Working Together for a Safer, More Connected Future
This study is being developed by the Idaho Transportation Department and the Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization and will help identify ways to reduce congestion, enhance connectivity and improve mobility throughout the Rathdrum Prairie.
The purpose of the online meeting is to share which alternatives are recommended to be carried forward in the study process after being screened for performance, impacts/benefits and implementation.
We’re planning for a transportation system that works for everyone— today and tomorrow.
This study aims to:
-
Improve safety in areas with high crash rates.
-
Add capacity to address current and future traffic challenges as our region grows.
-
Consider new connections to make it easier for people to get where they need to go.
Your input helps shape solutions that reflect the needs of the whole community.
We invite you to take a look at the transportation improvement options that came out of our Level 2 screening review process.
Purpose of the Study
The Rathdrum Prairie Area Transportation Study is looking at ways to improve safety, keep traffic moving efficiently and make the system more reliable as Kootenai County continues to grow.
Needs to be addressed:
- Improve safety in areas with high numbers of crashes.
- Proactively plan for more traffic as the area grows.
- Create new, safer, and better connections for people walking, biking, or using transit.
What is a Planning and Environmental Linkages Study
The PEL process considers environmental, community and economic goals early on while planning future projects.
This process is outlined by the Federal Highway Administration and weighs:
- Transportation issues and priorities
- Environmental resources and concerns
- Stakeholder and public concerns
Recommendations from this PEL study, shaped by public and agency input received, could move forward to the next step: the federal review process called the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which is required before major transportation projects are built.
Collect
Collect information about the transportation system, local communities and environment.Utilize
Use information to develop a range of potential transportation solutions called alternatives.Refine
Screen alternatives against certain factors such as safety, environmental impacts, and future development and planning.Categporize
Categorize alternatives into potential short-, mid-, and long-term transportation improvement projects in the study area.Develop
Develop a plan for funding and delivering projects.Post-PEL Study Steps
- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Preliminary Design
- Final Design
- Construction
What is the evaluation process used in the Rathdrum Prairie Area Transportation Study?
At our last public meeting, we introduced the Level 2 screening process to show how alternatives would be evaluated. Today, we’re back to share the results of that evaluation and ITD's preliminary recommendations for which alternatives could move forward. Your feedback will help shape the final recommendations and decisions for the study.
Level 1 Evaluation
Develop a wide range of concepts and remove those that don't clearly meet the project goals or have insurmountable cost, safety or environmental impacts.Level 2 Evaluation
Refine concepts from Level 1 into alternatives and compare them against one another to see which perform best in terms of safety, cost and environmental impacts. (We are here and need your input!)Level 3 Evaluation
Combine full alternatives, or some of their best parts, into logical scenarios and compare them to find the most effective overall solutions.- Recommend alternatives for future NEPA study.
- Future NEPA Study to Clear Project(s) for Federal Funding and/or Permits
Level 2 Alternatives
ITD used public and stakeholder input, planning best practices, and collaboration with agencies and jurisdictions to reduce the more than 50 Level 1 Concepts to 13 Level 2 Alternatives. For more information, view the Level 2 Alternatives boards.
What is a Level 2 Alternative?
Level 2 Alternatives are potential transportation solutions that can be compared to each other to understand their relative benefits and impacts, in order to decide which will be carried forward to the Level 3 screening process. Public input will also determine which alternatives move to Level 3.
Level 2 Alternatives displayed in the Preliminary Level 2 Alternatives Screening Results include alignment (fat lines on a map), number of lanes, and preliminary roadway layouts displayed on aerial photo maps.
-
Level 1
Unconnected concepts/ideas
-
Level 2
Further developed and combined concepts/ideas into alternatives
-
Level 3
Recommended alternatives
We Heard You
Since 2022, ITD has gathered input from community members, stakeholders and agencies through interviews, workshops, and public meetings. The feedback received has helped to shape the screening criteria, alternatives and recommendations you see today. Some alternatives were originally suggested and drawn out by the public at previous meetings.
This is our fourth round of public meetings for this study and each one has helped the team understand how public needs and priorities are focused as alternatives are developed and screened.
From the November 2024 meetings we heard:
- The community values protecting existing neighborhoods and resources.
- Avoiding cultural and historic sites is a priority.
- A combination of alternatives may be needed to address regional traffic issues.
Level 2 Screening Evaluation
Level 2 screening was comparative – in other words, we examined how each alternative compared to one another.
The Level 2 screening process compared each alternative in a deliberate sequence, looking first at performance, then impacts and benefits, and finally implementation. For more information, view the Preliminary Level 2 Alternative Screening Results: Detailed Screening Matrix, which includes criteria and rationale.
-
Recommended to carry forward: The alternative performed well and is being recommended to move on to Level 3 evaluation.
-
Recommended to retain as an element: The alternative didn’t perform well on its own, but parts of it could be combined with another alternative to move on to Level 3 screening.
-
Not Recommended: The alternative didn’t perform well and is recommended to be dropped from consideration.
For more information, view the Preliminary Level 2 Alternatives Screening Results.
We considered:
Safety, congestion, travel time & efficiency, network redundancy (multiple routes to get to destinations) multimodal options (walking, biking, transit).
East-west and north-south travel patterns were evaluated. Some that perform poorly on their own but improve overall results when combined with other alternatives could still move forward to Level 3 evaluation.
We looked at how each alternative supports the goals of the study in terms of:
Compatibility with local and regional planning, impacts and benefits to environmental resources and impacts and benefits to communities, neighborhoods and local infrastructure.
This step helped identify trade-offs between performance and potential impacts.
We looked at how difficult each alternative would be to build, considering:
Construction impacts and project costs relative to other alternatives.
Key
-
North-South Alternative
-
East-West Alternative
-
Not Recommended
-
Recommended to Retain as Element
-
Recommended to Carry Forward
- Not Evaluated Further
| Level 2 Alternatives | Step 1 Performance | Step 2 Impacts & Benefits | Step 3 Implementation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A |
|
No change | No change |
| B |
|
|
|
| C |
|
|
No change |
| D |
|
|
|
| E |
|
|
No change |
| F |
|
No change | No change |
| H |
|
|
|
| I |
|
|
No change |
| J |
|
|
No change |
| K |
|
No change | No change |
| L |
|
|
No change |
| M |
|
|
|
| N |
|
|
|
See individual alternatives for screening rationale
Traffic Benefits
Level of Service
A
Highest level of service. Traffic flows freely with little or no restrictions on maneuverability.
No Delays
B
Traffic flows freely, but drivers have slightly less freedom to maneuver.
No Delays
C
Density becomes noticeable with ability to maneuver limited by other vehicles.
Minimal Delays
D
Speed and ability to maneuver is severely restricted by increasing density of vehicles.
Minimal Delays
E
Unstable traffic flow. Speeds vary greatly and are unpredictable.
Moderate Delays
F
Traffic flow is unstable, with brief periods of movement followed by forced stops.
Significant Delays
Generally, ITD seeks to achieve LOS C or D
Below are graphics of each alternative that show the following:
Performance: Traffic Benefits
As part of screening alternatives for performance, we estimated impacts to travel time and congestion.
Graphics are presented for each alternative that show the following:
Tables
Travel times and travel time changes on study routes compared to what they are estimated to be in the year 2045 if no additional improvements were made (No Build Alternative).
- Green indicates better travel times on the roadways relative to the other alternatives. Darker green means greater travel time benefit.
- Red indicates worse travel times on the roadways relative to the other alternatives. Darker red means less travel time benefit.
Maps
Change in Level of Service (LOS) from the No Build alternative = How each alternative will affect congestion in the year 2045.
- Dark green: LOS improved from LOS D, E or F to LOS C or better with the alternative
- Light green: LOS improved from LOS E or F to LOS D with the alternative
- Yellow: No LOS change at roadways and intersections that were at LOS E or F in the No Build Alternative
- Red: LOS degraded from LOS C or better to LOS D with the alternative
- Dark Red: LOS degraded from LOS D or better to LOS E or F with the alternative
- Purple: Alternative Alignment
Individuals who need special accommodations should contact CivilRights@itd.idaho.gov or 208-334-8884.
TTY/TDD users dial 711 to use the Idaho Relay System. Persons needing an interpreter should contact 208-334-8496.
Where are we in the process?
ITD initiated the study in 2022 to evaluate the state, and federal highway and local roadway system within the Rathdrum Prairie. No specific project is funded at this time for design or construction. Recommended alternatives could be moved into these steps if funding becomes available.
Next Steps
- Collect information about the transportation system, local communities and environment.
- Use information to develop a range of potential transportation solutions called alternatives.
- Categorize alternatives into potential short-, mid-, and long-term transportation improvement projects in the study area.
- Develop a plan for funding and delivering recommended projects.
Study Timeline
- Spring 2023 - Fall 2023: Collect data and gather public input
- Fall 2023 - Summer 2024: Develop alternatives and gather public input
- Summer 2024 - Fall 2024: Refine alternatives
- Fall 2024 - Winter 2024: Gather public input and continue to refine alternatives
- Spring 2025: Prepare final report and documentation for agency reviews
- Spring - Summer 2025: Screen alternatives against one another and prepare rational for public input
- Fall 2025: Gather public input to inform alternatives screening results and develop systemwide scenarios (We are here)
- Winter 2025: Conclude alternatives screening, prepare recommendations and gather additional input
What's Next?
Level 3 Evaluation
ITD will further develop, combine, and evaluate the alternatives carried forward into Level 3 using the following steps:
-
Explore combinations of alternatives carried forward from Level 2 and consider design adjustments to alignments and cross sections.
-
Assess in greater detail the benefits, impacts, estimated costs and potential right of way needs of each alternative.
-
Hold one more public meeting to share Level 3 alternatives and gather feedback to identify the alternatives recommended to be developed.
-
Finish the study spring of 2026 and begin moving the recommended alternatives into the NEPA review process.
Stay Involved
Public input has been a key part of this study and will continue to help guide decision-making as we complete the study and continue analysis under NEPA and design. The feedback we receive will be considered alongside technical, environmental and engineering information, and best practices to help shape the best solutions. You can provide comments on the next slide.
Please note:
- All recommendations are preliminary, for public review and comment. Public comments will be reviewed and considered before recommendations from the Level 2 screening are made final.
- Your comments and contact information become part of the permanent record for this project. Contact information will be redacted prior to publishing any records.
For more information, contact:
Attn: Carrie Ann Hewitt, P.E.
600 W. Prairie Ave.
Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815-8764
The website is the best resource to track progress of the study
You can also submit feedback by mailing ITD at the listed address or emailing the project inbox.