07-22-24 Work Session Agenda and MaterialsCITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
KALISPELL July 22, 2024, at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 201 First Avenue East
See the bottom of the agenda to learn how to provide public comment
and watch meetings live or later.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. DISCUSSION
Sidewalk and Trails Assessment District
D. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the council are asked to do so at this time. See the bottom of
the agenda to learn the protocol for providing comment.
E. CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL, AND MAYOR REPORTS
F. ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING SCHEDULE
Next Regular Meeting — August 5, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Work Session — August 12, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
PARTICIPATION
Those addressing the council are requested to give their name and address for the record. Please
see the last page of the agenda for the proper manner of addressing the council and limit
comments to three minutes. Comments can also be sent to publi ccomment(2kali spell. com.
To provide public comment live, remotely, register for the video conference through zoom at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_N1 dRa8t2RGKCOLVNS16F2g.
Raise your virtual hand to indicate you would like to provide comment.
Watch City Council sessions live with the agenda and supporting documents or later with
documents and time stamped minutes at: hlt 2s://www.kalispell.com/480/Meeting-Videos.
Watch City Council sessions live or later on Charter Cable Ch. 190 or via the City YouTube
page at: hLtps://www.youtube.com/(2ciiyofkalispellmontana9632/streams.
ofkalispellmontana9632/streams.
The City does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its programs, services, activities, and
employment practices. Auxiliary aids are available. For questions about disability
accommodation please contact the City Clerk at 406-758-7756.
Page 1 of 2
Kalispell City Council Agenda, July 22, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Adopted July 1, 1991
Section 2-20 Manner of Addressing Council
a. Each person not a Council member shall address the Council, at the time designated in the agenda
or as directed by the Council, by stepping to the podium or microphone, giving that person's
name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by
the Council, shall limit the address to the Council to three minutes.
b. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member of the Council or
Staff.
C. No person, other than the Council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into
any discussion either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the
Presiding Officer.
d. No question shall be asked of individuals except through the Presiding Officer.
PRINCIPLES FOR CIVIL DIALOGUE
Adopted by Resolution 5180 on February 5, 2007
■ We provide a safe environment where individual perspectives are respected, heard, and
acknowledged.
■ We are responsible for respectful and courteous dialogue and participation.
■ We respect diverse opinions as a means to find solutions based on common ground.
■ We encourage and value broad community participation.
■ We encourage creative approaches to engage in public participation.
■ We value informed decision -making and take personal responsibility to educate and be educated.
■ We believe that respectful public dialogue fosters healthy community relationships, understanding
and problem solving.
■ We acknowledge, consider and respect the natural tensions created by collaboration, change, and
transition.
■ We follow the rules & guidelines established for each meeting.
Page 2 of 2
_afN%N
CITY OF City of Kalispell
201 1st Ave E. P.O. Box 1997
KALISPELL Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
(406) 758-7000 Fax (406)7757
REPORT TO: Mayor Johnson and Kalispell City Council
FROM: Doug Russell, City Manager
SUBJECT: Sidewalk and Trails Assessment District
MEETING DATE: Julv 22. 2024
BACKGROUND: In 2019 and 2023, the City Council held work sessions on the funding and
maintenance of trails and sidewalks. The meeting in 2023 included discussion regarding the
updated Transportation Plan which has a chapter on Bicycle and Pedestrian use, which is
attached to this memo.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter within the transportation plan used the draft data and
analysis that had been gathered as a stand-alone effort and incorporated the information into part
of the overall system, namely identifying recommendations for high scoring projects and how
Shared Use Paths, Sidewalks, Bike Routes, and Stand -Alone Bike Lanes could be part of the
overall transportation system.
During this year's budget meetings, it was requested that we hold a work session to revisit this
topic in case there is a desire to place a potential Sidewalk and Trails District before the voters,
and to potentially fund efforts for the education of that effort.
In previous discussions, we have reviewed the attached draft table identifying service delivery
options. This is not a recommendation, nor is it exhaustive, but rather a starting point for the
discussion of how a potential funding option could work to implement components of this plan
and costs associated with them.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council review and discuss this topic and
provide staff direction for potential next steps.
ATTACHMENTS:
Table of Service Delivery Options
Chapter 9 of the Transportation Plan: Bicycle and Pedestrian System
d
O —
d
a `y
E C
J C
2 U
.--I .-I O M N
m v a m O M 0
O w I � O M O
O a -I of r- n c-I n
O V OJ N Ol M Ol
IA lD l0 l0 l0 .-I l0
N m of l0 m
O lD O l0 m Ol m Ol Ol
O
a m p a m� m
O N m O O �(1
O m O N � n
Ln M N l0 l0
IA
M N .--i M Ol Ol Ol
oa m IR cl cl cl
rn O C M C
m
IA M M l0 l0 �
O l0 I� M Ol l0
O C i I-� u
O T c-I O �(1 T
N M n n
N M Ol of O l0 M
.4 I-� 6 l0
a a O m a a
O N N N l0
O
a O m m o M
O I� n OJ n N
O u� c4 u( C M
M OJ C N I� N
O N l0 O� Ol O�
�:T M N wN O
N
C N .--I .-I O
O
u
d
v
0
a
v
N ^
i m
O E
r y
w
C. O +�+ 0 v
+O+ E —
f0
yO C C v d
v N E m
x o u E m
U H j a U H
m
Q
Q
MOVE
Kalispell
Area
CHAPTER 9.0
2040
Transportation
Plan
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
BACKGROUND
Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is a critical com-
ponent of moving people to and through the Flathead
Valley, particularly within the Move 2040 study area. As
the population continues to grow, demand for sidewalks,
bike lanes and shared use paths as a safe and effective
means of getting from one place to the next will continue
to be a priority. Studies have shown that sidewalks and
bike lanes provide a direct economic benefit to communi-
ties, in addition to improving public health and wellness.
Given the focus on recreational amenities in the Kalispell
area coupled with growth projections over the next twenty
year planning horizon, closing gaps and improving access
to safe bike and pedestrian facilities should be a focus
when considering holistic transportation improvements.
This chapter provides a detailed analysis of existing and
proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on a core
set of conditions, applying a weighted score to those fa-
cilities and connections that are most beneficial to public
safety and the growing community.
Preliminary analysis of the bicycle and pedestrian network
focused on existing and proposed routes that were de-
veloped by the City during the Kalispell Pedestrian and
Bicycle Plan process. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan pro-
vided a logical point from which to begin this analysis,
tying into the outcomes and project priorities of this long-
range transportation planning process. To support the
work already completed and limit duplication of efforts,
the analysis in this chapter focuses on network gaps and
priority connections that should be improved alongside
future system -wide transportation projects.
Methodology
Proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes were separated
into the following categories for evaluation:
Shared use paths (SUP)
Sidewalks and paths (S)
On -street designated bike lanes (BL)
On -street shared bike routes (BR)
Within each category, routes were further broken into
segments by type, allowing for a detailed analysis of spe-
cific projects and potential connections based on a set of
established criteria. Segments were determined by eval-
uating a number of conditions including localized speed
limits, intersection orientation, vehicular movement and
circulation, signage, sight lines and vision triangles; these
elements were evaluated using Google Earth and ArcGIS
aerial data as well as in -person ground-truthing to es-
tablish the most appropriate segment lengths, types and
networks. Each segment is numbered using the route type
abbreviation and distinct line color and type for identifica-
tion purposes as shown on Figure 9.1 on page 185 and
Figure 9.2 on page 186.
Once segments were determined, a set of existing and fu-
ture conditions were used to evaluate, rank and prioritize
potential non -motorized improvements projects. Through
this analysis, some segments were removed or replaced
and some route types changed; this accounts for the few
skips and gaps in the numerical order of each route type
listed in the tables that follow.
Final route segments were ranked according to whether,
and how, the following conditions applied. If a condition
was determined to be present, or if the project would fa-
cilitate the condition in the future, the segment was given
a score of "'I". A determination was made that certain
conditions should be emphasized in terms of their impor-
tance when prioritizing projects; this determination was
partially influenced by areas of emphasis identified by
the public. Where present, the following conditions have
been scored higher to elevate the importance of infill, re-
development and public health and safety:
Segments supporting infill development and connec-
tivity to existing residential, commercial and recre-
ational amenities are awarded 2xthe points available.
Segments supporting Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)
are awarded 3x the points available.
Segments where public safety is a factor due to bicy-
cle or pedestrian crashes and frequency are awarded
4x the points available.
TYPE OF CONNECTION
Segments were evaluated to determine the type of con-
nection each would establish and the extent to which that
connection would:
Provide a link to and between existing neighborhoods
or established residential areas, where growth is ex-
pected to remain stable but infill development is pro-
jected or can be accommodated.
Provide a link to and between established neighbor-
hoods and those areas projected for significant future
residential density in the planning area.
Provide a link to and between existing neighborhoods
or established residential areas and existing econom-
ic hubs, connecting current populations with goods
and services as well as current job centers.
Provide a link to and between existing neighborhoods
or established residential areas and future economic
centers, connecting current populations with areas
KALISFCLL A k L A kAN,)F 6 A.w.16N rL:,iv j$$_
slated for significant future economic growth, job op-
portunities and retail.
» Provide a link between established neighborhoods
and existing recreation amenities.
» Provide a link between established neighborhoods
and future recreation amenities.
» Facilitate the completion of a localized network, pro-
viding a key connection that serves cyclists and/or pe-
destrians in a specific area or neighborhood.
» Facilitate the expansion of the regional bicycle and
pedestrian network, providing a critical connection
serving the broader population and linking neighbor-
hoods, communities or amenities.
» Facilitate connectivity between future development
projected forthe planning area, specifically thatwhich
will occur on predominantly undeveloped lands.
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Segments were evaluated on their impact in furthering
SRTS, specifically whether the segment:
» Provides a connection that completes or contributes
to the broader SRTS network, such as linking a nearby
neighborhood to school facilities or completing a crit-
ical route connection that would support a safer route
for children to walk or bike to school.
» Is located within the established '/a -mile walking radi-
us of a school facility. If any portion of a segment fell
within this radius, points were awarded based on the
anticipated impact it would have.
NON -VEHICULAR CRASHES
Segments were evaluated based on the type —pedestrian
or cyclist -involved —and frequency of non -vehicular
crashes recorded along each route or within '/a -mile of
a route or terminus point. This information helped to il-
lustrate segments that would positively influence public
health and safety should they be constructed in the future.
NON -MOTORIZED EQUITY
Segments located in orserving areaswhere non -motorized
infrastructure and connectivity is currently lacking also re-
ceived a point score. Improving non -motorized connec-
tivity in under -served areas will have a significant impact
on the overall transportation network and improve public
health and safety exponentially. These areas tend to be
overlooked when prioritizing key connections or gaps, as
entire neighborhoods are often considered "gaps" in the
network and looked upon as insurmountable to address.
LENGTH AND COST
Finally, each segment was measured to establish the
overall length of future connections, and an approximate
planning cost per linear foot assigned to the segment
based on the type of route and anticipated construction
costs. For instance, painting "sharrows" and striping bike
lanes costs much less per linear foot than building a sep-
arated shared use path. These numbers have no bearing
on the overall scoring and ranking of each segment and
are intended to be informative, for use by the City and
County in determining budgetary needs and priorities in
the future.
Approximate costs should be viewed as estimates, pro-
viding the City and County with a baseline for budget-
ing purposes, but in no way representative of actual
construction -level costs. Those will be established based
on material and installation costs at the time improve-
ments are bid.
_184 MOVE
Figure 9.1: Potential Project Identifier Map
Legend
M
Extzting Pathur
Sidewalk
1l4 Mile Buller
Pedestrian <razhez
Extzting designated
bikelane
Separated Shared -Use
p ro j e ct Identifier
M a p
yv f z-t
Ilalt.i#ii_'�� �f-3 i151Y9 frltI C1T91
r—J iic kCn hez
(committed proj-)
ProposedSeparated
Shared -Use Path
A
Ait:ea Plan
School5peed Zone
Prapazed Path or
Sidewalk
• ���R-. ;?
Extzting Separated
o--o edomstreet
are Shd-Use Path
Existing Rik, R.—
Rik- i.
Bike Route
o— b Prapazed onztreet
Bike Lane
nnt.
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAIN 185w
Figure 9.2: Potential Project Identifier Map (Inset)
_186 MOVE 2040
After each route segment was evaluated and assessed
points based upon the conditions present, these numbers
were tallied to produce a final score upon which the seg-
ments were ranked by category. Each category (SUP, S, BL
or BR) has its own matrix that lays out this ranking meth-
odology in detail in the following pages. Projects were
then classified as "high", "medium' or "low" priorities
based on the following scoring range:
» High Priority = a score of 20 or more points
» Medium Priority = a score between 10 and 19 points
» Low Priority = a score of less than 10 points
The following section lists the highest scoring priority
segments for each route category alongside a brief dis-
cussion of the existing conditions and why infrastructure
improvements are needed. Specific improvements rec-
ommended for each of these priorities, and bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure generally, alongside discussion
on non -motorized best practices can be found in the fol-
lowing sections.
Certain connections failed to score high enough to be
top priorities according to the ranking methodology but
may still be critical projects based on the transportation
demand modeling data and public input. Potential con-
nections and networks to explore, in addition to those
priorities ranked in the following pages, include:
S #9.1 - SOUTH MERIDIAN SIDEWALK CONNECTION
The area along Meridian Road south of Highway 2 and
especially south of Center Street presents a challenge
for pedestrians and cyclists given its auto -centric design.
Intermittent sidewalks, numerous driveway and uncon-
trolled access points, and fast-moving traffic make travel
along this corridor on foot or by bike potentially unsafe.
Travel demand modeling suggests that traffic will continue
to increase along South Meridian in the future. Given the
corridor serves Peterson Elementary and a popular Rails -
to -Trails trailhead, the need for safer pedestrian connec-
tivity should be taken into account through consideration
of a sidewalk along this corridor.
S #8 - WOODLAND AVENUE CONNECTION
A gap in the non -motorized network currently exists be-
tween Willow Glen Drive and 8th Street. While a shared
use path exists traveling north from Willow Glen along the
small creek that parallels Woodland, the sidewalk network
stops at the intersection of Woodland and Willow Glen,
leaving those traveling on foot few options to connect to
the shared use path or make the connection between
neighborhoods. While this connection scores low on the
priority list given the conditions, the completion of a side-
walk along Woodland Avenue would have a significant
impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 187_
Shared Use Paths
SUP #3.1 - WEST RESERVE/BY-PASS CONNECTION
Current conditions along the West Reserve corridor linking the terminus of the Kalispell
Bypass at Highway 93 to Highway 2 are not conducive to the amount of future growth
and development projected for this area on the north side of Kalispell. This corridor pro-
vides a major connection between the west and east valleys, but bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are lacking. Some sidewalks have been constructed as a result of more recent
development, but the network is incomplete on the north side of West Reserve. The
construction of a shared use path is viewed as the safest alternative to moving cyclists
and pedestrians along this busy thoroughfare.
SUP #4 — FLATHEAD VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE/HIGHWAY 2 CONNECTION
This proposed mixed recreational shared use path would provide a new connection
between the Flathead Valley Community College (FVCC) campus and neighborhoods
to the east, as well as future connectivity to Evergreen and the Junior High School.
Connectivity in this area is complicated due to the Whitefish and Stillwater Rivers, the
rail line, and historical development patterns in Evergreen, resulting in a gap in east/
west movement between Highway 93 and Highway 2 for both vehicles and pedestrians.
SUP #5.1 — HIGHWAY 93 CONNECTION — SOUTH
The connectivity between downtown and the Kalispell Regional Medical Center (KRMC),
the College campus, and the commercial and residential development on the north side
of Kalispell is broken by a significant gap in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure— the
section of Highway 93 extending from the Highway 2 intersection north to KRMC. This
section of the highway lacks sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared use paths, offers poor
site distances, has numerous intersections and access points with limited control, and
has traffic speeds of 35 mph and higher. When combined, these conditions make walk-
ing or biking along this route unsafe and impractical, limiting connectivity between two
major employment centers in the community.
SUP #5.2 — HIGHWAY 93 CONNECTION —(NORTH
Similar to SUP segment #5.1, the east side of Highway 93 extending north from
Commons Way to Grandview Drive and serving the FVCC campus and neighborhoods
in between is unsafe for bikes and pedestrians. A limited shoulder and travel speeds
of 35 mph and higher make this road segment undesirable as a bike route, and no
sidewalk or path currently exists to connect pedestrians to the commercial services in
and around the hospital complex or to the educational and recreational opportunities
provided by FVCC. Establishing a shared use path along this section of highway will link
to the existing sidewalk and path network present to the north and south of this recom-
mended route segment, completing a key connection along the Highway 93 corridor.
SUP #22 — HIGHWAY 2 EAST CONNECTING EAST EVERGREEN
The Evergreen community is lacking in sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared use paths; this
is especially apparent along the Highway 2 corridor traveling east from Kalispell into
Evergreen. The existing network is limited to disconnected footpaths and occasional
sidewalks in between businesses, interrupted by uncontrolled access to businesses and
industry. With five lanes of traffic traveling at speeds of 35 mph and more, this corridor
poses unsafe conditions for a cyclist or pedestrian. The addition of a shared use path
along either (or both) sides of Highway 2 would offer a key connection to and from es-
tablished neighborhoods in Kalispell and Evergreen, and serve the business community
in between.
_188 MOVE
SUP #29 - HIGHWAY 2 NORTH CONNECTION
Sidewalk present along Highway 2 traveling north through Evergreen is intermittent and
infrequent, and existing pedestrian paths are interrupted by multiple access points for
business and industry. Coupled with five -lanes of traffic traveling 45 mph and faster,
this route is unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians, especially school -aged children walking
to and from the Junior High. A shared use path along the western side of the highway,
extending from the intersection of Highway 35 and the West Reserve corridor, would
support safer travel by foot and bike to school from the surrounding neighborhoods.
SUP #30 - HELENA FLATS CONNECTION
The Helena Flats corridor has seen residential growth over the past decade and con-
tinues to be viewed as an area that will accommodate more families and homes in the
years to come, with the East Evergreen and Helena Flats Elementary Schools poised to
serve a growing school -aged population. Helena Flats Road presents a number of chal-
lenges for cyclists and pedestrians, with little shoulder, two lanes and traffic speeds of 35
mph. There is an incomplete network of shared use paths installed as requisites for past
development proposals, but the network is inconsistent in connecting neighborhoods
and schools. The addition of a shared use path from the intersection with Highway 35
north to Pine Loop Road could improve connectivity in this area.
SUP #39.1 - KALISPELL NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTION
It can be challenging to move safely across the Center Street and Highway 2 West
corridors, presenting a barrier to connectivity between the west side neighborhoods
and the West North neighborhoods. The establishment of a shared use path along 5th
Avenue West would provide a safe option for cyclists and pedestrians to travel from the
west side and destinations like Flathead High School and Elrod Elementary to Russell
Elementary and the County fairgrounds. This shared use path would supplement the
existing sidewalk network and offer a clear and safe crossing point at the intersection of
5th Avenue and Highway 2.
Please refer to the shared use paths summary in Table 9.1 on page 193 and Figure 9.3 on page 199.
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 189_
Sidewalks
S #5 - THREE MILE DRIVE CONNECTION
Three Mile Drive has seen significant growth in the last decade, further compounded
by the completion of the by-pass. Much of the existing residential development on the
north side of Three Mile is served by a (nearly) continuous path that runs west along
Three Mile until it bends north toward West Valley. The south side of Three Mile has an
intermittent path serving the neighborhoods west of the bypass, but the property to the
east between the by-pass and North Meridian has no non -motorized infrastructure.
Future infill development targeted for this area would be better served by a complete
network of sidewalks serving residents on both sides of Three Mile and providing safe
access from the neighborhoods to Kalispell Middle School.
S #6 - Hwy 2 WEST CONNECTION
Highway 2 West serves significant residential and limited commercial development be-
tween Kilo and Kalispell. While the south side of Highway 2 has a popular shared use
path connecting residents and recreationa lists, the northern side of the highway lacks
any paths or pedestrian infrastructure. By extending a path or sidewalk from the inter-
section at North Meridian west to Springcreek Road, a safe route for pedestrians in the
neighborhood north of Highway 2 would be established and a beneficial connection
made between those residents and the existing Rail Trail access at Springcreek.
Please refer to the sidewalks summary in Table 9.2 on page 200 and Figure 9.4 on page 201.
Bike Lanes
BL #2 - SECOND STREET EAST TO WEST CONNECTION
Second Street East and West offer the best opportunity to establish a striped, dedicated
bike lane connecting the neighborhoods that flank downtown Kalispell. While numer-
I
t A � � ous east/west routes exist through town, Second Street offers a wider road width to
Y� Via, accommodate a dedicated lane and provides important connectivity between Peterson
Elementary School on the west side and Woodland Park on the east side. It also serves
as a primary thru-route for vehicle traffic and, as a result, is signed and signalized to
minimize conflict and congestion. Suggested improvements would also benefit cyclists
and add to the safety of having a dedicated lane for bikes.
Please refer to the bike lanes summary in "Fablc, ,
and Figure 9.5 on page 203.
Bike Routes
BR #11 - FOUR MILE TO HILLTOP DRIVE
Residential development off of Four Mile Drive offers an opportunity to establish a safe
route for cyclists to access the Youth Athletic Complex, FVCC, and commercial devel-
opment along Highway 93 North. New and existing roads are wide enough and traffic
speeds low enough to allow for safe routes through and between older neighborhoods
surrounding Kalispell Middle School and newer neighborhoods west of the bypass. This
�� ru route would connect an established network of existing shared use paths and sidewalks
within these neighborhoods and along Four Mile and Highway 93 North, completing a
broad network of bicycle and pedestrian facility options.
_190 MOVE 2040
BR #13 — FOUR MILE DRIVE CONNECTION
Continuing the established bike route from the Flathead Valley Community College
campus south along Grandview Drive to the Kalispell Regional Medical Center campus
effectively links these two community resources and provides an alternate route for
cyclists to navigate.
As the KRMC continues to grow in prominence in the Valley, it will become more im-
portant to offer safe routes for employees who bike to work and opportunities for em-
ployees and guests to connect to the surrounding offices and local business by bike.
The proposed bike routes that form this network would connect the medical campus
to surrounding businesses and offer a link to existing shared use paths on either side
of Highway 93. The network would also support safer connectivity to Kalispell Middle
School, located across Highway 93, for students living in the residential neighborhoods
in and around the medical center.
BR #14 — RIVER ROAD/COTTONWOOD DRIVE CONNECTION
Beginning at the terminus of River Road and West Evergreen Drive, looping through
established neighborhoods along Cottonwood Drive and continuing south of Highway
35 to Meadow Manor Village, this route would connect the north and south sides of
Evergreen while providing a safe and established bike route away from primary traffic
corridors and significant intersections. It would also serve as a connection between two
high -priority shared use path connections, further expanding the bicycle and pedestrian
network in this under -served area.
BR #16.1 — FIRST AVENUE EAST NORTH NETWORK
This network of segments establishes a clear bike route for cyclists moving through
the East North neighborhood of Kalispell, taking advantage of controlled intersections
and providing safe access to Lawrence Park. While the East North neighborhood is
well -served by sidewalks, bike facilities are lacking and those unfamiliar with the area
might not select the safest intersection across Highway 2 or Highway 93. By providing
a network of shared bike routes through the neighborhood, safer and clearer access to
recreational amenities and proposed paths and trails would result.
BR #16.2 — FIFTH AVENUE EAST CONNECTION
Fifth Avenue East provides an alternative north/south route for cyclists moving through
Kalispell, avoiding some of the busier intersections closer to downtown and connecting
Hedges Elementary with a potential shared -use path across Highway 2 and up towards
Lawrence Park along Whitefish Stage. Fifth Avenue has signed intersections, good site
distances and offers a wide right-of-way to easily accommodate bikes and vehicles in
the some lane.
BR #16.3 — FIRST AVENUE EAST CONNECTION
First Avenue East offers the ability to move cyclists safely through Downtown Kalispell
without the need to use Main Street, which is Highway 93. First Avenue East runs the
entire length of downtown, extending from Lawrence Park to a terminal point feeding
into Highway 93 on the south end of Kalispell. Lane width and reduced speeds afford
bikes and cars the ability to interact safely, with controlled intersections and less traffic
than one would find on the primary route(s) through town.
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 191_
BR #16.4 - FIRST AVENUE WEST CONNECTION
Similar to First Avenue East, First Avenue West offers the ability to move cyclists safe-
ly and effectively through Downtown Kalispell without the need to use Main Street,
(Highway 93). First Avenue West runs the entire length of downtown, extending from the
mall property to a terminal point feeding into Highway 93 on the south end of Kalispell.
Lane width and reduced speeds afford bikes and cars the ability to interact safely, with
controlled intersections and less traffic than one would find on primary route(s).
BR #16.5 - EIGHTH AVENUE WEST CONNECTION
The southwest corner of the established West Side neighborhood in Kalispell is an area
with exceptionally poor bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. While installing sidewalks
may be a long-term goal, an easy mechanism to improve connectivity between estab-
lished networks and safe routes through the west side and to those developments fur-
ther south is the creation of a shared bike route connecting Eighth Avenue to Eleventh
Street West.
BR #16.6 - FOURTH STREET EAST/WEST CONNECTION
While the bike lane recommended for Second Street East/West provides a primary con-
nection between these neighborhoods, establishing a shared bike route along Fourth
Street East/West could provide an alternative and expand safe travel through these
neighborhoods.
BR #27 - KALISPELL MIDDLE SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTION
Building upon BR segment #11, these bike routes would connect newer development
off of Four Mile and the bypass to and through existing, established neighborhoods
adjacent to and around Kalispell Middle School. Many of these neighborhoods lack
sidewalks, and the winding street grid can be confusing to navigate. Establishing a clear
route for cyclists to use could offer more direct access from those neighborhoods west of
the by-pass to major employment centers like KRMC. This network would also support
SRTS for students attending the middle school.
BR #21 - SUNNYSIDE DRIVE CONNECTION
Similar to SUP segment #39.1, there is a need to connect residents of neighborhoods
on the south end of Kalispell to the community core, school facilities, and residents on
the north side of town to recreational amenities such as the shared use path along the
bypass, the Rail Trail leading west of town, Foy's Lake and Lone Pine Park. By continuing
a shared use path connection from the high school south along 5th Avenue West and
along Sunnyside Drive, a key north/south connection can be established that provides a
safe route to and through town for residents on the western side of Kalispell.
Please refer to the bike routes summary in Table 9.4 on page 204 and Figure 9.6 on page 207.
_192 MOVE 2040
Table 9.1: Shared Use Paths Analysis
—
a
= 3
L cv
in
a
=_
p N
3
7 i
= _
,G 3
` p = _
>
i
(1 OL °
L) a
Z �.
_
a
oe ° 0
d
>
m
3
s
o c
L 0 a�
Z
s�
Ld `m
s�
o c
N o
°Z
Z °
> o'
L
0 3 r
° 3
Q
L
cn c cn~
s s a
o
a �,
a 0
3;
Z a
z 3
o
w
°1
61
3 Z
°
s s
°
_
T3
=
Q% a
a a
L L
%�
%�
L c
Connects and supports
2
2
2
2
2
2
existing neighborhoods
1
1
1
1
1
1
Connects and supports 1
future neighborhoods
Connects and supports
existing economic 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
centers
Connects and supports 1
1
1
1
1
1
future economic centers
Connects and supports
CONNECTION
existing recreation
2
2
2
2
2
2
TYPE
amenities
Connects and supports
future recreation
1
1
1
amenities
Facilitates localized 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
network expansion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Facilitates regional 1
network expansion
1
1
1
1
Facilitates connections to 1
future development
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
3
3
3
3
3
3
SCHOOL
network
Route segment located
FACILITIES
within 1/4-mile school
3
3
zone
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
4
4
VEHICULAR
Cyclist -involved
4
4
4
4
CRASH TYPE
NON -
Multiple non -vehicular
VEHICULAR
crashes along route
4
4
4
CRASH
segment
FREQUENCY
MOBILITY
Route segment supports
an under -served
1
1
1
1
EQUITY
neighborhood
Score
8
12
26
10
21
29
26
5
7
Route segment length
LENGTH
(linear feet)
12,717
3,838
12,945
1,559
11,476
3,110
3,109
6,561
5,267
COST
Cost per linear foot
$238
Approximate Cost $3,026,600 $913,400 $3,080,900 $371,000
$2,731,300
$740,200
$739,900
$1,561,500
$1,253,500
...continued on page 194
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 193_
. A
ga �-
J
L
o
=, �
L
°' 3 a
-a
L
o °
=
°' °o
y=
y
"�
3 J
�, oe
3
3 L s
ix
o
o in m
CU
3
"'
a E Z °G
t M
m
�i a
_
o
3 >
m
- o�
_°
° o m
o°
3 m
o °'
m
a� o f
"'
c °'
o= L
`h
y
13
d C a_
c
c
o0
° — _
°'
_
u, o
`V i
w o
o
a o
3 a� = -d
m m
i 3
o ,a
3 ° m a
g o i L'
a
`n o O
U_
Z a
Connects and supports
2
2
existing neighborhoods
1
1
1
1
Connects and supports 1
future neighborhoods
Connects and supports
existing economic 2
2
2
2
2
2
centers
Connects and supports 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
future economic centers
Connects and supports
CONNECTION
existing recreation
2
2
2
TYPE
amenities
Connects and supports
future recreation
1
1
amenities
Facilitates localized
1
1
network expansion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Facilitates regional 1
network expansion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Facilitates connections to 1
future development
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
3
3
SCHOOL
network
Route segment located
FACILITIES
within 1/4-mile school
zone
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Cyclist -involved
4
NON-
Multiple Multiple non -vehicular
crashes along route
CRASH
segment
FREQUENCY
MOBILITY
Route segment supports
an under -served
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EQUITY
neighborhood
Score
7
10
6
12
12
8
5
11
7
Route segment length
LENGTH
(linear feet)
6,556
5,329
8,220
3,127
4,646
4,194
7,848
2,156
10,358
COST Cost per linear foot
$238
Approximate Cost
$1,560,300
$1,268,300
1 $1,956,400
1 $744,200
1 $1,105,700
1 $998,200
1 $1,867,800
1 $513,100
1 $2,465,200
...continued on page 195
_194 MOVE 2040
0-
_
L
Q
c
a
s°
-d N
L
m
a o
J
0 o 0
o a
iu
m
�'
a� a
3 0
`
d d -° 3 m
3
2 3
LL _
s m
S
S
Y d
H = C M
_�
�_
a 0
C C
�
L G1 Ln
N
t
a s
o
i L
0 o 3 E ,� a 2
y 0
0
N a 0
Ln °�
A3
a=
` jo
0
a m U�
=
aLL
E N
u io0
3N
U_
z
Connects and supports
2
2
2 2
2
2
existing neighborhoods
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods
Connects and supports
existing economic
2
2
2
centers
Connects and supports
1
1
1
future economic centers
Connects and supports
CONNECTION
existing recreation
2
2
2
2
2
TYPE
amenities
Connects and supports
future recreation
1
amenities
Facilitates localized
1
network expansion
1
1
1
1
Facilitates regional
1
network expansion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Facilitates connections
to future development
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
3
3
3
3
SCHOOL
network
Route segment located
FACILITIES
within '/a -mile school
3
3
3
3
zone
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
VEHICULAR
Cyclist -involved
4
4
4
CRASH TYPE
NON-
Multiple Multiple non -vehicular
crashes along route
4
CRASH
FREQUENCY
segment
Route segment supports
MOBILITY
an under -served
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EQUITY
neighborhood
5
27
11
7
5
7
19
19
6
Score
Route segment length
..........................
..........................................
LENGTH
(linear feet)
5,096
8,675
5,329
7,685
7,965
6,320
3,950
3,959
3,997
COST Cost per linear foot
$238
Approximate Cost
F$1,212,8001$2,064,700
$1,268,300
$1,829,000
$1,895,700
$1,504,200
$940,100
$942,200
$951,300
...continued on page 196
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 195_
Ln
p
LLd
LJ_ In
a
Cl)p
M >
_5 ° 3
o
° °a� `L
n
o
d>
3
N
cV
y
-
oO G
Ci.=.>O
Ln
-ad
i p
ra p °
a D
_
c
a
=
° E
a3m0 °3
`n = o
°3 >m
o
U
2m
°
03
c o0
°"La�-`0
�
N
a
3
2 `a
°a
Ln
o
02 ai 3� Z°9
a3i
zm
3
" _
3
> 3a Za
Connects and supports
2
2
2
2
2
2
existing neighborhoods
1
1
1
1
1
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods
Connects and supports
existing economic
2
2
2
2
2
centers
Connects and supports
1
1
1
1
1
future economic centers
Connects and supports
CONNECTION
existing recreation 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TYPE
amenities
Connects and supports
future recreation
1
1
1
amenities
Facilitates localized
network expansion
1
1
1
Facilitates regional
network expansion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Facilitates connections
to future development
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
3
3
SCHOOL
network
Route segment located
FACILITIES
within 1/4-mile school
3
zone
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
4
4
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Cyclist -involved
4
NON-
Multiple Multiple non -vehicular
crashes along route
4
4
CRASH
FREQUENCY
segment
Route segment supports
MOBILITY
an under -served
1
1
1
1
1
1
EQUITY
neighborhood
Score
2
27
10
11
6
4
19
14
10
_ Route segment length
LENGTH (linear feet)
2,011
14,763
11,466
4,472
7,991
4,471
5,935
13,753
22,504
COST Cost per linear foot
$238
Approximate Cost
$478,600
$3,513,600
$2,728,900
$1,064,300
$1,901,900
$1,064,100
$1,412,500
$3,273,200
$5,356,000
...continued on page 197
_196 MOVE 2040
:10111WIVEMMITIM
o
M
a�
a c
3 L J
� c
3 a
x
L
� G
a
s a H 3
c !2
c�
a o
i
o V
.4 a)
V _D c a)3
£ °°
x
�°
rL
a
x
Z \ 0
3 m
3 72
o s L -0�
N"
t
o
A J
�L
7
�3 a
L O J d a1
xt9
�'�
-d T
aka �`OL
> V a)
0
2L. C
1
2 m 0
O
O S
a
O Q .N
N a'
as
O
a
al
gg S
�.
a L
�O
3 �v L�
�3
a s
3o
L a a
v a
�,3
Y
o
Z=
x
x
in
ii 0
�
O
V i
Connects and supports
2
2
2
2
existing neighborhoods
Connects and supports
1
1
1
1
1
future neighborhoods
Connects and supports
existing economic
2
2
2
2
centers
Connects and supports
future economic
1
1
1
1
1
1
centers
CONNECTION
FConnects and supports
TYPE
existing recreation
2
2
2
2
amenities
Connects and supports
future recreation
1
1
amenities
Facilitates localized
1
1
1
1
1
network expansion
Facilitates regional
1
1
1
1
network expansion
Facilitates connections
1
1
1
1
1
to future development
Supports localized
safe routes to schools
3
3
3
SCHOOL
(SRTS) network
Route segment located
FACILITIES
within '/a -mile school
3
3
zone
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
VEHICULAR
Cyclist -involved
4
4
CRASH TYPE
NON-
Multiple Multiple non -vehicular
crashes along route
4
4
CRASH
segment
FREQUENCY
MOBILITY
Route segment
supports an under-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EQUITY
served neighborhood
Score
26
20
6
10
10
9
5
4
4
Route segment length
LENGTH
(linear feet)
9,487
7,260
3,240
497
2,244
3,005
17,031
5,664
5,395
COST
Cost per linear foot
$238
Approximate Cost
$2,257,900
$1,727,900
1 $771,100
1 $118,300
$534,100
1 $715,200
1 $4,053,400
1 $1,348,000
$1,284,000
...continued on page I Y8
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 197_
0
0
s
H
0
= M
o•
oe o cn
s
LN
a
N LN LLI
=
E
o
�N
�Ln Sin
0. 3 y
L
201
�
� s s
Z >.
3
>� N
3
N ai
3 > W
a=
> c>
o a
c�
G
o u 3
0 2
0
S y
0
2 a o
o° m
3
a o
a o
0
_
3" a 0
0
0) 0
0 3
0
3 c
0 0 a o
3 G1
u
y i
41 -a
0 a
Z O
V
o
c
_
d 0 E
i
o
3
3
>
Z
3
W
Connects and supports
2
2
2
2
2
existing neighborhoods
1
1
1
Connects and supports 1
future neighborhoods
Connects and supports
existing economic
2
2
2
2
2
centers
Connects and supports 1
1
1
1
1
1
future economic centers
Connects and supports
CONNECTION
existing recreation
2
2
2
TYPE
amenities
Connects and supports
future recreation
1
1
1
amenities
Facilitates localized
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
network expansion
1
1
1
Facilitates regional 1
network expansion
1
1
1
Facilitates connections 1
to future development
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
3
3
3
SCHOOL
network
Route segment located
FACILITIES
within 1/4-mile school
zone
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
4
4
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Cyclist -involved
4
4
4
NON-
Multiple Multiple non -vehicular
crashes along route
4
4
CRASH
segment
FREQUENCY
MOBILITY
Route segment supports
an under -served
1
1
1
1
1
EQUITY
neighborhood
Score
5
5
7
9
18
12
17
17
11
_ Route segment length
LENGTH (linear feet)
7,789
3,768
1,621
2,123
5,469
7,217
14,685
14,685
5,939
COST Cost per linear foot
$238
Approximate Cost
$1,853,800
$896,800
$385,800
$505,300
$1,301,600
$1,717,600
$3,495,000
$3,495,000
$1,413,500
_198 MOVE 2040
d �
r, ti • . ,
9
4 • 46...........V. —.-A
..............
•
• r:
t
a
,
C �}P a
y
' ks +,4
■
..1to
.yam pp
y"4 "
T
r i�r.., `d" ✓• �', w .. « F><.E � n -r• qy�,r. ��` k t .fir g �l 4 � K .
sr � r aw � y �• •F �. i
r �
. •r �SUP}r r M �", � �� 1
f4
PROJECT PRIORITY LEGEND
Existing Se pasted
Shared -Use Path
Existing bike Route
-- E:fisting Path or
Sidewalk
Existing designated
bike Ian e
119 Mlle 9u1{er
Highest
Priority
!
r
r
r
r- • • • •
■ LoweSf
Prior4ty
i � 16 r 1{ y t,
Prejec[
x
4
4
10 dFurdad ard'unoer
6umds,dkw,l• RR • d2
1•'
'
�
a
;t r
30
"�•.,
� F'A_
20.3. 20A 27
y
$a.1
�
2•dl•ta
24. t3. 171
k1j a1I
G.
3.z•0.1.23-H2.32.33
�
sa,rq
9.19
" »
211.1 .1tl.1 .19.7•&2
o #
B:2•P,.t•26• 31. 39.1
A�,,
a
•39.R
�-,.,2.,5•,8a
r
27
0 •
2t..2. 55
f t
�
tau t
-. ,
Table 9.2: Sidewalks Analysis
V
L
`a
C
L
c c
3
L
a
o
3
8 0
5
3
C 0 C
`v
° w
t7 d
o
G1 ,G
d
i
N a1
c v
C Q h a)
O C a1 s `u
3 h
S
n
d
' H
3
o a
s 3
i s
> 4
U 0 C ai
W
S
�Z
3L
V
\°
o a
o
ac�3
ai
Z�ac
oe
wL
°'
Q
.,
EV)
a) 0 m
Ln
a)
�_ 3
a G
9 3
a`
� •a 3 a�
3
c a)o
72
3
_
H°
��
aa
o
sNm
a>-d
ao
3
_
0
Connects and supports
2
2
2
2
2
existing neighborhoods
1
1
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods
2
2
2
2
2
Connects and supports
existing economic centers
1
1
1
1
Connects and supports
future economic centers
Connects and supports
CONNECTION existing recreation
2
2
2
2
TYPE amenities
Connects and supports
future recreation
1
amenities
Facilitates localized
network expansion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Facilitates regional
network expansion
1
1
1
Facilitates connections to
1
future development
1
1
1
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SCHOOL
network
FACILITIES
Route segment located
within 1/4-mile school zone
3
3
3
3
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
4
VEHICULAR
Cyclist -involved
4
4
4
4
CRASH TYPE
NON-
Multiple Multiple non -vehicular
crashes along route
4
4
CRASH
FREQUENCY
segment
Route segment supports
MOBILITY
an under -served
1
1
1
EQUITY
neighborhood
5
7
13
5
24
20
9
17
17
Score
Route segment length
LENGTH
(linear feet)
10,430
5,209
2,398
1,146
649
10,736F4,901
3,200
13,262
Cost per linear foot
COST
(assumes 4' width,
$15
thickness)
qCost
Approximat56,500
1 $78,100
$36,000
$17,200
$9,700
$161,000
1 $73,500
$48,000
$198,900
_200 MOVE 2040
Figure 9.4: Sidewalks Project Priority Map
@ 7
!�V
1A,
A
41,
Av
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
201M
Table 9.3: Bike Lanes Analysis
Connects and supports existing neighborhoods
Connects and supports future neighborhoods
Connects and supports existing economic centers
Connects and supports future economic centers
Connects and supports existing recreation amenities
CONNECTION TYPE
Connects and supports future recreation amenities
Facilitates localized network expansion
Facilitates regional network expansion
E
ilitates connections to future development
K
N
\ O
m ° _.V
0
L -d cu ,
y
3
C: >
L
C
VF `a
3 3 a
3 3 �
C
2
2
2 2
1
1 1
1 1
2
Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) network
3
3
3
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Route segment located within 1/4-mile school zone
3
3
3
Pedestrian -involved
4
4
NON -VEHICULAR CRASH
Cyclist -involved
Multiple non -vehicular crashes along route segment
4
TYPE
NON -VEHICULAR CRASH
FREQUENCY
4
MOBILITY EQUITY Route segment supports an under -served neighborhood
Score
25
16
12
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)
7,528
5,227
5,210
COST
Cost per linear foot of construction
$10
Approximate Cost
$75,300
$52,300
$52,100
_202 MOVE 2040
Figure 9.5: Bike Lanes Project Priority Map
ip
i
-5
J
WOW
"IT
%
40 -%
■
Mix `M
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 203
F.-
Table 9.4: Bike Routes Analysis
R
Q
c
a
°o o°e i
y
a
LL. Q
o
_ >
Ql =
Q
'
(U H
_
Ql Q O a)
4411
o0 m
i
a
C
—C
E N
u
N
Q
a.UO
E_ tE E L •=
2 O y y
,^
=
d HO
2
x
U
V
Q Sl
\LQL
i
iO
e
X W
G= c=) a) ix
m
c
w0=
_.DLLaC0)\o
°
m m
-D Q
°o
2 0 c 3
m; o -y
c
0 0
a o
Z =
3 =
Z = Z 0 U N
-D
E 'N
C U V
N
H
G1
Q
U
c l
V
L) Ln
V
3
Z
Connects and supports existing
2
2
2
neighborhoods
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Connects and supports future 1
neighborhoods
2
2
2
2
Connects and supports existing
economic centers
Connects and supports future 1
1
1
1
1
economic centers
CONNECTION Connects and supports existing
2
2
TYPE recreation amenities
Connects and supports future
1
1
recreation amenities
Facilitates localized network
1
1
1
1
expansion
1
1
Facilitates regional network 1
expansion
1
1
1
Facilitates connections to future 1
development
Supports localized safe routes to
3
3
SCHOOL
schools (SRTS) network
Route segment located within
FACILITIES
IA -mile school zone
3
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
VEHICULAR
Cyclist -involved
4
4
4
CRASH TYPE
NON -
VEHICULAR
Multiple non -vehicular crashes
4
CRASH
along route segment
FREQUENCY
MOBILITY Route segment supports an
1
1
1
1
1
1
EQUITY under -served neighborhood
5
5
4
4
12
5
15
28
Score
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)
7,789
8,458
10,381
12,560
7,217
5,807
11,035
2,724
COST Cost per linear foot
$6
Approximate Cost
$46,700
$50,700
$62,300
$75,400
1 $43,300
$34,800
$66,200
$16,300
...continued on poge 205
_204 MOVE 2040
O M
O V
}
`
_
.>
O �
L =
N - a 0
-dLJ
oe
O
N
0
`
o o
M
m
Wi`
-C s
mn a
m•`
_
`
�e
o
cn
°
a
tA
>
a
+ s 3 =3
in3
,V
a s
c
u\
ad o
a o a cn
3 �
a
s
i
0
i
:.�
> i
OG in
CCO
L O —
LE
3
K
CD
LL
Connects and supports 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
existing neighborhoods
Connects and supports future
1
1
neighborhoods
2
2
2
2
2
2
Connects and supports 2
existing economic centers
Connects and supports future
1
1
economic centers
Connects and supports
2
2
2
2
2
2
CONNECTION
TYPE
existing recreation amenities
Connects and supports future
1
1
recreation amenities
Facilitates localized network
1
1
1
1
1
1
expansion
Facilitates regional network
1
expansion
Facilitates connections to
future development
Supports localized safe routes
3
3
3
3
3
3
SCHOOL
to schools (SRTS) network
Route segment located within
11
11
FACILITIES
V.-mile school zone
3
3
3
3
3
NON-
Pedestrian -involved
4
4
4
4
4
4
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Cyclist -involved
4
4
4
4
4
4
NON -
VEHICULAR
Multiple non -vehicular crashes
4
4
4
4
4
4
CRASH
along route segment
FREQUENCY
MOBILITY Route segment supports an
EQUITY under -served neighborhood
1
25
25
26
4
Score
23
23
8
25
LENGTH
Route segment length
(linear feet)
6,806
16,263
2,975
8,928
8,213
2,710
5,585
5,031
COST
Cost per linear foot
$6
Approximate Cost
j $40,800
1 $97,600
1 $17,900
1 $53,600
1 $49,300
1 $16,300
1 $33,500
1 $30,200
...continued on page 206
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 205_
\ s 3
s
.�
0
Q , > -d
'o
to
°
s
0 0 _
o
c
`n h >
G
° a \
i a to -d >.
s •L
5 a
G1
L
Q LL
_�
a •L
C
CO a a
th i
CG%
J L
.�
Q
s
a i
° rl i
G1 a
2
to
a
Z
Connects and supports existing 2
2
neighborhoods
1
1
Connects and supports future 1
neighborhoods
2
Connects and supports existing
economic centers
Connects and supports future
1
economic centers
CONNECTION Connects and supports existing
2
2
TYPE recreation amenities
Connects and supports future
1
1
recreation amenities
Facilitates localized network
1
1
expansion
Facilitates regional network
1
1
1
expansion
Facilitates connections to future
development
1
1
Supports localized safe routes to
SCHOOL
schools (SRTS) network
3
3
Route segment located within
FACILITIES
1/4-mile school zone
3
3
NON- Pedestrian -involved 4
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE Cyclist -involved 4
NON -
VEHICULAR Multiple non -vehicular crashes 4
CRASH along route segment
FREQUENCY
1
MOBILITY Route segment supports an under -
1
EQUITY served neighborhood
4
4
Score 10 26 5
Route segment length
LENGTH
(linear feet)
4,705
5,857
8,458
10,381
12,560
COST
Cost per linear foot
$6
Approximate Cost
$28,200
1 $35,100
$50,700
$62,300
$75,400
_206 MOVE 2040
n
PROJECT PRIORtTY LEGEND
Exining Separated
Shamd-use Path
Existing Bike Route
Existing Path or
Sidewalk
Existing designated
bike lane
U4 Make Suffer
■ ■ Highest Priority
■ ■
■ ■
61rn a*a
■.....■ Lowest Pnnrii',y
ms l _r
r I FF
Project Priorities
When considering project priorities for improvements to,
or expansion of, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, it
is best to consider the transportation network holistically
and plan for facility upgrades in concert with TSM and
MSN improvements. This approach will result in cost effi-
ciencies and minimize unnecessary repairs or reconstruc-
tion of recently installed facilities, capitalizing on project
overlap that minimizes construction length and leads to
better results.
Through extensive modeling and analysis, this plan iden-
tifies priority corridor projects relating to Kalispell's spe-
cific MSN and TSM infrastructure needs. When compared
to the bicycle and pedestrian connections analyzed in this
chapter, overlapping priorities and project opportunities
begin to emerge. The top ten corridor infrastructure proj-
ects coincide with bicycle and pedestrian improvements
as shown in Table 9.5.
Overlapping priorities indicate clear direction on project
goals and future transportation improvements for vehi-
cles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The top project identified
for major street network improvements is the connection
between Highway 93 North at the present by-pass ter-
minus and Highway 2 North along West Reserve Drive.
While sidewalks exist sporadically along either side of
West Reserve Drive, prioritized improvements resulting
from this plan's recommendations afford the City an op-
portunity to create a safe and unified route for bikes and
pedestrians as part of corridor upgrades. A shared use
path in line with the suggested design shown in
9.7 on page 210 is identified as one of the highest-rank-
ing priorities for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity —this
segment scored 26 points when analyzed according to
the methodology introduced in the previous pages.
The top scoring bike and pedestrian facility improvement
at 29 points is the corridor between the intersection of
Highway 93 and Highway 2 in the heart of downtown
Kalispell, and the intersection of Highway 93 and West
Reserve Drive —more specifically, the segment identified
as SUP 5.1 extending from the Highway 93 and 2 inter-
section up to Ryder Road. This corridor ranked 8th over-
all according to the transportation modeling, but is the
3rd highest transportation safety measure recommended
in the plan. The corridor is plagued by limited right -of
way, site distances, multiple uncontrolled access points,
and a turn on grade. Careful analysis suggests a shared
Table 9.5: Project Priorities
Project
Identifier
27
Transportation
Corridor
West Reserve Drive
TO
Whitefish
From
Highway 93
Project
Type
MSN
Project
Identifier
Non -Motorized Project
Priority
Stage
SUP 3.1
West Reserve/By-Pass
Connection
28
West Reserve Drive
Highway 2
Whitefish Stage
MSN
4
Four Mile Drive
Hwy 93
Northland Road
MSN
SUP 32
Four Mile Dr./Northland
Dr. to Meadow Vista Loop
30
Grandview/
Whitefish
Highway 93
MSN
SUP 4
New Connection/
Evergreen
Stage
Grandview Dr. to Hwy 2
Rose
Whitefish Stage/West
6
Whitefish Stage
Crossing
West Reserve
MSN
SUP 6.1
Reserve Dr. to Rose
Crossing
26
Intersection
Highway 93
West Reserve
TSM
33
Highway 2/Idaho
LaSalle
Hwy 93A
TSM
S 6
Hwy 2 West Connection
SUP 5.1
Hwy 93 North/Nevada St.
34
Highway 93
Highway 2
West Reserve
TSM
and SUP
to Ryder Rd. and Hwy 93
5.2
North/E. Meridian to West
Reserve Dr.
Hwy 93 North/West
35
Highway 93
West Reserve
MT 40
TSM
SUP 2 and
Reserve to Nob Hill Loop
SUP 7
and Hwy 93 North/Rose
Crossing to Hagerman Ln.
38
Highway 93 (Main
12th Street
Highway 2
TSM
Street)
(Idaho)
_208 MOVE 2040
use path be constructed along the east side of the road-
way to ensure both bikes and pedestrians have a safe
means of travel from downtown to the hospital complex
and surrounding neighborhoods. However, acquisition of
right-of-way necessary to construct such a facility may not
be possible; therefore alternative design recommenda-
tions have been made, for this segment and other priority
non -motorized projects.
Prioritization of a new corridor connection between
Grandview Drive and Whitefish Stage also aligned with
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity priorities, reinforcing
the potential for a shared use path in this location. While
a recreational shared use path (SUP 4) is recommended
for the short-term, long-term plans to construct a road
in this location will result in the need for sidewalk con-
nectivity, with an eye toward future shared -use path con-
struction similar to that which exists along the west side of
Whitefish Stage.
Other corridor projects were less aligned with bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure improvement priorities. SUP 32
connecting the Kid Sports facility with Northland Drive and
Meadow Vista Loop ranked relatively low when evaluated
according to the established criteria and methodology in
this chapter. Similarly, shared use path connections along
Highway 93 North to serve new development planned for
this corridor scored low. It is important to note, however,
that where improvements to the transportation network
are prioritized, related bicycle and pedestrian infrastruc-
ture should also be prioritized for construction, regardless
of whether it has been identified and recommended as a
project priority according to this analysis. Any opportunity
to close network gaps should be encouraged; using MSN
and TSM corridor projects to do so ensures a cohesive
transportation network is achieved over time.
FACILITY DESIGN
The successful design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
is critical to the overall safety and usability of Kalispell's
non -motorized network. =igure 9.7 provides guidance on
the suggested design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
outlined in this plan. These design recommendations are
based on industry best practice for facility construction and
should be used as a baseline when determining the right
treatment for a corridor improvement project, depending
on the context surrounding a particular connection.
In addition to the design and construction of the con-
nection itself, other safety and design elements should
be considered to improve the experience for cyclists
and pedestrians. The following toolbox expands on the
cross -sections in
» Shared Lane Markings (SLMs). Shared lane mark-
ings, often referred to as "sharrows," are defined
by the National Association of City Transportation
Officials as road markings that indicate a shared lane
environment for bicycles and automobiles. Sharrows
reinforce the presence of bicycle traffic on the street,
dictate proper bicyclist positioning, and may be con-
figured to offer directional and wayfinding guidance.
They should not be considered a substitute for bike
lanes, shared use paths, or other separation treat-
ments where these types of facilities are otherwise
warranted or space permits.
» Buffering. Buffered bike lanes are conventional bi-
cycle lanes paired with a designated buffer space
separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent travel
lane or parking lane. For a lane to be considered ap-
propriately buffered it must include word or symbol
markings to define the bike lane and designate that
portion of the street for preferential use by bicyclists,
and two solid white lines on both edges of the buf-
fer space indicating where crossing is discouraged,
though not prohibited. Additionally, where a buffer is
three feet or wider, diagonal or cross -hatching shall
be used to designate the space. Buffering can also
be accomplished using changes in color or texture of
pavement. Physically protected bike lanes are also
considered "buffered" but use physical barriers like
concrete, planters, or parking.
When an intersection or mid -block crossing is considered
as part of a corridor improvement, the following design
elements should be considered to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety:
» Bike Boxes. A bike box is a designated area at the
head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that
provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get
ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.
This type of facility should be used in areas of high
traffic and is typically designated by lines and mark-
ings, changes in color and texture, and different pav-
ing applications.
» Crosswalk Improvements. Improving the cross-
walk experience for pedestrians is key to creating
a safe and walkable environment and making suc-
cessful connections throughout Kalispell's growing
non -motorized network. Crosswalk treatments may
include elevating the crosswalks to increase visibili-
ty and vehicular awareness of pedestrians; this also
serves to slow traffic. Other paving treatments such as
rumble strips or raised caps also trigger awareness of
pedestrian zones. Curb extensions at corners and pe-
destrian refuge zones at mid -block crossings should
be incorporated wherever possible, to reduce the
distance a pedestrian must travel to cross the street.
Additionally, signage and signaling can be used to
further reinforce a crossing in the third dimension.
KALI.SFCLL AREA TRANSPORTATiOiN r"L?.iv 209_
k
c
�
CL)
d)
0 Cl)
a c
0 CL)
c m
�
.4
G3
m
2
m
k
0
�
m
:im%
�
CL)
m
�
2
cn
0 2
2 �
� .2 �
cu
m cn
\ \
\ �
\
•�
`
){(
c
)\
}\\(
.
,
o
OL-.
,.
y CD
\\
\°
\
E
-
§(}-
\\
)\\\
\k\\
\\\ \\ \ \
-
\})
\\\} �\
- 22 ) \2 \2
\\\ �\\ co
±\
W2 o MOVE 2040
» Signaling. For uncontrolled or mid -block crossings,
signaling can be more effective than signage to alert
drivers to pedestrians crossing. The following types of
signals are recommended as best practices when im-
plementing this plan.
Flashing beacons. Flashing beacons at cross-
walks can improve pedestrian safety by alerting
motorists of mid -block crossings or establishing
visible cues for intersections and crossings that
are wide or lack sufficient facilities for pedestrian
safety. Beacons can be especially useful in school
zones where pedestrians are smaller and lower
to the ground, creating situations where driv-
er awareness is critical. Multiple beacon options
exist, but the type most often recommended as
a best practice (especially in schools zones) are
the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs).
These beacons use irregular flash patterns sim-
ilar to those used by police vehicles, reinforcing
a driver's reaction to similar stimuli by encour-
aging them to slow down or stop when visible.
These types of beacons can be successfully in-
stalled along any roadway, from local streets to
multi -lane collectors and arterials, and have been
shown to drastically improve vehicle yielding com-
pliance compared to the standard flashing yellow
ball beacons formerly used in such applications.
HAWK Crossings. This style of hybrid beacon,
also known as a High -intensity Activated Cross-
walk (HAWK), consists of a signal -head with two
red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major
street, and pedestrian signal heads for the mi-
nor street or trail crossing. There are no signal
indications for motor vehicles on the minor street
approaches. Hybrid beacons are used to improve
non -motorized crossings of major streets in loca-
tions where side -street volumes do not support
installation of a conventional traffic signal. Hybrid
beacons can operate in areas of heavy traffic and
multiple travel lanes where a RRFB would be less
effective.
In -Road Warning Lights (IRWL). In -road treat-
ments alert motorists to pedestrians crossing at
uncontrolled locations. Both sides of a crosswalk
are lined with encased raised lights installed to
be level with the asphalt; these are typically LED
strobe lighting and face towards the driver. When
a pedestrian enters a crosswalk, the in -pavement
lighting system is activated and research has
shown a decline in vehicle speed as a result.
Safe Routes to School Zones
STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
These treatments are especially important when it comes
to safety for cyclists and pedestrians in school zones.
Kalispell's SRTS infrastructure is well intact in the City's
core, but newer school zones and areas on the periphery
of the urban boundary that have seen continued growth
over the past decade are less equipped with signage, sig-
naling, and adequate bicycle and pedestrian infrastruc-
ture to ensure children arrive at their destination safely.
One of the higher priority shared use path connections
identified through this analysis was SUP 29 along the west
side of Highway 2 as it extends north through Evergreen.
This corridor has limited sidewalks and crosswalks and
many uncontrolled access points along and adjacent
to Evergreen Junior High School. Moving west into the
neighborhoods, sidewalks become intermittent or non-
existent and road infrastructure fails to designate routes
that are safest and most appropriate for bikes. Signaling,
signage, and implementation of crosswalk infrastructure
is key for this area; focusing sidewalk improvements in
and around Evergreen Junior High, as well as in neigh-
borhoods surrounding East Evergreen Elementary (also a
high ranking priority connection in SUP 30) will help to
improve safety and walkability for the students served.
School zone expansion is another recommendation that
may improve overall access for students in those parts
of the City experiencing rapid development. Designated
school zones surrounding Hedges Elementary, Elrod
Elementary, Russel Elementary, and Flathead High School
are all served by a cohesive network of sidewalks, well -
signed crosswalks, and signaling. Select intersections
along the 5th Avenue West corridor may require improve-
ments in the future, but for the most part these facilities
meet the safety needs of those students walking and
biking to school. Edgerton Elementary School is also well
served by sidewalk network and signage, and easily ac-
cessed by adjacent neighborhoods using the shared use
path currently in place along the west side of Whitefish
Stage Road.
As one moves beyond the downtown core, however,
the SRTS network begins to break down. The deficien-
cies surrounding Evergreen Junior High School have
been previously discussed, but of note are the limit-
ed bicycle and pedestrian facilities available to serve
Peterson Elementary School, Kalispell Middle School, East
Evergreen Elementary, and Glacier High School. Some of
these schools are newer and located in areas where res-
idential growth has occured more recently. Even with this
newer development, limited sidewalk networks add to the
difficulty in moving pedestrians —especially school -aged
children —safely to their destination. Considering schools
like Helena Flats and Rankin Elementary, an expanded
I\ALiSreLL AREA TRANSPORTAT OiN r"L?.iv 211_
school zone may be necessary to account for the larger
geographies and less dense development these institu-
tions are serving. While the typical school zone for SRTS
treatment is a 1 /4 mile radius, in the exurban areas an
expanded 1 /2 mile radius may be appropriate to rein-
force walk -ability and bike -ability for students. City policy
requiring sidewalks for all new development and prioritiz-
ing sidewalk infrastructure expansion on an annual bases
for those areas previously built -out but which do not have
sidewalks will aide in creating a cohesive SRTS network
over time.
General Best Practice
THE PLAN/POLICY RELATIONSHIP
With any planning effort it is important that priority rec-
ommendations acknowledge the realities of federal,
state, and local policy. Integrating plans and priorities for
bicycle and pedestrian improvements provides the City
with a consistent means to approach capital planning and
budgeting for infrastructure needs and reinforce the im-
portance of these facilities and connections to the overall
transportation network. Identification and prioritization
of bicycle and pedestrian facilities ensures that improve-
ments are considered as future development occurs or
as state and federally -funded road improvement projects
are undertaken. The City recently developed a compre-
hensive bicycle and pedestrian plan that provides more
detailed guidance on facility construction, management,
and maintenance, dovetailing with recommendations in-
cluded in this plan. This policy will serve as an important
tool to guide day-to-day decision -making and direct im-
provements that may be driven by private development
or public desire in the short, mid, and long-term plan
horizon.
In developing these recommendations, the policy direc-
tives of the state transportation department were also
considered. On -system improvements within MDT right of
way must be coordinated with MDT to comply with pol-
icies and design standards, meaning further analysis to
determine feasibility of these facilities on a case by case
basis will be required. MDT generally recommends these
facilities be located outside of state-owned right of way
whenever possible. However, in some instances state
right-of-way is the only feasible option to ensure facili-
ty construction and connectivity. Additionally, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities are acknowledged and supported by
the 2017 TranPlan MT.
Municipalities and other local jurisdictions are typically
responsible for planning, constructing, and maintaining
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As previously discussed,
identifying key connections and priority projects allows
MDT to consider and plan for these projects as part of
MDT facility improvements, or as non -MDT project en-
croachments. Because there are limited federal funds
available for the construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, MDT evaluates bicycle and pedestrian projects
viability based on long-term ownership and maintenance
responsibility, transportation purpose, location in proxim-
ity to city limits and urban (developing) areas, enhance-
ment of traffic safety, connectivity, impact to the Highway
State Special Revenue Account, and cost. MDT's plan-
ning, engineering, and maintenance divisions also work
together to identify paths in need of repairs and consider
the timing for inclusion in the scope of work for future
projects where right-of-way overlaps.
As pedestrian facilities are considered in the planning
and project development process, it is imperative that eq-
uitable access to all transportation users be considered.
According to MDT's ADA Transition Plan, the department
is committed to creating and supporting an accessible
transportation system throughout the state by removing
barriers to access along MDT controlled, federal -aid el-
igible routes. Ensuring connectivity of all residents and
mobility types automatically alleviates a physical barri-
er to access, such as that which is present in places like
Evergreen within this transportation plan. However, many
routes in Evergreen are locally -controlled and will require
coordination between state and local governments to en-
sure these accessibility benchmarks are met.
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal realities of facility construction and maintenance
weigh heavily on capital improvements planning efforts,
and must be taken into consideration given other prior-
ities and the context in which each facility exists. While
bike routes and lanes are less fiscally burdensome to plan
and budget for, the construction of new sidewalks and
shared use paths is significantly more expensive and must
be balanced with the needs of the overall transportation
network, available funding mechanisms, and long-term
maintenance projections.
Planning and budgeting for infrastructure maintenance
can be equally challenging. Shared use paths typically
require greater capital maintenance activities with age,
often needing full reconstruction at some point in their
lifetime. Some jurisdictions focus on eventual reconstruc-
tion and treat this as a maintenance item to be budgeted
for, whereas others treat this as a separate capital project
to be considered in the future. There is no right or wrong
way to approach maintenance, but having a consistent
plan for ongoing and necessary improvements is vital to
keeping the non -motorized network safe and effective.
Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is important but will
only serve its purpose if kept in working order.
_212 MOVE
Given these considerations and the overall recommenda-
tions, the TAC felt it was important to identify key policy
decisions affecting the implementation of this plan.
» Bike routes and bike lanes identified will not be im-
plemented until the roadway is updated to meet the
necessary widths and acceptable design standards
approved by Public Works.
» There will be no additional symbols placed in the
road way to identify bike routes at this time. Pending
additional resources to support the Public Works
Department in the application and upkeep required
for bike route signage and pavement markings, these
symbols will serve as a recommendation only and not
be prioritized for implementation.
» Designated bike lanes and bike routes shall not re-
ceive special or additional snow plowing or deicing
treatment outside of the City's current Policy and
Procedure Manual for Snow and Ice Removal at this
time. While this does not preclude a facility identi-
fied from being implemented, it is important that the
public understand the seasonality of bike routes and
lanes. Without additional resources to add plowing
and deicing capacity, users should not expect clear
bike lanes through winter months.
KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 213_