0.8
4.6
0.6
1.6
1.1
1.7
1.5
6.9
1.1
4.6
1.8
11.6
0.5
9.5
5.0
20.8
15.7
10.7
0.6
5.8
0.4
2.3
64.1
Avg.
Offs
5.9
7.9
6.8
3.7
3.1
8.9
6.3
2.7
1.9
9.4
1.4
4.5
2.3
4.7
2.1
2.6
1.9
8.8
2.7
4.4
3.0
11.6
2.4
6.9
6.8
14.7
9.5
10.5
1.2
4.1
1.4
2.2
61.1
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
6. ADDITIONAL PREVIOUS STUDIES
6.1 Capital Program and Transportation Priorities
In addition to the documents mentioned in the previous sections, RTC, NDOT, the City of
Las Vegas, and Clark County have published a variety of additional reports and studies
related to transportation in the Study Area. For the most part, these additional documents
address motorized transportation or general regional transportation policy goals.
Several important documents relate to NDOT’s U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor Improvements
Project. Maps and project reports posted on NDOT’s project website give some information
on Phase 2 of the project, now in progress. The central component of Phase 2 is the
widening of U.S. 95 from Ann Road to Kyle Canyon Road, expanding from two lanes to three
general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The project will also add one
auxiliary lane in each direction between Ann Road and Durango Drive. Completion of all new
elements may depend on the availability of funding sources. The reconstruction of the U.S.
95 and CC-215 interchange is expected to begin in 2012.
The other major project planned for the Study Area is the improvement of CC-215 from an
expressway into a grade separated highway. The RTC West Valley North-South Critical
Facilities Study – Phase 1 Draft Report (2008) notes that CC-215 has space available for
lane for future lane expansion – up to five lanes in each direction. The current RTIP (Draft
RTIP 2011-2014) includes significant improvements of CC-215 in the Northern Beltway
section of the freeway. The upgrades will likely feed additional traffic through the 95-215
interchange. The 95-215 interchange is being upgraded to accommodate six through lanes
on both freeways. NDOT is upgrading Kyle Canyon road to include 17 miles of bike lanes.
The expansion of US-95 north of Ann Road from four or six lanes to eight lanes is ongoing.
6.2 Transportation Goals and Priorities
The RTC’s West Valley North-South Critical Facilities Study emphasizes several key
congestion management strategies that apply to the Study Area. It underscores the need to
avoid overloading Las Vegas’ arterials with local traffic. It recommends that agencies
should work to connect discontinuous streets, especially arterials.
The study also
recommends that agencies consider the establishment of unidirectional complementary
couplets. Finally, it recognizes that Durango Drive is a critical north-south travel facility in
the Study Area.
6.3 List of Documents Reviewed
Exhibit 6-1 provides a complete list of the sources reviewed for this task. Not all of the
documents listed were included in this technical memorandum.
23
Part I
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 6-1: List of Documents Reviewed for Task #2
Section
Author
Agency
Type
Name
Date
#2
City of Las
Vegas
Maps
Suggested Routes to School
Current website
information
#2
City of Las
Vegas
Plan
Master Plan - Recreation Trails Element
Adopted 2002_01,
Revised 2005_01
#2
City of Las
Vegas
Plan
Master Plan - Transportation Trails
Element
Adopted 2002_01,
Revised 2005_01
#2
City of Las
Vegas
Plan
City of Las Vegas 5 Year Capital
Improvement Plan, FY2010-2014
2009_07
#2
Clark County
Maps
Clark County Safe Route to School
Program (SRTS)
Current website
information
#2
Clark
County/
UNLV
Study
Clark County Equestrian Trail Study
2007_04
#2
NDOT
Report
State Maintained Highways of Nevada,
Descriptions and Maps
2010_01
#2
RTC
Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
2008_10
#3
City of Las
Vegas
Plan
Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan - Land Use
& Rural Neighborhoods Preservation
Element
Adopted 2009_09
#3
Clark County
Plan
Clark County Existing Land Use
2006_07
#3
Clark County
Plan
Lone Mountain Land Use Plan
2008_09
#3
City of Las
Vegas/ Clark
County
Interagency
Agreement
Interlocal Agreement Between the city
of Las Vegas and Clark County
Adopted:
2008_12
#3
SNRPC
Study
Regional Growth Summits Project
Report - Final Report
2004_03
#4
NDOT
Report
2009 Annual Traffic Report, Clark
County
2010_05
#5
RTC
Maps
RTC Transit System Map
2010_11
#6
NDOT
Study
Northwest U.S. 95 Project Map
Unknown
24
Part I
Section
Author
Agency
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Type
Name
Date
#6
NDOT
Study
Northwest U.S. 95 Corridor Project
Management Plan
2009_04
#6
NDOT
Study
Road Safety Audit Report U.S. 95,
Washington Avenue to Ann Road
2007_12
2010_Spring
#6
NDOT
Study
U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor
Improvements Project Newsletter,
Volume 2, Edition 1
#6
NDOT
Study
U.S. 95 Northwest Corridor Project
Initial Financial Plan
2009_04
#6
RTC
Plan
Draft RTIP 2011-2014
2010_08
#6
RTC
Study
West Valley North-South Critical
Facilities Study – Phase 1 Draft Report
2008
N/A
City of Las
Vegas
Newsletter
Planning and Development
(Newsletter): “...and another thing”
2007_Q1
N/A
City of Las
Vegas
Plan
Transportation & Streets and Highways
Element Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan
Adopted 2009_04
N/A
City of Las
Vegas
Plan
Northwest Open Space Plan
Accepted 2005_01
N/A
City of Las
Vegas
Standards
and Design
Guidelines
Kyle Canyon Development Standards
and Design Guidelines
Last Revised by
MOD-25875,
2008_02
N/A
City of Las
Vegas
Plan
Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan - School
Facilities Element
Adopted 2008_08
N/A
RTC
Plan
Regional Transportation Plan 2009 2030
2008_11
25
Part II
Evaluation of Mobility Needs
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
PART II: EVALUATION OF MOBILITY NEEDS
1. Introduction ............................................................... 1 2. Roadway And Intersection Safety ............................... 5 2.1 Assessment of Current Street and Intersection Conditions ......................... 5 2.2 Identification of Street Segments and Intersections for Improvement........ 10 3. On-Road Bicycle Facilities ......................................... 16 3.1 Existing Bicycle Network Conditions ...................................................... 17 3.2 Bicycle Network Needs ....................................................................... 19 4. Trails: Non-Equestrian And Equestrian ..................... 22 4.1 Trail Types ........................................................................................ 22 4.2 Existing Trail Network Conditions ......................................................... 22 4.3 Trail Network Needs ........................................................................... 29 5. Pedestrian Facilities.................................................. 34 5.1 Pedestrian Sidewalk Types .................................................................. 34 5.2 Existing Side Walk Conditions .............................................................. 35 5.3 Sidewalk Needs ................................................................................. 37 6. Transit Service and Facilities .................................... 40 6.1 Existing Transit Service Characteristics ................................................. 40 6.2 Transit Service Performance ................................................................ 41 6.3 Unmet Transit Needs .......................................................................... 46 A. Appendix ..................................................................... i Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
1. INTRODUCTION
The Task 2 Technical Memorandum – Data Collection Summary – described the existing and
planned land uses and existing transportation patterns in the Study Area as well as the
planned bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian network. These, along with the other data
collected, provide the basis for the analysis of corridor mobility needs for travelers using
alternate modes. The purposes of the Task 3 Technical Memorandum are (1) to identify
roadway safety issues, (2) to identify and characterize the remaining gaps in the planned
alternate modes network, (3) to identify additional gaps in the alternate modes network,
and (4) to provide the basis for developing alternatives to mobility for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and equestrians in the Study Area.
Exhibit 1-1 shows a map with the two highways dividing the Study Area into four sections.
A number has been placed in each section to designate four Study Area quadrants.
Exhibit 1-1: Study Area Map with Quadrants
1
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 1-2: City of Las Vegas Centennial Hills Sector Zoning
Source: City of Las Vegas, Centennial Hills Zoning Map, March 21, 2011, http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/northwestsectorzoning.pdf
2
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
In the near future, the City of Las Vegas and NDOT will complete the Study Area’s planned
street network and the highway capacity improvements along the northwest US 95 corridor,
so it is necessary to assess the remaining mobility needs in the Study Area to ensure
adequate facilities are in place to support the planned growth in and around the Study Area.
Since the street network is nearing completion, the focus of this analysis is street safety and
alternate modes mobility, especially pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian travel. Equestrian
travel is of interest because of the significant horse population in and around the Study Area
and the existing challenges to equestrian mobility that cause riders to use sidewalks and
unsafe shoulders at times.
Exhibit 1-2 shows the planned land uses in the Centennial Hills sector. The map identifies
most of the undeveloped land area in the Study Area as either “Town Center” or “Traditional
Neighborhood Development.” These zoning designations emphasize the need to carefully
plan infrastructure to support these new neighborhoods as well as to address infrastructure
gaps and needs in existing neighborhoods.
For each mode, we will focus on existing network gaps and evaluate connectivity both within
(intra-quadrant) and between (inter-quadrant) the four quadrants of the study area, split by
US 95 and CC-215. As identified earlier, these facilities constitute the most significant
barriers to mobility for alternate modes in the Study Area. Below Exhibit 1-3 provides a
conceptual diagram of this approach. Intra-quadrant connectivity – illustrated by orange
arrows – will focus on access to key destinations including schools, retail centers, other
services, and recreation centers. The inter-quadrant gap analysis – illustrated by white
arrows – will emphasize connectivity of alternate mode networks. The analysis will also
examine facilities to support multi-modal trips within the Study Area generally and access to
the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride specifically.
Exhibit 1-3: Analysis of Mobility Gaps in the Study Area by Quadrant
3
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
In addition to a gap analysis, the consultant team has undertaken an assessment of traffic
control improvements to facilitate alternate modes mobility and general roadway safety.
This assessment focuses on identifying specific intersections, street segments, trail
segments, and trail crossings which present points of greater risk within the alternate
modes network or would benefit from improvements because of their likely higher volume of
travelers. Specific alternatives for improvements will be presented as part of Task 4.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
 In Section 2, there is an examination of the mobility needs related to alternate mode
travelers’ safety on streets and at intersections;
 Section 3 identifies gaps and needs related to the on-street bicycle network;
 Section 4 analyzes the off-street path and trail network to find key gaps and
opportunities for improvement;
 Section 5 analyzes the sidewalk network gaps and identifies the critical missing
segments;
 Finally, Section 6 considers the transit use and needs within the Study Area.
4
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
2. ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION SAFETY
2.1 Assessment of Current Street and Intersection Conditions
This section focuses on identifying street segments and intersections which could most
benefit from additional improvements to improve alternative modes’ safety as well as
general roadway safety. In order to identify specific locations where opportunities exist, the
available risk factors and demand variables collected in the course of Task 1 were
catalogued for major streets in the Study Area – parkway arterials, major arterials, minor
collectors, and frontage streets2. Based on these factors, each street segment and adjacent
key intersection received an overall risk score to determine the need for additional
measures to protect the pedestrians and bicyclists using the segment.
The scoring system weighed all of the variables equally relative the others, and the scoring
scales were normalized to reflect this approach. The risk variables included the traffic levels
on the street segment, the segment’s posted speed limit, the street category, the type of
intersection, and the crash history of the intersection.
Only two demand variables were
included in the analysis: (1) the presence of important destinations within three blocks of
the segment and (2) the presence of bike lanes on segment (implying the route would be
preferred by cyclists). The sum of the scores in each category created a total risk score,
with higher scores indicating higher risk and demand on the street segment. The full data
for each street segment is attached in the Appendix.
The traffic levels were obtained from both the Nevada Department of Transportation’s
(NDOT’s) 2009 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County and from the City of Las Vegas
Department of Public Works’ ongoing traffic counts3. The analysis used the City’s data
except where the NDOT measurements were more recent.
High traffic levels can
significantly raise the risk of collisions for alternate mode travelers, cause them discomfort
from noise, exhaust, and other environmental impacts, and create a barrier to crossing the
street. Street segments were divided into six scoring categories:
- Very low volume streets: 0 to 999 vehicles per day (VPD),
- Low volume streets: 1,000 to 4,999 VPD,
- Moderate volume streets: 5,000 to 9,999 VPD,
- Somewhat high volume streets: 10,000 to 19,999 VPD,
- High volume streets: 20,000 to 29,999 VPD,
- Very high volume streets: 30,000 or more VPD.
2 This classification is based on Map Six “Centennial Hills Sector Circulation” (p.65) in the City of Las Vegas’
Centennial Hills Sector Plan published March 1, 2006.
3 Available at http://www3.lasvegasnevada.gov/TrafficCounts/.
5
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The Centennial Hills Sector Plan classifies the Study Area’s major streets into four
categories: parkway arterials, major arterials, minor collectors, and frontage streets.
Parkway arterials, such as Durango Drive, are widest and were given the highest score,
followed by major arterials, minor collectors, and then frontage streets. As mentioned
previously, local streets are typically calm and are often not integrated with the street grid
and so were not considered as part of the street risk and demand analysis. Wider streets
run straight along the city’s grid and encourage higher traffic speeds and are a physical
barrier to pedestrians because of their width. However, landscape improvements and
sidewalk setbacks can be included to make arterial roadways more pedestrian friendly.
Exhibit 2-1 shows a map of street classifications in the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-1: Map of Study Area Street Classifications
6
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The next risk score variable, the type of intersection, was determined based on observations
from aerial photos and verification in the field. Intersections were classified four ways:
- Signalized intersections: the best controlled and therefore lowest scoring
intersections,
- Four-way stop signs: well controlled intersections that pedestrians, bicyclists, and
equestrians can still easily cross,
- Uncontrolled intersections: intersections where traffic does not stop in the direction
of the alternate mode’s travel, contributing to higher risk travel conditions,
- Stop signs with at uncontrolled cross streets: a significant hazard for alternate mode
travelers since cross traffic is not forced to yield to them and therefore the highest
scoring intersections.
The study team received location-based crash data from NDOT. Since the Study Area
continues to evolve quickly, historical collision data are less meaningful in the context of the
Study Area. Thus while crash data were available for the last four years (2007 through
2010), only the collisions from 2010 were considered.
Each available intersection’s
“property damage only”, injury crashes, and fatal crashes totaled to create a sum used as
the crash risk rank. The rank numbers were normalized to match the other scoring scales.
The crash ranks are available in the Appendix. Since data were not available for many
streets segments, they were assigned a slightly below average score in this category,
reflecting the fact that most of these were lower traffic streets.
The final available risk variable was the posted speed limit on the streets of interest. Faster
moving vehicles have longer braking distances and pose a greater hazard to alternate
modes. Streets in the Study Area range in speed limit from 25 miles per hour (MPH) – the
lowest scoring – to 45 MPH – the highest scoring. Exhibit 2-2 shows a map of speed limits
in and around the Study Area.
7
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-2: Map of Study Area Posted Speed Limits
The first demand variable, the presence of important destinations within three blocks of the
segment, is an important factor in determining the use of a route by alternate modes. The
destinations considered were schools, the transit center, and highway crossings (highest
score), retail and the area’s hospital (medium score), and amenities such as parks, libraries,
and churches (low score). Streets segments without proximate destinations received no
score in this category. The destinations within three blocks of each segment are listed in
the Appendix.
8
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The other demand variable included was the presence of bike lanes on the street segment.
Bicycles traveling on roadways are directly exposed to the parallel traffic and more
vulnerable to collision with a vehicle. Bicycle lanes tend to attract more bicyclists seeking
improved safety. Street segments with such an existing, designated bicycle facility would
benefit from consideration for possible improvements for better bicycle safety and easier
travel. Therefore, street segments with two bike lanes received the highest score, followed
by segments with a single lane or lanes only part of its length (incomplete bike lanes).
Segments with no lanes received no score in this category. Exhibit 2-3 provides a map of
bike lanes in the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-3: Map of Study Area Bicycle Lanes
9
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The following section provides the results of the analysis to identify target intersection and
street segments.
2.2 Identification of Street Segments and Intersections for Improvement
To create the final risk score, each segment’s individual score for each of the seven risk and
demand variables was added into a single score. Exhibit 2-4 shows the score scales for
the seven variables.
Exhibit 2-4: Street Risk Assessment Score Scales
Variable
Scores
Traffic Level (Vehicles
per Day)
30,000 or more: 5
20,000 to 29,999: 4
10,000 to 19,999: 3
5,000 to 9,999: 2
1,000 to 4,999: 1
0 to 999: 0
Posted Speed Limit
(Miles per Hour)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
Street Category
Parkway Arterial: 4
Major Arterial: 3
Minor Collector: 2
Frontage Street: 1
Intersection Type
Stop Sign at Uncontrolled Intersection (cross traffic
does not stop): 4
Uncontrolled Intersection (traffic does not stop in the
direction of travel): 3
Four Way Stop Sign: 2
Signalized Intersection: 1
Vehicle Collisions Rank
(2010)
Most Crashes (30) to Least Crashes (0)
Proximity of Destinations
Points by destination:
Highway Crossing, Transit Center, or School: 3
Hospital or Retail: 2
Park, Library, or Church: 1
(Highest total: 14; lowest total: 0)
Presence of Bike Lanes
Two Lanes (both sides): 2
One Lane (1 side): 1
Partial Lanes (discontinuities exist on the segment): 1
No Lanes Exist: 0
MPH:
MPH:
MPH:
MPH:
MPH:
MPH:
MPH:
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
10
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
In order to weight each of the variables equally, the scores were normalized – if necessary –
to a 0 or 1 to 5 scale and then summed to create the total score. In each case, the highest
score indicates a greater risk for alternate mode travelers on the segment or higher demand
by alternate mode travelers for the segment.
After the creation of the final risk scores, they were grouped into five categories of relative
interest. The highest risk category received a total score of at least 26 points, indicating
significant concern across nearly every variable. Only one segment received the “high
risk/demand” rating.
The next category, “moderate to high risk/demand”, indicates
significant concern in a majority of categories. The remaining three categories – “moderate
risk/demand,” “low to moderate risk/demand,” and “low risk/demand” – show significant
scores in fewer than half of the variables.
Exhibit 2-5 maps the final score totals by these five categories. High risk and demand
segments would benefit most from improvements in street and intersection safety. Low risk
and demand segments are not well travelled and are relatively safe and therefore present
fewer opportunities for improvement. The map provides a basis for the identification of
possible investment to improve both motor vehicle and alternate mode facilities and safety
and to reduce conflict among modes.
11
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-5: Map of High Demand Street Segments for Alternate Modes
On the segment of Durango Drive north of Oso Blanca Road (colored in red), the confluence
of factors including the presence of a highway crossing, high traffic levels, a high speed
limit, the presence of bike lanes, and the proximity of so many destinations creates an
environment that could benefit significantly from additional improvements to augment
bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The Town Center area, shaded dark gray on the map,
contains a concentration of green and yellow segments representing a higher investment
need than the surrounding areas, such as the less dense residential areas on north and west
12
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
sides of the Study Area. The connections across U.S. 95 are particularly important because
they are high speed, high volume arterials with no available alternate route choices for
alternate mode travelers. The map also illustrates the extent to which Durango Drive
represents a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists between the western residential areas of
Quadrant 1 and the commercial core of the Town Center. Elkhorn Road has a similar
impact. These segments and other red, yellow, and green segments on the prioritization
map indicating that the development of projects to improve alternate modes’ mobility in the
Study Area might provide more benefit in these locations.
Exhibit 2-5 provides a basis for prioritizing roadway improvements to better meet the
needs of alternate modes in the Study Area. Critical intersections where alternate modes
would most benefit from additional traffic control measures to promote safety include:
- Durango Drive and Oso Blanca Road,
- Durango Drive and U.S. 95,
- Durango Drive and Elkhorn Road,
- Durango Drive and Deer Springs Way,
- Elkhorn Road and Grand Montecito Parkway,
- Centennial Center Boulevard and Azure Drive/Tropical Parkway, and
- Durango Drive and Tropical Parkway.
All of these intersections are in Quadrants 1 and 3 within the Town Center and are shown in
Exhibit 2-6 below.
13
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-6: Target Intersections for Traffic Control Safety Measures
It should also be noted that several additional intersections on moderate risk segments
could benefit from the improvement or installation of crosswalks based on specific
conditions that were not practical to include in the general risk assessment approach. In
cases where arterials such as Ann Road and Cimarron Road go significant distances without
interruption by a controlled intersection, pedestrians can be left without a convenient
alternative for crossing the street. The following cases may warrant some level of additional
pedestrian safety improvements:
14
Part II
-
-
-
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
At the Centennial Hills Park, residents to the east have no convenient crosswalk by
which to reach this important neighborhood destination.
On the relatively long segment of Ann Road between Durango Drive and Centennial
Center Parkway, there is no controlled intersection where pedestrians can safely
cross for north-south travel. There is one crosswalk at Buffalo Drive with minimal
safety measures in place.
A segment of multi-use trail connects with Cimarron Road at Hesperides Avenue. If
additional trail development connects this path with the overall trail and bicycle
network, the path may generate significant pedestrian traffic across Cimarron;
however, the nearest intersection is uncontrolled and has no crosswalks.
The baseball field complex on Grand Montecito Parkway currently has no sidewalk
access. A pedestrian connection across Grand Montecito Parkway to Dorrell Lane
would provide alternate modes with safe access from the residential neighborhoods
to the west and from the adjacent retail.
As the street network is completed in the Study Area, it is important to continue to give
attention to avoiding similar issues on new street segments. According to the City of Las
Vegas’ Transportation and Streets and Highways Element (adopted April 15, 2009) Hualapai
Way will provide a primary arterial connection – meaning a 100-foot right-of-way – north to
Horse Drive. The plan shows Grand Canyon Drive providing a primary arterial connection
north from Horse Drive to Kyle Canyon Road. As shown in Exhibit 1-2 (page 2), the
undeveloped neighborhoods north of Grand Teton Drive are mostly zoned as Traditional
Neighborhood Development, with fewer block walls and cul-de-sacs.
Traditional
Neighborhood Development zoning corresponds to medium densities (up to eight dwelling
units per acre) and emphasizes a need to accommodate alternate modes throughout the
street network, both at intersections and along the street segments. Attention to the
quality and spacing of pedestrian crossings will help ensure a high level of accessibility
within and across these new neighborhoods.
15
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
3. ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES
This section focuses on characterizing the state of the existing on-street bicycle network.
The analysis also seeks to identify the critical network gaps which most impede bicycle
mobility in the Study Area with respect to both the existing and planned on-street bike
facilities. Additionally, the analysis seeks to identify bike lanes on higher risk street
segments which could benefit from the deployment of additional traffic control measures to
improve safety.
The City of Las Vegas Master Plan Transportation Trails Element has defined three major
trail classifications:
Bike Lane
A bikeway trail consisting of portions of the roadway,
a minimum of four feet wide (excluding curb and
gutter), that has been designated by striping,
signing, and pavement markings for preferential or
exclusive use of bicyclists traveling in the same
direction as vehicle traffic.
Bike Route
A bikeway trail along a roadway that is designated by
signage for use of bicyclists but shared with vehicular
traffic.
Bike Path
A path intended primarily for bicycles that is
physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic.
Pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, and other
non-motorized users may also use bicycle paths. For
this reason, a bicycle path is also referred to as a
shared use path.
This section is concerned mainly with the first two types of bicycle facilities, and it discusses
bike paths only in the context of how they connect with the on-street bike network. Section
4 addresses bike paths and other off-street trails directly.
In the City of Las Vegas Master Plan Trails Element, Map 3 – On-Street Bicycle Trail
Alignments (p.39) and Map 7 – Town Center On-Street Bicycle Trail Alignments (p.47)
describe a backbone system that circulates through the commercial areas within the Study
Area and provides on-street access from the residential areas to the bike lane network that
runs through the Town Center area. As Exhibit 3-1 shows, when completed, this network
of both bike lanes and bike routes will connect through each of the quadrants in the Study
Area.
16
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-1: Adopted On-Street Bicycle Facilities
Roadway Name
Grand Teton
Alignment
E/W
Quadrant
1, 2
Route
x
Lane
Elkhorn
E/W
1, 2
X
Tropical
E/W
3
X
Ann Road
E/W
3, 4
Azure
E/W
4
Oso Blanca
N/S
1
x*
Durango
N/S
1, 2, 3
x
Grand Montecito
N/S
1, 3
Grand Canyon
N/S
1, 3
El Capitan
N/S
2
x
Tenaya
N/S
2, 4
x
Sky Pointe
N/S
2
x
Centennial
N/S
3
x*
Centennial Center
N/S
3
x
X
X
X
X
X
*Outside town center
3.1 Existing Bicycle Network Conditions
While the City of Las Vegas’ Master Plan Transportation Trails Element4 identifies a complete
bike route and bike lane system, the actual bicycle network in the Study Area includes a
fragmented set of bicycle lane segments, many of which do not correspond to the planned
routes. Exhibit 3-2 provides a table showing the extent to which the planned bicycle lane
network is complete.
Exhibit 3-2: Implementation of Planned Bike Lane Network
Designated Bicycle Lane
Network Segment
Elkhorn Road
Existing Distance
1 lane
2 lanes
0.3
2.7
Planned
Distance
3.1
Percent
Complete
94%
Oso Blanca Rd/Grand Montecito Pkwy
0.0
2.0
3.4
61%
Centennial Center Pkwy
0.3
1.9
2.2
93%
Tropical Pkwy/Azure Dr
0.1
1.1
1.7
68%
Cimarron Rd/Sky Pointe Dr
0.0
1.8
1.8
100%
Sky Pointe Dr/Tenaya Way
0.2
0.4
1.0
47%
The routes in Exhibit 3.2 are important since they connect the four quadrants together
across the two highways and facilitate access to the Town Center. These segments are also
4 Adopted January 16, 2002 and revised January 20, 2005; Map 3 (p.39) and Map 7 (p.47) describe the planned
bicycle network.
17
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
particularly important because in several cases they correspond to higher traffic and higher
speed segments. Exhibit 3-3 maps both the existing speed limits and the existing bike
lane network. Elkhorn Road, Grand Montecito Parkway, Tropical Parkway and Azure Drive,
and Centennial Center Parkway do not have smaller, slower streets that could serve as
convenient alternatives for bicyclists. Critical gaps in the lanes on these street segments
continue to exist and represent an ongoing safety concern.
Exhibit 3-3: Existing Bike Lanes and Speed Limits in the Study Area
18
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-3 shows the core network exists mostly on higher speed streets with 35 and even
45 MPH speed limits. The map also highlights how fragmented the bike lane network is
apart from the City of Las Vegas’ planned network. The area would benefit from the
completion of this network and its integration into a planned bike network.
The study team encountered difficulty in verifying the implementation of the planned bike
routes in the Study Area.
Where they exist, bike routes seemed to be poorly or
intermittently signed and typically coincide with the existence of a bike lane. If the bike
route system is to function effectively and attract increased bicycle traffic, there needs to be
more effective use of signage and traffic control measures to promote improved awareness
of and safety on these routes. RTC has documented one official bike route in the Study
Area on Ann Road between Durango Drive and Centennial Center Parkway. It should be
noted that this is a higher speed limit street in the context of the Study Area. The two
major planned bike routes in the Study Area would use Durango Drive and Buffalo Drive
north of CC-215, both of which are also higher speed limit streets. The planned bike route
network will help improve safety for those cyclists that choose to use these streets, but it is
best not considered to be a part of the core bicycle system in the Study Area. The through
streets in the Study Area are constructed for higher traffic volumes, and the dedicated
right-of-way space of a bike lane offers a higher level safety for these routes.
3.2 Bicycle Network Needs
Providing continuity in the core bike lane network can help encourage bicycling, so one
priority is to close the gaps in the City of Las Vegas’ planned bike lane network mapped in
Exhibit 3-2. However, as previously noted, the existing bike lane network makes more use
of higher speed streets than of naturally calmer streets. Also, it should be noted that RTC is
planning to significantly expand the network in 2011.
The bike lanes planned for
construction are noted in Exhibit 3-4. They cover important network gaps in Quadrants 1
and 2 and provide cyclists with dedicated road space on several higher speed limits streets
– Durango Drive, Buffalo Drive, and Farm Road.
Using the prioritization map from Exhibit 2-4, the map below in Exhibit 3-4 shows the
potential for using calmer streets to enhance and extend the existing bike lane system.
19
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-4: Existing Bike Lanes and Roadway and Intersection Risk Levels
Bicycle transportation trips generally have similar patterns to motorized travel: trips are
generated in residential areas with destinations such as schools, shopping, commercial
areas, employment, and recreational destinations such as parks and recreational bike trails.
These patterns of demand and the maps from Exhibits 3-3 and 3-4 support the selection
of additional candidate segments that would best improve the existing bike lane network.
Such segments include:
- Grand Canyon Drive,
- Tropical Parkway,
20
Part II
-
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Sky Pointe Drive/Tule Springs Road (north of US 95),
Oso Blanca Road between Farm Road and Gilcrease Avenue,
The Durango Drive crossing of US 95,
Fort Apache Road north of US 95.
If the US 95 frontage roads are eventually widened, that would offer another opportunity to
extend the bike lane network. The frontage roads provide the most direct connections
between highway crossings.
The frontage roads also offer bicyclists long distance
connections with a minimal number of driveways and intersections per mile. However, they
currently have insufficient shoulder width to accommodate standard bike lanes.
Since the existing lanes are disproportionately on high speed limit streets and on street
segments prioritized for improvements (based Section 2), there are also opportunities to
improve the existing bike lane network. One possible priority would be to investigate
alternatives to improve bike lane safety on higher speed streets, especially those included in
the City of Las Vegas’ planned bike network.
Another possibility is to make more use of the paved multi-use paths as connections.
Opportunities include the trail off of El Capitan Way at the Lowe’s Home Improvement store
and the path connecting the east side of the Elkhorn Road crossing of U.S. 95 with Tule
Springs Road. The first path could be extended along the U.S. 95 right-of-way (ROW) to
the Grand Teton Drive Subgrade trail crossing and the first quadrant’s bike network along
Grand Teton and Fort Apache Road. The second path could connect with an extension of
the Sky Pointe Road bike lanes. Another paved bicycle path provides an off-street
connection between Grand Montecito Parkway and Tropical Parkway and also the back of
the Centennial Center shopping center. Completing the Grand Montecito and Tropical
Parkway bike lanes would complete connections with this path and offer more route choices
across the third quadrant.
Finally, traffic control measures can be implemented to improve bicyclists’ safety on streets
with existing lanes. For instance, better signage increases drivers’ awareness of the
presence of a bicycle route and attracts more bicyclists to use existing routes instead of
streets without lanes or shoulders. Shoulder lanes’ widths can be checked to find whether
the location of the lane line gives riders sufficient space for comfortable riding. Where
routes have on-street parking, it is important to verify that the lane also has sufficient space
and is appropriately delineated. Lastly, because traffic speed plays a major role in safety
and because so many of the existing bicycle lanes are on higher speed streets, speed limit
reductions worth considering for key street segments:
- Elkhorn Road between Campbell Road and Durango Drive
- The complete length of Grand Montecito Parkway
- Tropical Parkway between Durango Drive and Tenaya Way.
21
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
4. TRAILS: NON-EQUESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN
This section describes the existing status of multi-use and equestrian trails in the Study
Area and identifies gaps with respect to equestrian network connectivity within and between
quadrants.
4.1 Trail Types
Both recreational trail and transportation trail needs are important components of alternate
mobility needs. The City of Las Vegas Master Plan provides the following descriptions of trail
types:
Transportation Trails – intended primarily for transportation purposes
(1)
Multi-Use Transportation Trails:
 Off-street bicycle facilities or bicycle paths are referred to as “multi-use trails”
or “shared use trails” because these paths can be used by bicyclists,
pedestrians, and others;
 These facilities typically have paved trail paths separated from the roadway
and designed for exclusively for non-motorized travel;
 Sidewalks adjacent to travel are not considered a multi-use trail;
 Multi-use trails are typically designed as grade separated facilities.
Recreation Trails – intended primarily for recreation purposes
(2)
Equestrian Trails:
 These are recreation trails specifically designed for equestrians with design
elements including a soft surface and fencing.5
(3)
Multi-Use Equestrian Trails:
 Multi-use equestrian trails are routes that provide both a soft surface facility
intended for equestrians and a parallel multi-use path intended for shared use
by pedestrians, bicyclists, and skaters.
4.2 Existing Trail Network Conditions
The most important aspect of the current trail network is its connectivity. Within the US 95
Access Study area, the existing trail network includes facilities within the jurisdictions of
both Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. This section first addresses trails providing
equestrian access and then examines multi-use trails intended primarily for non-equestrian
use. It is important to note that equestrian travel tends to be recreational in nature and
follows different patterns within the study area. The existing equestrian trail system
5 Note that the RTC only provides funding for ADA accessible trail facilities. While most equestrian facilities would not
qualify for RTC funding, equestrian uses are an important element of travel patterns in the study area and
represent a legitimate mobility need and are therefore addressed as part of this report.
22
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
extends across the area north of CC-215 connecting the Lone Pine RNP and Quadrant 1 to
the Gilcrease RNP and Floyd Lamb State Park in Quadrant 2. In Quadrant 3, there is only a
small trail segment, although there is an informal trail network west of Durango Drive just
outside the Study Area. Quadrant 4 has no existing equestrian trail segments. The existing
equestrian trails residing within the City of Las Vegas and in the RNPs are shown in Exhibit
4-1.
Exhibit 4-1: Existing Equestrian Trails Network
23
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The two trail categories, equestrian only and multi-use equestrian, do not necessarily imply
enforcement of the modal designation but rather denote the design approach used.
Equestrian only paths are routes that only offer a soft surface path, usually constructed of
decomposed granite and grade separated from the street. A multi-use equestrian trail
implies the existence of both paved and soft trails.
In the Study Area, there are two short north-south routes located north of CC-215:
 Quadrant 1 of the Study Area includes a trail along Hualapai Way, from Grand Teton
Drive to Severence Lane where there is a gap traversing the Lone Pine Rural
Preservation Neighborhood (RNP) with just a small trail segment adjacent to CC-215;
 The north-south trail runs along El Capitan Way and Durango Drive briefly and
connects the east-west trail along Grand Teton Drive to the northern edge of the
Study Area near the City of Las Vegas’ boundary.
The only east-west trail runs along Grand Teton Drive and completely traverses Quadrants 1
and 2:
 In Quadrant 2 of the Study Area, the trail runs along Grand Teton from Buffalo Drive
to the eastern limits of the Study Area near Tenaya Way and includes the only
grade-separated crossing of US 95. The trail has yet to be completed west of US 95;
plans show this trail traversing the north section of the city from Puli Road to
Decatur. Most importantly this trail provides access to Floyd Lamb State Park and will
eventually connect it to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
Another planned equestrian trail is located in Quadrant 3 but no segments yet exist:
 The planned east-west route traverses the Gilcrease RNP along La Mancha Avenue
from Durango Drive to CC-215 with spurs on Ruffian Street and Dapple Gray Road.
In the City of Las Vegas Master Plan Recreation Trails Element, Map No. 2 – Off-Street
Recreation Trail Alignments (p. 25) defines the equestrian trial network in the Study Area.
With the exception of segments on Grand Teton Drive and Severence Lane, this network is
nearly complete. Exhibit 4-2 details the implementation progress by Study Area quadrant.
Exhibit 4-2: Equestrian Trails Network State of Implementation
Quadrant
#1
#2
#3
#4
Existing
Miles
1.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
Planned
Miles
2.2
3.6
0.0
0.0
Percent
Complete
52%
100%
N/A
N/A
While Exhibit 4-2 shows substantial progress toward completion of the planned equestrian
network, significant gaps remain in the planned network of paved multi-use trails. One
24
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
issue with off-street trail planning in the Study Area is that many planned transportation
trails have been constructed as sidewalks. While many of these are wide sidewalk paths
measuring between eight and ten feet across and represent an attractive facility to alternate
mode travelers, their design does not accommodate safe bike travel as well as a fully
grade-separated trail would. Sidewalks, even if designated for bicycle use, are often
punctuated by driveways or run directly adjacent to relatively high speed traffic. While
these sidewalk paths are a valuable component of the alternate modes network, the focus in
this section is on fully functional multi-use transportation trails meeting the design
standards set forth in the Master Plan Transportation Trails Element. Exhibit 4-3 provides
a map of the existing off-street trail network in the Study Area and its vicinity.
Exhibit 4-3: Existing Multi-Use Trails Network
25
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
All four quadrants of the Study Area include at least one paved trail segment. The longest
segment, running parallel to Azure Drive in Quadrant 4, covers a distance that just exceeds
0.6 miles. Most of the transportation trail segments are much shorter, running through a
park or along the edge of schools or bridging discontinuities in the street network. Exhibit
4-4 shows the existing and proposed trail network for the area. As shown in Exhibit 4-5,
significant portions of the network remained incomplete.
Exhibit 4-4 Existing and Proposed Off-Street Trail Network
Source: “Shared Use Trails and Land Use” map, RTC IT Department GIS, September 2008
26
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The table in Exhibit 4-5 provides the state of implementation for the non-equestrian offstreet trails system both including and without the sidewalk paths. The table uses the
planned network described by Maps 2 (p.37) and 6 (p.45) in the City of Las Vegas Master
Plan Transportation Trails Element.
Exhibit 4-5: Multi-Use Trails Network State of Implementation
Existing
% Complete:
Existing
Multi-Use +
% Complete:
Multi-Use +
Multi-Use
Sidewalk
Planned
Multi-Use
Sidewalk
Quadrant
Miles
Path Miles
Miles
Only
Paths
#1
0.1
5.0
5.4
3%
92%
#2
1.2
2.2
10.5
12%
21%
#3
1.0
0.4
5.8
17%
7%
#4
0.6
0.2
2.2
28%
8%
Both US 95 and CC-215 create barriers for trail users between the quadrants. At this time
only one crossing currently exists near Grand Teton and US 95, this crossing provides
grade-separated equestrian access across US 95. Exhibit 4-6 also identifies the existing
and proposed equestrian crossings located in the US 95 Access Study Area. Note that
planning is underway to provide a new above grade trail link across the planned Grand
Teton overpass of US 95. Also, the Hualapai crossing of CC-215 has a trail crossing in
place, but without any trail approaches.
27
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-6: Existing and Planned Off-Street Highway Crossings
Source: City of Las Vegas Master Plan Recreation Trails Element (February 2009) Map No. 2 (p.25)
To complete the evaluation of trail network gaps in the Study Area, it is important to
characterize likely demand for these potential trails. The study team identified the origins
and destinations for equestrian trips and multi-use trail trips. The Clark County, Nevada
Equestrian Trails Study (April, 2007) analyzed the public demand for equestrian trail
network in the Rural Neighborhood Preservation (RNP) areas.
It identified a high
concentration of horses in the vicinity of Quadrant 2: 368 horses live in this area, most just
outside the Study Area. The County’s study also counted 581 horses in the vicinity of
Quadrant 3 with facilities for as many as 940. The Clark County Study did not explore the
equestrian travel demand in the Quadrant 1 of the US 95 Access Study area. This area
includes the Lone Pine RNP area where there is also likely significant demand.
28
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Equestrian travel differs from other non-motorized travel as these trips are usually destined
for recreational areas. The Clark County study noted the Floyd Lamb State Park to the east
and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) lands to the west as destinations for equestrians. These are also likely destinations
for recreational bicyclists, walkers, and runners.
Multi-use trails serve both the recreational trips noted above and traditional transportation
trips. Multi-use trail users need access to land uses such as residential areas, schools,
mixed use commercial, employment sites, and the Centennial Transit Center and Park and
Ride. A majority of the residential use occurs along the outer perimeter of the study area
while commercial centers are adjacent to US 95 and CC-215. Schools and parks are
scattered fairly uniformly across the Study Area. However, the multi-use trail users also
travel to the same recreational destinations noted for equestrian trail users.
4.3 Trail Network Needs
As noted earlier, the equestrian trail network intends to provide a network connects the
areas in which horses reside to the primary recreational destinations: Floyd Lamb State Park
and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and other BLM lands to the west. The
trail gap on Grand Teton Avenue west of US 95 is a major barrier to east-west travel
between Quadrants 1 and 2. However, the trail network also needs completion west of the
Study Area to reach the BLM trailheads. The other gap Grand Teton Drive just east of the
Study Area is less crucial to equestrian mobility because of the existence of soft street
shoulders in this area but also represents an important long-term need to complete the
area’s equestrian trail network.
Within Quadrant 2, there also is an existing equestrian trail gap – visible in Exhibit 4-3 – in
the Grand Teton trail between Buffalo Drive and Tenaya Way. The City of Las Vegas’ “OffStreet Recreation Trail Alignment” map in the Master Plan Recreation Trails Element (2005)
shows this connection routed along Racel Street and Tenaya Way. This trail would complete
the connection between the Gilcrease RNP to the east of the Study Area and the western
open space areas and Floyd Lamb State Park. A trail segment opportunity not currently
noted in any plan exists just outside of Quadrant 2 to link the El Capitan Way horse trail
with Floyd Lamb State Park at Log Cabin Way; this potential segment is noted in Exhibit 48.
The relatively high number of horses in Quadrant 3 and its vicinity indicates demand for an
equestrian accessible trail connection to the existing trail system in Quadrants 1 and 2.
Such a connection would require linking the now complete equestrian crossing noted in
Exhibit 4-6 at Hualapai and CC-215 to the Grand Canyon Drive equestrian trail alignment.
Such a connection could parallel the planned Las Vegas Beltway trail between Grand Canyon
Drive and Hualapai Way and then continue along the Beltway trail to connect into the BLM
29
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
trail system to the west. The Hualapai-CC-215 crossing would then effectively provide
residents in the Lone Pine RNP additional equestrian access to the recreational facilities to
the southwest of the study area, (e.g., the Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area). This trail
connection is not part of an existing plan. This equestrian trail connection is not a part of
any existing plan, but is an important opportunity and is noted Exhibit 4-8.
Quadrant 3 does not currently include any soft trail segments. While the RNP to the west of
Quadrant 3 is an important equestrian area, the lack of horse facilities in Quadrant 3 and of
connections across US 95 between Quadrants 3 and 4 suggests that no future soft surface
trails will be needed.
Exhibit 4-7: Paved Sidewalk Path and Horse Trail in the Study Area
Source: The consultant team, January 2011
While the Gilcrease RNP does include a small group of parcels in Quadrant 4 at Gilcrease
and Tenaya, this area only represents a small very fraction of equestrian facilities and
demand in the Study Area and its vicinity. The City of Las Vegas has not identified any
equestrian trail facilities to connect Quadrant 4 with any of the other parts of the Study
Area. However, there may be some opportunity to include an equestrian accessible
connection across CC-215 at Tenaya Way. Because more of the larger RNP size and greater
horse density to the east of Quadrant 4, Torrey Pines Drive is a more promising location for
a future above-grade equestrian crossing. The City of Las Vegas’ Master Plan Recreation
Trails Element also shows a multi-use trail alignment which is partially complete and
includes a soft surface trail. However, since above grade crossings are usually costly, it
may be best to consider any equestrian crossing across CC-215 as part of a future
overpass.
30
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The final important issue with the existing equestrian network is the presence of two
problematic existing equestrian crossings, all Quadrant 2. The most important one is the
intersection of Ackerman Avenue with Durango Drive. The intersection is uncontrolled with
a 40 MPH speed limit. The location may warrant additional traffic control measures to
improve equestrian, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety at the intersection. Just outside the
Study Area, there is also a crossing on Racel Street from the termination of the horse trail
to Floyd Lamb State Park across the street. Additional traffic control improvements could
also reduce the risk of this crossing. Exhibit 4-8 shows the location of these two crossings
and of the existing equestrian trail gaps.
Exhibit 4-8: Equestrian Network Gaps
31
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The next set of trail needs relates to the off-street multi-use trail network. The sidewalk
path system provides the most connectivity for the Study Area’s off-street paved trail
system. Other shared used trails represent a highly fragmented network that is not
currently amenable to longer trips. Two major opportunities exist to improve the multi-use
trail network. The first opportunity is to complete the network of sidewalk paths:
 Complete the Fort Apache Road sidewalk path
 Complete the Durango Drive sidewalk path
 Complete the Grand Teton Drive sidewalk path
 Improve the Grand Teton Drive-US 95 trail crossing to better accommodate bicyclists
and pedestrians
 Improve the sidewalk facilities along the Durango Drive and Grand Montecito
Parkway crossings of CC-215.
Another long term alternative might be to provide a trail crossing as part of the US 95-CC215 interchange reconstruction. The reconstruction might include either a north-south or
an east-west connection or both.
The second opportunity to improve the off-street trail network is to develop a backbone
system of multi-use trails along the highway ROWs. The CC-215 Beltway Trail is already
planned to traverse the Study Area along CC-215. A similar trail is possible along US 95 for
the length of the Study Area. The size of the ROW in both cases is sufficient that they could
accommodate both multi-use and equestrian (soft surface) trails. Priority multi-use trail
segments include:
 A connection along Sky Pointe Drive and Tule Springs Road between the Centennial
Crossroads Plaza, Elkhorn Drive, and the commercial center on Durango Drive
 A connection along Centennial Parkway east from the Centennial Crossroads Plaza
to Tenaya Way (connecting to the future CC-215 Beltway Trail)
 Completion of the existing trail from the commercial center at Durango Drive and El
Capitan Way (behind the Lowe’s store) to the Grand Teton Drive trail crossing
 The connection of the multi-use trail segments within the Town Center area in
Quadrant 3
 The completion of the CC-215 Beltway Trail between Fort Apache Road and Grand
Montecito Parkway.
Over the long term, US 95 provides right-of-way to provide a multi-use trail connection
north to the Kyle Canyon Road interchange and to the Nu-Wav Kaiv Boulevard interchange
and the Snow Mountain Paiute Golf Club interchange. Also, the northward extension of the
Hualapai Way sidewalk path would connect the northern Study Area into the extensive
Quadrant 1 multi-use trail system and connect residential neighborhoods to potential
mixed-use areas to the north for retail and other services.
32
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-9 highlights these potential multi-use trail connections. No issues were identified
related to multi-use trail street crossings.
Exhibit 4-9: Off-Street Multi-Use Trail Network Gaps
33
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
5. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
This section evaluates existing sidewalk facilities in the US 95 Study Area, evaluates the
connectivity of the system, and identifies discontinuities in the network.
5.1 Pedestrian Sidewalk Types
Sidewalks in the network are those built as part of fully improved streets. Typically, fully
improved street standards include 48-foot-wide ROWs in residential areas (except in
planned unit developments), collector streets up to 80 feet wide, frontage roads with up to
90-foot-wide ROWs, and arterial and parkways (ROW greater 90-foot). Sidewalk widths,
amenities, and landscape zones vary for each of the aforementioned ROW sizes. Sidewalk
width can range from a minimum of 5 feet to as much as 15 feet with attendant amenities
on parkways and primary arterials.
Because planned unit developments (PUDs) are
generally self-contained with respect to pedestrian traffic, they are not considered as part of
the network. However, the perimeters of PUDs are integral to the system and must be
developed to the pertinent standards, and therefore are considered in this analysis. The
same holds true for gated communities and private streets. Exhibit 5-1 shows the street
classifications within the Study Area.
Exhibit 5-1: Corridor Right-of-Way Widths
Source: City of Las Vegas Centennial Hills Sector Plan (March 1, 2006)
34
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
5.2 Existing Side Walk Conditions
The corridor contains approximately 52 miles of public sidewalks6 excluding trail systems.
The corridor has the capacity to accommodate an additional 13 miles (approximately). GIS
data files, aerial photography analysis, and field verification provided the basis for this
analysis.
Exhibit 5-2: Study Area Sidewalk with
Within the US 95 Access Study area,
the existing sidewalk network crosses
Clark County and the City of Las
Vegas jurisdictional lines. Since both
the County and City use the Uniform
Design Standards for Streets (Clark
County 1997) as the minimum
standard, the analysis considered
sidewalk
sections
without
distinguishing between jurisdictions.
However, note that some RNPs use
rural design standards; these are
shaded yellow in Exhibit 5-5.
Finally, note that pedestrian travel is
defined as short (typically less than 1 mile), localized trips. These short trips are generally
for the purposes of connecting to:
 Retail/Commercial
 Schools
 Parks/Recreational centers
 Larger Trail Systems.
The existing networks are generally located within fully developed areas, meaning those
that have development on at least one side of the street and where at least half of the
required street improvements have been installed according to County design standards.
Quadrant 1 is highly developed and includes complete sidewalks for all major east-west
streets on the east side of Fort Apache Road. The sidewalk connects to the existing trail
along Grand Teton providing access from the northwest quadrant of the study area to the
northeast quadrant. Destinations in Quadrant 1 include:
 Mt. Ridge Park at the southeast corner of Elkhorn Road and Grand Montecito
Parkway
 Centennial Transit Center and Park and Ride at the northeast corner of Durango
Drive and Elkhorn Road
6 Each sidewalk mile counts only a single side of the street.
35
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Thompson Elementary at the southwest corner of Campbell and Severence Lane
Escobedo Middle School at Grand Canyon Drive and Echelon Place
The dog park and playground located at the northeast of Elkhorn Road and Fort
Apache Road.
Major retail exists along the Durango Drive-Elkhorn Road intersection and the Durango
Drive-US 95 interchange. In addition, these destinations are all on well developed ROWs
and are served by sidewalks on adjacent streets.



Quadrant 2 is also highly developed with sidewalk networks connecting throughout.
Destinations in Quadrant 2 include:
 Bilbray Elementary in the far north of the quadrant near Kyle Canyon Road
 Spring Mount Ranch Community Park near Racel Street and Horse Drive
 Arbor View High School at the southeast corner of Grand Teton Drive and Buffalo
Drive;
 Rhodes Elementary at Buffalo Drive and Sunny Springs Lane;
 Centennial Hills Park adjacent to Rhodes Elementary School
 The Creech Air Force Base Park and Ride at the US 95/CC-215 interchange7.
Note the Creech Air Force Base Park and Ride falls within the Quadrant 4 boundary,
although vehicular access is from Quadrant 2 and there is no sidewalk system connecting to
Quadrant 2 or Quadrant 4 sidewalk networks. Major retail exists at the Durango Drive-US
95 interchange and planned commercial exists at CC-215.
Quadrant 3 is almost fully built out with along CC-215 development and or commercial
planned use concentration of commercial at CC-215 and US 95. Quadrant 3’s retail centers
are major destination for pedestrian foot traffic. Destinations include:
 Major Retail along US 95 and CC-215 to Durango Drive;
 NW Career Technical School at Tropical Parkway east of Durango Drive.
Major retail development is located along the Durango corridor and the CC-215 and US 95
corridors that bound the quadrant on the north and east sides.
Quadrant 4 the smallest of the quadrants and is essentially fully built out with the exception
of several undeveloped/underdeveloped rural parcels east of Tenaya Way. The sidewalk
network is fully developed in this quadrant. There are no major schools or park destinations
with the Quadrant 4 but there are commercial destinations along CC-215.
Existing highway crossings
Both US 95 and CC-215 create barriers for pedestrian users between the quadrants. Northsouth crossings between Quadrants 1 and 3 exist at the Durango Drive/CC-215 interchange
7 Note that the Creech Air Force Base Park and Ride is a temporary facility will be closed and eliminated as part of
the reconstruction of the US 95-CC-215 interchange with regional park-and-ride services consolidated at the new
Centennial Hills Park and Ride and Transit Center.
36
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
and at the Grand Montecito Parkway/CC-215 Crossing. The Tenaya Way crossing connects
Quadrants 2 and 4. There is no direct connection between Quadrants 1 and 4 or between
Quadrants 2 and 3.
The east-west crossings for Quadrants 1 to 2 are at the Durango Drive-US 95 interchange
and the Elkhorn Road crossing of US 95, although the overall sidewalk continuity for the
Durango Interchange is discontinuous (See Section 6.3 below). The new Horse Drive-US 95
interchange provides a new crossing at the north end of the Study Area. Azure Drive and
Ann Road provide east-west crossings between Quadrants 3 and 4.
5.3 Sidewalk Needs
Overall connectivity within quadrants is well developed with exception of some key areas.
Within Quadrant 1 east-west connectivity is good within the major streets. Exhibit 5-3
provides an example of the sidewalk coverage analysis:
Exhibit 5-3: Sidewalk Connectivity in Quadrant 1
Street Name
Existing Sidewalk
Segment Start
Segment End
East-West
Deer Springs
Yes
Grand Canyon
Grand Montecito
Elkhorn
One Side
Grand Canyon
North Frontage Align
Severence
Yes
Hualapai
North Frontage Rd
Farm
Yes
Grand Canyon
North Frontage Rd
Grand Teton
Intermittent
Hualapai
Tee Pee
North-South
Hualapai
Intermittent
Severence
Grand Teton
Grand Canyon
Intermittent
Deer Springs
North Tee Pee
Fort Apache
Yes
Deer Springs
Gilcrease
Severence
Yes
Hualapai
North Frontage Rd
Farm
Yes
Grand Canyon
North Frontage Rd
Grand Teton
Intermittent
Hualapai
Tee Pee
Durango
Yes
CC-215
North Frontage Road
Exhibit 5-4 summarizes the sidewalk coverage by quadrant.
37
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 5-4: Sidewalk Network State of Implementation
Quadrant
Existing Miles
Needed Miles
Percent Coverage
#1
17.3
4.1
81%
#2
23.5
4.5
84%
#3
6.1
4.2
60%
#4
5.1
0.1
98%
In Quadrant 1, the critical missing or undeveloped sidewalk segments include the following:
 Grand Teton Drive from Tee Pee Lane to Oso Blanca Road;
 Durango from Oso Blanca Road to the US 95 southbound on and off ramps;
 Deer Springs Way between Durango Drive and Oso Blanca Road;
 Oso Blanca Road between Gilcrease Avenue and Kyle Canyon Road and between
Severence and CC-215.
Quadrant 2 has
the exception of
the retail center
1, the frontage
sidewalks.
sufficient connectivity within all residential and
the Fort Apache alignment between Racel Street
on the south corner of Durango Drive and Farm
road between Grand Teton and Kyle Canyon
commercial corridors with
and Brent Lane and within
Road. Also as in Quadrant
does not have improved
Quadrant 3 has the least comprehensive sidewalk network due to the RNP zoning loosely
bounded by Durango Drive, Fort Apache Road, and Tropical Parkway. RNPs use the
county’s rural street standards which don’t provide for fully developed sidewalks.
Development of sidewalks south and west of Durango Drive and Tropical Parkway and west
of Jannell Drive is not a priority. Exhibit 5-5 shades these areas in yellow and colors
sidewalk gaps in blue. Priority sidewalk gaps in the Study Area include:
 Centennial Parkway from Durango Drive east to the Town Center commercial
development approximately ¼ mile east of Grand Montecito Parkway
 The Durango Drive alignment between Tropical Parkway and Centennial Parkway
 El Capitan Way between Centennial Parkway and Ann Road.
Finally, Quadrant 4 has both comprehensive inter-quadrant and intra-quadrant connectivity
with continuous network of sidewalks connecting on Tropical to Quadrant 3 to the West and
on Tenaya to Quadrant 2 to the north.
38
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 5-5: Study Area Sidewalk Connectivity
39
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
6. TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES
This section evaluates existing transit services in the US 95 study area, considers levels of
utilization and demand, and identifies potential unmet transit needs.
6.1 Existing Transit Service Characteristics
The Study Area remains an area with limited transit service. Service revolves around the
Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride and includes one local route (Route 106 A
and B) and one commuter route (the Centennial Express or CX line). Exhibit 6-1 shows a
map of service in the Study Area (highlighted in pink).
Exhibit 6-1: Map of Transit Service in the Study Area
Source: RTC Transit Map, November 7, 2010
40
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Spans of service for these routes are as follows:

Route 106: In the southbound direction from the study area to downtown Las
Vegas, weekday service operates from 3:55 am to 1:51 am. In the northbound
direction from downtown Las Vegas to the study area, weekday service operates
from 4:27 am to 2:15 am. Weekend/holiday service has similar service spans.

CX Line: In the southbound direction, weekday service operates from 5:20 am to
11:44 pm. In the northbound direction, weekday service operates from 7:02 am to
12:54 am. Weekend/holiday service has similar service spans.
Service frequencies are as follows:

Route 106: Service frequencies are about every 30 minutes throughout most of the
day. Within the study area, one trip per hour operates in the counter-clockwise
direction (route 106A); another trip per hour operates in the clockwise direction
(route 106B). As a result, the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride is
served about every half hour. After about 8 pm, service frequencies are about every
hour. Service frequencies are similar on weekends/holidays as on weekdays.

CX Line: During weekday peak periods in the peak direction (southbound from about
5:30 am to 8:30 am; northbound from about 3:00 pm to 6:30 pm), service operates
about every 15 to 20 minutes. Service operates on an hourly basis during other
times on the weekdays and on weekends/holidays.
Major stop locations are as follows:

Route 106: Within the study area, major stops include: Centennial Hills Transit
Center and Park & Ride; Farm Rd at Tule Springs Rd; Sky Pointe Rd at Centennial
Parkway; Centennial Center at Azure Rd; and Ann Rd at Tenaya Parkway. Route 106
has a number of other stops in the study area as well, as identified in the next
subsection. The route also serves stop locations on Rancho Drive, and ending at the
Bonneville Transit Center in downtown Las Vegas.

CX Line: This route runs express between the Centennial Hills Transit Center and
Park & Ride and downtown Las Vegas via US 95, then continuing to UNLV via I-15.
6.2 Transit Service Performance
RTC provided transit service performance data for Route 106 and the Centennial Express
(CX) Line, including average daily ridership, ons/offs by stop, and on-time performance.
Exhibit 6-2 provides route-level average weekday ridership from July to September 2010,
sorted from highest to lowest. Transit routes that serve the Strip operate in areas with land
uses and densities that are vastly different from the US 95 Study Area; its ridership is not
comparable to suburban services that are the focus of this section and are not shown.
41
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 6-2: Route-Level Average Weekday Ridership
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
202
109
206
201
204
110
107
210
115
103
213
111
101
113
208
108
203
106
105
102
104
119
215
218
219
207
212
117
217
209
214
CX
402
211
0
Source: RTC Monthly Ridership Statistics, July through September 2010.
Notes: Excludes routes that
operate on the Strip. Routes 408 and 409 are not shown due to lack of functional data.
Of the 34 RTC routes for which data is available, Route 106 ranks #18 at 2,436 average
weekday riders and the CX Line ranks #32 at 724 average weekday riders.8
For Saturdays, Route 106 ranks #18 among the 34 RTC routes at 2,097 average Saturday
riders and the CX Line ranks #33 at 482 average Saturday riders. For Sundays, Route 106
ranks #17 at 1,686 average Sunday riders and the CX Line ranks #34 at 466 average
Sunday Riders.
Exhibit 6-3 provides route-level average weekday passengers per vehicle service hour
(PPSH) from July to September 2010, which is a measure of service productivity. The
routes are sorted from highest to lowest.
8 Note that CX service only began in March 2010 and has likely not reached its full potential ridership. In the six
months from July 2010 through December 2010, the CX line’s monthly growth averaged 4.7 percent, hitting
25,740 in December 2010.
42
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 6-3: Route-Level Average Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
109
202
201
107
115
206
204
103
110
215
113
101
210
102
105
108
117
219
203
111
213
106
218
208
214
209
104
212
217
211
119
207
402
CX
0.0
Source: RTC Monthly Ridership Statistics, July through September 2010.
Notes: Excludes routes that operate on
the Strip. Routes 408 and 409 are not shown due to lack of functional data.
Of the 34 RTC routes for which data is available, Route 106 ranks #22 at 28.4 weekday
PPSH and the CX Line ranks #34 at 12.8 weekday PPSH.
For Saturdays, Route 106 ranks #18 among the 34 RTC routes at 26.5 PPSH and the CX
Line ranks #34 at 12.9 PPSH. For Sundays, Route 106 ranks #19 at 21.2 PPSH and the CX
Line ranks #33 at 12.3 PPSH.
It should be noted that PPSH is not necessarily the most relevant performance metric for
express routes such as the CX, for which average passenger trip lengths tend to be
significantly longer than local routes. A more useful metric could be average passenger
load, but this data is not available.
Exhibit 6-4 shows the top ten locations in the study area with respect to Route 106 transit
activity (average weekday ons and offs per vehicle trip).
43
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 6-4: Top Locations of Transit Activity in the Study Area
Source: RTC Weekday Ridership by Stop Data, March 2009, with the transit center added
The stop locations with the highest activity are:

#1: Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride Lot

#2 to #5:
Springs

#6 to #10: Ann/Drexel; Durango/Farm; Buffalo/Farm; Sky Pointe/Ranch House;
Cimarron/Deer Springs
Durango/Elkhorn; Farm/Tule Springs; Durango/Dorrell; Durango/Deer
Exhibit 6-5 provides a schematic of the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride
from the RTC Transit Guide.
44
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 6-5: Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park and Ride
Source: RTC Transit Guide, page 15, November 2010.
There are about 900 parking spaces at the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park & Ride.
The exact utilization of the lot is not known, and the lot serves transit riders, private shuttle
operators passengers, and carpoolers. Much of the CX Line ridership is generated by those
who walk to the transit center, get dropped off, or use Route 106 as a feeder service. The
utilization of other transit assets at the Transit Center (such as bicycle parking spaces) is
also not available at this time. However, a field visit to the site did reveal a shortage of
bicycle parking, with approximately ten bicycle rack spaces available, all of them in use.
This shortage was corroborated by RTC’s security guard who noted that bicyclists often try
to park their bikes against sign posts and use other casual parking locations. Both an
indoor waiting area as well as multiple outdoor waiting shelters is available for RTC
passengers. Sidewalk connections exist to the Transit Center on both Oso Blanca Road and
Grand Montecito Parkway. The former connection is a temporary sidewalk made from
recycled asphalt, and the latter is a standard sidewalk. No pedestrian impediments exist at
the transit center.
45
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 6-6 shows the amenities available at the other top bus stop locations in the Study
Area.
Exhibit 6-6: Existing Conditions at Top Study Area Transit Locations
Quadrant
Shelter
Sidewalks
Other
Durango/Elkhorn SB
Yes
No Issues
-
Durango/Elkhorn EB
No
No Issues
-
Farm/Tule Springs WB
No
No Issues
-
Farm/Tule Springs EB
No
No Issues
Narrow sidewalk/waiting area
Durango/Dorrell NB
No
No Issues
No bus turnout
Durango/Dorrell SB
No
No Issues
No bus turnout
Durango/Deer Springs NB
Yes
No Issues
-
Durango/Deer Springs EB
No
No Issues
-
Ann/Drexel EB
No
No Issues
-
Ann/Drexel WB
No
No Issues
Durango/Farm NB
No
No Issues
-
Durango/Farm SB
No
No Issues
-
Buffalo/Farm SB
No
No Issues
No bus turnout
Buffalo/Farm WB
No
No Issues
No bus turnout
Sky Pointe/Ranch House NB
No
No Issues
No bus turnout
Sky Pointe/Ranch House SB
No
No sidewalk;
no crosswalk
No bus turnout
Cimarron/Deer Springs NB
No
No Issues
No bus turnout
Cimarron/Deer Springs EB
No
No Issues
No bus turnout
Narrow sidewalk/waiting area; no
bus turnout
6.3 Unmet Transit Needs
Population density and employment density are two factors that are indicative of
potential. Higher densities, in the range of 4,500 population and/or employment per
mile, lead to increased transit ridership (Source: A Toolbox for Alleviating
Congestion, pages 92 and 93; Institute of Transportation Engineers or ITE,
Guidelines in the ITE report regarding densities and transit service provision include:
46
transit
square
Traffic
1989).
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study

A minimum level of local bus service (about one bus per hour) corresponds to
population densities of 3,000 to 4,000 persons per square mile.

An intermediate level of local bus service (about two buses per hour) corresponds to
population densities of 5,000 to 6,000 persons per square mile.

A frequent level of local bus service (about six buses per hour, or one bus every ten
minutes) corresponds to population densities of 8,000 to 10,000 persons per square
mile.
RTC provided year 2013 projections of population and employment densities in the study
area by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). The source of this data is from the RTC travel demand
model. Some of the TAZs in the study area have population densities of over 10,000
persons per square mile, which reflect good potential for frequent bus service. The most
notable TAZs are:

The area with borders of Elkhorn Rd to the north, Durango Dr to the east, Deer
Springs Way to the south, and Fort Apache Rd to the west.

The area with borders of Grand Teton Dr to the north, Fort Apache Rd to the east,
Farm Rd to the south, and Hualapui Way to the west.
A number of other TAZs have population densities of 8,000 to 10,000 persons per square
mile, which could also indicate potential for frequent bus service.
Employment densities in the study area are generally lower. The area with borders of
Elkhorn Rd to the north, US 95 to the east, CC-215 to the south, and Durango Dr to the
west has the highest employment densities in the study area, at about 7,500 persons per
square mile. This area has the Montecito Marketplace and the Centennial Hills Medical
Center. The remainder of the study area has significantly lower employment densities.
At the Centennial Hills Park and Ride there appears to be sufficient parking supply and
sidewalk connectivity for the near term. However, the Transit Center needs additional
bicycle parking. The current bicycle parking supply is quite small, and it impossible to
gauge the bicycle parking demand without collecting data formally. However, many
bicyclists will not make a trip when they cannot depend on the availability of secure parking
at their destination. Consequently, providing surplus bicycle parking is often a better option
than providing too little.
Exhibit 6-6 shows that in many cases the most frequently used bus stops in the Study
Area do not have common bus stop amenities such as shelters, benches, and turnouts. In
the next task, it will be necessary to evaluate the need and potential for providing such
amenities at these key locations.
47
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
A. APPENDIX
Primary
Street
Secondary
Street
Intersection
Side
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Street
Category
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Bike
Lane(s)
Intersection Type
Durango Dr
Oso Blanca
Rd
Centennial
Center Blvd
Deer
Springs
Way
Deer
Springs
Way
Durango Dr
Elkhorn Rd
N
30,000
Parkway Arterial
45
28
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
Elkhorn Rd
S
30,000
Parkway Arterial
45
28
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
Oso Blanca
Rd
S
30,900
Parkway Arterial
45
21
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
Tropical
Pkwy
S
19,000
Parkway Arterial
45
14
2
Signalized
Durango Dr
US 95
N
25,000
Parkway Arterial
45
24
Incomplete
Signalized
Durango Dr
US 95
S
25,000
Parkway Arterial
45
24
1
Signalized
Durango Dr
Azure Dr
Durango Dr
N
30,900
Parkway Arterial
45
21
2
Signalized
E
13,000
Major Arterial
35
22
2
Signalized
N
31,100
Parkway Arterial
45
29
0
Signalized
S
31,100
Parkway Arterial
45
29
0
Signalized
i
Proximity/
Connectivity
Transit Center
Retail
Park
School
Highway Crossing
Retail
Highway Crossing
Hospital
Retail
Hospital
Retail
School
Transit Center
Retail
Park
School
Hospital
Transit Center
Retail
Park
Hospital
Transit Center
Retail
Park
School
Hospital
Highway Crossing
School
Park
Church
Transit Center
Retail
Highway Crossing
Transit Center
Retail
Risk Category
High
Moderate – High
Moderate – High
Moderate - High
Moderate - High
Moderate - High
Moderate - High
Moderate - High
Moderate - High
Moderate - High
Part II
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Secondary
Street
Intersection
Side
Elkhorn Rd
Durango Dr
E
9,300
Major Arterial
35
18
2
Signalized
Elkhorn Rd
W
9,300
Major Arterial
35
18
2
Signalized
E
24,600
Major Arterial
45
23
0
Signalized
Retail
Moderate
Ann Rd
Durango Dr
Centennial
Center Blvd
Centennial
Center Blvd
Proximity/
Connectivity
Highway Crossing
Hospital
Transit Center
Park
Retail
Highway Crossing
Hospital
Transit Center
Park
Retail
School
W
24,600
Major Arterial
45
23
0
Signalized
Moderate
Ann Rd
US 95
E
27,500
Major Arterial
45
30
0
Signalized
Ann Rd
Azure Dr
US 95
Tenay Way
Deer
Springs
Way
Deer
Springs
Way
W
W
27,500
12,000
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
45
35
30
5
0
2
Signalized
Signalized
N
7,500
Major Arterial
40
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
S
7,500
Major Arterial
40
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
Retail
Retail
Highway Crossing
Retail
Highway Crossing
Retail
Park
Library
Retail
Park
Library
Retail
Ann Rd
Grand
Montecito
Pkwy
Tropical
Pkwy
Tropical
Pkwy
N
8,600
Major Arterial
35
26
2
Signalized
Retail
Moderate
E
11,000
Major Arterial
35
N/A
2
Signalized
Retail
Moderate
N
15,000
Major Arterial
35
27
2
Signalized
Retail
Moderate
S
15,000
Major Arterial
35
27
2
Signalized
Retail
Moderate
Durango Dr
Grand
Montecito
E
8,400
Major Arterial
35
20
1
Signalized
Moderate
W
11,000
Major Arterial
35
N/A
Incomplete
Signalized
Retail
Retail
Church
Buffalo
Buffalo
Centennial
Center Blvd
Centennial
Center Blvd
Centennial
Center Blvd
Centennial
Center Blvd
Centennial
Pkwy
Centennial
Pkwy
Street
Category
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Primary
Street
Ann Rd
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
ii
Bike
Lane(s)
Intersection Type
Risk Category
Moderate - High
Moderate - High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Part II
Primary
Street
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Intersection
Side
Cimarron Rd
Elkhorn Rd
N
5,600
Minor Collector
35
4
2
Signalized
Cimarron Rd
Elkhorn Rd
S
5,600
Minor Collector
35
4
2
Signalized
Cimarron Rd
Farm Rd
S
4,100
Minor Collector
35
N/A
2
Signalized
Cimarron Rd
Sky Pointe
Dr
N
2,800
Minor Collector
35
N/A
2
4-Way Stop Sign
Durango Dr
Ann Rd
N
21,000
Parkway Arterial
45
3
2
Signalized
Durango Dr
CC-215
N
29,000
Parkway Arterial
45
25
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
S
29,000
Parkway Arterial
45
25
0
Signalized
N
20,600
Parkway Arterial
45
17
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
CC-215
Centennial
Pkwy
Centennial
Pkwy
S
20,600
Parkway Arterial
45
17
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
Farm Rd
N
33,400
Parkway Arterial
40
19
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
S
33,400
Parkway Arterial
40
19
0
Signalized
N
16,000
Parkway Arterial
45
N/A
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
Farm Rd
Grand
Montecito
Pkwy
Grand
Montecito
Pkwy
S
16,000
Parkway Arterial
45
N/A
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
Tropical
Pkwy
N
19,000
Parkway Arterial
45
14
0
Signalized
Elkhorn Rd
Buffalo Dr
E
7,100
Major Arterial
35
6
2
Signalized
Durango Dr
Street
Category
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Secondary
Street
Pkwy
Durango Dr
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
iii
Bike
Lane(s)
Intersection Type
Proximity/
Connectivity
Park
Park x2
School x2
Retail
Park x2
School
Retail
Retail
School
Retail
Library
Park
Risk Category
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Nothing
Hospital
Retail
Hospital
Retail
Moderate
Retail
Retail
Park
Highway Crossing
Retail
Highway Crossing
Retail
Retail
Church
Park
Retail
Church
Park
Retail
School
Park
Church
Park
School x2
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Part II
Primary
Street
Buffalo Dr
W
7,100
Major Arterial
35
6
2
Signalized
Elkhorn Rd
Cimarron
Rd
E
6,100
Major Arterial
35
1
2
Signalized
W
6,100
Major Arterial
35
1
2
Signalized
E
6,200
Major Arterial
35
N/A
2
4-Way Stop Sign
W
6,200
Major Arterial
35
N/A
2
4-Way Stop Sign
E
1,500
Major Arterial
35
N/A
2
4-Way Stop Sign
Nothing
Centennial
Pkwy
N
5,300
Major Arterial
35
N/A
2
Signalized
Durango Dr
N
700
Major Arterial
35
N/A
2
Signalized
Durango Dr
N
9,500
Frontage Street
45
10
2
Signalized
Farm Rd
S
9,700
Frontage Street
45
N/A
2
Uncontrolled
Sky Pointe Dr
Tenay Way
Cimarron
Rd
Azure Dr
S
N
9,300
10,300
Frontage Street
Minor Collector
35
35
N/A
11
2
2
4-Way Stop Sign
Signalized
Tropical Pkwy
Ann Rd
Ann Rd
Ann Rd
Azure Dr
Centennial
Center Blvd
Durango Dr
Tenay Way
Tenay Way
Tenay Way
W
E
E
W
E
13,000
10,000
23,400
23,400
12,000
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
35
45
45
45
35
22
9
N/A
N/A
5
Incomplete
0
0
0
0
Elkhorn Rd
Elkhorn Rd
Elkhorn Rd
Grand
Montecito
Pkwy
Grand
Montecito
Pkwy
Oso Blanca
Rd
Oso Blanca
Rd
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Street
Category
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Elkhorn Rd
Cimarron
Rd
Fort
Apache Rd
Fort
Apache Rd
Grand
Canyon Dr
Intersection
Side
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
Proximity/
Connectivity
Park
School x2
Park
School x2
Highway Crossing
Park
School
Retail
Highway Crossing
Retail
School
Retail
School
Elkhorn Rd
Secondary
Street
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
iv
Bike
Lane(s)
Intersection Type
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Retail
School
Retail
Church
Park
Retail
School
Transit Center
Highway Crossing
School
Retail
Library
Park
Retail
Retail
School
Highway Crossing
Nothing
Retail
Retail
Retail
Risk Category
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Part II
Primary
Street
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Intersection
Side
Buffalo Dr
Elkhorn Rd
N
24,600
Major Arterial
40
8
0
Signalized
Buffalo Dr
Centennial
Pkwy
Cimarron Rd
Elkhorn Rd
S
24,600
Major Arterial
40
8
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
Farm Rd
W
N
8,400
4,100
Major Arterial
Minor Collector
35
35
20
N/A
0
2
Signalized
Signalized
Deer Springs
Way
Durango Dr
E
7,100
Major Arterial
30
7
0
E
600
Minor Collector
25
N/A
2
Signalized
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
N
15,000
Major Arterial
40
16
0
S
15,000
Parkway Arterial
40
16
W
17,300
Frontage Street
35
N
1,600
Minor Collector
Grand
Teton Dr
S
1,600
Horse Dr
N
Horse Dr
Durango Dr
Durango Dr
El Capitan
Way
El Capitan
Way
El Capitan
Way
El Capitan
Way
El Capitan
Way
Fort
Apache Rd
Grand
Teton Dr
Grand
Teton Dr
Durango Dr
Grand
Teton Dr
Street
Category
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Secondary
Street
Dorrell Ln
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
Bike
Lane(s)
Intersection Type
Proximity/
Connectivity
School x2
Park
School
Park
Risk Category
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Retail
Retail
Hospital
Retail
School
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Nothing
Low - Moderate
Signalized
Retail
Low - Moderate
0
Signalized
Low - Moderate
13
0
Signalized
35
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Retail
Retail
Highway Crossing
Retail
Highway Crossing
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Retail
Highway Crossing
Low - Moderate
8,700
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
Park
Low - Moderate
S
8,700
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
Park
Low - Moderate
W
1,500
Major Arterial
35
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Nothing
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
E
6,900
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
Signalized
Retail
Low - Moderate
Farm Rd
Grand
Canyon Dr
Cimarron
Rd
Cimarron
Rd
W
6,900
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
Signalized
Retail
Low - Moderate
Farm Rd
Durango Dr
E
17,300
Minor Collector
35
15
0
Signalized
Retail
Highway Crossing
Low - Moderate
Elkhorn Rd
Farm Rd
v
Part II
Primary
Street
Farm Rd
Farm Rd
Secondary
Street
Intersection
Side
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Street
Category
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Bike
Lane(s)
W
2,300
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
Intersection Type
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
E
9,000
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
Signalized
W
9,000
Minor Collector
35
N/A
0
Dorrell Ln
N
1,300
Major Arterial
25
N/A
Dorrell Ln
S
1,300
Major Arterial
25
Elkhorn Rd
N
1,800
Major Arterial
Elkhorn Rd
Tee Pee Ln
Tee Pee Ln
S
E
W
1,800
1,300
1,300
Centennial
Pkwy
S
Oso Blanca
Rd
Tule
Springs Rd
Tule
Springs Rd
Low - Moderate
Signalized
Low - Moderate
0
Uncontrolled
Nothing
Low - Moderate
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
Low - Moderate
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Major Arterial
Minor Collector
Minor Collector
25
30
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Nothing
Retail
School
Retail
School
Nothing
Nothing
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
5,300
Major Arterial
35
N/A
0
Signalized
Retail
School x2
Low - Moderate
E
5,000
Parkway Arterial
35
2
0
Signalized
Durango Dr
El Capitan
Way
El Capitan
Way
E
1,600
Major Arterial
35
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
W
1,600
Frontage Street
35
N/A
1
Horse Dr
El Capitan
Way
E
700
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Durango Dr
S
9,500
Frontage Street
45
10
Incomplete
Signalized
Farm Rd
N
9,700
Frontage Street
45
N/A
Incomplete
Grand
Canyon Dr
E
1,100
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Severence Ln
School
Transit Center
Risk Category
Retail
Retail
Highway Crossing
Farm Rd
Fort Apache
Rd
Fort Apache
Rd
Fort Apache
Rd
Fort Apache
Rd
Gilcrease Ave
Gilcrease Ave
Grand
Montecito
Pkwy
Grand Teton
Dr
Grand Teton
Dr
Grand Teton
Dr
Oso Blanca
Rd
Oso Blanca
Rd
Proximity/
Connectivity
vi
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Retail
Retail
Highway Crossing
Retail
Highway Crossing
Low - Moderate
Park
Retail
Park
Transit Center
Highway Crossing
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Nothing
Low - Moderate
Nothing
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Part II
Primary
Street
Secondary
Street
Intersection
Side
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Street
Category
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Bike
Lane(s)
Intersection Type
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Severence Ln
Grand
Canyon Dr
W
1,100
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
Sky Pointe Dr
Cimarron
Rd
N
9,300
Frontage Street
35
N/A
Incomplete
Tee Pee Ln
Gilcrease
Ave
N
500
Minor Collector
35
N/A
Incomplete
Tee Pee Ln
Tenay Way
Tenay Way
Gilcrease
Ave
Ann Rd
Azure Dr
S
N
S
500
9,100
10,300
Minor Collector
Minor Collector
Minor Collector
35
35
35
N/A
N/A
11
0
0
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Signalized
Signalized
Tropical Pkwy
Durango Dr
E
5,800
Major Arterial
35
12
0
Signalized
Tropical Pkwy
Durango Dr
W
5,800
Minor Collector
35
12
0
Signalized
Deer Springs
Way
Deer Springs
Way
Deer Springs
Way
Deer Springs
Way
Cimarron
Rd
E
1,100
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Durango Dr
W
7,100
Minor Collector
25
7
0
Tee Pee Ln
E
2,700
Minor Collector
25
N/A
Tee Pee Ln
W
2,700
Minor Collector
25
Fort
Apache Rd
W
600
Minor Collector
Elkhorn Rd
N
2,200
Elkhorn Rd
Severence
S
N
2,200
3,000
Dorrell Ln
Grand Canyon
Dr
Grand Canyon
Dr
Grand Canyon
Proximity/
Connectivity
Risk Category
Nothing
Retail
Library
Park
Low - Moderate
Nothing
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Signalized
Nothing
Retail
Retail
Retail
School
Church
Retail
School
Church
Park
Retail
Library
Park
Hospital
Retail
Low
0
4-Way Stop Sign
School
Low
N/A
0
School
Low
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Nothing
Low
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
Church
Low
Minor Collector
Minor Collector
25
25
N/A
N/A
0
0
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Church
Nothing
Low
Low
vii
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Low
Part II
Primary
Street
Dr
Grand Canyon
Dr
Grand Teton
Dr
Grand Teton
Dr
Horse Dr
Hualapai Way
Tee Pee Ln
Tee Pee Ln
Tule Springs
Rd
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Intersection
Side
S
3,000
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
Uncontrolled
Nothing
Low
Durango Dr
Hualapai
Way
W
5,000
Major Arterial
35
2
0
Signalized
Retail
Low
E
900
Major Arterial
25
N/A
0
Park
Low
W
700
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Stop Sign w/
Uncontrolled Cross
Street
Nothing
Low
S
200
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
Park
Low
N
1,200
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
School
Low
S
1,200
Minor Collector
25
N/A
0
4-Way Stop Sign
School
Low
S
5,200
Frontage Street
35
N/A
0
Signalized
Retail
Low
Farm Rd
Street
Category
2010
Crash
Count
Rank
Secondary
Street
Ln
Severence
Ln
El Capitan
Way
Grand
Teton Dr
Deer
Springs
Way
Deer
Springs
Way
Daily Traffic
(Vehicles)
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
viii
Bike
Lane(s)
Intersection Type
Proximity/
Connectivity
Risk Category
Part III
Proposed Alternatives
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
PART III: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Introduction ............................................................... 1 2. On-Street Facility Alternatives .................................... 4 2.1 Highway Overpasses and Interchanges ................................................... 4 2.2 Intersection Improvements ................................................................... 9 2.3 Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings ....................................................... 16 2.4 Intermediate Equestrian Trail Crossings ................................................ 24 2.5 Bicycle Lane Network Development ...................................................... 27 3. Off-Street Facilities Alternatives ............................... 35 3.1 Sidewalk Network Development ........................................................... 35 3.2 Multi-Use Trail Network Development ................................................... 38 3.3 Equestrian Trail Network Development.................................................. 47 4. Transit Improvement Alternatives ............................ 54 4.1 Transit Center Improvements .............................................................. 54 4.2 Bus Stop Amenities ............................................................................ 57 4.3 Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service ..................................... 62 5. Project Prioritization................................................. 65 5.1 Prioritization Criteria .......................................................................... 65 5.2 Prioritization Results .......................................................................... 66 6. Cost Estimation ......................................................... 74 6.1 Cost Estimation Approach ................................................................... 74 6.2 Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates....................................................... 75 6.3 Project Timeframes ............................................................................ 80 A. Appendix A .................................................................. i B. Appendix B ................................................................ ix C. Appendix C.............................................................. xvii Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
1. INTRODUCTION
The Task 3 Technical Memorandum – Evaluation of Corridor Mobility Needs – documented
the existing mobility needs within the Study Area. The report described mobility needs
across a variety of modes and networks. The Task 4 Technical Memorandum addressed
each of these mobility needs with specific proposed improvements. This report presents the
final work resulting from the update and refinement of alternatives as part of Task 5.
Exhibit 1-1 shows the overall project progress with the task covered by this report
highlighted in pink.
Exhibit 1-1: Northwest US 95 Access Study Progress
2
1
3
Project Management
TWG Meetings
Data Collection
Evaluation of Mobility &
Access Needs
4
Preliminary System Improvement Alternatives
5
Refinement of Alternatives
6
Final Report
The Task 3 report described mobility needs in three main categories. The first category, onstreet alternatives, includes prospective improvements to highway overpasses,
intersections, trail crossings, and the bike network. The second category of alternatives,
off-street alternatives, included potential sidewalk and trail improvements. Lastly, the
report presented the transit-related alternatives including improvements at bus stops
throughout the Study Area and improvements targeting the facilities and accessibility of the
Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride.
The Task 4 Technical Memorandum: Preliminary Corridor Alternatives built directly on the
Task 3 Technical Memorandum and presented a comprehensive set of alternatives to
1
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
address both current and future gaps in the planned Study Area transportation network. It
also presented improvements to address current and potential future safety issues. The
alternatives included both improvements already part of existing planning projects and
proposed improvements that are not yet part of any infrastructure investment plan.
The consultant team presented preliminary concepts for Study Area improvements to the
project Technical Working Group (TWG) at a meeting on May 10, 2011. Each issue was
described in context and matched with a preliminary alternative. The TWG provided
important feedback on which alternatives had fatal flaws, on which Study Area needs
remained unaddressed by the set of preliminary alternatives, as well as on specific design
issues. Subsequent to the meeting, TWG members provided the consultant team with
additional materials related to the planning of major future projects in the Study Area.
In order to reach out to additional stakeholders in the Study Area, on May 10, 2011, the
consultant team gave a presentation to the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council (CAC)
and the Lower Kyle Canyon CAC on the study’s scope and direction. The study received
important input for the development of alternatives from this meeting and subsequent input
by Council members. the consultant team also presented the project progress, concepts,
and direction to the RTC’s Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee meeting on May 24, 2011.
After the Task 4 technical memorandum was submitted to RTC, the stakeholders reviewed
the preliminary alternatives at the July 21, 2001 TWG meeting. Through the course of the
meeting, the TWG members were able to offer their feedback about the alternatives,
providing input to support the elimination and modification of alternatives. After the July
21, 2011 TWG meeting, stakeholders submitted their final comments. the consultant team
also conducted additional field observations as well as several stakeholder meetings. The
study’s progress was presented to the RTC’s Executive Advisory Committee on July 28,
2011. On the basis of this input and additional review by the consultant team, the
alternatives were finalized and summarized in this report.
After the finalization of the proposed alternatives, the next step was to begin the process of
formally programming the projects.
This process included the development of a
prioritization framework to identify a priority level and a proposed timeframe for each
proposed project. It also includes the development of rough order of magnitude costs, a
part of Task 5. This technical report on the proposed alternatives also presents the
prioritization framework, the cost estimation process and results, and a notional
programming of the projects.
This report parallels the organization as the Task 3 Technical Memorandum. First the report
proposes improvements for the on-street travel network in Section 2. Next, Section 3
presents alternatives to address issues related to the off-street travel network. Then,
Section 4 addresses current and future Study Area transit needs. After addressing the
2
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
issues identified in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum, Section 5 explains the prioritization
framework, with the outcomes included in Appendix A. Finally, Section 6 explains the cost
estimation approach and results, and the detailed estimates and data sources are included
in Appendices B and C.
3
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
2. ON-STREET FACILITY ALTERNATIVES
This section presents potential projects intended to improve general street safety in the
Study Area and to create a more comprehensive and connected travel network for alternate
modes that use or cross the street network.
2.1 Highway Overpasses and Interchanges
The Study Area includes a significant portion of undeveloped land, especially in the northern
portions of Quadrants 1 and 2. While the remaining gaps in the street network are mostly
in these undeveloped areas, there are also several planned or proposed overpasses which
remain unbuilt and are visible in green in Exhibit 2-1 below, along with the as yet unbuilt
portions of the street network.
Exhibit 2-1: Planned Study Area Street Network
4
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The two planned overpasses are the Grand Teton Drive crossing of US 95 and the Fort
Apache Road crossing of CC-215. The City of Las Vegas has also proposed two overpasses
be included as part of the CC-215 and US 95 interchange which would connect Oso Blanca
Road to Centennial Center Boulevard and would join the segments of Sky Pointe Drive
across CC-215.
Grand Teton is the last major east-west arterial before Kyle Canyon Road and will eventually
connect all the way to the City of North Las Vegas. The Grand Teton Drive overpass will
provide an important east-west arterial connection in the Study Area matching the Elkhorn
Road connection one mile to the south. The overpass will also better connect the residential
neighborhoods to commercial services in the Town Center while reducing through traffic on
the Durango Drive overpass.
Grand Teton Drive will provide an important alternate route for pedestrians and bicyclists
crossing US 95. The overpass can best accommodate alternate modes if it includes
sidewalks and shoulder lanes at least fourteen feet wide which include bicycle lanes. A
sidewalk path at least eight feet wide on the north side of the overpass would provide a
better connection between the multi-use trail segments on either side of the bridge. The
design could also better serve alternate modes by minimizing the maximum grade on the
overpass, especially on the east side of US 95. While the overpass will provide an important
alternative to the existing subgrade equestrian crossing at Grand Teton Drive, some local
equestrian stakeholders have requested that the subgrade crossing remain open since it
provides a safer alternative for horses, which have trouble crossing bridges, especially with
traffic.
While some project stakeholders have expressed interest in an interchange at Grand Teton
Drive and US 95, rising traffic levels will likely not necessitate such a connection in either
the short or medium terms. Eventually, an interchange at Grand Teton Drive could play a
role in reducing congestion on the Durango Drive interchange and minimizing through traffic
on local streets. However, several factors restrict the possible alternatives. Currently, no
right-of-way has been acquired for an interchange at the overpass location. Housing on the
southeast corner of Grand Teton Drive and US 95 reduces the space available for
northbound ramps. Construction of a northbound ramp would eliminate the connection
from Grand Teton Drive to the frontage road and obstruct the subgrade horse crossing. The
frontage road would likely have to be routed onto the residential Ackerman Avenue. Finally,
Grand Teton Drive is sufficiently close to both Durango Drive and Horse Drive that the
construction of an interchange could lead to interfering traffic patterns between the two
interchanges and a rise in roadway crash risk.
One lower impact alternative would include a northbound off-ramp onto Grand Teton Drive
on the east side of US 95 and a southbound on-ramp on the west side. The undeveloped
5
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
parcel north of Grand Teton and east of US 95 is approximately 400 feet wide, which would
be enough to accommodate the needed radius on a loop ramp. The off-ramp would require
a signal to facilitate left turns onto Grand Teton Drive. The equestrian trail and drainage
channel would both need to be re-routed slightly around the ramp. On the west side of US
95, the two undeveloped parcels on either side of Grand Teton Drive leave sufficient space
for a southbound on-ramp, which would not necessarily require a controlled intersection.
However, the left turn pocket for westbound vehicles making the turn from Grand Teton to
the southbound on-ramp would have to be sufficiently long to ensure no spillover into the
through lanes that would impact traffic and safety. This would necessitate a wider overpass
design, since the left turn lane would at least partly extend onto the bridge. Exhibit 2-2
presents a conceptual schematic of a possible overpass. Note that the vacant land west of
US 95 is privately held. The potential interchange described above is not yet planned, and
further planning and consultation with stakeholders would be required before moving
forward with the adoption of any such plan and the implementation of an interchange. In
the long term, it represents an important option for managing traffic in the Study Area and
minimizing traffic impacts on residential streets.
Exhibit 2-2: Conceptual Schematic of a Grand Teton Drive-US 95 Interchange
6
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Another overpass of CC-215 at Fort Apache Road is currently planned but remains unbuilt
and unfunded. This overpass will provide better access to the west side of Quadrant 1 and
help to ease traffic levels on Durango Drive. The most important aspect of the Fort Apache
overpass of CC-215 is the connection it will provide for alternate mode travelers between
Quadrants 1 and 2. The Las Vegas Beltway Trail is planned to cross CC-215 on Fort Apache
Road, and the sidewalk path paralleling Fort Apache Road will connect from Centennial
Parkway to Grand Teton Drive. Fort Apache Road’s lower number of lanes and lower speed
limit mean that the street will be a safer route across CC-215 than Durango Drive.
Alternatives for completing these transportation trail links are discussed in Section 3.2 of
this report.
The interchange of US 95 and CC-215 currently represents the most significant existing
barrier to travel for alternate modes in the Study Area. Exhibit 2-3 shows the preliminary
design of the interchange presented in the Northwest US 95 Northwest Corridor
Improvements Project Environmental Assessment (October 2007). The reconstruction of
the interchange is an opportunity to incorporate traffic and alternate mode improvements to
improve mobility across the two freeways between the four quadrants. However, the design
in Exhibit 2-3 does not include any new links to facilitate non-freeway travel.
The City of Las Vegas has proposed the revision of the design to include the connection of
both US 95 frontage roads across CC-215. Both connections – each visible in Exhibit 2-1 –
would include bike lanes and sidewalks and provide alternate mode access to key Town
Center retail and commercial areas. Together with the relatively short overpass of US 95 on
Azure Drive, the crossings on Oso Blanca Road and Sky Pointe Drive will reduce the distance
necessary to travel around the interchange, will better connect residents to key services,
and will reduce traffic at the interchange by providing alternate routes on local streets.
7
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-3: Preliminary Design for the US 95/CC-215 Interchange Reconstruction
Source: Federal Highway Administration and Nevada Department of Transportation. Environmental Assessment FHWA-NV-EA 07.01. October 2007.
8
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-4 provides a summary of the proposed highway overpass and interchange
alternatives.
Exhibit 2-4: Summary of Proposed Highway Overpass Alternatives
Intersection
Alternative
Grand Teton / US 95
Overpass or
interchange
Fort Apache / CC-215
Overpass
Oso Blanca / CC-215
Overpass
Sky Pointe / CC-215
Overpass
Description
- Construct overpass for east-west connectivity
- Include bike lanes and multi-use trail
connection
- Include northbound off-ramp and southbound
on-ramp (would need further study)
- Construct overpass to provide residential
neighborhood connectivity
connection
- Construct overpass to provide access to Town
Center services and minimize interchange
barrier
- Include bike lanes
- Construct overpass to provide access to Town
Center services and minimize interchange
barrier
2.2 Intersection Improvements
Intersections are important locations where the off-street and on-street travel networks
intersect, and they represent a disproportionate risk to both alternate mode and motor
vehicle travelers relative to the remainder of the travel network. This section examines
intersection improvements from three main perspectives: (1) identifying intersections that
will need more intensive traffic control measures in the short, medium, or long term, (2)
increasing the safety of pedestrian crossings, and (3) addressing conflicts among modes
with respect to road space.
The top three intersections of concern in the Study Area are on Durango Drive. The busiest
intersection based on vehicle cross-traffic in both directions is Durango Drive and Farm
Road. The next busiest is Durango Drive and Oso Blanca Road, followed by Durango Drive
and Elkhorn Road. All three intersections are identified as higher risk and demand
intersections in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum. Because of Durango Drive’s width, it
represents a significant barrier to many pedestrians. A study of past research by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers and the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety finds a
median walking speed for elderly pedestrians of 3.03 feet per second9. At Elkhorn Road, a
pedestrian may travel up to 120 feet to traverse Durango Drive. Over half of elderly
9 Stollof, E.; McGee, H.; Eccles, K. Pedestrian Signal Safety for Older Persons. Institute of Transportation Engineers
and AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, July 2005.
9
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
pedestrians would need at least forty seconds to complete the crossing. Pedestrian
countdown signals are in place at each of these intersections, a safety measure that has
been shown to encourage faster crossing times for pedestrians. However, since the
distance is so great, additional safety measures could be warranted.
One such measure is to install an additional pedestrian countdown signal in the median on
Durango (the cross streets in each case are not so wide as to be considered an issue). For
this measure to work, the crosswalk may need to be moved slightly away from the corners
and closer to the terminal of the medians as shown by the red arrow on the south side of
the Durango Drive and Elkhorn Road intersection in Exhibit 2-5. Retrofitting street corners
to include two ramps rather than a single ramp helps to slightly shorten the crossing
distance for pedestrians.
Exhibit 2-5: Conceptual Layout for Median Pedestrian Countdown Signal
10
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The conceptual layout uses zebra crosswalk markings to increase the crosswalk’s visibility to
drivers and reduce the effects of asphalt bleeding on the markings. The City of Las Vegas
has recently made such zebra stripe marking standard for sidewalks. Markings are typically
updated as part of scheduled resurfacings. The median could also be extended slightly to
minimize the displacement of the crosswalk across Durango; the red dot in the figure
identifies the location of the additional pedestrian countdown signal.
The Durango Drive intersections with Farm Road, Oso Blanca Road, and Deer Springs Way
would benefit from the same measures. The installation of additional countdown signals
and the retrofit of sidewalk ramps would help slower pedestrians cross more safely. It is
also worth noting that additional landscaping at these three busy intersections could also
increase pedestrians’ comfort while they wait through long signal cycles. Spreading shade
trees would offer more shade than the sparse palm trees which currently line this portion of
Durango Drive. Decorative shade shelters on the corners are another option to enhance
pedestrians’ comfort.
Unfortunately, most intersections on Durango cannot accommodate a pedestrian median
refuge which is the safest alternative for slower pedestrians. Median refuges do exist at
three highway ramp intersections with Durango, but there remain long gaps between these
intersections that represent an important barrier to many pedestrians. Additionally, a
median refuge is currently possible at the intersection of Durango Drive and northbound US
95. Exhibit 2-6 shows the median refuge on Durango Drive at the intersection with
westbound CC-215.
Exhibit 2-6: Example of a Median Refuge on Durango Drive at CC-215
11
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
At Durango Drive and Farm Road, there is one potential opportunity to reconfigure the
intersection to include a median refuge on the north side of the intersection to facilitate
pedestrian access across Durango Drive. Currently, the left turn lanes from eastbound
Farm Road to northbound Durango Drive and from southbound Durango to eastbound Farm
Road have unused space for a future left turn lane. It may be possible use this extra rightof-way to construct a properly located pedestrian refuge in the median of the north side of
the intersection while maintaining sufficient turn radiuses for vehicles turning from
eastbound Farm to northbound Durango and from southbound Durango to eastbound Farm.
Exhibit 2-7 shows the Farm-Durango intersection with the unused left turn space. Note
that both of the turn directions are likely to experience lower traffic demand levels than
other left directions at the intersection. The reserved capacity might not be necessary even
in the long term, but further analysis would be required to determine the feasibility of such
a project.
Exhibit 2-7: Unused Left Turn Space at the Farm-Durango Intersection
A second opportunity to potentially install a pedestrian median refuge is at the intersection
of Dorrell Lane and Durango Drive. Currently, a median barrier allows left turns from
Durango to Dorrell Lane, but a median barrier prevents through traffic. The current
configuration prevents pedestrians from crossing the arterial despite the lack of a
convenient nearby alternative. The intersection is an intermediate point between Elkhorn
Road and Deer Springs Way and is adjacent to the local hospital and a variety of
neighborhood services. Without safe, convenient crossing locations, the Town Center will
not function effectively as a walkable urban neighborhood.
The City of Las Vegas may consider the use of this median barrier as a median refuge for
pedestrians. A pedestrian actuated signal would allow pedestrians to cross each half of
Durango Drive with a full 30 second signal cycle. Each signal could be synchronized with
the other traffic signals to avoid the interruption of traffic flow when a pedestrian uses the
12
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
crosswalk. Exhibit 2-8 shows a conceptualization of pedestrian improvements at the
Dorrell Lane and Durango Drive intersection.
Exhibit 2-8: Conceptual Layout for the Dorrell-Durango Intersection
Durango Drive also has a high number of driveways between Elkhorn Drive and Deer
Springs Way. RTC’s Clark County Area Access Management report (2011) emphasizes the
need for safe spacing between driveways on higher speed arterials. For 45 MPH routes, the
recommended spacing is at least 360 lateral feet between driveways. The City of Las Vegas
monitors traffic safety in coordination with the Metropolitan Police Department, and can
identify and respond to specific issues as they arise.
Beyond the busiest stretch of Durango, other intersections also present serious issues. The
intersection of Cimarron Road with Ann Road might immediately benefit from the
installation of signals. Currently there is no traffic signal in place although there are a zebra
crosswalk and some warning signs in place. The 45 MPH speed limit and higher traffic
volume on Ann Road makes for a riskier crossing for pedestrians with no nearby
alternatives. The presence of the Cimarron Rose Community Center and Park on the
southwest corner of the intersection and pictured in Exhibit 2-9 makes this intersection a
particular priority. Furthermore, traffic from residential neighborhoods on either side must
make difficult left turns across multiple lanes of traffic. As a result, the intersection is a
candidate for the installation of four-way, three phase signalization.
13
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-9: Crosswalk at the Cimarron-Ann Intersection
The intersection of Durango Drive and Racel Street faces a similar situation: a long section
of a higher speed arterial without adequately controlled pedestrian crossings. Because
Racel Street provides an uninterrupted connection from Fort Apache Road to Tenaya Way, it
is more prone to through traffic than neighboring east-west streets. The lack of traffic
controls at the Durango Drive intersection presents a risk for vehicles crossing on Racel.
Installing traffic signals at the intersection would allow safe left turns from and cross traffic
on Racel Street. The City of Las Vegas has programmed the installation of traffic signals at
both locations for Fiscal Year 2012-13.
In the medium term after the completion of the US 95 overpass, Grand Teton Drive will
likely function as a major arterial in the Study Area. A traffic signal at the intersection with
Hualapai Way, a key north-south street in the Study Area that provides a connection south
to CC-215 and features relatively dense development, would improve safety. While Grand
Canyon Drive is not as significant a street as Hualapai Way, it does feed north to the Horse
Drive interchange and is also a candidate location for the installation of traffic signals in the
long term. Finally, the intersection with El Capitan Way is another candidate for traffic
signals. North of Grand Teton Drive, El Capitan Way has fewer controlled intersections than
Durango Drive. It also runs through a slightly denser neighborhood and will provide a
shorter connection to the Durango Interchange from new residential neighborhoods in the
northwest corner of Quadrant 2. As east-west traffic increases on Grand Teton Drive, these
three intersections will likely require improved traffic control measures to maintain safety.
The Horse Drive interchange is already complete, and future development will make Horse
Drive a busy arterial. In the medium to long term, the intersections of Horse Drive with
14
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Hualapai Way and Grand Canyon Drive could require traffic signals depending on the scale
of future development in the northwest corner of the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-10 summarizes the proposed intersection improvement alternatives. Exhibit 211 shows the location of each proposed alternative on a map. The locations on Durango
Drive correspond to several of the busiest transit stops in the Study Area. Intersections
that are safe for pedestrians facilitate access to transit.
Exhibit 2-10: Summary of Proposed Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Alternative
Description
- Retrofit crosswalk ramps to shorten crossing
distance
- Extend median and install median countdown signal
- Use zebra striped crosswalk per CLV standard
Durango /
Elkhorn
Crosswalk
improvements
Durango / Deer
Springs
Crosswalk
improvements
Durango /
Dorrell
Median refuge
/ traffic signal
installation
Durango / Farm
Median refuge
installation
Durango / Oso
Blanca
Crosswalk
improvements
Ann / Cimarron
Traffic signal
installation
- Install traffic signals
Durango / Racel
Stop sign
installation
Grand Teton /
Grand Canyon
Traffic signal
installation
Grand Teton /
Hualapai
Traffic signal
installation
Grand Teton / El
Capitan
Traffic signal
installation
Horse / Grand
Canyon
Traffic signal
installation
Horse / Hualapai
Traffic signal
installation
distance
- Extend median and install median countdown signal
- Install pedestrian actuated traffic signals
- Construct median pedestrian refuge as part of
median barrier
distance
- Use unused left turn lane space to allow installation
of a median refuge on the intersection’s north side
distance
15
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-11: Map of Proposed Intersection Improvements
2.3 Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings
In addition to improvements at signalized intersections, this section also focuses on
uncontrolled pedestrian and trail crossings. As mentioned in the discussion of the DurangoDorrell and Cimarron-Ann intersections, the wide gaps between existing pedestrian
crossings on some streets is a critical mobility need in the Study Area. While some existing
controlled intersections could be improved, there are uncontrolled intersections and
intermediate locations where pedestrian crossings could be added or improved. This section
identifies seven priority locations for such crosswalk improvements.
16
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
One such location is the Buffalo Drive and Ann Road intersection in Quadrant 3. A
crosswalk currently exists to connect the sidewalk bike trail along Buffalo Drive across Ann
Road to the sidewalk on the south side. The existing crosswalk, pictured in Exhibit 2-12,
has faded transverse stripes, no warning signs for cross traffic, and lacks a ramp on the
south side. The crosswalk was originally in place to provide access to a bus stop on the
south side of Ann Road. With the removal of the bus stop, the crosswalk is no longer
needed since it does not provide any additional connectivity. In order improve access to
and from the multi-use trail terminus at Buffalo and Ann, an extension of the trail is
proposed along the north side of Ann Road to Centennial Center Boulevard as shown in
Exhibit 3-9. Should the crosswalk remain in place, it is recommended that standard ramps
be used as well as better warning signs for cross traffic, and potentially a median refuge.
Exhibit 2-12: Crosswalk at the Buffalo-Ann Intersection
Another problematic location exists close by at the other end of the Buffalo Drive bike path
where it terminates at Centennial Center Boulevard. This segment of Centennial Center
Boulevard has no pedestrian crossings between Azure Drive and Ann Road despite the
presence of a bus stop close by. The presence of retail centers on the east side of the
arterial and residential neighborhoods on the west side as well as the street’s curvature
suggest the need for a safe intermediate pedestrian crossing. Because of the presence the
Buffalo Drive path and the potential for an additional intersecting path along the existing
storm water drainage right-of-way, the location the driveway of 5785 Centennial Center
Boulevard – shown in Exhibit 2-13 – would provide natural connectivity across the street.
Construction of a pedestrian crossing would require the implementation of several
complementary elements:
17
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
1) The northwestern side of the intersection has no turn pocket and could accommodate
a pedestrian refuge.
2) A ramp would need to be installed on the east side of the street, and the ramp on
the west side would need to adjusted.
3) A zebra crosswalk would need to be added.
4) Because of the street’s curvature, warning signs and pedestrian actuated warning
signals could be installed at appropriate locations upstream of the crossing to give
cross traffic sufficient advance warning of pedestrians using the crosswalk.
Exhibit 2-13: Potential Crosswalk Location on Centennial Center Boulevard
The City of Las Vegas has received a request by a private property owner to permit the
installation of a signal nearby. The traffic signal would allow better access from the two
driveways just to the east of the proposed pedestrian crossing and would provide sufficient
accommodation for most pedestrian traffic. If the proposed trails in Exhibit 3-9 are
completed, bicycle traffic would be able to proceed north to a safer crossing location with
better visibility on the multi-use trail system.
In Quadrant 1, another location that faces similar issues as on Centennial Center Boulevard
is the entrance to Mountain Ridge Park on Grand Montecito Parkway. Again, this location
has a driveway on only one side, and the curvature of the arterial reduces visibility at the
intersection. Despite the lack of a designated crossing, pedestrian traffic tends to cross at
this location because Dorrell Lane provides a connection to the retail center on the west side
of the street and the residential neighborhoods further west. Exhibit 2-14 shows the
current intersection conditions. Like the location on Centennial Center Boulevard, the Grand
Montecito location may eventually benefit from a traffic signal to provide access to an
adjacent parcel. If this development proceeds, the City of Las Vegas can ensure multi-use
trail access to and from Mountain Ridge Park across Grand Montecito Parkway.
18
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-14: Mountain Ridge Park Entrance on Grand Montecito Parkway
Like the proposed Centennial Center Boulevard crosswalk, this location would need a zebra
crosswalk with ramps at both ends, a median refuge, and warning signs and a pedestrian
actuated warning signal. Because of the position of the driveway and the presence of a left
turn pocket on Grand Montecito Parkway, it is recommended that the crosswalk be
positioned on the south side of the park’s entrance.
A third location resembles the Centennial Center Boulevard and Grand Montecito Parkway
locations and would benefit from an intermediate pedestrian crossing. In Quadrant 1,
Tonkinese Avenue connects a development onto Hualapai Way across from the Gilcrease
Brothers Park in a relatively dense neighborhood. The intersection is uncontrolled on
Hualapai Way and lacks a crosswalk. The two nearest crosswalk locations are significant
distances away, and a crosswalk connecting across Hualapai Way at Gilcrease Avenue would
provide a natural travel path for pedestrians to the park. The crossing would be best
located on the north side of Tonkinese Avenue with a median refuge and warning signs.
Because Hualapai has only two traffic lanes in each direction, a pedestrian actuated signal
would be likely be unnecessary.
In Quadrant 2, Buffalo Drive is a relatively high speed arterial with a 40 MPH speed limit.
Centennial Hills Park is an important neighborhood amenity with a library, picnic and play
areas, sports fields, and a dog park and is adjacent to the Ralph Cadwallader Middle School.
The main park entrance at the intersection of Buffalo Drive and Deer Springs Way currently
has no crosswalk to connect to the residential neighborhood on the east side of Buffalo
Drive and no convenient alternate crossing locations. The intersection is shown below in
Exhibit 2-15.
19
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-15: Missing Crosswalk at the Buffalo-Deer Springs Intersection
The installation of a crosswalk on the south side of the intersection would facilitate safe
travel to and from the park. In addition to warning signs, a pedestrian actuated signal
might be appropriate for the intersection because of the existence of three traffic lanes
running in either direction on Buffalo Drive. A three phase pedestrian actuated signal
already exists at the fire station at Buffalo Drive and Wittig Avenue and is pictured in
Exhibit 2-16.
Exhibit 2-16: Example of a Pedestrian actuated Signal in the Study Area
The fifth location identified as a priority location for intermediate crosswalk improvements is
the segment of Elkhorn Road in Quadrant 2 adjacent to the Ralph Cadwallader Middle
School shown in Exhibit 2-17. The two existing zebra crosswalks traverse four traffic lanes
and a center turn lane on Elkhorn Road. The presence of two RTC bus stops and a school
necessitate special attention to the safety of these two crosswalks. Although there are
20
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
already two warning signals in place, one for vehicle traffic each direction, installation of
median refuges would further improve the crosswalks’ safety.
Exhibit 2-17: Pedestrian Crossing at the Ralph Cadwallader Middle School
One median refuge option is the Danish offset, which has already been deployed adjacent to
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) on Maryland Parkway. The layout of the Danish
offset requires pedestrians to face traffic once they have reached the median and before
they cross the second half of the street. This safety measure has been shown to be
effective in reducing pedestrian injuries at crosswalks. Exhibit 2-18 shows the Danish
offset at the Maryland-Dumont Intersection near UNLV.
Exhibit 2-18: Example of Danish Offset Crosswalk in Las Vegas
Source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access – Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, Federal Highway
Administration (2001) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/index.htm
21
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The final location with a short term need for an improved intermediate pedestrian crossing
is on Tropical Parkway between Durango Drive and Centennial Center Parkway. The
existing crosswalk is adjacent to two retail centers and the Northwest Career and Technical
Center high school and is a good candidate for the construction of a pedestrian median
refuge. Pedestrian and bicyclists would benefit from a safe median stopping point to safely
cross the 35 MPH speed limit arterial. Since there is an existing median on this segment of
Tropical Parkway, it should be straightforward to complete the pedestrian refuge.
Exhibit 2-19: Crosswalk on Tropical Parkway
Several of the intersections listed as higher risk in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum but
not addressed in Section 2.2 do not face the same combination of high traffic, greater
width, and higher speed limit as Durango. However, several were identified as candidates
for the use of zebra crosswalk markings to improve crosswalk visibility and safety:
- Durango Drive and Centennial Parkway
- Centennial Center Boulevard and Azure Drive
- Centennial Parkway and Grand Montecito Parkway.
In the less densely populated portion of Quadrant 2, two intersections could benefit from
safer pedestrian crossings in the medium term. With the completion of the Horse Drive
interchange with US 95, the intersection of El Capitan Way and Horse Drive may be
experiencing additional traffic. This intersection falls within a fairly long segment of El
Capitan Way that has no stops, traffic signals, or crosswalks. The installation of stop signs
on El Capitan Way with zebra stripe crosswalks would provide a safe route for pedestrians
across the four lanes of El Capitan Way.
The nearby intersection of Durango Drive and Brent Lane faces a similar situation: a higher
speed arterial with a long section without adequately controlled pedestrian crossings.
22
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Because Brent Lane provides access to Floyd Lamb State Park as well as a connection to the
Horse Drive Interchange, it is more prone to cross traffic than neighboring east-west
streets. The lack of traffic controls at the Durango Drive intersection increases the risk for
vehicles turning left leaving Floyd Lamb State Park and for vehicles crossing Durango Drive.
The installation of stop signs would improve safety significantly with minimal impact on
traffic in this less dense section of the Study Area.
Exhibit 2-20 summarizes the pedestrian crossing alternatives presented in Section 2.3
while Exhibit 2-21 maps the location of each improvement.
Exhibit 2-20: Summary of Proposed Crosswalk Improvements
Location
Alternative
-
Description
Remove non-standard crosswalk
Complete multi-use trail connection west to
the Centennial Center Blvd intersection
Install crosswalk and median refuge
Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal
Install warning signs
Install crosswalk
Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal
Install warning signs
Buffalo / Ann
Crosswalk
improvements
5785 Centennial
Center Boulevard
New intermediate
crosswalk
Mountain Ridge
Park Entrance
New intermediate
crosswalk
Gilcrease Brothers
Park
New intermediate
crosswalk
- Install crosswalk and median refuge
- Install pedestrian-actuated warning signal
Buffalo Deer
Springs
New crosswalk and
warning signal
- Install crosswalk
- Install warning signs
Ralph Cadwallader
Middle School
Crosswalk
improvements
- Install Danish offsets in crosswalks
Tropical Parkway
Trail Crossing
Crosswalk
improvements
- Construct median refuge
El Capitan / Horse
New stop signs
- Install stop signs
- Install zebra crosswalk
Durango / Brent
New stop signs
Durango / Deer
Springs
Crosswalk
improvements
- Use zebra crosswalk
Durango /
Centennial
Crosswalk
improvements
Centennial /
Grand Montecito
Crosswalk
improvements
Centennial Center
/ Azure
Crosswalk
improvements
-
23
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 21: Map of Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Improvements
2.4 Intermediate Equestrian Trail Crossings
Another location where the off-street and on-street travel networks interact in the Study
Area is at uncontrolled trail crossings. There are two such equestrian crossings in Quadrant
2. Uncontrolled crossings are of concern on busy streets without alternate controlled
crossing locations where higher vehicle speeds and poor judgment are more likely lead to
crashes and injuries.
24
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The core trail network in Quadrant 2 connects the US 95 underpass at Grand Teton Drive to
the eastern edge of the Study Area and to the southern edge of Floyd Lamb State Park.
There are two critical trail crossings in this backbone system that remain uncontrolled.
Exhibit 2-22 provides a generic schematic of an appropriate crossing alternative. The
crossing includes a trail approach where the equestrian can look for oncoming traffic, a curb
ramp for easy transition to the road – preferably without the use of bright colors like the
standard tactile yellow strips that can distract or upset a horse, and a demarcated crossing
area with a horse friendly surface.
The street approaches have warning signs and
pavement markings drawing attention to the crossing location.
Exhibit 2-22: Schematic of a Typical At-Grade Equestrian Trail Crossing
Source: Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, Federal Highway Administration
(2011) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/fspubs/07232816/toc.htm
The first is the crossing of Durango Drive at Ackerman Avenue. This segment of Durango
Drive is a wide arterial with a speed limit of 40 MPH. Exhibit 2-23 shows how the trail
stops at the sidewalk without guidance for equestrians or other trail users of how to reach
the continuance of the trail directly across the street. Although no traffic control measures
are in place to facilitate crossing, the natural action is nevertheless to directly cross the four
traffic lanes of the busy arterial. Currently, the closest safe crossing is the signalized
25
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
intersection at Grand Teton Drive 550 feet to the south, not a viable alternative for
equestrian travelers since there is only a sidewalk connection.
Exhibit 2-23: Missing Trail Crossing at the Durango-Ackerman Intersection
A pedestrian actuated signal with a second button height convenient for equestrians would
provide trail users with a safe crossing option. The signal could either require traffic to fully
stop using a three phase signal (as shown in Exhibit 2-16) or simply use flashing yellow
warning lights. Parallel stripe crosswalk markings across Durango Drive and an advance
stop line would encourage more gradual deceleration. Accessible ramps would allow an
easy transition across the sidewalk; however, bright colors on the tactile strip can intimidate
horses. Because this trail alignment is a long distance trail that connects to recreational
amenities, the crossing would effectively serve recreational and transportation trail users as
well as equestrians.
The second trail crossing connects the equestrian trail on the south side of Racel Street
between Buffalo Drive and Cimarron Road to the south end of Floyd Lamb State Park.
Currently, the decomposed granite trail terminates abruptly behind the sidewalk. As
Exhibit 2-24 shows, trail users must cut through landscaping and across the crosswalk to
reach the park access across the street. A single warning sign alerts drivers to the presence
of the equestrian crossing. The proposed trail crossing would add additional warning signs
in more visible locations, a zebra stripe crossing, and a curb cut on the north side of the
road. One equestrian stakeholder noted the need for a wagon accessible park entrance on
the north side of the crossing to allow access to Floyd Lamb State Park.
26
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-24: Proposed Trail Crossing Location on Racel Street
Exhibit 2-25 summarizes the proposed horse trail crossing improvements for the Study
Area.
Exhibit 2-25: Summary of Proposed Trail Crossing Improvements
Location
Alternative
Durango /
Ackerman
Construct horse
crossing
Racel St. Floyd
Lamb Entrance
Horse crossing
improvements
Description
- Install ramps and striping
- Install pedestrian/equestrian actuated signal
- Install improved warning signs
2.5 Bicycle Lane Network Development
The final element of the on-street alternate mode network is the bicycle network. Bike
lanes form the backbone of this network and are the focus of this section. The initial
alternatives presented address strategic gaps in the bike lane network and recommend
specific measures to reduce collisions involving bicycles and motor vehicles. The gap
analysis takes into account planned bike lane striping for 2011 and the City of Las Vegas
planned bike network.
In addition to the completion and extension of the bike lane network, existing bike lanes in
the Study Area might benefit from some additional measures to improve safety. The Task 3
Technical Memorandum assigned a segment of Azure Drive with bike lanes a “moderate to
high” risk score. Also, several Town Center street segments with bike lanes received a
"moderate risk" score:
- Grand Montecito Parkway between Elkhorn Road and Centennial Parkway,
- Centennial Center Boulevard between Durango Drive and Ann Road, and
- Elkhorn Road from Grand Canyon Drive to Tenaya Way.
27
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Although they have effective bicycle lanes in place, the segments' higher speed limits and
higher bike traffic potential make them a potential target for additional safety measures.
The relatively high number of busy driveways and cross streets mean these segments could
benefit from additional signage informing travelers that the street is a bicycle route.
Exhibit 2-26 shows key standard bicycle regulatory, warning, and guidance signs from the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Exhibit 2-26: Key Bicycle Facility Signs
Source:
Manual
on
Uniform
Traffic
Control
Devices,
Federal
Highway
Administration
(2009)
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/html_index.htm
Another possible measure to improve bicycle and general street safety on these three
arterials is to lower the speed limit on each segment from 35 MPH to 30 MPH. For Grand
Montecito Parkway, because Oso Blanca Road constitutes a high speed parallel alternative, a
slightly lower speed limit of 30 MPH could be an appropriate measure to improve the
street's safety. Likewise, Centennial Center Boulevard has available alternate routes
including Durango Drive and Ann Road and the freeways and could see similar safety
benefits from a 30 MPH speed limit. Azure Drive is an important crossing between
28
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Quadrants 3 and 4; however, Ann Road provides a nearby higher speed alternative for
drivers making longer trips. Since Elkhorn Road is a critical east-west arterial, its 35 MPH is
appropriate to ensure mobility for motor vehicles in the corridor.
Exhibit 2-27 shows a speed limit map of the Study Area including the revised speed limits
for the segments of Grand Montecito Parkway, Centennial Center Boulevard, and Azure
Drive. The map shows how the new speed limits would calm traffic in the core areas of the
Town Center and encourage through traffic onto Durango Drive and higher speed periphery
streets. The new map shows the speed limits on these segments reduced from 35 MPH to
30 MPH.
Exhibit 2-27: Map of Potential Study Speed Limit Revisions
29
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The City of Las Vegas has been working to address successive vehicle runoffs occurring on
Centennial Center Boulevard. Heightened enforcement and the installation of rumble strips
before curves has helped mitigate the problem. However, a small reduction in the speed
limit could also contribute to improve roadway safety by addressing this issue.
Beyond the core Town Center area, there are a few critical gaps in the bike lane network
that could be addressed in the near term. For instance, the south side of Elkhorn Road
between the US 95 freeway overpass and Cimarron lacks a bike lane on the shoulder. As
part of the next resurfacing, this lane could be completed by using some of the median
space. A transition from a paved median to a hard median on the portion of Elkhorn in the
Study Area east of the freeway crossing would increase roadway safety. A hard median
would also create sufficient space to complete the bike lane, allow wider lanes, improve
roadway aesthetics, and permit the installation of pedestrian refuges for the crosswalks on
Elkhorn Road adjacent to the Ralph Cadwallader Middle School at Buffalo Drive. Exhibit 228 shows the division of road space created by the existing median on Tropical Parkway.
Exhibit 2-28: Example of Median from Tropical Parkway
The Study Area's bike lane network does not conform entirely to the planned bike network.
On planned routes, there are often interruptions and gaps in the bike lanes. There is also a
significant distance of bike lanes on unplanned segments. Exhibit 2-29 shows the existing
bike lane network including lanes scheduled to be completed in 2011.
30
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-29: Current Bike Lane Network
The map shows the problems with coverage and connectivity in the network. The
incomplete bike lane network segments identified in Exhibit 2-30 adhere to the City of Las
Vegas’ planned bike lane network but also include several additional segments. The
proposed additional bike lane segments are intended to cover existing gaps and to provide
connections among existing routes. In order to provide cyclists with the safest possible
travel options, the proposed additional bike lanes include mostly lower speed street
segments.
31
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 2-30: Existing, Planned, and Proposed Bike Lanes
Exhibit 2-31 provides a table of priority bike lane network gaps to address in the short
term. These streets are part of the planned bike lane network and are either fully
developed or are higher speed arterial segments where safety is a concern.
Exhibit 2-31: Proposed Priority Bike Lane Network Gaps to Be Addressed
Segment
Street Segment
Start Location
End Location
Quadrant Length (ft)
Grand Canyon Drive
Horse Drive
Echelon Point
Drive
32
1
18,710
Part III
Street Segment
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Start Location
End Location
Quadrant
Segment
Length (ft)
Farm Road
Oso Blanca Road
Tee Pee Lane
1
6,480
Oso Blanca Road
Farm Road
Gilcrease Avenue
1
820
Horse Drive /
Fort Apache Road
Grand Canyon
Drive
Iron Mountain
Road
1&2
9,460
Tule Springs Road /
Sky Pointe Drive
Farm Road
Cimarron Road
2
4,920
Buffalo Drive
Elkhorn Drive
Deer Springs Way
2
3,220
Deer Springs Way
Cimarron Road
Rosinwood Street
2
1,280
Elkhorn Road
US 95
Cimarron Road
2
1,430
Farm Road /
El Capitan Way
Racel Street
Tule Springs Road
2
7,890
Tropical Parkway
Durango Drive
Centennial Center
Boulevard
3
4,660
Centennial Center
Parkway
Fort Apache Road
Grand Montecito
Parkway
3
6,840
Sky Pointe Drive
Azure Drive
Ann Road
4
4,330
Tenaya Way
Azure Drive
Ann Road
4
6,950
-
-
76,990
Total
-
One other bicycle network gap not mentioned above is the segment of Ann Road between
Centennial Center Boulevard and Durango Drive. On this segment, Ann Road is a high
speed arterial with narrow shoulder lanes that are sometimes no wider than twelve feet.
Therefore, Ann Road is not suitable as a bike route. Bicycle guidance signs could be
installed at the Centennial Center Boulevard and Durango Drive intersections in order to
direct bicyclists to safer alternate routes. The proposed multi-use trail along the El Campo
Grande utility alignment described in Section 3 would provide an excellent alternative.
Alternately, the south side sidewalk could be widened to eight feet as proposed in Section 3.
The final issue identified with respect to the on-street bicycle network is the fading of bike
lane markings based on asphalt bleeding (as opposed to paint wear). The City of Las Vegas
and Clark County could consider developing maintenance standards for their respective bike
33
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
lane networks to ensure they are maintained regularly and the lane markings remain visible.
Exhibit 2-32 shows an example of obscured bike lane markings on Centennial Center
Parkway.
Exhibit 2-32: Faded Bicycle Lane Markings
34
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
3. OFF-STREET FACILITIES ALTERNATIVES
In this section, the proposed alternatives address the sidewalk and off-street multi-use and
equestrian trail needs identified in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum. While on-street
improvements focus more on safety, the preliminary off-street alternatives focus on closing
sidewalk and trail gaps and on extending these networks in addition to addressing safety
concerns.
3.1 Sidewalk Network Development
The main goal of sidewalk investment is to connect across undeveloped blocks to ensure
pedestrian access to key locations. Because none of the four quadrants has reached
complete build out, sidewalk gaps remain in each. Exhibit 3-1 provides an example of an
existing gap in the Study Area’s sidewalk network: the photograph shows the sidewalk
discontinuity on Durango Drive at the intersection with Oso Blanca Road. Despite the fact
that the Durango Drive highway crossing is an important connection across US 95, there is
no sidewalk approach to the overpass on either Oso Blanca Road or Durango Drive.
Exhibit 3-1: Sidewalk Gap at the Durango-Oso Blanca Intersection
Exhibit 3-2 provides a map of existing sidewalk gaps. The map also shows the proposed
intersection and pedestrian crossing improvements for reference.
Together, these
improvements would promote more comprehensive pedestrian mobility within the Study
Area.
35
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-2: Map of Existing Study Area Sidewalk Gaps
In some cases, sidewalk gaps do not constitute a barrier to pedestrians and prevent them
from accessing key locations because there is a completed sidewalk segment on the
opposite side of the street or an alternate route exists of comparable length along another
block. However, there are a number of street segments where the current lack of sidewalk
represents a barrier to pedestrian mobility. Exhibit 3-3 lists the segments identified as
barrier segments based on the findings in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum.
36
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-3: Proposed Sidewalk Gaps to Be Addressed
Side of
Street Segment
Start Location
End Location
Street
Segment
Length (ft)
Grand Teton Oso Blanca Road Tee Pee Lane North Side 1,680 Durango Drive Elkhorn Road Oso Blanca Road East Side 1,090 Durango Drive Elkhorn Road Oso Blanca Road West Side 1,080 Oso Blanca Road Severence Lane Durango Drive West Side 610 Elkhorn Road Campbell Road Durango Drive North Side 570 Deer Springs Way Tee Pee Lane Fort Apache Road South Side 730 Deer Springs Way Campbell Road Durango Drive North Side 330 Deer Springs Way Campbell Road Durango Drive South Side 1,230 Farm Road Durango Drive Tule Springs Road South Side 970 Centennial Parkway Durango Drive Grand Montecito Parkway North Side 2,230 Centennial Parkway Durango Drive Southbound US 95 ramps South Side 1,510 Durango Drive Centennial Parkway Ann Road West Side 3,540 Tropical Parkway Durango Drive Centennial Center Boulevard
North Side 930 ‐ ‐ Total ‐ 16,500 In the medium and long term, it is reasonable to expect that renewed development of
empty parcels will ensure the completion of the sidewalk network. Therefore, in most
locations, jurisdictions may consider the use of temporary sidewalks in lieu of more
expensive permanent sidewalks constructed to all county specifications.
Temporary
sidewalks constructed from recycled asphalt are an effective lower cost alternative to
permanent cement sidewalks. Where the street curb is already in place, jurisdictions often
construct permanent sidewalks. Exhibit 3-4 provides an example of a temporary asphalt
sidewalk while Exhibit 3-5 shows a map the proposed sidewalk gaps to be bridged.
Exhibit 3-4: Temporary Asphalt Sidewalk
37
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-5: Map of Proposed New Sidewalk Segments
3.2 Multi-Use Trail Network Development
Multi-use trails are
The multi-use trail
backbone network
the city to key
a key element of both the recreation and transportation trails networks.
network covers gaps in the street grid for alternate mode travelers. A
provides longer distance connections among neighborhoods and across
destinations including schools, services, employment centers, and
38
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
recreational facilities. Multi-use trails also reduce the on-street portion of alternate mode
trips and thereby improve travel safety for all modes.
Exhibit 3-6 shows the gaps in the planned multi-use trail network. The map also shows
several opportunities to expand the transportation trails network using public right-of-way.
Exhibit 3-6: Multi-Use Trail Network Gaps
Most gaps can be attributed to undeveloped parcels where a developed has not completed
infrastructure investments. In the case of other gaps, the developer did not complete the
39
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
planned trail segment. Finally gaps may be the result of a trail unassociated with any
development and planned in a public right-of-way where the responsible public agency has
not yet constructed.
Gaps adjacent to planned developments represent a missed
opportunity and are often the most difficult and expensive to close. Exhibit 3-7 shows
which gaps are the responsibilities of private developers and which gaps are the
responsibilities of public agencies.
Exhibit 3-7: Multi-Use Trail Network Gaps Due to Undeveloped Land
40
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-8 identifies priority segments for public agencies to complete. These segments
emphasize completion of the longer distance backbone network along US 95 and CC-215
and the development of an alternative east-west route to Ann Road using existing public
utilities right-of-way.
Exhibit 3-8: Proposed Priority Multi-Use Trail Segments
Segment
Street Segment
Description
Status
Segment
Length (ft)
Las Vegas Beltway Trail Segment paralleling CC‐215 from Grand Canyon to Grand Montecito Parkway Planned 8,500 US 95 Corridor Connects trail segment behind Lowe's to the Grand Teton crossing Planned 2,640 March Brown Avenue Connector Short trail segment to connect Cimarron Road and March Brown Avenue with the multi‐use trail Proposed directly to the north El Campo Grande Trail Two trail segments using the stormwater drainage right‐of‐way on El Campo Grande to connect to Centennial Center Boulevard Proposed 3,210 El Campo Grande‐
Tropical Connector A trail segment around the remaining perimeter of the stormwater detention facility Proposed 3,080 ‐ 17,570 Total ‐ 140 Ann Road is already one of the busiest arterials in the Study Area. With the continued
development in Quadrant 3 and neighborhoods to its west, Ann Road will experience
increased traffic volumes. With its higher volumes and higher speeds, the arterial is not a
safe route for bicyclists and is an unpleasant alternative for pedestrians. However, the
street provides an important connection across US 95 between two Town Center areas.
Although not an alternative in the current City of Las Vegas Transportation Trails Element,
the El Campo Grande alignment with its existing public utility right-of-way would provide a
parallel route to Ann Road that links with the existing trail routes on Buffalo Drive and
Tropical Parkway. Another alternative would be to expand the sidewalk on the south side of
Ann Road between Buffalo Drive and Cimarron Road to provide a sidewalk path accessible to
bicycles and pedestrians.
Exhibit 3-9 shows the possible trail alignment along El Campo Grande. The El Campo
Grande trail would connect the calm segments of El Campo Grande together to provide a
safe east-west trail route. The trail would connect to the short Buffalo Drive trail segment
in the southeast corner of Quadrant 3. A spur trail could connect the El Campo Grande trail
41
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
to the Tropical Parkway trail. A small connection trail at the end of March Brown Avenue
and Cimarron Road could also link the east–west El Campo Grande trail with the Tropical
Parkway trail.
Exhibit 3-9: Proposed Quadrant 3 Trail Connections, Option #1
The study Technical Working Group suggested that the trail wrap around the flood retention
basin and facilitate bike and pedestrian travel in a variety of directions. A proposed short
trail link along Ann Road would help route trail traffic off Ann Road up Buffalo Drive and
onto the El Campo Grande trail.
Exhibit 3-10: Las Vegas Valley Water District Property on Tropical Parkway
42
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The Ann Road sidewalk path alternative would use existing street right-of-way on the south
side of Ann Road to expand the standard five foot sidewalk to an eight or possibly nine foot
transportation trail. The path would begin on the southwest corner of the intersection of
Ann Road with Grand Montecito Parkway. The trail would continue west as far as Cimarron
Road which provides not only north-south access but also connects to alternate east-west
streets such as El Campo Grande.
Beyond the completion of the planned multi-use trail network, one important issue is the
planned trail crossing of CC-215 on the Las Vegas Beltway Trail. Currently, between
Quadrants 1 and 3 in the Study Area, there are no existing multi-use trails that connect
underneath the freeways where the shoulder narrows. Potential crossing locations include
Fort Apache Road, Durango Drive, and Grand Montecito Parkway. Of the two existing street
connections – Durango Drive and Grand Montecito Parkway, only the latter has bike lanes in
place. Both Grand Montecito Parkway and Durango Drive face the issue of limited sidewalk
space beneath the freeway bridge. At Durango Drive, westbound bike and pedestrian traffic
could be routed right along the western sidewalk on Durango to use the next crosswalk.
Eastbound traffic would turn north onto the eastern sidewalk and cross under the freeway to
reach the next crosswalk. Traffic could not be split at the Grand Montecito Parkway
underpass, creating safety issues. Fort Apache, as a calm street with a 25 MPH speed limit
represents the most promising opportunity for a trail crossing.
A typical overpass would only include standard five foot sidewalks and bike lanes as part of
a sixteen foot shoulder lane. The Fort Apache Road overpass is an opportunity to provide a
high quality link for trail users. As Exhibit 3-11 shows, on the north side of the overpass,
the Las Vegas Beltway Trail will intersect with Fort Apache Road at an intermediate point.
Without a controlled intersection, bicyclists turning left at the trailhead face a conflict with
cross-traffic. Likewise, northbound bicyclists turning left onto the trail will also face conflicts
from traffic in both directions.
43
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-11: Left Turn Conflicts for Bicyclists at the Fort Apache Overpass
One alternative, illustrated in Exhibit 3-12, is to provide a trail extension north to connect
with the planned Fort Apache sidewalk path. Bicyclists traveling east on the Las Vegas
Beltway to north on Fort Apache Road will turn left onto the trail and then cross the east
side of Fort Apache Road at the intersection with Echelon Point Drive. Bicyclists traveling
northbound on Fort Apache Road who want to turn west on the Las Vegas Beltway Trail can
merge across the traffic lanes to a median bike box where they can stop and make the turn
when safe. Warning signs would alert drivers in both directions the bicycle movement.
44
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-12: Option #1 - Alternative to Mitigate Bicyclist Left Turn Conflicts
Another option, shown in Exhibit 3-13, is to extend the sidewalk path on the west side of
Fort Apache Road south to the intersection with Darling Road and the south side Beltway
Trail terminus. This option would also route bicyclists traveling from eastbound on the
Beltway Trail to northbound on Fort Apache Road left on the sidewalk path. Bicyclists
turning right out of the trail terminus would still be directed into the southbound bike lane
over the overpass. Bicyclists traveling northbound on Fort Apache wishing to turn left to
ride westbound on the Beltway trail would cross the street at the intersection with Darling
Road and use the sidewalk path on the overpass before turning left onto the trail. This
alternative would require careful signage at each trail terminus. It is recommended that the
posted speed limit on Fort Apache Road remain 25 MPH.
45
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-13: Option #2 - Alternative Mitigate Bicyclist Left Turn Conflicts
A second important concern for the development of the Las Vegas Beltway Trail is safety of
the crossing location at Durango Drive. If possible, the planned trail could take advantage
of the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection of Durango Drive with eastbound CC215. The large median refuge (shown in Exhibit 3-14) and smaller number of traffic
turning directions make this crosswalk safer and more appropriate for higher alternate
mode traffic volumes than the nearby intersection of Durango Drive and Centennial
Parkway.
46
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-14: Median Refuge at the Durango-CC-215 Interchange
The final issue related to the Study Area’s trail network is the potential use of additional
signage. Posting warning signs such as those in Exhibit 3-15 can improve safety by better
regulating alternate mode traffic in the relatively narrow trail space. Key locations include
trail termini and junctions. The City of Las Vegas and Clark County might also consider
using trail guidance signs to assist travelers and raise awareness of the trail network’s
coverage.
Exhibit 3-15: Example Warning Signs for Multi-Use Trails
3.3 Equestrian Trail Network Development
The equestrian network already has a backbone trail system within the Study Area with
alignments and rights-of-way reserved to complete the system in the future.
The
equestrian trail network serves to connect the rural neighborhood preservation areas around
the periphery of the Study Area and to provide access from core residential neighborhoods
to recreational trail systems at the urban boundary.
47
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Equestrian trails serve primarily recreational purposes and are not ADA accessible. As a
result, RTC does not provide funding for equestrian trail development. However, they are
an important recreational amenity and ensure that equestrians have a safe, local riding
option where they will not come into conflict with other modes. The primary challenge
facing the equestrian trail network in the Study Area is the completion of the planned trail
system shown in Exhibit 3-16.
Exhibit 3-16: Map of Planned and Proposed Equestrian/Soft-Surface Trails
48
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The map reflects the two proposed trail crossing improvements and the existing subgrade
crossing at Grand Teton Drive. While the planned Grand Teton overpass is slated to include
a grade-separated trail, it is recommended that the subgrade crossing of US 95 remain
open for equestrians. The map also shows two proposed trail links not included the current
trails plan. One potential trail connection would parallel the Las Vegas Beltway Trail west
from Grand Canyon Drive at the edge of the Study Area in Quadrant 1 until the equestrian
trail can connect to the western public lands. The other potential trail connection would link
the El Capitan Way horse trail in Quadrant 2 to Floyd Lamb State Park along Log Cabin Way.
One option is to assure the use of the soft-surface trail network in the short term until it is
completed by developers. Decomposed granite or another fine gravel surface could be
spread as a temporary trail surface. Exhibit 3-17 shows the distance of each trail gap on
Grand Teton Drive.
Exhibit 3-17: Proposed Temporary Equestrian Trail Segments
Street Segment
Description
Segment
Length (ft)
Grand Teton Drive
Segment 1
Temporary connection from the Grand Teton
underpass to Tee Pee Lane.
1,720
Grand Teton Drive
Segment 2
Temporary connection from Grand Canyon Drive
west to Hualapai Way.
2,700
The remaining issues facing the equestrian trail network in the Study Area relate to
maintenance and design issues. With respect to design issues, equestrian stakeholders
have raised the following design issues:
1. Appropriate buffer – equestrian trails should not only have a proper buffer space
from the street (10 feet as specified in the City of Las Vegas Recreation Trails
Element) but also with other potential hazards such as drainage channels.
2. Stable trail substrate – if a trail crosses an artificial feature on the trail such as a
curb or a drainage channel, it is important that the trail surface be stable, without
hollow resonance, and that the artificial feature avoid the use of high-contrast or
bright colors.
3. Tree canopy – trees planted along equestrian trails should be chosen for appropriate
height and canopy so as not to pose an obstacle to people on horseback. It is also
important that vegetative materials not be poisonous to horses.
4. Trail barriers – certain trail barriers intended to stop trail use by motorcycles or other
unwanted users can also inhibit legitimate trail uses such as horse-drawn carts, so
trail barriers should be used only in appropriate contexts.
This input could be used to inform any revision of the City of Las Vegas Recreation Trails
Element as well as any trail maintenance and rehabilitation projects throughout the Study
49
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Area and the region. The schematic in Exhibit 3-18 shows that the current master plan
may not present sufficient detail on recreation trail design. The City of Las Vegas and Clark
County may also consider evaluating their trail maintenance programs in light of these
comments.
Exhibit 3-18: Typical Equestrian Trail Layout
Source: City of Las Vegas Master Plan Recreation Trails Element (2005)
Stakeholder input has also highlighted other challenges in the development of the
equestrian trail network. Within and around the Study Area, jurisdictions should ensure
that planned trails are appropriately implemented by developers. Development and
redevelopment are the easiest time to construct trails at relatively low cost, and missing this
window can result in much higher future costs to complete the trail system. Beyond the
50
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
planned trail system, opportunities may also arise to incorporate recreational and equestrian
trails in public rights-of-way, especially to connect to important recreation destinations,
such as open space areas, parks, and RNPs.
Exhibit 3-19 summarizes the proposed horse trail network improvements for the Study
Area. The photograph in Exhibit 3-20 shows a horse trail gap on Severence Lane while the
photograph in Exhibit 3-21 shows the horse trail gap on Grand Teton west of US 95.
Exhibit 3-19: Summary of Proposed Trail Crossing Improvements
Alternative
Description
Temporary Grand Teton
Trail
- Create a temporary trail with a fine gravel surface to
provide a temporary trail connection along Grand
Teton Drive
Beltway Trail Western
Connection
- Provide an equestrian trail connection parallel to the
Las Vegas Beltway Trail from Grand Canyon Drive to
public lands
Log Cabin Trail
Connection
- Provide an equestrian trail connection along Log
Cabin Way from the El Capitan Way equestrian trail
to Floyd Lamb State Park
Trail Design
Improvements
- Address issues with trail design as opportunities
arise: tree choice, inadequate buffers, unstable
substrates, and trail barriers
Revisions to Trail Design
Guidelines
- Revise/amend trail design guidelines as appropriate
based on stakeholder input
51
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-20: Equestrian Trail Gap on Severence Lane
52
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 3-21: Equestrian Trail Gap on Grand Teton Drive
53
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
4. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Transit is an important transportation element in the Study Area because it represents the
only alternative for some travelers to cross US 95 within the Study Area. For others it is the
only option to reach more distant destinations outside the Study Area such as the Rancho
Drive Corridor and central Las Vegas. This section presents alternatives to encourage
multimodal travel, especially using the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride, to
improve transit stop amenities in order to encourage transit use, and to improve transit
performance. It also addresses possible future transit infrastructure needs.
4.1 Transit Center Improvements
The Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride is the hub for multimodal trips in the
Study Area. For the transit center to function as effectively as possible, it is important to
maximize its accessibility. The proposed alternatives in this section provide a variety of
options to increase access to the transit center.
The most important current issue at the park-and-ride is a shortage of bicycle parking. The
presence of a security guard at the transit station makes it a relative secure location to
leave a bicycle. However, the facility currently has fewer than ten available bike parking
spaces. Exhibit 4-1 shows all available spaces in the single bike rack occupied.
Exhibit 4-1: Full Bicycle Parking at the Centennial Hills Transit Center
54
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Biking is a popular, low-cost access option to transit, but it depends on the adequate supply
of secure bike parking. Excess bike parking capacity is better because it gives bicyclists the
assurance of finding secure parking at the transit facility. The large size of the park-andride facility leaves ample space for additional bike parking within sight of the transit center
building. Exhibit 4-2 shows one potential location for additional spaces. The quality of the
bike parking also matters, not only in terms of security. Exhibit 4-3 provides examples of
higher and lower quality bike parking options. The addition 30 spaces – 2 to 15 additional
racks depending on the type – would likely be a first increase in the supply of spaces.
However, RTC must expect the future need for spaces to increase and plan accordingly to
prevent demand from exceeding supply. Furthermore, the installation of a security camera
monitoring the bike parking could be a good way to improve the perception of bike parking
security at the park-and-ride.
Exhibit 4-2: Potential Location for Additional Bike Racks
Potential Bike Parking
55
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-3: Sample Bicycle Parking Guidelines
Source: Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Bicycle Parking Guidelines (2002)
56
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The second immediate opportunity to improve the performance of the Centennial Hills
Transit Center and Park-and-Ride is to increase the visibility of the facility. Additional
guidance signs on Elkhorn, Durango, and US 95 could raise awareness of the facility and
encourage its use as well as make it easier for travelers to find it.
Given the rapid growth rate of transit ridership at the station and the significant utilization
of the parking facilities, RTC can expect strong future demand at the station. As parking
utilization rises, RTC may need to consider parking enforcement strategies as well as
demand management strategies. The latter might include preferred parking for carpools or
other such measures. Another option is to replace surface parking with a raised parking
structure.
Parking structures have the additional benefit that they facilitate parking
enforcement. While parking structure construction costs can be high, especially when
measured by the cost per net space added, rising land costs may justify it in the future.
Exhibit 4-4 lists the proposed improvements for the Centennial Hills Transit Center and
Park-and-Ride.
Exhibit 4-4: Summary of Proposed Transit Center Improvements
Alternative
Description
Additional Bicycle
Parking
- Install additional secure bicycle parking
Additional Guidance
Signs
- Install additional guidance signs to raise awareness and visibility
of the facility
Parking Expansion
- Potential parking expansion in a raised structure
4.2 Bus Stop Amenities
While the transit center has the most frequently used bus stops in the Study Area because
of the Centennial Express service, other bus stops in the Study Area account for a relatively
high proportion of transit demand and deserve attention, too. The Task 3 Technical
Memorandum examined the top nine stops in the Study Area and identified locations in each
of the four quadrants. The alternatives proposed below present the most promising
opportunities to improve bus stop amenities and accessibility in order to promote transit
ridership, safety, and improved operations.
One issue at multiple busy transit stops is the lack of bus shelters. Exhibit 4-5 shows the
northbound bus stop at Durango Drive and Farm Road, an important link across US 95.
RTC should consider installing bus shelters in both the northbound and southbound
directions at this intersection. The eastbound and westbound bus stops at the Farm Road
57
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
and Tule Springs Road intersection are also both candidate locations for the installation of
bus shelters since these stops rank in the top ten transit locations in the Study Area.
Exhibit 4-5: Northbound Transit Stop at Durango Drive and Farm Road
A second issue facing many transit stops in the Study Area is the lack of bus turnouts. The
most critical location lacking bus turnouts is the intersection of Durango Drive and Dorrell
Lane. This section of Durango Drive has high density to support significant transit demand
and higher speed limits and traffic volumes to warrant bus turnouts. The northbound bus
stop has sufficient space for a bus turnout according to the RTC specification shown in
Exhibit 4-6.
Exhibit 4-6: RTC Bus Turnout Specification
58
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The southbound bus stop at the Durango Drive and Dorrell Lane intersection – shown in
Exhibit 4-7 – does not have sufficient space for a standard bus turnout in its current
location. One option is to move the stop north of Dorrell Lane.
Exhibit 4-7: Southbound Bus Stop at the Durango Drive-Dorrell Lane Intersection
Other transit stop locations would also benefit from the construction of bus turnouts.
However, given the cost of constructing a bus turnout, such improvements are unlikely to
be warranted in the near term. These locations are along the important transit corridor of
Grand Montecito Parkway and Centennial Center Parkway and are listed in Exhibit 4-10.
As the Study Area continues to develop and if transit service levels are increased, buses
stopping in traffic will pose an increased safety threat both to motor vehicles and to
bicyclists using the bike lanes on Grand Montecito Parkway and on Centennial Center
Parkway.
The third issue facing some bus stops in the Study Area is their location is undesirable for a
transit stop. Exhibit 4-8 provides the example of the westbound stop at Ann Road and
Drexel Road where there is no sidewalk space. Such a narrow waiting area represents a
danger to disabled travelers waiting at the stop and a discomfort to other transit riders.
The Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way
published July 26, 2011 by the U.S. Access Board recommends at least eight feet of
sidewalk space at transit boarding locations. Exhibit 4-9 shows the nearby location across
Rio Vista Street where an empty parcel provides an opportunity to install a bus stop with
additional sidewalk space. The southbound bus stop on Grand Montecito adjacent to CC215 could also benefit from relocation. The current location does not have a bus turnout
and is isolated from services on Centennial Parkway. Since the parcel on the southeast
corner of the Grand Montecito Parkway and Centennial Parkway intersection is undeveloped,
future development could include a bus turnout. The bus would turn from Grand Montecito
east onto Centennial Parkway and into the bus turnout.
59
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-8: Bus Stop at Ann Road and Drexel Road
Exhibit 4-9: Potential Bus Stop Location at Ann Road and Rio Vista Street
60
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-10 summarizes the proposed transit stop improvements for the Study Area,
while Exhibit 4-11 shows the location of each proposed improvement on a map.
Exhibit 4-10: Summary of Proposed Improvements by Bus Stop
Bus Stop
Durango /
Dorrell
Improvements
- Install a bus turnouts the northbound stop and move the southbound
stop north of Dorrell Lane and install a bus turnout at the new
location
Durango / Farm
- Install bus shelters at both the northbound and southbound stops
Farm / Tule
Springs
- Install bus shelters at both the eastbound and westbound stops
5705 Centennial
Center
- Move bus stop to right turn pocket 100 feet to the west
5850 Centennial
Center
- Install northbound bus turnout
Grand Montecito
/ Centennial
- Install northbound bus turnout and move southbound stop to the
southeast corner of the intersection on Centennial Center Blvd
Grand Montecito
/ Rome
- Install northbound bus turnout
Ann / Drexel
- Move westbound stop location east to the empty parcel at the Rio
Vista intersection and install a bus shelter
Sky Pointe /
Ranch House
- Install crosswalk and sidewalk waiting area to make the stop
accessible
61
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-11: Map of Proposed Transit Stop Improvements
4.3 Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service
Currently transit serves two primary purposes: (1) to provide a connection across US 95 to
the Town Center areas and (2) to provide transportation along the corridor parallel to US 95
connecting to Rancho Drive and central Las Vegas. As development continues in the Study
Area and its population expands, there may be a need to expand transit service.
One option is to simply increase frequencies on existing lines – route 106 and the
Centennial Express. If this is in response to increased transit demand along the entire
transit route, than higher bus frequencies is a good option. However, this strategy does not
target the Study Area in particular, since most of the incremental vehicle service hours
serve other areas of the transit lines. Furthermore, the largest increases in transit demand
in the Study Area are likely to be in the relatively undeveloped northern portions of
62
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Quadrants 1 and 2. Currently, Quadrant 1 has the highest densities in the Study Area, and
this trend is set to continue with further development.
A second option to improve transit service specifically in the Study Area would be to extend
either Route 106 or the Centennial Express. An extension of an existing route is a relatively
low cost option, since it adds a relatively small incremental trip time to each bus run. Any
route extension should emphasize two aims: (1) increase service across US 95 and (2)
cover new areas with higher density housing and important services. A second loop
extending around Horse Drive would achieve both aims and could be added to either bus
route. An extension of the Centennial Express would most likely link the planned Kyle
Canyon Road park-and-ride to the Centennial Hills Transit Center and Park-and-Ride and
would constitute a small increase in service area coverage. RTC should ensure that the
planned park-and-ride at Kyle Canyon Road is designed to minimize the time required to
access the freeway ramps.
A third option to improve transit service in the Study Area is to create a new transit route.
A long distance route passing through the Study Area might run either east-west or northsouth. The most likely east-west route is along Ann Road. The most likely north-south
route is along Grand Canyon Drive or Hualapai Way. A second possibility is a local circulator
service resembling RTC’s other “Silver Star” services.
Whether transit is expanded through a new route, an extension of an existing route, or
both, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County can help ensure that the proper infrastructure
is in place. The most important element to provide higher quality service is to have bus
turnouts in place with room for bus pads. Exhibit 4-12 shows the most likely routes for
future transit service where bus infrastructure should be required. Bus turnouts with bus
pads are most important adjacent to commercial centers, services such as libraries and
medical centers, schools, and denser housing. These infrastructure elements are also very
important to put in place on arterials to ensure smooth traffic flow and traffic safety. The
proximity of the proposed Kyle Canyon Road park-and-ride facility to the Horse Drive
interchange ensures that service on these routes could be easily integrated with that
facility.
63
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Exhibit 4-12: Proposed Routes for Bus Infrastructure
Both Grand Canyon Drive and Hualapai Way can expect relatively dense future development
that could support at least minimal transit service. The Horse Drive interchange is the
northern most opportunity to extend transit to the north section of Quadrant 2 and provide
service across US 95. The proposed routes can be used in order to plan the construction of
bus infrastructure during the initial development, a much lower cost option than completing
the infrastructure afterward. RTC will then be able to more easily extend service to new
portions of the Study Area at its discretion.
64
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
5. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Sections 2, 3, and 4 describe a set of alternatives for improving mobility in the Study Area.
All the proposed projects address a specific identified mobility need. However, in order to
meet budget constraints and schedule projects effectively, it is helpful to have a
prioritization framework in place. RTC and its partner jurisdictions are responsible for
delivering a transportation investment program that maximizes the mobility benefits
through time. Also, these agencies must ensure critical projects are built before lower
priority projects. Therefore, RTC must prioritize projects in terms of overall importance and
in terms of timeframe. This section develops a framework for project prioritization.
5.1 Prioritization Criteria
The project prioritization for this study employs a straightforward approach that calculates a
score for each project based on key attributes. A higher score indicates the project should
be considered a higher priority and therefore more likely to receive funding or to be built at
an earlier date relative to other projects. For purposes of this study, it is not necessary to
establish a strict rank order prioritization, where projects cannot receive the same score.
Instead, the projects need only cluster into a modest number of buckets, with no single
group containing an overwhelming share of projects. If too many projects receive a given
score or fall into a narrow score range, then it becomes difficult to draw meaningful
conclusions about their relative merit or priority.
The first step in the development of an objective prioritization framework is the selection of
key project evaluation criteria. Each criterion should reflect a critical aspect of a project’s
potential benefits based on stakeholders’ goals. The best criteria allow easy objective
measurement and are independent of the other criteria. If criteria are too similar and
measure similar attributes of a project, then this may constitute double-counting. The
correlation of the scores leads to a bias for or against these projects.
Safety is the first prioritization criterion used. The TWG has recognized safety improvement
as an important goal for the Study Area. A project is given a safety score of “1” if it
addresses a safety issue identified in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum: Evaluation of
Corridor Mobility Needs. Otherwise, the project receives a score of “0.” A project is
considered to improve safety if the improvements would reduce the likelihood of a crash,
collision, or other transportation-related hazard. Projects that address a safety need
therefore receive a higher overall prioritization score.
The next prioritization criterion is whether the project improves access across the two Study
Area highways: US 95 and CC-215. Improving access across these two highways is another
explicit goal of the TWG and the study. A project improves mobility across the highways if
65
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
it provides a new direct connection not previously available to a particular mode or if it
shortens the crossing distance for travelers using a particular mode and traveling in a
particular direction across the freeways. All projects from Sections 2, 3, and 4 that facilitate
mobility across the highways receive a score of “1,” while the remaining projects score “0.”
The third prioritization criterion examines whether the proposed improvements target
pedestrians. Pedestrians are one of the broadest transportation constituencies, and the
proposed pedestrian improvements all help to accommodate sensitive pedestrian groups
including children, the disabled, and the elderly. A project benefits pedestrians if it
improves the safety or comfort of any pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks, paths,
or street crossings or if it provides new infrastructure for pedestrians. Any projects which
make improvements for pedestrian infrastructure receive a score of “1” on this measure,
while other projects score “0.”
The final criterion used in the prioritization framework is whether a project improves access
to transit. The TWG has identified the accessibility and safety of transit stops and of the
transit center as a fourth study priority. Projects that improve transit access promote
transit ridership and improve the cost-effectiveness of RTC’s transit service. They also help
to ensure that key corridors in the Study Area develop as a relatively transit supportive
environment to accommodate travelers who do not have access to cars and provide a lowcost, accessible transportation option across and beyond the Study Area.
5.2 Prioritization Results
To reflect the fact that, overall, stakeholders do not necessarily accord each of the four
goals described above equal importance, the prioritization framework assigns the four
criteria different weights in calculating the overall prioritization score. A higher weight gives
a particular criterion more importance in determining an alternative’s overall score. Safety
is assigned a 35 percent weight while highway crossing improvements receive a 30 percent
weight, pedestrian projects a 20 percent weight, and transit projects a 15 percent weight.
Since the weights total 100 percent and each criterion has a binary “1” or “0” score, the
total sum score for a given project is from a minimum of “0” to a maximum of “100.”
Because safety is recognized as an important goal not only by project stakeholders but also
in local, regional, state, and national transportation policies, it receives the highest weight.
The high weight reflects the overall high return on investment for safety improvements. As
the central goal of the project, access across the freeways also receives a higher weight to
its scores. On the other hand, pedestrian improvements and transit access are important
but narrower goals within the context of the project, and therefore have lower scoring
weights.
66
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
The most important attribute of the weights is their relative magnitude. In practice, none of
the projects met more than two prioritization criteria. No project included both safety and
highway crossing improvements. The weight values reflect safety as a dominating concern.
Individually, none of the other criteria can match it. However, if a project scores on at least
two other criteria, it at least matches the score of safety. Likewise, for highway crossing
improvement projects, a combination of any two other criteria will rank higher. Pedestrian
and transit-related improvements are important but are not high priority unless paired with
another criterion. Based on the criteria weights, the projects fell into seven scoring groups
summarized in Exhibit 5-1.
While project priority is an important consideration, project feasibility and ease of
implementation are also important considerations in the programming process and are
addressed in the subsequent section. Appendix A includes additional detail on each
alternative as well as its prioritization score and suggested timeframe. Order of magnitude
project cost estimates are developed in Section 6 where project timeframe is also suggested
in more detail.
Exhibit 5-1: Summary of Project Prioritization by Project Area
Rank
Network
Category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Share
On-Street
Bicycle Lanes
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
13
15%
On-Street
Highway Overpasses
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
5
6%
On-Street
Equestrian Trail Crossings
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2%
On-Street
Pedestrian Crossings
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
13%
On-Street
Intersection
Improvements
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
13%
Off-Street
Equestrian Trails
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
8
9%
Off-Street
Multi-Use Trails
0
1
1
0
5
0
0
7
8%
Off-Street
Sidewalks
0
2
0
0
11
0
0
13
14%
Transit
Bus Stop Amenities
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
9
10%
Transit
Transit Center
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3%
Transit
Future Transit Service
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
6%
24
22
5
1
16
14
7
89
100%
27%
25%
6%
1%
18%
16%
8%
100%
Total
Share
Projects ranked lower are higher priority based on their score. The maximum score was
“55” and the minimum score was “0.” Exhibit 5-1 shows a significant number of the 89
67
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
total projects in the first two “high priority” score groups. These are the only projects that
received a score in multiple categories. A significant number of projects are also in the “7”
category meaning they received no points under any criterion. The projects are not
grouped disproportionately in any one category, so the seven grades of priority do provide a
useful distinction among projects.
Exhibit 5-2 shows the scores given each project for each scoring criterion. The table is
arranged by the sections of this report and lists the prioritization score and project rank
group for each project.
Exhibit 5-2: Project Alternative Scores
Section
Alternative
Score Weights:
Safety
Projects
Hwy
Xing
Projects
Ped.
Projects
Transit
Projects
35%
30%
20%
15%
Project
Score
Project
Score
Project
Rank
Project
Rank
On-Street Alternatives – Highway Overpasses and Interchanges
2-1
Fort Apache / CC-215 –
Overpass
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
2-1
Oso Blanca / CC-215 –
Overpass
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
2-1
Sky Pointe / CC-215 –
Overpass
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
2-1
Grand Teton / US 95 –
Overpass
0
1
0
0
0.3
4
2-1
Grand Teton / US 95 Interchange
0
0
0
0
0
7
On-Street Alternatives – Intersection Improvements
2-2
Ann / Cimarron - Traffic Signal
Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Durango / Deer Springs Crosswalk Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Durango / Dorrell - Traffic
Signal Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Durango / Elkhorn - Crosswalk
Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Durango / Farm - Crosswalk
Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
68
Part III
Section
Alternative
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Safety
Projects
Hwy
Xing
Projects
Ped.
Projects
Transit
Projects
Project
Score
Project
Rank
2-2
Durango / Oso Blanca Crosswalk Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Durango / Racel - Stop Sign
Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Grand Teton / El Capitan Traffic Signal Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Grand Teton / Grand Canyon Traffic Signal Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Grand Teton / Hualapai Traffic Signal Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Horse / Grand Canyon - Traffic
Signal Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-2
Horse / Hualapai - Traffic
Signal Installation
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings
2-3
5785 Centennial Center
Boulevard - New Intermediate
Crosswalk
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Buffalo / Ann - Crosswalk
Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Buffalo / Deer Springs - New
Crosswalk and Warning Signal
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Centennial / Grand Montecito Crosswalk Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Centennial Center / Azure Crosswalk Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Durango / Brent - New Stop
Signs
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Durango / Centennial Crosswalk Improvements
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
El Capitan / Horse - New Stop
Signs
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Gilcrease Brothers Park - New
Intermediate Crosswalk
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
2-3
Mountain Ridge Park Entrance
- New Intermediate Crosswalk
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
69
Part III
Section
2-3
2-3
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Ralph Cadwallader Middle
School - Crosswalk
Improvements
Tropical Parkway Trail Crossing
- Crosswalk Improvements
Safety
Projects
Hwy
Xing
Projects
Ped.
Projects
Transit
Projects
Project
Score
Project
Rank
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
1
0
1
0
0.55
1
On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Equestrian Crossings
2-4
Durango / Ackerman Construct Equestrian Crossing
1
0
0
0
0.35
3
2-4
Racel St. Floyd Lamb Entrance
- Equestrian Crossing
Improvements
1
0
0
0
0.35
3
2-5
Buffalo Drive Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
On-Street Alternatives – Bicycle Lane Network
2-5
Centennial Center Parkway
Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Deer Springs Way Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Elkhorn Road Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Farm Road / El Capitan Way
Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Farm Road Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Grand Canyon Drive Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Horse Drive / Fort Apache
Road Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Oso Blanca Road Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Sky Pointe Drive Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Tenaya Way Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Tropical Parkway Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
2-5
Tule Springs Road / Sky Pointe
Drive Bike Lane
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
70
Part III
Section
Alternative
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Safety
Projects
Hwy
Xing
Projects
Ped.
Projects
Transit
Projects
Project
Score
Project
Rank
Off-Street Alternatives – Sidewalk Network Development
3-1
Durango Drive Sidewalk
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
3-1
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
3-1
Centennial Parkway Sidewalk
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
Deer Springs Way Sidewalk
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
Elkhorn Road Sidewalk
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
Farm Road Sidewalk
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
Grand Teton Sidewalk
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
Oso Blanca Road Sidewalk
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-1
Tropical Parkway Sidewalk
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
Off-Street Alternatives – Multi-Use Trail Networks
3-2
Las Vegas Beltway Trail
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
3-2
Improved Multi-Use Trail
Signage
1
0
0
0
0.35
3
3-2
El Campo Grande Trail
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-2
El Campo Grande-Tropical
Connector Trail
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
71
Part III
Section
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Safety
Projects
Hwy
Xing
Projects
Ped.
Projects
Transit
Projects
Project
Score
Project
Rank
3-2
March Brown Avenue
Connector Trail
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-2
US 95 Corridor Trail
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
3-2
Widening of Sidewalk on South
Side of Ann Road
0
0
1
0
0.2
5
Off-Street Alternatives – Equestrian Trail Network Development
3-3
Trail Design - Appropriate Trail
Buffers
1
0
0
0
0.35
3
3-3
Trail Design - Stable Trail
Substrate
1
0
0
0
0.35
3
3-3
Connection
0
0
0
0
0
7
3-3
Grand Teton Drive Equestrian
Trail Segment 1
0
0
0
0
0
7
3-3
Grand Teton Drive Equestrian
Trail Segment 2
0
0
0
0
0
7
3-3
Log Cabin Trail Connection
0
0
0
0
0
7
3-3
Trail Design - Trail Barriers
0
0
0
0
0
7
3-3
Trail Design - Tree Canopy
0
0
0
0
0
7
Transit Improvements – Transit Center Improvements
4-1
Additional Bicycle Parking
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-1
Additional Guidance Signs
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-1
Parking Expansion
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
Transit Improvements – Bus Stop Amenities
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements - Ann
/ Drexel
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements Durango / Dorrell
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements - Sky
Pointe / Ranch House
1
0
0
1
0.5
2
72
Part III
Section
Alternative
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Safety
Projects
Hwy
Xing
Projects
Ped.
Projects
Transit
Projects
Project
Score
Project
Rank
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements 5705 Centennial Center
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements 5850 Centennial Center
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements Durango / Farm
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements Farm / Tule Springs
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements Grand Montecito / Centennial
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements Grand Montecito / Rome
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
Transit Improvements – Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service
4-3
Fort Apache Transit
Infrastructure
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-3
Grand Canyon Drive Transit
Infrastructure
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-3
Horse Drive Transit
Infrastructure
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-3
Hualapai Way Transit
Infrastructure
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
4-3
Kyle Canyon Park-and-Ride
0
0
0
1
0.15
6
73
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
6. COST ESTIMATION
The next step in the programming of alternatives is the establishment of rough order of
magnitude costs for each proposed alternative.
Together the effectiveness measure
provided by the prioritization score and the project cost estimate provide a comprehensive
evaluation of an alternatives merit with respect to the existing transportation investment
program. The two measures along with an estimate of the feasible timeframe for each
alternative’s implementation support a recommendation for the initial programming of each
project. Below is an explanation of the cost estimation approach followed by the results of
the cost estimation.
6.1 Cost Estimation Approach
The proposed alternatives cover a wide variety of investments. However, each of the
alternatives is a relatively straightforward improvement, so comparable project examples in
from the last five years the Southern Nevada region typically exist for each alternative. As
a result, the consultant team could rely on three straightforward sources to support the
estimates: past reports, peer projects, and engineer’s estimates.
The cost estimation was divided between JPL Engineering and CH2M HILL, with JPL
responsible for providing engineer’s estimates for specific alternatives. Cost estimate
sources included past RTC reports, RTC contract costs, local agency capital investment
program project estimates, regional cost databases, and bid sheets for comparable past
projects. Appendix C shows the unit costs used for the cost estimates as well as their
sources.
Larger projects tend to be addressed as lump sums based on engineer’s estimates or
comparable projects. Many of the smaller projects were broken into discreet items for cost
data were more easily available. With a unit cost approach, the quantities were estimated
for each of the component construction elements. In the case of recommendations
concerning planned projects, the cost estimates only address the marginal cost incurred on
top of the planned project. The cost estimates are detailed in Appendix B and show the unit
costs used where applicable. The cost estimates in Appendix B do not include the soft cost
factors – design, agency program management, and contingency.
In the table in Exhibit 6-2, the consultant team has added three fixed factors on top of the
construction costs to account for design costs, agency program management costs, and
contingency. The design cost factor is twelve percent based on industry averages for such
street and road projects. The agency program management costs are accounted for with an
eight percent overhead factor. The contingency is set at ten percent since most of the
alternatives involve relatively simple and low-risk improvements.
74
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
In most cases, the quantities were a distance in linear feet or a count of the component
items. The product of the unit cost and the quantity produces the cost estimate for the
component construction item.
The sum of the component items creates an overall
construction cost estimate for the alternative. Finally the design, program management,
and contingency factors are all applied to generate the final cost estimate, listed in Exhibit
6-2 in the next section.
6.2 Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates
The proposed alternatives include a broad range of costs for the proposed alternatives. In
order to provide an overall measure of cost-effectiveness, the analysis paired the project
prioritization rank from Section 5 with the total project cost. In order to simplify the
results, the alternatives have been placed into three groups for both cost and prioritization
rank as shown in Exhibit 6-1. The table shows the highest priority projects in the top row,
broken out by cost. The table shows a relative even distribution of projects by both cost
and priority, which allows the RTC and local jurisdictions to select and add projects to the
current investment program more easily.
Exhibit 6-1: Proposed Alternatives by Cost and Prioritization Rank
Cost Magnitude
Prioritization
Rank
$0-$10,000
$10,000-$250,000
$250,000 and up
Total
1-2
Low Cost / Higher
Priority: 13
Medium Cost / Higher
Priority: 19
Higher Cost /
Higher Priority: 13
45
3-5
Low Cost / Medium
Priority: 7
Medium Cost /
Medium Priority: 6
Higher Cost /
Medium Priority: 6
19
6-7
Low Cost / Lower
Priority: 10
Medium Cost / Lower
Priority: 7
Higher Cost / Lower
Priority: 4
21
30
32
23
85
Total
Some projects, such as revisions to equestrian trail design guidance, would not require
funding. On the other hand, the proposed highway crossing improvements would require
significant additional planning and design and incur significant costs. The estimated cost of
each alternative is a useful measure of the ease of implementation of a project. More costly
projects likely require more complex design and implementation despite the fact that they
may be more cost-effective than other options. Section 6-3 takes these factors in account
in determining the recommended programming timeframe for each alternative.
Exhibit 6-2 documents the cost estimates for each individual alternative. In a couple of
cases, related sidewalk improvements on a single street segment were grouped into a single
75
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
line item. As a result, the table below in Exhibit 6-2 lists only 85 alternatives instead of
the full 89. Costs are fully parsed in Appendix B.
Exhibit 6-2: Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates for Proposed Alternatives
Total
Project
Overall Project
Section
Alternative
Cost
Rank
Assessment
On-Street Alternatives – Highway Overpasses and Interchanges
2-1
Fort Apache / CC-215 - Overpass
$650,000
2
Higher Cost / Higher Priority
2-1
Grand Teton / US 95 - Interchange
$12,350,000
7
Higher Cost / Lower Priority
2-1
Grand Teton / US 95 - Overpass
$2,366,000
4
Higher Cost / Medium Priority
2-1
Oso Blanca / CC-215 - Overpass
$2,861,300
2
2-1
Sky Pointe / CC-215 - Overpass
$2,873,000
2
On-Street Alternatives – Intersection Improvements
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
Ann / Cimarron - Traffic Signal
Installation
Durango / Deer Springs - Crosswalk
Improvements
Durango / Dorrell - Traffic Signal
Installation
Durango / Elkhorn - Crosswalk
Improvements
Durango / Farm - Crosswalk
Improvements
Durango / Oso Blanca - Crosswalk
Improvements
Durango / Racel - Traffic Signal
Installation
Grand Teton / El Capitan - Traffic Signal
Installation
Grand Teton / Grand Canyon - Traffic
Signal Installation
Grand Teton / Hualapai - Traffic Signal
Installation
Horse / Grand Canyon - Traffic Signal
Installation
Horse / Hualapai - Traffic Signal
Installation
$552,500
1
$4,900
1
Lower Cost / Higher Priority
$54,200
1
Medium Cost / Higher Priority
$4,900
1
$6,200
1
$2,600
1
$552,500
1
$552,500
1
$552,500
1
$552,500
1
$552,500
1
$552,500
1
On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings
2-3
5785 Centennial Center Boulevard - New
$48,000
1
2-3
Buffalo / Ann - Crosswalk Improvements
$150,500
1
76
Part III
Section
2-3
2-3
2-3
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Total
Project
Cost
Alternative
Buffalo / Deer Springs - New Crosswalk
and Warning Signal
Centennial / Grand Montecito - Crosswalk
Improvements
Centennial Center / Azure - Crosswalk
Improvements
Rank
Overall Project
Assessment
$45,100
1
$2,200
1
$2,300
1
2-3
Durango / Brent - New Stop Signs
$2,000
1
2-3
Durango / Centennial - Crosswalk
Improvements
$2,500
1
2-3
El Capitan / Horse - New Stop Signs
$2,600
1
$48,100
1
$48,000
1
$20,900
1
$3,000
1
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
Gilcrease Brothers Park - New
Mountain Ridge Park Entrance - New
Ralph Cadwallader Middle School Crosswalk Improvements
Tropical Parkway Trail Crossing Crosswalk Improvements
On-Street Alternatives – Intermediate Equestrian Crossings
2-4
2-4
Durango / Ackerman - Construct
Equestrian Crossing
Racel St. Floyd Lamb Entrance Equestrian Crossing Improvements
$47,700
3
Medium Cost / Medium
Priority
$3,300
3
Lower Cost / Medium Priority
On-Street Alternatives – Bicycle Lane Network Development
2-5
$25,500
2
2-5
Centennial Center Parkway Bike Lane
$54,200
2
2-5
Deer Springs Way Bike Lane
$10,100
2
2-5
$11,300
2
2-5
Farm Road / El Capitan Way Bike Lane
$62,500
2
2-5
Farm Road Bike Lane
$51,400
2
2-5
Grand Canyon Drive Bike Lane
$148,300
2
2-5
Horse Drive / Fort Apache Road Bike
Lane
$75,000
2
2-5
$6,500
2
2-5
$34,300
2
2-5
$55,100
2
77
Part III
Section
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Total
Project
Cost
Alternative
Rank
Overall Project
Assessment
2-5
$36,900
2
2-5
Tule Springs Road / Sky Pointe Drive
Bike Lane
$39,000
2
Off-Street Alternatives – Sidewalk Network Development
3-1
3-1
Priority
Priority
$36,400
5
$228,800
5
3-1
Durango Drive Sidewalk (at Oso Blanca)
$634,800
2
3-1
Durango Drive Sidewalk (at Ann Road)
$1,035,500
5
3-1
$5,600
5
3-1
Farm Road Sidewalk
$9,500
5
3-1
$16,400
5
Priority
3-1
$6,000
5
3-1
$9,100
5
Off-Street Alternatives – Multi-Use Trail Network Development
3-2
$552,600
5
3-2
El Campo Grande-Tropical Connector
Trail
$530,300
5
3-2
Improved Multi-Use Trail Signage
$16,100
3
Priority
3-2
$1,463,300
2
3-2
March Brown Avenue Connector Trail
$24,100
5
Priority
3-2
$454,500
5
3-2
Widening of Sidewalk on South Side of
Ann Road
$705,900
5
Off-Street Alternatives – Equestrian Trail Network Development
3-3
3-3
3-3
Beltway Trail Western Connection
Grand Teton Drive Equestrian Trail
Segment 1
Grand Teton Drive Equestrian Trail
Segment 2
78
$618,800
7
$143,800
7
Medium Cost / Lower Priority
$225,800
7
Part III
Section
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Total
Project
Cost
Alternative
Trail Design - Appropriate Trail Buffers
(plan revision)
Trail Design - Stable Trail Substrate (plan
revision)
Trail Design - Trail Barriers (plan
revision)
Trail Design - Tree Canopy (plan
revision)
Rank
Overall Project
Assessment
$217,400
7
$0
3
$0
3
$0
7
Lower Cost / Lower Priority
$0
7
Transit Improvement Alternatives – Transit Center Improvements
4-1
$4,300
6
4-1
$1,300
6
4-1
Parking Expansion
$9,750,000
6
Transit Improvement Alternatives – Bus Stop Amenities
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
Bus Stop Improvements - 5705
Centennial Center
Bus Stop Improvements - 5850
Centennial Center
Bus Stop Improvements - Ann / Drexel
Bus Stop Improvements - Durango /
Dorrell
Bus Stop Improvements - Durango /
Farm
Bus Stop Improvements - Farm / Tule
Springs
Bus Stop Improvements - Grand
Montecito / Centennial
Bus Stop Improvements - Grand
Montecito / Rome (planned development)
Bus Stop Improvements - Sky Pointe /
Ranch House
$42,100
6
$201,500
6
$41,600
2
$405,600
2
$403,000
6
$68,000
6
$78,000
6
$0
6
$31,100
2
Transit Improvement Alternatives – Infrastructure to Support Future Transit Service
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-3
Fort Apache Transit Infrastructure
(planned development)
Infrastructure (planned development)
Horse Drive Transit Infrastructure
Hualapai Way Transit Infrastructure
Kyle Canyon Park-and-Ride (planned
development)
79
$0
6
$0
6
$0
6
$0
6
$0
6
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
This report does not address the identification of funding sources or the assignment of
funding responsibility for the projects listed above. That is the responsibility of the local
jurisdictions and RTC. However, several of the alternatives listed above have no stated cost
estimate. In the cases where the alternative has “planned development” listed, it is
assumed that the local jurisdiction will hold the developer responsible the infrastructure
development.
The other cases are policy change recommendations that can be
accomplished administratively.
Exhibit 6-3 summarizes the total costs according to the type of improvement. Highway
crossing improvements dominate in terms of cost but also provide key connections.
Intersection improvements are a relatively high cost area but also an important element to
improve overall street safety. The high total for the transit center is a reflection of a
potential future parking structure to increase capacity.
Exhibit 6-3: Summary of Project Costs by Investment Type
Number of
Section
Projects
Total Cost
2-1 Highway Overpasses and Interchanges
5
$21,100,300
2-2 Intersection Improvements
12
$3,940,300
2-3 Intermediate Pedestrian Crossings
12
$375,200
2-4 Intermediate Equestrian Trail Crossings
2
$51,000
2-5 Bicycle Lane Network
13
$610,100
3-1 Sidewalk Network
9
$1,982,100
3-2 Multi-Use Trail Network
7
$3,746,800
3-3 Equestrian Trail Network
8
$1,205,800
4-1 Transit Center
3
$9,755,600
4-2 Bus Stop Amenities
9
$1,270,900
4-3 Future Transit Service
5
$0
Grand Total
85
$44,038,100
6.3 Project Timeframes
After establishing an initial prioritization and an estimated cost, the next step in
programming projects is to separate them by timeframe. This section proposes a timeframe
for the completion of each project. For purposes of this study, the projects have been
placed in three timeframe groups: short term, medium term, and long term. The periods
corresponding to these three timeframes are not exact. Short term is approximately within
the next two years. Medium term projects would take place within two to ten years, and
long term projects are more than ten years from completion. Because of the uncertainty of
future development beyond the Study Area to the northwest, this study has emphasized the
short and medium term. However, several projects do fall into the long term. Many
projects are classified as “short to medium term” or “medium to long term.” These
classifications recognize that the uncertainty in programming the project and reflect that the
project could fall into either timeframe.
80
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
To determine the likely timeframe of each of the proposed projects, the prioritization
framework takes several factors into account. Unlike the prioritization score, the placement
of projects into distinct timeframes is not based on a strict scoring system. For individual
projects, unique characteristics often determine a project’s timeframe. However, three
main factors are important in determining the timeframe for most projects.
The project priority is the first factor in a project’s timeframe. Based on the prioritization
results in the previous section, projects fall into seven groups of relative priority. High
priority projects, those in priority groups “1” and “2,” have been placed in the earliest
feasible timeframe.
The second factor used to determine a project’s timeframe is whether the project serves an
immediate or future need. Projects meeting a future needs are classified as medium term
or later. Projects may be higher priority but only a meet a future need. For instance, the
Oso Blanca Road and Sky Pointe Drive connections are relatively high priority because they
provide pedestrian connections and a connection over CC-215, but since they are a part of
the future reconstruction of the interchange, they are classified as long term projects.
The final main factor in determining a project’s timeframe is the planning and development
time needed for the project. The earliest feasible implementation date for a project is a
binding constraint on each project’s timeframe. While this is the most subjective of the
three factors, it is a necessary element to program a project for a particular timeframe. The
cost estimates in Exhibit 6-2 are an important indicator of the level of effort to complete
the planning and preliminary design of a project. Certain low cost projects such as the
installation of striping and warning signs needs minimal planning while high cost projects
such as the widening of a sidewalk on an overpass require significant design effort to
minimize the extra cost of the additional structure and account for alternate modes traffic
flows on the approaches.
Other considerations may also factor into how a project is programmed. These include the
availability of funding, the project’s inclusion in existing transportation plans, and the prior
completion of any design or other planning work. The proposed timeframe assigned to each
project is listed as part of the table in Appendix A.
81
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
A. APPENDIX A
Section
Subsection
Alternative
Description
- Construct overpass to provide residential
neighborhood connectivity
connection
Score
Rank
Timeframe
50%
2
Short
30%
4
Medium
0%
7
Medium
50%
2
Long
50%
2
Long
55%
1
Medium
2-1
On-Street
Facilities
Highway
Overpasses
Fort Apache / CC-215 Overpass
2-1
On-Street
Facilities
Highway
Overpasses
Grand Teton / US 95 Overpass
- Construct overpass for east-west
connectivity
connection
2-1
On-Street
Facilities
Highway
Overpasses
- Construct northbound off-ramp and
southbound on-ramp
2-1
On-Street
Facilities
Highway
Overpasses
Oso Blanca / CC-215 Overpass
2-1
On-Street
Facilities
Highway
Overpasses
Sky Pointe / CC-215 Overpass
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
Ann / Cimarron Traffic Signal
Installation
distance
- Extend median and install median
countdown signal
- Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard
55%
1
Medium
- Install pedestrian actuated traffic signals
- Construct median pedestrian refuge as part
of median barrier
55%
1
Medium
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
Durango / Deer
Springs - Crosswalk
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
Durango / Dorrell Traffic Signal
Installation
i
- Construct overpass
Town Center services
interchange barrier
- Construct overpass
Town Center services
interchange barrier
to provide access to
and minimize
to provide access to
and minimize
Part III
Section
Subsection
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-2
On-Street
Facilities
Intersection
Improvements
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Durango / Elkhorn Crosswalk
Improvements
Durango / Racel Traffic Signal
Installation
Durango / Oso Blanca
- Crosswalk
Improvements
Durango / Farm Crosswalk
Improvements
Grand Teton / El
Capitan - Traffic Signal
Installation
Grand Teton / Grand
Canyon - Traffic Signal
Installation
Grand Teton / Hualapai
- Traffic Signal
Installation
Horse / Grand Canyon
- Traffic Signal
Installation
Horse / Hualapai Traffic Signal
Installation
5785 Centennial
Center Boulevard New Intermediate
Crosswalk
Buffalo / Ann Crosswalk
Improvements
ii
Description
distance
- Extend median and install median
countdown signal
Score
Rank
Timeframe
55%
1
Medium
Install traffic signals
55%
1
Short
distance
55%
1
Short
distance
- Use unused left turn lane space to allow
installation of a median refuge on the
intersection’s north side
55%
1
Medium
55%
1
Medium
55%
1
Medium
55%
1
Medium
55%
1
Medium
55%
1
Medium
55%
1
Medium
- Remove non-standard crosswalk
- Complete multi-use trail connection west to
the Centennial Center Blvd intersection
55%
1
Medium
Part III
Section
Subsection
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Buffalo / Deer Springs
- New Crosswalk and
Warning Signal
Centennial / Grand
Montecito - Crosswalk
Improvements
Centennial Center /
Azure - Crosswalk
Improvements
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
Durango / Brent - New
Stop Signs
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
Durango / Centennial Crosswalk
Improvements
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
El Capitan / Horse New Stop Signs
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-3
On-Street
Facilities
Pedestrian
Crossings
2-4
On-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trail Crossings
Gilcrease Brothers Park
- New Intermediate
Crosswalk
Mountain Ridge Park
Entrance - New
Intermediate
Crosswalk
Ralph Cadwallader
Middle School Crosswalk
Improvements
Tropical Parkway Trail
Crossing - Crosswalk
Improvements
Durango / Ackerman Construct Equestrian
Crossing
iii
Description
- Install crosswalk
Rank
Timeframe
55%
1
Medium
Use zebra crosswalk per CLV standard
55%
1
Short Medium
55%
1
Short Medium
55%
1
Medium
55%
1
Short Medium
- Install zebra crosswalk
55%
1
Short
55%
1
Medium
- Install crosswalk
55%
1
Medium
Install Danish offsets in crosswalks
55%
1
Medium
Construct median refuge
55%
1
Medium
35%
3
Medium
Install stop signs
- Install pedestrian/equestrian actuated signal
Score
Part III
Section
Subsection
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Racel St. Floyd Lamb
Entrance - Equestrian
Crossing
Improvements
Description
Rank
Timeframe
35%
3
Medium
2-4
On-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trail Crossings
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Complete bike lane from Elkhorn Drive to Deer
Springs Way: 3,220 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Centennial Center
Parkway Bike Lane
Complete bike lane from Fort Apache Road to
Grand Montecito Parkway: 6,840 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Deer Springs Way Bike
Lane
Complete bike lane from Cimarron Road to
Rosinwood Street: 1,280 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Elkhorn Road Bike
Lane
Complete bike lane from US 95 to Cimarron
Road: 1,430 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Farm Road / El Capitan
Way Bike Lane
Complete bike lane from Racel Street to Tule
Springs Road: 7,890 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Farm Road Bike Lane
Complete bike lane from Oso Blanca Road to
Tee Pee Lane: 6,480 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Grand Canyon Drive
Bike Lane
Complete bike lane from Horse Drive to
Echelon Point Drive: 18,710 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Horse Drive / Fort
Apache Road Bike Lane
Complete bike lane from Grand Canyon Drive
to Iron Mountain Road: 9,460 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Oso Blanca Road Bike
Lane
Complete bike lane from Farm Road to
Gilcrease Avenue: 820 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Sky Pointe Drive Bike
Lane
Complete bike lane from Azure Drive to Ann
Road: 4,330 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Complete bike lane from Azure Drive to Ann
Road: 6,950 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Tropical Parkway Bike
Lane
Complete bike lane from Durango Drive to
Centennial Center Boulevard: 4,660 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
2-5
On-Street
Facilities
Bicycle Lanes
Tule Springs Road /
Sky Pointe Drive Bike
Lane
Complete bike lane from Farm Road to
Cimarron Road: 4,920 ft.
50%
2
Short Medium
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Centennial Parkway
Sidewalk
Complete temporary sidewalk from Durango
Drive to Grand Montecito Parkway: 2,230 ft.,
temporary asphalt
20%
5
Short
iv
- Install improved warning signs
Score
Part III
Section
Subsection
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Description
Drive to Southbound US 95 ramps: 1,510 ft.,
temporary asphalt
Complete temporary sidewalk from Tee Pee
Lane to Fort Apache Road: 730 ft., standard
cement
Complete temporary sidewalk from Campbell
Road to Durango Drive: 330 ft., temporary
asphalt
Road to Durango Drive: 1,230 ft., temporary
asphalt
Complete temporary sidewalk from Elkhorn
Road to Oso Blanca Road: 1,090 ft., standard
cement
Complete temporary sidewalk from Elkhorn
Road to Oso Blanca Road: 1,080 ft., standard
cement
Complete temporary sidewalk from Centennial
Parkway to Ann Road: 3,540 ft., standard
cement
Road to Durango Drive: 570 ft., temporary
asphalt
Drive to Tule Springs Road: 970 ft., temporary
asphalt
Complete temporary sidewalk from Oso Blanca
Road to Tee Pee Lane: 1,680 ft., temporary
asphalt
Score
Rank
Timeframe
20%
5
Short
20%
5
Short
20%
5
Short
20%
5
Short
50%
2
Short
50%
2
Short
20%
5
Short
20%
5
Short
20%
5
Short
20%
5
Short
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Centennial Parkway
Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Deer Springs Way
Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Deer Springs Way
Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Deer Springs Way
Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Durango Drive
Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Durango Drive
Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Durango Drive
Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Farm Road Sidewalk
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Oso Blanca Road
Sidewalk
Complete temporary sidewalk from Severence
Lane to Durango Drive: 610 ft., temporary
asphalt
20%
5
Short
3-1
Off-Street
Facilities
Sidewalks
Tropical Parkway
Sidewalk
Drive to Centennial Center Boulevard: 930 ft.,
temporary asphalt
20%
5
Short
v
Part III
Section
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Subsection
Alternative
Description
Complete two trail segments using the
stormwater drainage right-of-way on El Campo
Grande to connect to Centennial Center
Boulevard: 3,210 ft.
Complete a trail segment on the perimeter of
the stormwater detention facility connecting
the Tropical Parkway trail alignment with the
El Campo Grande trail alignment: 3,080 ft.
Score
Rank
Timeframe
20%
5
Medium Long
20%
5
Medium Long
3-2
Off-Street
Facilities
Multi-Use Trails
3-2
Off-Street
Facilities
Multi-Use Trails
El Campo GrandeTropical Connector
Trail
3-2
Off-Street
Facilities
Multi-Use Trails
Improved Multi-Use
Trail Signage
Add regulatory, warning, and guidance signs
at key trail locations
35%
3
Medium
3-2
Off-Street
Facilities
Multi-Use Trails
Las Vegas Beltway
Trail
Complete the trail segment paralleling CC-215
from Grand Canyon to Grand Montecito
Parkway: 8,500 ft.
50%
2
Medium Long
3-2
Off-Street
Facilities
Multi-Use Trails
March Brown Avenue
Connector Trail
20%
5
Medium
3-2
Off-Street
Facilities
Multi-Use Trails
20%
5
Medium Long
3-2
Off-Street
Facilities
Multi-Use Trails
Widening of Sidewalk
on South Side of Ann
Road
Widen the sidewalk on the south side of Ann
Road between Grand Montecito Parkway and
Cimarron Road: 3,760 ft.
20%
5
Medium Long
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Connection
Provide an equestrian trail connection parallel
to the Las Vegas Beltway Trail from Grand
Canyon Drive to public lands
0%
7
Medium Long
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Grand Teton Drive
Equestrian Trail
Segment 1
Temporary trail connection from the Grand
Teton underpass to Tee Pee Lane: 1,720 ft.
0%
7
Short
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Grand Teton Drive
Equestrian Trail
Segment 2
Temporary trail connection from Grand Canyon
Drive west to Hualapai Way: 2,700 ft.
0%
7
Short
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Log Cabin Trail
Connection
Provide an equestrian trail connection along
Log Cabin Way from the El Capitan Way
equestrian trail to Floyd Lamb State Park:
2,600 ft.
0%
7
Medium Long
vi
Complete the short trail segment to connect
Cimarron Road and March Brown Avenue with
the multi-use trail directly to the north: 140 ft.
Complete the trail segment connecting El
Capitan Way north to the Grand Teton
crossing: 2,640 ft.
Part III
Section
Subsection
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Description
Address trail proximity to potential hazards
such as drainage channels and maintain safe
buffer distances.
Score
Rank
Timeframe
35%
3
Short Medium
35%
3
Short Medium
0%
7
Short Medium
0%
7
Short Medium
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Trail Design Appropriate Trail
Buffers
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Trail Design - Stable
Trail Substrate
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Trail Design - Trail
Barriers
3-3
Off-Street
Facilities
Equestrian
Trails
Trail Design - Tree
Canopy
4-1
Transit
Transit Center
Additional Bicycle
Parking
Install additional secure bicycle parking
15%
6
Short
4-1
Transit
Transit Center
Additional Guidance
Signs
Install additional guidance signs to raise
awareness and visibility of the facility
15%
6
Short
4-1
Transit
Transit Center
Parking Expansion
Potential parking expansion in a raised
structure
15%
6
Long
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Improvements - 5705
Centennial Center
Move bus stop to right turn pocket 100 feet to
the west
15%
6
Medium
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
Install northbound bus turnout
15%
6
Medium
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
50%
2
Short Medium
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
50%
2
Medium
Bus Stop
Improvements - 5850
Centennial Center
Bus Stop
Improvements - Ann /
Drexel
Bus Stop
Improvements Durango / Dorrell
vii
Add guidelines on trail materials and stability
for ramps, crossings, bridges, etc. to avoid
resonance and other characteristics unfriendly
to horses.
Ensure trails do not include obstructions that
inhibit legitimate trail uses such as horsedrawn carts.
Add recommended tree species to the City of
Las
Vegas
Recreation
Trails
Element
emphasizing canopy trees.
Move westbound stop location east to the
empty parcel at the Rio Vista intersection and
install a bus shelter
Install a bus turnouts the northbound stop and
move the southbound stop north of Dorrell
Lane and install a bus turnout at the new
location
Part III
Section
Subsection
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Description
Score
Rank
Timeframe
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Improvements Durango / Farm
Install bus shelters at both the northbound
and southbound stops
15%
6
Medium
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Improvements - Farm
/ Tule Springs
Install bus shelters at both the eastbound and
westbound stops
15%
6
Medium
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
Install northbound bus turnout and move
southbound stop to the southeast corner of
the intersection on Centennial Center Blvd
15%
6
Medium Long
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
Install northbound bus turnout as part of new
development
15%
6
Short Medium
4-2
Transit
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Improvements - Grand
Montecito / Centennial
Bus Stop
Improvements - Grand
Montecito / Rome
Bus Stop
Improvements - Sky
Pointe / Ranch House
Install crosswalk and sidewalk waiting area to
make the stop accessible
50%
2
Short
4-3
Transit
Future Transit
Service
Fort Apache Transit
Infrastructure
Require bus turnouts and bus pads in strategic
locations as part of new development
15%
6
Short Medium
4-3
Transit
Future Transit
Service
Grand Canyon Drive
Transit Infrastructure
Require bus turnouts and bus pads in strategic
locations as part of new development
15%
6
Short Medium
viii
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
B. APPENDIX B
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
Subsection
Highway
Overpasses and
Interchanges
Highway
Overpasses and
Interchanges
Highway
Overpasses and
Interchanges
Highway
Overpasses and
Interchanges
Highway
Overpasses and
Interchanges
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Alternative
Cost Item
Fort Apache Road / CC-215
Overpass - Alternate Modes
Improvements
Fort Apache / CC-215 Overpass
Grand Teton Drive / US 95 1/2
Interchange
Grand Teton Drive / US 95
Improvements
Oso Blanca Road / CC-215
Underpass - Alternate Modes
Improvements
Sky Pointe Drive / CC-215
Improvements
Grand Teton / US 95 Overpass
Oso Blanca / CC-215 Overpass
Sky Pointe / CC-215 Overpass
Ann / Cimarron - Traffic
Signal Installation
4-way traffic signal installation
Signal Installation
Signal Installation
Removal of the single corner
pedestrian / ADA ramp and
installation of 2 pedestrian / ADA
ramps, one for each crosswalk (to
shorten the crossing distance)
Standard white zebra stripe
pedestrian crossing
Pedestrian Warning Signal - 3
Phase
Median Pedestrian Refuge
(Standard)
Durango /
Crosswalk
Durango /
Crosswalk
pedestrian crossing
Elkhorn Improvements
Elkhorn Improvements
ix
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Total
Project
Cost
1
Lump
Sum
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
1
Lump
Sum
$9,500,000
$9,500,000
$9,500,000
1
Lump
Sum
$1,820,000
$1,820,000
$1,820,000
1
Lump
Sum
$2,201,000
$2,201,000
$2,201,000
$2,201,000
$2,201,000
$2,210,000
$425,000
$425,000
$425,000
$500
$2,000
$3,800
390
Each
Linear
Foot
$5
$1,775
2
Each
$17,000
$34,000
1
Each
$7,700
$7,700
4
Each
Linear
Foot
$500
$2,000
$5
$1,775
1
1
4
390
Lump
Sum
Lump
Sum
$41,700
$3,800
Part III
Subsection
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Durango /
Crosswalk
Durango /
Crosswalk
Durango /
Crosswalk
Cost Item
pedestrian crossing
(Standard)
Farm Improvements
Farm Improvements
Farm Improvements
Durango / Oso Blanca Crosswalk Improvements
Durango / Racel - Traffic
Signal Installation
Grand Teton / El Capitan Traffic Signal Installation
Grand Teton / Grand
Canyon - Traffic Signal
Installation
Grand Teton / Hualapai Traffic Signal Installation
Horse / Grand Canyon Traffic Signal Installation
Horse / Hualapai - Traffic
Signal Installation
Boulevard - New
Boulevard - New
Boulevard - New
Boulevard - New
Unit Cost
Total Cost
$500
$2,000
110
$5
$501
1
Each
$2,250
$2,250
4
$500
$2,000
$2,000
1
$425,000
$425,000
$425,000
1
Each
Lump
Sum
Lump
Sum
$425,000
$425,000
$425,000
1
$425,000
$425,000
$425,000
1
$425,000
$425,000
$425,000
1
$425,000
$425,000
$425,000
1
Lump
Sum
Lump
Sum
Lump
Sum
Lump
Sum
$425,000
$425,000
$425,000
Phase
2
Each
$17,000
$34,000
$36,900
(Standard)
1
Each
$2,250
$2,250
70
Linear
Foot
$5
$319
2
Each
$165
$330
Warning Sign Installation
4
Units
Each
Linear
Foot
Pedestrian Crossing Striping
x
Quantity
Total
Project
Cost
$4,800
Part III
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
Subsection
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Cost Item
Improvements
Remove non-standard crosswalk
as part of next scheduled overlay
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
0
n/a
$0
$0
1085
Linear
Foot
$107
$115,845
2
Each
$17,000
$34,000
85
Linear
Foot
$5
$387
2
Each
$165
$330
Total
Project
Cost
$115,800
Improvements
Buffalo / Deer Springs New Crosswalk and
Warning Signal
Warning Signal
Warning Signal
Centennial / Grand
Montecito - Crosswalk
Improvements
370
Linear
Foot
$5
$1,684
$1,700
Centennial Center / Azure Crosswalk Improvements
400
Linear
Foot
$5
$1,820
$1,800
Signs
Stop Sign Installation
4
Each
$165
$660
$1,500
Signs
4
Each
$165
$660
Signs
Stop Sign Pavement Striping
4
Per Lane
$55
$218
Durango / Centennial Crosswalk Improvements
410
Linear
Foot
$5
$1,866
$1,900
El Capitan / Horse - New
Stop Signs
Stop Sign Installation
4
Each
$165
$660
$2,000
Stop Signs
4
Each
$165
$660
Stop Signs
Stop Sign Pavement Striping
4
Per Lane
$55
$218
Multi-Use trail 10'
Phase
xi
$34,700
Part III
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-4
Subsection
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Pedestrian
Crossings
Intermediate
Equestrian Trail
Crossings
Intermediate
Equestrian Trail
Crossings
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Stop Signs
Gilcrease Brothers Park New Intermediate
Crosswalk
Crosswalk
Crosswalk
Crosswalk
Mountain Ridge Park
Entrance - New
Mountain Ridge Park
Entrance - New
Mountain Ridge Park
Entrance - New
Mountain Ridge Park
Entrance - New
School - Crosswalk
Improvements
School - Crosswalk
Improvements
Tropical Parkway Trail
Crossing - Crosswalk
Improvements
Crossing
Crossing
Cost Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Total
Project
Cost
100
Linear
Foot
$5
$455
Phase
2
Each
$17,000
$34,000
(Standard)
1
Each
$2,250
$2,250
85
Linear
Foot
$5
$387
2
Each
$165
$330
Pedestrian Warning Signal
2
Each
$17,000
$34,000
70
Linear
Foot
$5
$319
(Standard)
1
Each
$2,250
$2,250
2
Each
$165
$330
Median Pedestrian Refuge (Danish
Offset)
2
Each
$7,695
$15,390
160
Linear
Foot
$5
$728
(Standard)
1
Each
$2,250
$2,250
$2,300
Pedestrian Warning Signal
2
Each
$17,000
$34,000
$36,700
85
Linear
Foot
$5
$387
Equestrian Crossing Striping
xii
$37,000
$36,900
$16,100
Part III
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
Subsection
Intermediate
Equestrian Trail
Crossings
Intermediate
Equestrian Trail
Crossings
Intermediate
Equestrian Trail
Crossings
Intermediate
Equestrian Trail
Crossings
Intermediate
Equestrian Trail
Crossings
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Bicycle Lane
Network
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Crossing
Crossing
Crossing Improvements
Centennial Center Parkway
Bike Lane
Deer Springs Way Bike
Lane
Farm Road / El Capitan
Way Bike Lane
Cost Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Total
Project
Cost
Construction of equestrianaccessible sidewalk ramps
2
Each
$1,000
$2,000
2
Each
$165
$330
45
Linear
Foot
$5
$205
Construction of equestrianaccessible sidewalk ramps
2
Each
$1,000
$2,000
2
Each
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
$165
$330
$6
$19,642
$19,600
$6
$41,724
$41,700
$6
$7,808
$7,800
$6
$8,723
$8,700
$6
$48,129
$48,100
$6
$39,528
$39,500
$6
$114,131
$114,100
$6
$57,706
$57,700
$6
$5,002
$5,000
$6
$26,413
$26,400
$6
$42,395
$42,400
$6
$28,426
$28,400
$6
$30,012
$30,000
Equestrian Crossing Striping
Bike Lane Painting
3220
Bike Lane Painting
6840
Bike Lane Painting
1280
Bike Lane Painting
1430
Bike Lane Painting
7890
Farm Road Bike Lane
Grand Canyon Drive Bike
Lane
Horse Drive / Fort Apache
Road Bike Lane
Bike Lane Painting
6480
Bike Lane Painting
18710
Bike Lane Painting
9460
Bike Lane Painting
820
Bike Lane Painting
4330
Bike Lane Painting
6950
Tule Springs Road / Sky
Pointe Drive Bike Lane
Bike Lane Painting
4660
Bike Lane Painting
4920
xiii
$2,500
Part III
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
Subsection
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Sidewalk
Network
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Centennial Parkway
Sidewalk
Centennial Parkway
Sidewalk
Cost Item
5' Temporary Recycled Asphalt
Sidewalk Path
Sidewalk Path
Quantity
730
5' Standard PCC Sidewalk
Sidewalk Path
Sidewalk Path
1230
1090
1080
Sidewalk Path
Sidewalk Path
Sidewalk Path
Sidewalk Path
Sidewalk Path
Multi-Use Trail 14' with
Landscaping
Landscaping
3540
Farm Road Sidewalk
El Campo Grande-Tropical
Connector Trail
Improved Multi-Use Trail
Signage
March Brown Avenue
Connector Trail
Widening of Sidewalk on
South Side of Ann Road
Landscaping
Landscaping
Landscaping
Landscaping
xiv
2230
1510
330
570
970
1680
610
930
3210
3080
75
8500
140
2640
3760
Units
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Each
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Total
Project
Cost
$8
$16,725
$16,700
$8
$11,325
$11,300
$225
$164,250
$164,300
$8
$2,475
$2,500
$8
$9,225
$9,200
$225
$245,250
$245,300
$225
$243,000
$243,000
$225
$796,500
$796,500
$8
$4,275
$4,300
$8
$7,275
$7,300
$8
$12,600
$12,600
$8
$4,575
$4,600
$8
$6,975
$7,000
$132
$425,068
$425,100
$132
$407,854
$407,900
$165
$12,375
$12,400
$132
$1,125,570
$1,125,600
$132
$18,539
$18,500
$132
$349,589
$349,600
$132
$497,899
$543,000
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
3-3
Subsection
Multi-Use Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
Equestrian Trail
Network
4-1
Transit Center
4-1
Transit Center
4-1
Transit Center
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Parking Expansion
Bus Stop Improvements
Ann / Drexel
Ann / Drexel
Durango / Dorrell
Durango / Dorrell
Durango / Farm
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
Alternative
Widening of Sidewalk on
South Side of Ann Road
Connection
Grand Teton Drive
Equestrian Trail Segment 1
Grand Teton Drive
Equestrian Trail Segment 2
Clearing and debris removal
3760
10' Equestrian Trail
7400
1720
2700
2600
Units
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
n/a
n/a
n/a
Trail Design - Trail Barriers
Trail Design - Tree Canopy
Trail Design - Appropriate
Trail Buffers
Trail Design - Stable Trail
Substrate
Cost Item
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Total
Project
Cost
$12
$45,120
$64
$475,968
$476,000
$64
$110,630
$110,600
$64
$173,664
$173,700
$64
$167,232
$167,200
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bike Parking Racks - 5 racks with
10 spaces
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3
Each
$1,100
$3,300
$3,300
6
$165
$990
$1,000
500
Each
Per
Space
$15,000
$7,500,000
$7,500,000
Bus Stop Shelter
1
Each
$12,000
$12,000
$32,400
Bus Turnout Striping
1
Each
$365
$365
Bus Stop Pad (including ROW)
1
$20,000
$20,000
Bus Turnout
1
Each
Lump
Sum
$155,000
$155,000
$155,000
Bus Stop Shelter
1
Each
$12,000
$12,000
$32,000
1
$20,000
$20,000
Bus Turnout
2
$155,000
$310,000
Remove Bus Stop Shelter
1
$2,000
$2,000
Bus Turnout
2
Each
Lump
Sum
Lump
Sum
Lump
Sum
$155,000
$310,000
Install guidance signs
Park-and-Ride Parking Structure 2 Level
-
xv
$312,000
$310,000
Part III
4-2
Subsection
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
4-2
Bus Stop
Amenities
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-3
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Bus Stop
Amenities
Future Transit
Service
Future Transit
Service
Future Transit
Service
Future Transit
Service
Future Transit
Service
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Alternative
Bus Stop Improvements Grand Montecito /
Centennial
Bus Stop Improvements Grand Montecito /
Centennial
Bus Stop Improvements Grand Montecito / Rome
Bus Stop Improvements Sky Pointe / Ranch House
Fort Apache Transit
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Horse Drive Transit
Infrastructure
Hualapai Way Transit
Infrastructure
Cost Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Bus Stop Shelter
2
Each
$12,000
$24,000
1
Each
$20,000
$20,000
Bus Stop Pad
1
Each
$8,250
$8,250
Northbound Bus Turnout (No ROW
purchase)
1
Each
$60,000
$60,000
Total
Project
Cost
$52,300
$60,000
Southbound Bus Turnout Developer's Responsibility
Northbound Bus Turnout Developer's Responsibility
1
Each
$0
$0
1
Each
$0
$0
$0
Bus Stop Shelter
1
Each
$12,000
$12,000
$23,900
Bus Stop Pad
1
$8,250
$8,250
$225
$3,375
$5
$273
15
60
Each
Linear
Foot
Linear
Foot
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Kyle Canyon Park-and-Ride
xvi
Part III
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
C. APPENDIX C
Work Item
Units
Used
Detailed Item Description
Estimated Unit
Cost (2011 $)
Cost Estimate Sources / Details
CLV Master Plan rev 2005, 20' overall
width equestrian trail, clv standard,
with landscaping @ 6431.50/100 lf
10' Equestrian
Trail
Linear Foot
Decomposed granite equestrian trail with
standard fencing and typical landscaping
4-way traffic
signal installation
Lump Sum
Single mast arm
5' Standard PCC
Sidewalk
Linear Foot
Installation of standard sidewalk using
County's standard. No removal of any prior
sidewalk
5' Temporary
Recycled Asphalt
Sidewalk Path
Linear Foot
Installation of a non-standard 5' recycled
asphalt path using County's standard. No
removal of any prior sidewalk
$8
2" recycled AC, 4" base, grading
@1.50/sf
Bike Lane
Linear Foot
Standard bike lane bounded by 2 striped on
a 5-foot shoulder
$6
RTC cost estimates for 2011 bike lane
installations with CMAQ funds.
Bike Parking
Racks
Each
Installation of 5 inverted U-rack with bike
parking capacity of 10
Bus Stop Pad
Each
Installation of a bus pad, including ROW
acquisition
$20,000.00
Jones BLVD Corridor Study (2009)
Bus Stop Shelter
Each
Installation of a bus stop shelter
$12,000.00
Bus Turnout
Each
Installation of a bus turnout, including ROW
acquisition
$155,000.00
Each
Installation of bus stop striping at bus
turnout
$365.00
Engineer's estimate
Each Corner
Removal of the single corner pedestrian /
ADA ramp and installation of 2 pedestrian /
ADA ramps, one for each crosswalk (to
$500.00
Engineer's estimate
Bus Turnout
Striping
Conversion of
single sidewalk
corner ramp to a
double ramp
(one facing each
direction)
xvii
$64
$425,000
$225
$1,100
City of North Las Vegas Capital
Improvement Plan
4", engineer's estimate @ 45.00/sf
NCHRP Report 552 and various peer
costs 2006 - 2010
Part III
Work Item
Fort Apache Road
/ CC-215
Overpass Alternate Modes
Improvements
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Units
Used
Lump Sum
The incremental cost of adding a multi-use
8' sidewalk (versus 5') and sufficient
shoulder for bike lanes in each direction
Lump Sum
NB off-ramp and SB on-ramp connecting to
an existing overpass on Grand Teton Drive
of US 95. Includes the cost of 2 signaled
intersections at each ramp terminus.
Includes the cost of moving flood drainage
channel and multi-use trail between Grand
Teton Drive and Ackerman Ave. Includes
highway engineering budget.
Estimated Unit
Cost (2011 $)
$500,000.00
Ft Apache / Horse Drive & US 95
interchange complete 6/2011, cost $27
million - cost includes additional
sidewalk and restriping
$9,500,000.00
Comparison to recent projects of similar
scope: 2 signal intersections@482,000,
drainage@735,000, trail@33,000, add
ramps + widening + acc lane
@7,000,000, engineering @ 1,250,000
Lump Sum
8' sidewalk (versus 5') and sufficient
shoulder for bike lanes in each direction, as
well as the multi-use trail approach from
Ackerman Ave.
$1,820,000.00
Elkhorn road overpass included 810'
span, 3 travel lanes, bike lanes,
approach ramps, storm drain
improvements, etc and cost approx $13
million, assumption is that multi use
sidewalk added 14% cost to project.
Each
Installation of a median refuge according to
a typical "Danish offset" design with
standard / ADA compliant walkway
geometry and including necessary safety
elements. Assume no existing median
$7,695.00
Engineer's estimate
Median
Pedestrian
Refuge
(Standard)
Each
Installation of a standard median refuge
according design with standard / ADA
compliant walkway geometry and including
necessary safety elements. Assume there is
an existing median
$2,250.00
Engineer's estimate
Multi-Use trail
10'
Linear Foot
Asphalt paved transportation trail
$64.35
Engineer's estimate
Multi-Use Trail
10' with
Landscaping
Linear Foot
Paved transportation trail per City of Las
Vegas Standard plus typical landscape
buffers
Multi-Use trail
14'
Linear Foot
Asphalt paved transportation trail
Grand Teton
Drive / US 95
1/2 Interchange
Grand Teton
Drive / US 95
Improvements
Median
Pedestrian
Refuge (Danish
Offset)
xviii
$106.77
$90.00
20' overall width row, trail paved with
landscaping
Engineer's estimate
Part III
Work Item
Multi-Use Trail
14' with
Landscaping
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Units
Used
Estimated Unit
Cost (2011 $)
Linear Foot
Paved transportation trail per City of Las
Vegas Standard plus typical landscape
buffers
Lump Sum
8' sidewalk path (versus no sidewalk) and
sufficient shoulder for bike lanes in each
direction
Per Space
Construction cost per parking space of a
multi-story parking garage
Linear Foot
Standard white zebra stripe pedestrian
crossing
Pedestrian
Warning Signal
Each
Crossing
Single mast arm, pedestrian actuated signal
with flashing yellow yield signal
$17,000.00
Comparison to engineer's estimate for
project of similar scope, NDOT contract
3458, 7/2011
Pedestrian
Warning Signal 3 Phase
Each
Crossing
Single mast arm, pedestrian actuated signal
with 3 phases
$17,000.00
Comparison to engineer's estimate for
project of similar scope, NDOT contract
3458, 7/2012
Sky Pointe Drive
/ CC-215
Improvements
Lump Sum
8' sidewalk (versus no sidewalk) and
sufficient shoulder for bike lanes in each
direction
$2,210,000.00
Elkhorn road overpass included 810'
span, 3 travel lanes, bike lanes,
approach ramps, storm drain
improvements, etc and cost approx $13
million, assumption is that multi use
sidewalk added 17% cost to project.
Stop Sign
Installation
Each Travel
Direction
(NB, SB,
EB, WB)
Installation of stop sign on a post, with stop
line, and "stop ahead" warning sign
Per Lane
Standard white stripe stop line
Each
Installation of one "yield to pedestrians in
crosswalk" sign
Oso Blanca Road
/ CC-215
Underpass Alternate Modes
Improvements
Park-and-Ride
Parking Structure
- 2 Level
Pedestrian
Crossing Striping
Stop Sign
Pavement
Striping
Warning Sign
Installation
xix
$132.42
$2,201,000.00
$15,000.00
$4.55
$165.00
$54.60
$165.00
35' overall width multi-use row, with
landscaping
Cost of recent underpass project at
sunset, approx $13 million, assumption
is that multi use sidewalk would add
17% to cost of similar project.
72,000 sf, 2 story, 200 spaces
Engineer's estimate
RTC Sign Asset Management Study
(2010)
Engineer's estimate
RTC Sign Asset Management Study
(2010)
Part IV
Agency Coordination and Outreach
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Part IV
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
PART IV: AGENCY COORDINATION AND OUTREACH
1. Agency Coordination Plan ........................................... 1 1.1 Participating Agencies .......................................................................... 1 1.2 Coordination Activities .......................................................................... 1 2. Public Outreach .......................................................... 3 2.1 Public Participation Requirements ........................................................... 3 2.2 Public Outreach Strategy ...................................................................... 4 Part IV
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
1. AGENCY COORDINATION PLAN
1.1 Participating Agencies
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) coordinated the
Northwest US 95 Access Study. RTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the
region and is responsible for programming federal money, regional transportation planning,
and for all transit service and transit centers. The Northwest US 95 Access Study addresses
infrastructure for which responsibility is split among three main governmental jurisdictions:
 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada is responsible for transit
service and transit centers (including all related infrastructure)
 The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is responsible for the US 95
Highway as most frontage road segments, ramps, and interchanges.
NDOT’s
Transportation Planning division is responsible for planning any improvements on
NDOT right-of-way. Representatives are included in the project technical working
group.
 Clark County is responsible for CC-215 as well as for the street networks in
unincorporated areas.
The current project technical working group includes
representatives from Clark County’s Public Works Department and Comprehensive
Planning Department (both transportation planners from Land Use Planning and the
Advanced Planning Trails Program) as well as from the District C Neighborhood
Services office.
 The City of Las Vegas is responsible for all other transportation infrastructure within
its boundaries including some highway overpasses. Technical working group
members from the City include representatives from the Planning Department, the
Public Works Department, and from the office of the Ward 6 councilman.
The study also involved several government agencies on specific issues. One segment of
the El Campo Grande multi-use trail alternative would make use of right-of-way that is part
of a maintenance facility owned by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. A second segment
of that proposed trail alignment would be on right-of-way adjacent to the Rancho Road
Detention Basin and owned by the Clark County Regional Flood Control District. The
equestrian trail network involves connections to Floyd Lamb State Park, so the Nevada
Division of State Parks is another agency that should be included in the Coordination Plan.
1.2 Coordination Activities
The proposed alternatives from the
highly localized. For this reason,
coordination on the part of various
coordination is necessary in five main
- Public outreach
- Project programming
Northwest US 95 Access Study are, in most cases,
many proposed projects will require limited or no
agencies. Beyond this initial Study effort, ongoing
areas:
1
Part IV
-
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Highway overpass and interchange planning
Ongoing trails planning and prioritization
Transit infrastructure planning.
The projects proposed as part of this study must next be incorporated into existing
transportation plans at the city, county, and regional levels. Public outreach is the first step
in moving from conceptual project to inclusion into capital programs and preliminary design.
RTC oversees regional transportation funding, coordinates regional transportation planning,
and is required to lead public participation efforts and ensure coordination among all the
agencies. RTC is the natural leader on this item to undertake tasks that might include
hosting a dedicated website and organizing a workshop, which are further discussed in
Section 2.2.
Once projects have undergone sufficient review and input by stakeholders, it is important to
coordinate the inclusion of projects into the various jurisdictions’ and agencies’ plans. Again
RTC is the natural agency to lead this process, because such coordination is one of RTC’s
core functions: transportation programming. No new measures are necessary to augment
the standard process. Once the public outreach process is complete, the City of Las Vegas
and Clark County can move forward to apply to amend the Transportation Improvement
Program and the Regional Transportation Plan so that RTC can program federal funding as
appropriate.
The most important infrastructure investment in the Study Area still under design is the US
95 interchange with CC-215. The City of Las Vegas is already engaged with the lead project
agency, NDOT, in the design process, reviewing preliminary designs. The City of Las Vegas
is also in the process of completing design on two overpasses and can use a similar
approach, soliciting stakeholder agencies for input as they move through the process. For
example, the Fort Apache Road overpass of CC-215 should interface with the Las Vegas
Beltway Trail in the County’s right-of-way. The City’s planners should submit the overpass
plans to the County’s Trail Program to ensure the overpass meets their needs before moving
to final design. In the case of a potential interchange at Grand Teton Road and US 95, the
City of Las Vegas will have to coordinate closely with NDOT since the project will require
joint design.
Trails planning in and around the Study Area may require more formal long term
coordination, primarily between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County. The City of Las
Vegas is completing its portion of the northwest trails network at a faster rate than Clark
County because it can rely more effectively on developers to complete trail segments. Clark
County may be able to work with the City of Las Vegas to prioritize remaining trail sections
for public funding to create a more effective overall network. The jurisdictions could benefit
from joint planning of a program to complete the trail network for both equestrian and
multi-use trails that would avoid fragmentation in the near term.
2
Part IV
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Finally, both Clark County and the City of Las Vegas can solicit RTC’s input on transit
infrastructure. New development is a critical phase to ensure low-cost investments in
transit infrastructure are put in place to meet future needs. City and County land use
planners can work with RTC to identify higher density corridors and important activity
centers such as schools, medical centers, and retail centers that might benefit from future
transit use. Such coordination can help to ensure future transit service is more efficient and
productive and to create an integrated transit system.
The next subsection addresses more specific recommendations for RTC’s role in public
outreach for the U.S. 95 access study.
2. PUBLIC OUTREACH
2.1 Public Participation Requirements
As part of its obligations as an MPO, RTC has a public participation plan in place for its
regional transportation planning activities.10 This public outreach plan constitutes a part of
RTC’s ongoing public participation efforts. The public outreach process is a necessary step
to move projects proposed for the Northwest US 95 Access Study into the next planning
stage. Public participation will help refine the proposed projects before they are approved
as part of the region’s formal transportation investment program.
Federal regulations under SAFETEA-LU stipulate RTC must reach out to a broad set of
stakeholders as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process. These include
“citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees,
freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of
pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled,
and other interested parties” (Title 23 §450.316 of the Code of Federal Regulations).
Another objective of the public outreach process is to promote the participation of and input
from sensitive and vulnerable groups including people with disabilities, economically
disadvantaged populations, and minorities. The public participation process is intended to
ensure compliance with statutes prohibiting non-discrimination. These include Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Title 23
§450.316 of the Code of Federal Regulations (part of SAFETEA-LU).
As the planning process moves forward, RTC can continue to include the project technical
working group participants in the public participation process. The public outreach process
10 See Appendix 2 of the Regional Transportation Plan:
http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/mpo/plansstudies/studies_reports.cfm.
3
Part IV
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
is also a chance to involve additional stakeholders. The public outreach process targets
three tiers of stakeholders: (1) core stakeholders are directly responsible for project
management, implementation, and operation; (2) interested stakeholders are those directly
impacted by the projects with a high level interest; (3) the general public who might be
impacted by the project but have no special interest.
The study’s technical working group has already brought in the core public agency
stakeholders mentioned in Section 1.1 as well as other Study Area stakeholders. Interested
stakeholders include some technical working group participants, but may also include some
additional stakeholders. Unlike most areas of the Valley, the Northwest area is home to
many horse owners, so equestrian facilities and their representatives form an active
element of access planning in the area. RTC can engage interested stakeholders with direct
outreach efforts. Interested stakeholders may include the following:
- Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council
- Kyle Canyon Citizens Advisory Council
- City of Las Vegas Planning Commission
- City of Las Vegas Traffic and Parking Commission
- City of Las Vegas Senior Citizens Advisory Board
- Horse Council of Nevada
- Nevada Bicycle Advisory Board
The outreach effort should also coordinate with the City of Las Vegas Ward 6 Councilman’s
Office and the Neighborhood Services office for Clark County District C.
2.2 Public Outreach Strategy
The proposed alternatives in the Northwest US 95 Access Study do not include any projects
with regional impact. Therefore, RTC can implement a local outreach effort. RTC may rely
on the core stakeholders from the study’s technical working group to continue to participate
throughout the outreach process and process the input received. The public outreach
strategy has two tiers: (1) direct contact of interested stakeholders and (2) general public
engagement through a limited number of workshops.
Identified interested stakeholders can be contacted directly to review the study report and
submit comments. They can also be invited to participate in any planned workshop events.
RTC can post the study to the agency’s website. The website can include the contact
information for stakeholders to submit comments.
A workshop is an opportunity for both interested stakeholders and the general public to
review the proposed alternatives and give agencies feedback. Any workshop must be an
open public meeting with appropriate notice given and full accessibility. RTC should consider
holding the event within or near the Study Area.
4
Part IV
Northwest U.S. 95
Access Study
Other public board meetings of RTC, the City of Las Vegas, or Clark County can also be
outreach opportunities. Agenda items are posted in public notices, and a presentation can
be made to the committee, board, or council. Both the board members and those attending
can make public comments and provide input. As public comments are received, RTC can
coordinate with the appropriate local partners and core stakeholders to review the
comments.
5

Northwest US 95 Access Study

Transcription

Similar documents

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony - Great Rivers United Way

SSTF - TUHAYE.mxd - South Summit Trails Foundation

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

BikePacking powerpoint

Pooh Trail Brochure - Barrington Conservation Commission

Carlington Bike Park Proposal - Ottawa Mountain Bike Association

Relive Flyer NC - Appalachian Trail Conservancy

Cypress Transcanada Trail Borchure.cdr

Russell

Rehabilitation of mining areas in Durango, Mexico