Posted on December 26, 2012 at 12:00 AM by Andrew Fangman
Following are the transportation related goals and implementation strategies that the Infrastructure Community Member Advisory Group recommended be included in the new City of Muscatine Comprehensive Plan.DRAFT Transportation Goals and Implementation Strategies
In order for goals to be achieved there must be strategies to implement the vision of a better Muscatine that is laid out in the goals in the comprehensive plan. Each goal contained in the Plan is accompanied by specific implementation strategies necessary to make that goal a reality.
There are three types of implantation strategies: policies, actions, and projects. Policies contain the standard which if followed in all city actions and activities subject to review by the City, will advance the goal that they support. Policies contained with the comprehensive plan are advisory and compliance is not mandatory, however when taking an action contrary to what is contained in the Plan this fact should be noted and an explanation given.
Actions detail the specific initiatives that the city can take to achieve a listed goal. Actions include such things as creating the necessary regulations to implement a goal, perform a study to be understand how a goal might be achieved or identify funding to achieve a goal.
Projects are specific capital improvement projects that if constructed would advance a listed goal. When the city develops future capital improvement plans, strong consideration should be given to these specific projects listed in the comprehensive plan.
Goal T.1: Complete Current Projects
Complete transportation related capital improvement projects currently underway.
Policy T.1.A: Highest priority should be given to the projects for which City of Muscatine has already begun to construct, design, or study.
Policy T.1.B: As future phases of the West Sewer Separation Project are designed and constructed, to determine if work being done as part of the West Sewer Separation Project can be leveraged to achieve other goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Action T.1.A: Complete the 38/61 Connector Study
Project T.1.A: West Hill Sewer Separation Project by 2028Project T.1.B: Cedar StreetProject T.1.C: Colorado Street
Project T.1.D: Musser Park to Wiggens Road Trail
Goal T.2: Roadway Maintenance
Maintain existing roads, inclusive of curbs, handicap ramps, and railroad crossing, to a Pavement Condition Index Score of 60 or better, through the appropriate overlay, full depth patching, and crack sealing projects.
Policy T.2.A: The maintenance of existing roadways is a very high priorty, only the projects identified in Goal T.1 and Goal T.6 are of a high priority.
Policy T.2.B: Roadway maintenance projects for segments of road will be reconstructed during the West Hill Sewer Separation Project or for which plans for reconstruction are part the adopted City of Muscatine Capital Improvement Plan, shall be considered the lowest priority for roadway maintenance projects.Action T.2.A: A comprehensive roadway inventory from which pavement condition index scores are derived should be conducted at least once every three years.
Action T.2.B: Annually developed a list of roadway maintenance projects, overlays, full depth patching, and crack sealing that necessary to achieving the goal of all segments of City of Muscatine roadway of having a pavement condition index score of 60 or better.
Action T.2.C: Increase annual funding for roadway maintenance projects from $500,000 to $750,000.
Action T.2.C: Annually developed a list of projects necessary to meeting American with Disability Acts standards regarding handicap accessible intersection.
Project T.2.A: All projects annually identified as necessary to achieving the goal of all segments of City of Muscatine roadway of having a pavement condition index score of 60 or better.
Project T.2.B: Projects necessary to meeting American with Disability Acts standards regarding handicap accessible intersections.
Goal T.3: Mississippi Drive Corridor (U.S. 61 Business)
Reconstruction of 1.6 miles of Mississippi Drive (pavement & curb/gutter); street lighting, landscaping, gateway features; pedestrian crossings and sidewalk improvements; traffic signals and geometric improvements; and storm drainage improvements and roadway embankment work intended to improve flood protection.
Policy T.3.A: Completion of the Mississippi Drive Corridor Project a high priority.
Action T.3.A: Complete the Mississippi Drive Corridor Phase 1 Environmental Study & Preliminary Engineering.
Action T.3.B: Work with state and federal partners to obtain funding.
Project T.3.A: Reconstruction of 1.6 miles of Mississippi Drive.
Goal T.4: Park Avenue Corridor (U.S. 61 Business)
Enhance and improve Park Avenue south of the U.S. 61 Bypass and 2nd Street from Park Avenue to the Norbert F. Beckey Bridge. Improvements to Park Avenue and 2ns Street are critical to the revitalization and enhancement of the Park Avenue Corridor and creating an attractive gateway into Muscatine, both major goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy T.4.A: Enhancement and improvements to the following aspects of Park Avenue should be pursued in tandem with a similar effort along Grandview Avenue as the logical extension of what will be accomplished along U.S. 61Business with the Mississippi Drive Corridor Project.
Policy T.4.B: Infrastructure improvements and enhancements to Park Avenue will be o part of a comprehensive effort to revitalization and enhance the Park Avenue Corridor
Policy T.4.C: Any planning that will precede any infrastructure improvements and enhancements to Park Avenue will specifically examine the following issues.
• Low maintenance aesthetic enhancements, there was a consensus reach that Park Avenue is a key gateway into Muscatine that plays an important role in the way that Muscatine is perceived.
• Conversion to a three lane configuration (South of Colorado Street). This type of configuration could possibly spur development along this stretch of park by making it easier for left turning traffic to access business along Park Avenue. The current four line configuration creates very narrow travel lanes, switching to a three lane configuration in addition to allowing for the creation of a dedicate travel lane would allow for the travel lanes to widened to a standard width.
• Improvements to the Park Avenue and 5th Street intersection, this is a tight corner and there are concerns regarding larger vehicles trying to make this turn.
• The geometry of the five way intersection of Park Avenue, 4th Street, 2nd Street could be improved
Action T.4.A: Work with community stakeholders, the Iowa Department of Transportation to develop a plan to improve and enhance Park Avenue.
Action T.4.B: Work with state and federal partners to fund project.
Project T.4.A: Improve and enhance Park Avenue.
Goal T.5: Grandview Avenue Corridor (U.S. 61 Business)
Enhance and improve Grandview Avenue between U.S. 61 and Green Street. Improvements to this segment Grandview Avenue are critical to the revitalization and enhancement of the Grandview Avenue Corridor and creating an attractive gateway into Muscatine, both major goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy T.5.A: Enhancement and improvements to the following aspects of Grandview Avenue should be pursued in tandem with a similar effort along Park Avenue the logical extension of what will be accomplished along U.S. 61Business with the Mississippi Drive Corridor Project.
Policy T.5.B: Infrastructure improvements and enhancements to Grandview Avenue will be part of a comprehensive effort to revitalization and enhance the Grandview Avenue Corridor
Policy T.5.C: Any planning that will precede any infrastructure improvements and enhancements to Grandview Avenue will specifically examine the following issues.
• Low maintenance aesthetic enhancements, Grandview Avenue is a key gateway into Muscatine that plays an important role in the way that Muscatine is perceived.
• The burial of existing overhead utility lines to enhance the appearance of the Grandview Avenue corridor.
Action T.5.A: Work with community stakeholders, the Iowa Department of Transportation to develop a plan to improve and enhance Grandview Avenue.
Action T.5.B: Work with state and federal partners to fund project.
Project T.5.A: Improve and enhance Grandview Avenue from .
Goal T.6: Mulberry Avenue
Reconstruct Mulberry Avenue from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass to adequately serve current and anticipated future traffic volumes. Currently this segment of Mulberry Avenue is an aging narrow rural style two lane road, lined by deep ditches, and which lacks curb, gutter, shoulder or sidewalks. Traffic has increased by 63.2% between 1998 and 2010. Continuing development will further increase the amount of traffic on this segment of Mulberry Avenue.
Policy T.6.A: After completion of projects currently underway on Cedar Street and Colorado Street, reconstruction of Mulberry Avenue from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass shall be the top transportation infrastructure improvement priority.
Action T.6.B: Apply for Surface Transportation Program funding to reconstruct Mulberry Avenue from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass at the next available opportunity.
Action T.6.C: Because funding for full reconstruction is unlikely to be available prior to 2016, identified any feasible and affordable interim improvement that could be made to this section.
Project T.6.A: Construct identified interim improvements.
Project T.6.B: Reconstruction of Mulberry Avenue from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass.
Goal T.7: Lucas Street
Reconstruct Lucas Street from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass, currently an aging narrow rural style two lane road, lined by deep ditches, and which lacks curb, gutter, shoulder or sidewalks, from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass and realign the Lucas Street/U.S. 61 Bypass intersection to create a 90 degree intersection, as the current geometry of this intersection is a hazard.
Policy T.7.A: The reconstruction of Lucas Street from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass and realignment of the Lucas Street/U.S. 61 Bypass intersection should occur after the reconstruction of Mulberry Avenue contained in Goal T.6 is accomplished, due lower traffic volumes.
Action T.7.A: Identify and pursue the appropriate funding sources.
Project T.7.A: Reconstruction of Lucas Street from Houser Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass including the realignment of the Lucas Street/U.S. 61 Bypass intersection to create a 90 degree intersection .
Goal T.8: Houser Street
Improve Houser Street from Lucas Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass and redesign of the Grandview/Houser/Sampson intersection, including the installation of permanent traffic signals.
Policy T.8.A: The improvement Houser Street from Lucas Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass is lower priority than desired improvements to Mulberry Avenue and Lucas Street identified in Goal T.6 and Goal T.7.
Policy T.8.B: The redesign of the Grandview/Houser/Sampson intersection, including the installation of permanent traffic signal, is a higher priority than improvements to Houser Street.
Action T.8.B: Identify and pursue the appropriate funding sources.
Project T.8.A: Improvements Houser Street from Lucas Street to the U.S. 61 Bypass.
Project T.8.B: Redesign of the Grandview/Houser/Sampson intersection, including the installation of permanent traffic signals.
Goal T.9: Palms Drive
Extend Palms Drive to Cedar Street forming an additional connector between Mulberry Avenue. Currently Palms Drive is a short road that serves as access to a commercial subdivision off of Mulberry Avenue.
Policy T.9.A: Any future extension of Palms Drive should be paid for by development along any future extension.
Policy T.9.B: Any future extension of Palms Drive should be designed to the collector street standards which would allow Palms Drive to adequately serve as a connector between Cedar Street and Mulberry Avenue.
Policy T.9.C: Development within this corridor should only be permitted to occur in a manner that leaves a viable corridor for the extension of Palms Drive to Cedar Street.
Goal T.10: 38/61 Connector RoadA new connection road should be constructed between a Highway 38 and U.S. 61 as recommended by the study that is currently underway.
Policy T.10.A: The construction of a 38/61 Connector Road should be paid for by development that will be accessed by it.
Policy T.10.B: The 38/61 Connector Road should be constructed to the design standards and route recommended by the study that is currently underway.
Policy T.10.C: Development within this corridor should only be permitted to occur in a manner that leaves a viable corridor for the construction of the 38/61 Connector Road.
Goal T.11: Partnership with the Iowa Department of Transportation
There should be a close partnership between the City of Muscatine and the Iowa Department of Transportation to ensure that state highways in the City of Muscatine are fulfilling the needs of the community. Action T.8.B: The City of Muscatine will work with the Iowa Department of Transportation and local stakeholders to identify, design, and fund maintenance and improvement projects to state highways within the City of Muscatine, that help the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Project T.9.A: Mississippi Drive Corridor Project as identified in the Phase 1 Environmental Study & Preliminary Engineering.
Project T.9.B: Improvement and enhancement to Park Avenue south of the U.S. 61 Bypass and 2nd Street from Park Avenue to the Norbert F. Beckey Bridge
Project T.9.C: Improvement and enhancement to Grandview Avenue between U.S. 61 and Green Street.
Project T.9.D: Necessary maintenance on Washington Street between Highway 22 and Park Avenue
Project T.9.E: Necessary maintenance on U.S. 61 Bypass.Project T.9.F: Realignment of the Lucas Street/U.S. 61 Bypass intersection to create a 90 degree intersection
Goal T.12 Access Management:
Improve roadway safety, improve traffic operations, and create better conditions for non-automobile modes through use of access management. Access management involves the planning and design of points of access to a public roadway system in an effort to increase the safety and operational performance roadways. Policy T.12.A: Limit driveway accesses to collector and local streets (“side streets”)
rather than arterials whenever possible.
Policy T.12.B: Require that driveways should be lined up across from each
other whenever possible.
Policy T.21.C: Require access for corner lots to be moved to a lower traffic
side street through means as frontage and backage roads, joint access, cross access,
and shared driveways.
Policy T.12.D: When driveways to major traffic generators are not lined up, require
a minimum spacing of 125’ from the closest driveway on either side of the road, except where a non-traversable (e.g. raised) median exists.
Goal T.13 Safe Routes for Non-Motorized Travel
Members of the community should have the opportunity to travel safely to their destination by foot or bike. Children should be able walk or bike to their school safely. To achieve this goal critical routes for non-motorized travel, linking all schools, parks, bus stops, most major employment and shopping centers, and are located within 400 feet of most residences in Muscatine will be identified. These routes will be made safe and attractive for travel by foot, bike, wheelchair, and all other forms of legal non-motorized travel.
Policy T.13.A: All streets, sidewalks, trails, and crossings along identified critical routes for non-motorized travel will be improved and maintained to standards ensuring that they are safe for travel by foot, bike, wheelchair, and all other forms of legal non-motorized travel.
Policy T.13.B: In order to accomplish this long term goal and to maximize short and medium term benefits of networks safe routes for non-motorized travel that radiate out from schools to the residential areas that they serve will be established. Then these school centered networks of safe routes for non-motorized travel will be linked together to form a community-wide network of routes for non-motorized travel.
Policy T.13.C: The identified network of routes for non-motorized travel will be divided into segments. A segment is defined as existing sidewalks between the intersection of critical routes for non-motorized travel or critical destination such as schools, parks, trailheads, etc. Inspection and the resulting maintenance/repairs will occur on a segment by segment basis. Inspection and the resulting maintenance/repair activity should encompass an entire segment to ensure that useful links in creating a network of safe routes for non-motorized travel are being created.
Policy T.13.D: Capital improvement projects and sidewalk inspection activities occurring along the segments of critical routes for non-motorized travel are a priority.
Policy T.13.E: Capital improvement projects and sidewalk inspection activities that link together smaller completed networks of safe routes for non-motorized travel routes are a priority.
Policy T.13.F: Capital improvement projects and sidewalk inspection activities that leverage planned road improvement projects, trail extensions, and the West Hill Sewer Separation Project are a priority.
Policy T.13.G: Capital improvement projects and sidewalk inspection activities that can be accomplished through a partnership between a school, business, institution, property owner, community group, or other governmental agencies and the City of Muscatine are a priority.
Action T.13.A: The City of Muscatine working with community members and stakeholders, will identify and map critical routes for non-motorized travel linking all schools, parks, bus stops, most major employment and shopping centers, and those located within 400 feet of most residences in Muscatine.
Action T.13.B: A detailed implementation plan will be developed to make the identified critical routes for non-motorized travel safe.
Action T.13.C: The detailed implementation plan will identify measurable standards for what constitutes a safe route for pedestrian, bicyclist, wheelchair, and other relevant non-motorized use. Standards regarding width, condition, the Americans with Disability Act, etc. will be developed for sidewalks, trails, streets and crossings. Multiple standards may be developed in order to account for factors such traffic levels, topography, and existing infrastructure.
Action T.13.D: The detailed implementation plan will include detailed inventory of existing sidewalks and trails located along identified critical routes for non-motorized travel. Gaps where no sidewalks currently exist will be identified. Crossings along identified critical pedestrian/bike routes will be inventoried and those not meeting standards identified. Inspection of the condition of existing sidewalks will NOT be done as part of this inventory
Action T.13.E: The detailed implementation plan will include a list of capital improvement projects addressing the gaps and deficiencies identified in the inventory. Examples of these projects include the construction of new sidewalks, construction of new trail segments, improvements to crossings, and enhancements to existing sidewalks, trails, and streets.
Action T.13.F: The implementation plan will detail the sequence and location in which inspection and maintenance of existing sidewalks and capital improvement projects need to completed in order to grow a network of critical routes for non-motorized travel outward from each school and the ultimately link then together into a community-wide network of safe routes for non-motorized travel.
Project T.13.A: Capital improvement projects and the inspection and maintenance of existing sidewalks will occur on an ongoing basis at a rate determined by available funds and opportunities to leverage other capital projects and community partnerships. This work will be performed in prioritized manner until identified critical routes for non-motorized travel are brought up to standard.
Goal T.14: TrailsTrails are an important asset to the community. They form the backbone of the identified critical non-motorized transportation routes, serve as the local segment of national Mississippi River Trail and American Discovery Trail, and are a recreational amenity that enhances the quality of life of Muscatine residents. The existing network of trails should be extended and expanded to better serve these important functions.
Policy T.14.A: Trail extension and enhancement projects for which there are opportunities to construct through a partnership between a school, business, institution, property owner, community group, or other governmental agencies and the City of Muscatine are the highest priority.
Policy T.14.B: Trail extension projects are listed below in order of priority.
Action T.14.A: Identify a feasible route for connecting the southern end of the Cedar Street Trail and the Riverfront Trail
Project T.14.A: Musser Park to Wiggens Road Trail
Project T.14.B: A trail connecting Kent Stein Park/Muscatine Soccer Complex to the existing trail network at Discovery Park
Project T.4.C: A trail running along Mad Creek from Washington Street connecting to the existing trail network at the riverfront
Project T.14.E: Trail connecting the Mulberry Avenue/U.S. 61 Bypass to the existing to the existing Mad Creek Greenbelt Trail at the U.S. 61 Bypass underpass
Project T.14.F: A trail connecting the Cedar Street Trail and the Riverfront Trail as identified in Action T.14.A.
Project T.14.G: A trail running along Mad Creek from Washington Street connecting to the existing Mad Creek Greenbelt Trail at Lake Park Avenue.
Project T.14.H: Trail amenities - mile markers, benches, trail heads etc.
Goal T.15: Muscatine Municipal Airport
To continue to provide safe and efficient aviation facilities and services to the community which will promote commercial and industrial growth and stability of the City, and provide for the needs of the recreational and leisure activities involving aviation.
Policy T.15.A: Working with the State of Iowa and the Federal Aviation, airport maintenance and improvement projects as detailed (and listed below) in the adopted Airport Capital Improvement Program and the airport long range needs assessment should be constructed in the identified sequence.
Policy T.15.B: In the event that there is inadequate funding to accomplish all the listed projects. Projects to maintain existing airport assets shall take priority over the construction of new capital improvements.
Policy T.15.C: Land use in the vicinity of the airport shall be regulated in a manner that ensures the use of land in the vicinity of the airport is compatible with the continued aviation operation at the airport and does not create an unacceptable risk to the safety of both airport users and those living and working nearby.
Action T.15.A: The City of Muscatine will work with the Iowa Department of Transportation, Muscatine County, and the City of Fruitland to ensure that land use regulations ensure that land use in the vicinity of the airport is compatible with the continued aviation operation at the airport and that it does not create an unacceptable risk to the safety of both of the airport users and those living and working nearby.
Project T.15.A: Runway 6/24 and rehabilitation and airfield joint sealing, FY 2014.
Project T.15.B: T-hangar apron drainage improvement, FY 2014.
Project T.15.C: Airport layout plan update, FY 2015.
Project T.15D: Connector road between hangar access road and T-hangars, FY 2015.
Project T.15E: Upgrade fuel facility with submersible pump, FY 2016.
Project T.15F: T-hangar apron expansion, FY 2016 (design) FY 2017 (construction).
Project T.15G: T-hangar apron construction, FY 2016 (design) FY 2017 (construction).
Project T.15H: Taxiway B pavement maintenance, FY 2017.
Project T.15I: Runway 12/30 pavement maintenance, FY 2018.
Project T.15J: Apron pavement maintenance, FY 2019.
Project T.15K: T-hangar reconstruction, FY 20201.
Project T.15L: Airfield pavement maintenance, FY 2021.
Project T.15M: Snow removal equipment maintenance, FY 2022.
Project T.15N: Snow removal equipment maintenance building/municipal, FY 2023.
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM by Andrew Fangman
The North Crescent Planning District Town Hall Meeting was held at Colorado Elementary School, 149 Colorado Street. After a brief presentation on the process to create a new comprehensive plan, community members divided into four groups. The strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities were discussed in these groups for the following topics: land use, infrastructure, economic development, and quality of life.Input was provided by category:
- Minimize the use of tillable land.
- Avoid spot commercial development.
- Do a plan without annexation.
- Should plan for voluntary annexation only.
- Annexation may not result in timely city services/infrastructure - not for 3 years.
- There is no voice for those who don't live in the city to reject annexation, through city elected officials.
- Focus on developing land and not good farm ground.
- Develop up to and within the bypass.
- Naming this area a "District" gives more formality to the area rather than just under consideration for planning. It should not be so formally named.
- Not interested in annexation and no comments were made in prior District meetings.
- No land use restrictions for unincorporated areas.
- Keep development inside the bypass.
- Question about amount of available land in city limits for development - prefer infill development.
- Align new streets with existing streets.
- Should have redone Colorado St. rather than University Dr. (Harrison St. used as connector).
- Storm sewers need improvement. (1600 block)
- No current plans for bypass beyond the US 61 bypass.
- Riverfront park needs to add trees, benches and playground. (All parks need shade at the playground.)
- Mississippi Dr. - improve as priority. (Feb. 2013 Finishing Planning)
- Mulberry Ave. - Improve near theater. Bicyclists and pedestrians love this as a good multi-modal route. (high priority). Question on pending congestion - planning to use funds to improve.
- Need sidewalks on Cedar St.(Planned), but beyond Houser St.- Link to Fareway and Discovery Center.
- More parking at soccer complex;(a number of planned improvements noted at meeting).
- Aquatic Center - The higher fee for non-residents discourages use.
- By-pass and Isett Ave. intersection are not at 90 degree angle, Should improve site.
- More trail crossing lights/flashing lights for safety.
- Lucas Street - in vicinity of Agricultural Learning Center - narrow (planned): make image for community in that area (4-year plan).
- Park Avenue - by/down street from mall: Storm sewer issues with parking lot flooding during rain events.
- More bike trails.
- Address lack of businesses at the mall.
- Theater may not be sustainable because of in-home movies.
- Commercial development along Bypass was not declared, but occurred.
- Lower taxes across the board.
- The historic downtown is a great asset that should be revitalized.
- Disagree with economic incentives to encourage development (i.e. TIF).
- What would be gained if annexed with increased taxes if city does this for economic development?
- Need a plan for economic development 5/10 years.
- Reuse existing buildings for economic development.
- Need to increase number of quality workers.
- White collar workers commute in.
- Grocery store needed downtown.
Quality of Life
- Pro - Look to use renewable, energy efficient green building standards into codes like with the new fire station. Incentivise with tax incentives.
- Con - Concern about "LEED" standards - don't mandate.
- Take care of existing properties within the city.
- Wal-Mart area takes longer to serve by ambulance and would increase as it gets farther out.
Be like Galena - take advantage