Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Bikeways
~-,_. r ~!:a~,~~~OLLEGE ~~~=-~~~ ~ College Station, Texas 77842-0960 May 6, 1994 Mr. Terry Cearley Parsons Brinckerhoff Barton Oaks Plaza #2 901 MoPac Expressway South, Ste. 360 Austin, TX 78746 Dear Mr. Cearley: (409) 764·3500 Attached find a copy of College Station's Bikeway Master Plan and the City's Bikeway Ordinance. Both were adopted by our City Council last Fall. Development of bikeways and becoming a bicycle friendly community have been one of our Council's priorities for the past few years. We currently have several city and privately developed projects that include building bikeways. In addition, we were recently awarded ISTEA enhancement dollars for the development the "College Station Bike Loop". Please call if you need additional information or if you have any questions on the BMP, the bikeway ordinance, or our enhancement project. Transportation Planner cc: Jane Kee, City Planner Home of Texas A&M University r -j \ r ·-· I i [__ _____ _ ~--__;~~-~ (v' / I \. i ( I \ ...... ..1 W CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BIKEW A Y MASTER PLAN FOCUS GROUP REVISIONS I .,,.J SCALE 5,000 10,000 {FEET) Legend: -Bike Route Added -Bike Lane Added -Bikeway Needed* m Park A. School * Bikewoy Needed roodwoys ore those that should be designated os o blkeway but ore not due to o lock ~~c~~·~~d~f~bi~~~(!'{s. ri9ht-of-woy to safely Mop prepared by Plonnlng Oivi.11ion -Sept. 1993 DMrl()l'HG;).ff oF f3~ui3t,rc. {N VoLtJ,ENf ;<.J'(" [(JL[_J?, !TE-~ 8;~~ or) U'1 t.f} zs I 't 1-~~°'Y~ ql'-pf M-w e~. fJJ~A ~W/~ ol Gw~~J!J ~ />sues l{_5eJ Cly-w1"'J~ n{tH j_ t/~/-s;,~ fry A.ti" µ b4 /Jev-c.fr,f $/~? Ori /~c-e, ll~ !;~~ ;;,~ o t' R"i".r FAqw-~"'l'-o...-eo~M.'1.~7 £ ~'.JM; a., .. :-1 [);., '"I (),,,~/k.#..K t<.. Orlrl<.µ1(-/J.;.s.o-lJ ~ ~.JR Pf l aJ CUAct·/ "41~/<-~t~~ 1-fe_IM'", 7;-f/1/-.P'"e 4~1 ~, 1fvlA G.-1JIA_/,.._/i Jv~ /a btUtt.<4(~~ ~/ f 11..fL. ~ wryft-uJ~I ~ f.L4'>Mfl-/ a.r 1'-/fot' ~ a,.,.1-~1W!. PL 4 h<-c/~re! (~ 1rcry~7s <;/,_If! {),,,,.,(,,,..! BM~ 1~'-k,,_~ o<11~ ~, =/' J/'11 {)~7 ~ f31fuf f;L-V--1 6-#-f ~ fo~ h ~J.w et-J /)1c.~u /(a_ r-, fJ FC, -/?~s. FNnv.-$)'<YA-; T/?U.JA_ 1 -C~~o T 1 T/$ c.. 1 Cs f s ()) Cs I SJ) ~ (J ]6 1 ~ M {yc.-l'>/ ~ 1 T/a-1-j:/" S . CM wr cut-«'; - /3F6 0-.n r..J ~ ,µ dJ !dt'4w °f ,; . f31'-! fJ h> P ~ 6 , /;, ~ r/~. ~ /,,<. b /, ~ 1-/e~'/ , /JrjR~ •/3HP -h ell-~ ~t i f;y--C~r4. ~ /lfl';, ~'/ . /fo~ ~~~'7 fl~ ok ~ ,~ C"f,J{c.--'f c~~ ts../. ""tic M,,/ ~~ ~~~+ ~~ Qi:(,, e.r'f cAt.!R... PJ-,1''r;v--.. <.Al/ 3 000 'S;'~~ / Cwie-t! :4tY~f $)1/) v0/ fr~/,~ LI i~~, ~ ~11~ /a. tu. Is ;~/~ //. [Qiu..-e 6 (J_ Jt., -lo c~"" I £);. ~ a~,~fr~ Al (f?,y /J t;L-lyv--f ) " GUA~'( f,~f .'f(.e-; .. /. Fay 2o/2o (,1,,.~rl./-M ~/d-f:i,,, ~ ( lcv-P q 2-G 7 1 boo J f:iz_t:lr /, / M--1 '/ /!'!--) /o 111sh.« k/b-(a.11i ~f &"1 C.ty 5W i.M,'/( r')~'r~ /.li..l1"L £4_,, I Cv..~~'f ~ 0()4,,--/ ()._f~· ., ~ G~.r --~f ~ . yrv-wcn-1 1f ~~ ~..y-1,{2_'7 _ _ 1~ sc...lu,o /, - -Wt'tl Be. A IN j,1( ~~ -It rtrlA-" I :.k~-A-.1,/ 1~,.._1. ,,(~ ,) 0"'7 yJ/lhr cJW I'-. S?e I~ "J>.~ + !1 ~ fl> ~ O Pf:! "-C-" --G,,,.£11~1~ £4_~~ ~~~/ . C-z/2-~-er I .Q._£, : e. tJ-' t '--/ Av1~7-J.r < • . . \ ,-· r-J I L ·-·-·-·-·-·~ '------.-v· I I j i -~. ,' \ .... .i ©""CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN FOCUS GROUP REVISIONS 0 I SCALE 5,000 I (FEET) Leg end: 10,000 "'' -Bik e Rou te Added -Bi ke Lane Added -Bikeway Needed* 00 Park • Sc hool * Bikewoy Needed roadways ore those that should be designated as a bikeway but ore not due to a lock of street width and/or right-of-way to safely accommodate bicyclists. Map prepared by Planning Division -Sept. 1 993 From: To: Date: Subject: Steve, Edwin Hard Parkrec.Sbeachy 4/6/98 5:16pm Bike Information Below are general dates of some bikeway milestones. Council Adopts Bikeway Master Plan -10/93 cs Bike Loop -Council Agree's to Fund Local Costs -10/93 -CS Awarded Bike Loop Grant -4/94 -CS/TXDOT Enter Agreement for Bike Loop -8/95 -RFQ's for Engineering Design -Summer 96 -Engineer Under Contract for Design -1/97 -Preliminary Engineering Report -10/97 -Striping Plans for Bush Bike Lanes -Fall 97 The work to install the bike lanes on Bush was scheduled to go out for bids last Fall (correct me if I'm wrong, Brett), but we were unable to move forward with this because TXDOT said proper bidding procedures were not followed ••• (b/c the procedures they provided us to use were in error and not complete). Brett is now the man in the know about the more recent and future schedule and goings-on on the bike loop. As for other bikeway installations ...• Bike Lanes on Walton from Texas to Nunn (part of Bike Loop) -5/95 Bike Path Through Thomas Park (part of Bike Loop) -Summer 1997 Bike Lanes as part of street projects: -Welsh Avenue, FM 2818 to Rock Prairie, -Summer 1992 -Welsh Avenue, FM 2818 to Holleman, Spring 1992 -Krenek Tap Rd -Spring 1994 -Sebesta Rd -October 1995 -Vic~9ria Ave -Fall 1996. -C.,//'~.£~~N -g;N/J, J>11. +o r.4 t."M . ./s. Hope this helps. Call if you have any questions or need more info. Ed CC: Police Department.BMCCULLY L1trr~ - l PROJECT NOMINATION FORM of the STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM provided for by the INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 (ISTEA) FIRST ANNUAL CALL FOR PROJECT NOMINATIONS PUBLISHED IN THE TEXAS REGISTER AUGUST 6, 1993 NOMINATION PERIOD AUGUST 6, 1993-NOVEMBER 4, 1993 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 1of10 PROJECT NOMINATION FORM NOMINATION FORM STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM provided for by the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Project Evaluation and Selection will be determined by the information submitted in this nomination form or required attachments. Supplementary information is optional and may delay processing. PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: Bryan-College Station Bike Map DATE 19/12/93 Danise Rauser, 8-CS Project Coor, Tx. Bicycle Coalition Ron Quarles, Principal Planner, City· of -Bryan 1. FORM PREPARED BY (name/title) Ed Hard, Transportation Planner, City of College Station A . SPONSOR Cities of Bryan and College Stat ion B. AFFILIATION Member Cities in the B-CS Metropolitan Planning Organization City of Bryan: PO Box 1000, Bryan, TX 77805 C. ADDRESS City of College Stat ion: PO Box 9960, College STat ion, TX 77842 D. CITY -------E. STATE -------F. ZIP CODE ___ _ R. Quarles (409)361-3613 R. Quarles (409)361-3895 H. DAYTIME TELEPHONE E. Ha rd c 409 > 764-3570 I. FAX No. E. Ha rd c 409 > 764-3496 (person TxDOT may contact for further information) 2. TEST OF PROJECT ELIGIBILITY. The proposed project must have a direct rela- tionship of Function, Proximity, or Impact to the lntermodal Transportation System. Please check the appropriate box(esJ below that shows the candidate project's relationship to transportation system. D A. Function D 8. Proximity GJ C. Impact For additional information on the completion of this nomination form, please contact your local TxDOT district office or TxDOT, Environmental Section, ATTN: ISTEA Enhancement Program, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2483, or call 512/416-2606. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 2 of 10 NOMINATION FORM 3. ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES OF THE CANDIDATE PROJECT. Check all boxes that apply to the candidate project. GI A. Facilities for Pedestrians & Bicycles D B. Acquisition of Scenic Easements & Scenic or Historic Sites D C. Scenic or Historic Highway Programs D D. Landscaping or Other Beautification D E. Historic Preservation 0 G. Rehabilitation & Operation of Historic Transportation Facilities 0 H. Preservation of abandoned Rail- way Corridors D I. Control & Removal of Outdoor Advertising D J. Mitigation of Water Pollution due to Highway Runoff D F. Archaeological Planning & Research 4. TYPE OF NOMINATING ENTITY. Please check the appropriate categories. D A. County D E. Council of Government D B. City D F. Local Transit Operator GJ c . Metropolitan Planning D G. State Agency Organization (MPO) D D. An Agency of the State TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Pagt13 of 10 NOMINATION FORM 5. NOMINATING ENTITY. A. NAME Bryan-College St ation Me t ropolitan Plann i ng Organ i zation B. ADDRESS 4001 E. 29th Street, Suite 170-B D. ZIP CO DE_--'"7"""'"7=-80,._,2..__ ___ _ E. CONTACT PERSON Ms. Susan Kubichek ~----------------------~ F. TELEPHONE <409>260-5298 G. FAX No. __ ~N-on~e~---- 6. PROJECT LOCATION. A. CITY /COUNTY Bryan & College Station Brazos county 8. TxDOT DISTRICT(S)_~-- C. ROUTE NUMBER/STREET NAME/FACILITY NAME This pro j ect is not site specific. No construction is reguired, D. PROJECT LIMITS From: N/A To: N/A E. PROJECT LENGTH N A ~--'-'"""-'-'--------------------~ 7. ESTIMATION OF FUNDS REQUIRED. Following selection by the Texas Transportation Commission and approval by FHWA, all projects will be funded on a cost-reimbursable basis . Costs incurred before this time are not allowable. Be as accurate as possible. An inaccurate estimate may result in an unexpected increase In the amount of funding required for the local match. Year Funds Local Match Total Project Required Cost I 1 I $ 24,380 I $ 6' 095 I $ 30,475 I TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 4 of 10 PART II. PROJECT SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOMINATION FORM A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. On a separate sheet, provide a clear and concise description of the proposed project, Including all work to be performed, right-of-way, easements required, or other property Interests, special land uses planned, and any relationship between the project and any other work. The description should consist of one 8112" x 1 1" sheet with a of a maximum of one page of single-spaced text. This sheet must be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION." B. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. on a separate 8 112" x 11" sheet, include a one- page, single-spaced schedule of project activities and budget, indicating any circumstances likely to affect commencement of work or time required to complete project. Project budget should lndude all proposed local financing. This sheet should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 2. SCHEDULE AND BUDGET." This information should be accompanied by documentary evidence of a committment to provide for a local match. The documentary evidence should be in the form of an official action by a duly constituted governing body. The document from this body may consist of a one-page letter in the form of a resolution, a minute order, or commissioner's court order that provides for a committment of local match of funding. The letter should include a recommendation that the candidate project be considered for enhancement funding. The nominating entity may provide this certification if it is a public authority. Where appropriate, the letter should show the consistency of the project with long-range transportation plans for the area. This letter should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 3. CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING COMMITTMENT." For projects within an MPO, provide a letter from the MPO stating that the project will be included In the local Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), if approved for funding. This letter should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 4. INTENT FOR TIP PLACEMENT." C. PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION. Attach a map delineating the project location. Indicate project limits, areas of major work and all existing and proposed transportation facilities and rights-of-way. As appropriate, include original photographs of the existing project site, a site plan of proposed construction, and illustrations of proposed work. Documentation of the project location should not exceed five 8112" x 11" pages. The map and any accompanying documentation should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 5. PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION." D. LAND ACQUISITION INFORMATION. If land will be acquired or other property interests are involved, describe on a separate 8112" x 11" sheet how it will be acquired, including cost estimates and funding arrangements. The land acquisition information should not exceed one page of single-spaced text. This sheet should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 6. LAND ACQUISITION INFORMATION." TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 5 of 10 NOMINATION FORM E. CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION. It construction will be required, briefly discuss below how it will be accomplished. lndude cost estimates. This project requires no construction. F. FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN. Rowtine operations and maintenance costs are not allowable enhancement costs. If a facility is being proposed, discuss below how It will be operated and maintained. The plan will identify all parties responsible for operation and maintenance. Estimate the annual cost to maintain said facility, describe the source of those funds, identify expected annual gross income from the facility, if any. and describe the intended use of that income. The Bryan-qollege St~tion Bike Map proje~ req~ires no facility operation or maintenance plan. The 8-CS Btke Map will be sold for a nominal price. AU proceeds.Jrom the sale of maps will be used for printing and developing new ones as needed. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 6 of 10 PART Ill. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, AND PUBLIC SUPPORT. NOMINATION FORM A. PROJECT USE AND BENEFITS. Describe below the benefits of the proposed project. Description should indude expected use of any facilities involved and should compare current use with expected use and projected demand for use of the those facilities. The Bryan-College Station Bike Map has numerous economic, environmental, and social benefits. It will rate the suitability of local streets for bicycle travel and will increase bicycle usage. The map will improve roadway safety by enhancing the bicyclist's ability to select safe routes, thereby reducing economic loss due to injury. It will serve as a promotional tool to attract bicyclists who travel to cities where bicycling is promoted, thereby augmenting tourism income for Bryan-College Station and the State. Encouraging and promoting bicycle usage in the community has many benefits. Increased bicycle use will decrease motor vehicle use which in turn extends the life of pavement and reduces roadway maintenance costs. Increased bicycle use provides social benefits through increased interaction between bicyclists and others. Each trip made by a bicycle rather than a motor vehicle reduces air and noise pollution and improves personal fitness. Finally, the Bike Map promotes a mode of transportation that improves transportation opportunities for low income citizens as well as children. B. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. Provide evidence below of community involvement and public participation in project development. Include a description of any opportunities for public participation in the process of selecting candidate projects. The Bryan-College Station Bike Map project received unanimous support from the City Council's of both Bryan and College Station. The project also received unanimous support from the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission and a Bikeway Focus Group assembled to review and discuss the College Station Bikeway Master Plan. This Focus Group included representatives from the City of College Station, the City of Bryan, Texas A&M University, the TXDOT, the Texas Bicycle Coalition, the A&M Cycling Team, the College Station Independent School District, the Parent Teacher Organization, the Texas Transportation Institute, and the local traffic engineering community. As part of College Station's bikeway planning efforts, a city-wide survey was conducted in 1992 that showed a 70% approval rating for bikeways in the community. The Bike Map project evolved and developed out of both cities good working relationship with the Texas Bicycle Coalition and the bicycling community in general. The planning staff's of the Cities of Bryan and College Station worked closely with the Texas Bicycle Coalition to bring forth this project nomination. The Texas Bicycle Coalition represents over 2,000 bicyclists and every major bicycling club, bike shop, and bicycling event in Texas. Other supporting groups in this project include the Texas A&M Cycling Club, the Texas A&M Student Chapter of the Institute of Traffic En~ineers , and local bike shop owners. The assistance and efforts that will be volunteered to the project from each of these groups ensures community involvement and enthusiasm throughout the project. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Pago 7 of 10 NOMINATION FORM 0. POSSIBLE PROJECT IMPACTS. Indicate possible impacts of the pro- posed enhancement project on the resource categories listed below. GENERAL Following is a chacklist of anvironmentsl factors. For each of the listed factors, answer the question of whether your proposed project would have been a &neficisl (BJ effect, s Neutral (NJ effect, or an Adverse (AJ effect. For example, would your projsct create any significant Land-Use Change, or is it Consistent with Local Pfsns7 Would it have any beneficial or adverse Economic Impacts? Many transportation enhancement projects will have minor, if any, impacts on these listed factors. However, it is important that each factor is considered and your response is indicated in the appropriate box. Note: Check only one box for each line. Do not skip any lines. : : Kay to lmp11cts: B=lumsfici11I; A =11dver-.e; nl• =not 11pplicsble. FACTORS Type of Impact B N A n/a Socio-Economic Factors Land-use Change/Consistei:icy with Local Plens 00 0 0 D Economic Impacts g] 0 D D Impacts on Neighborhoods/Community Cohesion 0 0 0 0 Relocation of Residences/Businesses 0 0 0 121 Impacts on Churches/Schools 161 0 0 0 Title Vt Impacts (i.e., impacts to ethnic, minority, elderly, I&] 0 0 0 disabled, or other groups) Potential for Controversy Yes No K Recource Factorc Section 4(f) Properties (publicly-owned parl<s, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and all historical sites (in public or private ownership) included on or eligible for ~ 0 0 0 the National Register of Historic Pisces) Historic Sites and Districts 0 D 0 Archaeological Resources 0 ~ 0 0 Recreation Areas ~ 0 0 0 Wetlands 0 [Kl 0 0 Aquatic Preserves (wildlife end waterfowl refuges) 0 I] 0 0 Stream Modification 0 (El 0 0 [Continued on next p11ge] TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM NOMINATION Page Bof 10 FORM 0. POSSIBLE PROJECT IMPACTS. Indicate possible impacts of the pro- posed enhancement project on the resource categories listed below. Type of Impact B N A n/a Resource Factor•. continued Wild and Scenic Rivers 0 0 0 ~ Floodplains 0 IKl 0 0 Threatened and Endangered Species D IBI D 0 Farmland Conversion D ~ 0 0 Agricultural Operations 0 ~ 0 0 Hazardous Materials/Wastes 00 0 0 0 Energy-Use Impacts [lJ 0 0 0 Construction Impacts []I 0 0 0 Tree Removal 00 0 0 D Physical Environment ~ D 0 D Water Quality Noise ~ 0 0 0 Attainment of Air Quality Standards lb] 0 0 0 Other Factors Visual Impacts ~ 0 0 0 Impacts on Utilities and Railroads ~ 0 0 0 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Considerations ~ 0 0 0 Detours; Temporary Closures of Roads/Ramps Yes No )( Changes in Access Control Yes No x TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 9 of 10 NOMINATION FORM The sponsoring entity indicated below hereby recommends that this project be selected for funding through the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program and attests a committment to the pro- ject's development, implementation, construction, maintenance, management, and financing. Mayor, City of College Station Affiliation P.O. Box 9960 Address College Station, TX 77842 City /State/Zip Code Date lj_/i-/ 93 I I The nominating entity indicated below hereby agrees to provide TxDOT with a prioritized ranking of all enhancement projects submitted for nomination by that entity. Projects will be listed by name and in the priority order determined by the nominating entity. The ranking list indicating project priorities must be received by the TxDOT office no later than 90 days after publication of the call for candidate project nominations in the Texas Register. SIGNATURE OF NOMINATING ENTITY'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Chairman, Bryan-College Station MPO Title Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization Nominating Entity 4001 E 29th Street, $11jte 170-B Address Bryan, TX 77802 City/State/Zip Code Date II /:i-/ 93 r7 I AlTACHMENT 1 Project Description The project entails development of bike map rating the safety and difficulty of Bryan-College Station roadways for bicycle travel. Such a map will reduce the time and effort required to choose bicycle travel routes and make it easier for citizens to bike for both commuting and recreational purposes. The map will encourage and promote bike usage in the community and will be similar to the Austin Bike Map. The bike map will contain the elements of a good city map such as all streets, schools, parks, and local points of interest and will also include natural features and local bike shops. The most important feature of the map will be area thoroughfares color-coded and superimposed over the Bryan-College Station street system showing the suitability of local streets for bicycle travel. The colors green, blue, yellow, and red will indicate safe and easy, moderately safe, moderately difficult, and very difficult routes, respectively. The ratings will be based on the following criteria: traffic volume curb lane width road grade traffic speed on-street parking pavement condition number of travel lanes buses and trucks in traffic stream The reverse side of the map will feature a B-CS regional bike map for Brazos County and surrounding counties showing the suitability of area rural highways and Farm to Market Roads for bicycle travel. This map will be especially useful for long distance and touring cyclists. The reverse side will also contain excerpts from local and state traffic codes related to bicycling, tips on how to ride safely, and a legend explaining the color-coded rating system. In addition, names and numbers of local bicycle shops and clubs will be shown. The project is scheduled to take approximately 19 months to complete. Development of the bike map includes data collection and field observation of area collector and arterial streets; analysis of collected data to determine street ratin; development of a computerized base map; augmenting the base map with color-coded street ratings, hazardous intersections, and other pertinent information; and, printing 10,000 copies of the map and making it available to the citizenry around the community. The professional planning staffs of the Cities of Bryan and College Station will work together on this project. This is important from the standpoint of community cooperation and the considerable amount of combined resources from both cities available to the project. The project also will have the voluntary assistance of the Texas Bicycle Coalition and possibly the assistance of the Texas A&M Cycling Club, the Texas A&M Cycling Team, the Texas A&M Student Chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and local bike shop owners. The TBC has previously worked with the Cities of Austin and Dallas on the development of bike maps. Months 1-6 Task 1: Task 2: Months 6-9 Task 3: Months 9-12 Task 4: Task 5: Months 12-16 Task 6: Task 7: Months 16-19 Task 8: ATTACHMENT 2 Schedule and Budget City Staff and TBC Volunteer Cyclists. Identify and select arterial and collector streets for evaluation based on spatial arrangement, existing bicycle master plans, and other criteria. TBC Volunteer Cyclists. Collect data through field observation to evaluate selected street system. The Cities will provide other pertinent information as necessary. City Staff and TBC Volunteer Cyclists. Evaluate and assign a rating to each street using collected data. City Staff. Select software and develop mapping format. City Staff. Procure base street map for Bryan and College Station as well as a base map for the B-CS Regional Bike Map. City Staff. Construct computerized and color-coded version of base maps. City Staff. Refine Map and develop explanatory text, legend, bicycle laws and safety tips, etc. City Staff. Contract to print maps for 1 percent of the Bryan-College Station population, or approximately 10,000 maps. Once completed the Bryan-College Station Bike Maps will be a sold at low cost and available at local bike shop, bookstores, visitor centers, both City Halls, and many other locations around the community. COSTS Labor required to select and collect data for street evaluation: Labor required required to analyze and determine rating for streets: Cost to select and develop map with software: Cost to develop purchase and develop printing plate: Cost for printing 10,000 maps: Subtotal 15% Contingency Total Cost $1,000 $1,000 $10,000 $2,000 $12,500 $26,500 $3,975 $30,475 WHEREAS, The Ci ty of College Station is commilled to improving the quality of life thorough the development of a "Bikeway Map" which will rate the sui tability of Bryan-College Station streets for bicycling; WHEREAS, The map is in keeping with the Council Issue of a Bicyde Friendly Community and will encourage and promote bicycling in the city; WHEREAS, Some of the benefits to bicycling reduction in motor vehicle traffic, a reduction opportunities for those wi th out 111ntor vehicles; include improvement in individual health and fitness, a in air and noise pollulion, and increased transportation WHEREAS, The Statewide Transportation Enhancement Progra m is a proactive community enhancement program that provides funding for a broad range of transportation-related activities including bicycle and pedestrian activities; WHEREAS, The Statewide Transportation Enhancement program is a cost-reimbursable program whereby fund s are eligible for rei111burse111ent of up to eighty (80) percent of the total project cost; WHEREAS, This project depends on n second match [ro111 th e City of Brya n of ten (10) percent of the total project cost and the volunteered ;1ss islance of the Tex11s Bicycle Coa lition to co nduct all necessa ry field work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED: I. That the ma yo r is hereby aulhorized to sign the project no mination fornt of the Statewid e Tra nsportation Enhancement Progra 111 for th e development of th e "Brya n-Coll ege Station Bikeway Map"; IL progra 111, and; m. Th at this Resolution shall be effecti ve i111111edi<1tely upon adoplinn. Brazos County City of Bryan City of College Station Texas A&M Univeraity and the Texas Department of Transportation Metropolitan Planning Organization BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY 4001 E. 29th, Suite 170-B BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 409/260-5298 AlTACHMENT 4 INTENT FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) PLACEMENT The Bryan College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization will revise the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reflect the decisions of the Transportation Commission in its selection of any local projects that are submitted for nomination to the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. The "Bryan/College Station Bike Map" has been nominated for consideration by the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization and has received the Number 3 priority ranking among three projects from this MPO. It will be placed on the revised local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) upon approval by the Transportation Commission. The TIP will identify the project, scope of work estimated cost, and source of funding for this project. This letter serves to guarantee the commitment of the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization to place the "Bryan/College Station Bike ·Map" on the local revised Transportation Improvement Program if approval is granted by the Transportation Commission. The Steering Committee of the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization Date: ----~~~----The By__.~ _ ____;:-F-_.,,....zr-~---~ Title: t.. 1..! Date: I · ?-· !> The C~, of Braz1 ~~le:'/JL~ Date: t//2-/13 Texas Depart~ent of Transportation, Bryan District By ___________ ~ Title:----------- Date: ----------- AlTACHMENT 5 Project Location Information This is not a site specific project. The primary bike map will cover the Bryan-College Station urban area. The smaller, regional bike map on the reverse side will cover the Bryan-College Station area and surrounding counties. ATTACHMENT 6 Land Acquisition This project requires no land acquisition. 5'k-SA--E-To J fJtU:--S~TA-Tto Ai DqrL-r/'I~ ( lvf y /,,,; -h')J ffi ~ "'-h) Bikeways identified as a Council issue in 1992 PROCESS • Focus Group developed to address bikeway issue. Group is coordinated by city staff and composed of local builders, developers, engineers and a representative from the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. • Staff develops draft bikeway ordinance for review by Focus Group. It requires that bikeways be built in accordance with a Bikeway Master Plan and also establishes the types and design of the bikeway facilities to be built in the City. • Focus Group endorses Bikeway Ordinance • Planning and Zoning Commission approves Bikeway Ordinance • Prior to bringing ordinance to City Council, staff conducts city-wide Sidewalk/Bikeway Survey. • Discuss results of survey. See attached survey. • City Council approves Bikeway Ordinance THE BIKEWAY ORDINANCE • Bikeways required in accordance with Bikeway Master Plan • Discuss types of bikeways adopted. See ordinance • Discuss design requirements adopted for bike routes, lanes, and paths. See ordinance. • Discuss City vs. private development responsibilities for bikeway development in College Station. • Discuss current bikeway development in CS. Several upcoming street projects include bikeways. • Examples of current bikeways in CS included throughout ordinance discussion. • Discuss tentative plans for development of new City Bikeway Master Plan. e7YJ7L s l CITY OF COLLEGE STATION January 16, 1996 Mr. Benigno E. Aguirre 1204 Goode College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mr. Aguirre, OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764 -3510 CL-c· Weud This letter is in response to your e-mail last month inquiring about the City's bikeway plans and projects. An article on this topic will be published in the Eagle in the next few weeks. Thank you for the suggestion. I will have city staff mail you a copy just in case you miss it in the paper. Also, it's my understanding that you have since spoken with staff regarding the city's activity in this area. I hope you were filled in on some of the details. As you may have learned, the City just recently hired an engineering firm to begin design work on the College Station Bike Loop. One thing to keep in mind is that this project is just a very small part of the city's overall Bikeway Master Plan. Construction on the bike loop project will probably begin next year. Our consultants estimate that it will take nine months to a year to design. In addition to the bike loop project, the City has bond funds budgeted for the next few years to be spent on sidewalks, bikeways, and streetscape projects. Please feel free to call our City Engineer, Kent Laza, or our Transportation Planner, Ed Hard, at 764-3570 if you would like more information. College Station's Bike Loop Plan In the Design Stage by Peggy Calliham, Public Relations & Marketing Manager You may recall, the City of College Station adopted the Bikeway Master Plan in the Fall of 1993. Soon after that they submitted the Bike Loop project in a statewide competition for federal funds. The city has had several questions from interested citizens lately about the status of this project so I will take this opportunity to do an update. In the Summer of 1994, the city received notification that their application had been accepted as the # 5 project from a group of 252 that were submitted. One of the reasons for this was the city's lead in developing a Bikeway Master Plan. Federal money was available through the Department of Transportation's Enhancement program with the funding from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, better known as ISTEA(iced tea). The city received approval for matching funds in the amount of $1,078,000. The total cost for the plan is $1,348,000 with the difference of $270,000 to be· made up by the city from 1989 General Obligation Bond Funds. (This plan was not a part of the March 1995 Bond Election in which the voters approved $1,100,000 in bonds for sidewalk and bikeway improvements. The city is current developing projects for these bond funds.) There has been a considerable amount of work going on behind the scenes to actually develop the Bike Loop Plan. Since the matching grant was approved, you might expect that there has been some government red tape that has caused the process to be slower than the many anxious bikers may have hoped for. The ISTEA funding allowed for many new types of programs which included alternative forms of transportation, as well as historical projects and community enhancement. According to Bob Appleton at the Texas Department of Transportation, "This ultimately meant charting new territory for TxDot. Agreements and guidelines for many very diverse new projects had to be developed from scratch between TxDot and the sponsoring entities. And there were no past agreements to use as guides." Presently the Bike Loop Plan is in the engineering design stage with the consultant, Klotz & Associates of Houston. The plan that was submitted for grant purposes was in no way a final plan, but simply a concept. The consultant will be responsible for analyzing the feasibility of the concept and putting the ideas into a real and final design. According to Tom Ramsey of Klotz & Associates there are several stages they will go through in the design process. "First we want to make sure we are factoring in all of the comments gleaned from cy~lists and the Vision 2020 study. After that we will begin to determine details such as the exact location of the loop and the actual bridges and bikeways themselves. And the final design will involve surveys, hydraulics, drainage, pavement issues, and traffic impact. After that it will have to go back to TxDot for final approval before construction can begin," Ramsey said. Upon approval of the final design by all agencies involved, the actual construction could . take as much as another year to complete. Ultimately, it could take as long as two more years before there is actually a Bike Loop ready for use. With exceptional luck, good weather, and a smooth process between the agencies it could perhaps be less. So for those of you who are avid bikers with higher expectations than this timeline allows, we apologize. But as with any large project where several agencies must work together to create a final product, it frequently seems to move at a snail's pace. In our present fast-paced world of high technology, patience seems to get shorter. But we hope you will continue bear with us through the process and that when this is completed, you will find it to be a valuable asset to the entire community. //V#-/./n_ .--~ k ~ G,/~rt';/ 1 J,-,o 1 if ~912 C, s~fl~ j 1100 ;;,,,. (;~ II ;-, o ;;,, ,,,,, tJ.,r 1c-r 'O .r ~, 'fdv;jl -W11-/~ lo a~e-k I ft{ 0 I ~~4 ~I~ <f ~ r~/, !/< B;k ({,_ff ~QYI &'; /c.f,/'1J!-/,. A.t,~ ,'J.) sob I 4 p 0 vJ 4i,t? vt-61'!-r~ It /).) ') !>-() ~ f!4j1.f/~1 ~ 11 oo 6 j;.,. c...foo_o~ Sk I ft~s -JJt~M-1 'rvt 'k 4 ~rtlf 1 I 3(o 0 1 -_ Io r f .hv t'/'/n ~ -leo ~ s-1~ -/~ tr ~~h~~ ~ /31'k /J4 1 /~ !4.f. $4.//7r j, llhly f~/. 1 /~tJO 1 -·C/;~i_ ~ ~~e r ·/' q"Y tA. hf, y f.P-fou/ef r/~~ /-hf~ 1 /4~/ ~cc.. ~ j)A./4,~/L g 'g I/ 1 - (JJ,. '/-/µ. ,J,/':. " Ji ~;,,.,,, "J ~./;/ ,j ~4t'';J ~ ;;; 71£,. -e ..... /.~ M~ ( e-./,-J (?,_,£_ lv,e_ I :J' a /J I '7 if & ~ ;i. ~J-f" 'J ' it fefJ <'~ J .lr'3~ 111,,.J,_, -- -------~-- -------- 1 oo.sf f~'JH):Y C<>. ()g' .s-4~ ;;, · oo~ . ' ~1 l:Uj5 -~ ?15/ 1/13~) ?IY~ 1'7'17 ~~ ~)~ ~-;oy I 09-f' ( '!~{/ ~l#Vtl Ql ~AR~! ;-.rri/I . -7/Yl'f/ "*"~!3 ~ J ~ 'C>-t.5 ~ ~ 'oo'f # -(! 1o:? '_'f 5}; fa I; - CJC'c 1// f ''(/ r-1~ 7f-t-S 7-f~ f«,,-p)r.J 0 5/'t? /J/M ; Of CJ_'] wAP9 fJ~ 1-~ r-;hJ/ ~ft?-~ <jL 1 ?MJJ ~1 J~M-( ~'f~J?9 f411vt»,j L 7 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE · 0 o·· ()i a ') o ACCOUNT NO. ') ) 1:_J L -PROJECT NO. '7 J l ( . I 0 . ) t-:-. --~ ?'-) o · 01\ rr J1111 Date Sent: .-::. ,._.l · 1 .._., Time: ·1 ' 'U vw --------- Please deliver the attached to: :Birk~ d;~~!'?_ ~ Address: . l~ ll. i--J OJv-cL. I . I ai -f-fctk/!1 [5; foJJ OJ-j P ia.,k /~e_ /-i.,M lb e_ Ii: I 1ost Office Box 1121 1ust1n, Texas 78767 OARD OF DIRECTORS I LaRue ,fllr ,ston ib CraWford .e·Chnlr 1<1nnoy e Danford easurer l A11tv111v Jorothy Abbott ecretary 'lane.> 3eoff Ad~m& l'.l.rllngton Ann BAlrd Houston Joann& asset HOllS\On Dr. .>e Jackson Corpus Cl d~ll Hep. John Hirschi Wid11tnrr1!l'\ Lee Ml n Houston R1tulPenA lioli~ton Chat lo& Poteet Dallas Kar L n Ruckrlegal R \mu RC••·"- Jotin Schofield 'fyiHJ Alck Waring At1:lt1r1 hA1'lfts Gandy .,.l\OCut1ve Dlr.;ctor ulonn adbo s DI •or Of P1 ll'J"''11:5 Mr. Lonny J. Traweek Texas De anmcnt of Transp01tatiun P.O. Box 3249 Bryan, Texas 77805 October 24, I 99 Dear Mr. Tmweek: 512 476-RIDE As local coordinacor for the Texas Bic cle Coalition (TBC), J'm writing at the request of local bic clists concerned with the safety of the bkydc facilit proposed as a . orcion of TxDOT's Texas Avenue widening roje1.:t. lener resents formally the concerns of TBC's constituency an discusses s ecific facilit alternatives, case sludies of these facilities, and the underlying concepts and hiJoso )hies which support their use. 'Ne hope TxDOT wil find this information useful in the desi n of this and other bicycle facilities, and welcome the o) )Qttunit to respom.l lo any comments, questions, or requests for additional information TxDOT may need. A list of citations for specific comments follows the Jetter. I'd be happ tu provide x OT copies of any of these documents from m librar u on re ucst. While the length of thi multi- age letter is considera > e , your evaluation of L 1is ocument wi el determine both the f uturc function of highway trans orcation in Texas as we as the number of lives lust in the Bryan District. First. a statt:mt:nt of my background is in order. I'm a registered andscape architect and researcher for t 1e exas Trans orLation nstitute. comp cc ... Northwestern Universit Traffic Insritute's Bicycle Facility and Planning Workshop in August. As local coordinator of the Texas Bic ck Coalition. I work to adv n . bicycle access, safely. and education in t c ryan/Co lege Station area. During U)C past year, I've served on the College Station Bikcwa Master Plan Focus Group and mobiliw<l a t.:ampaign which co ccte over 3,000 si natures in suppon of the plan'is ado lion. I'm an attending member of the MPO Technical Comrninee. Currently, I'm assisting both Bryan and Colle e Stacion planning staff~ in the re >aradon of a bi ·e map proposal under TxDOT's enhancements program. iou d funding for this roject be granted, TBC will provide vo unteer a 01 to compete route selection and evaluation, significantly reducing production costs for the project . The Texas Bicycle Coalition Advocates the Advancement of Bicycling Access, Safety and Education ln Texas Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page 2 I mer with Bob Richardson on Monda , October 18th to discuss bkyc ists' concerns wH l the roposcd bike path. Mr. ichardson and I reviewed t e pre iminary sc lematic pan, discussing projecr constraints and ossible solutions. In t le wee since our meeting, I've consulted with federal and state trans 011arion engin~r!S, bicycle faci jty planners, attorneys, and ex pen wirncsses to formulate stat~-of -t ieratt recommen ations for Tx OT. How Can Bicyclists Not Want Following are the hazards regarding the ro oscd cumbination 8 ' 2-way ike path and 4' pcdescrian walk running from K le to Linco n uu the commercial si c of Texas venue. Each of the followin hike ath charactedstics contra icts or js strong y cautioned against in AASHTO's Guide fur tile Det·e opmem of icyde Facilitiei: Contraflow facilities re uire unconvemiona turuin · movements ··y icyc ists at intersections/cross-flows and )ath termini. These movements place bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians in conOict. azards result fn.>m U'>crs operating against accepted ru es of the road and in unex ected locations. Accident stati1>li(;s iave prompted fodera stan (! • which caution a ainst the use of contraflow facilitic . Multi-use (bicycle and pedestrian) pat is an icyc e sidewa faci Hie5 are strongly dis ouraged by federal standards. Palo Alto's bicycle-pe estdan col ision rate increased by 54 % with im Iementation of similar facilities2 • Bicyclists using hi c/bike pat is are no e likely to have serious accidcms (292 accidents er million miles traveled) than bicyclists travclin major anerial. (114 accidents >er million miles traveled)~. or. The sho1i (2-block Jen ch), discontinuous (termini 1.:orn1cclions djfficu t to ma ·e) and frequent! imerru ted nature of che ro os~d bike at 1 (10 cross-flows in. ess than mile; t11e closest a proximate! 70' a art) requires repeated stops and re uctions of spee s eed and creace mulri le conflict . oints wi l ambiguous right-of-way between bicycli!its and motorists. At AAS TO's standan design s ce fo1 bic 'Ce pat is of 0 mi es per hour, bicyclists must be . re ared to yield rig u-of-way ever severa seconds to eva uate hazards or revent collisions ai cross-flows cau · ing motor traffic to commcrcia s ops, restaurants, munici al and utilit office&, a fire station and. " gas stations Accident statistics have rompted federal standards which caution a •ainst t 1e use Df bike pat ls immediately adjacem to a11erials and jn situacions wit l greater t an minimal cross-flows. "' The o osed facilit will im.:rease ris s from current eves, presenting a ditiona hazards to bic clists and c estrians usin the )j c >at i as we ais motorists trave ing t le Texas Avenue corridor. ·rhc Tex.as Bicycle Coalition Advo::a1es tl\e Advancement of Bic)'i.:liug Acee~!). Safcry, an u"ntlon In Texas M1. Lonny Traweek , Cominued Page 3 "' ·The proposed bike pa ch is geometrically sub-standard and iJl-sitc -un ·er federa guidelines. This places TxDOT in a osirion to res ontl to kga cha enges (resulting from accidents) on the basis of ministerial and dirscrctiona liability. An Engineer's Nightmare Whtie TxDOT's Br an District is to be a plauded for its commitment to providing for safe bicycle travel along highways in ics jurisdiction, il is c i:ar that additiona study and po icy discussions are needed to accomplish this oal. The safoty rob ems a~~ociated with the proposed Texas A venue bike ath are nol new; similar faci ities were extremely popu ar in the 1970s -until the ace idem statistics were collected an ana yzeu. ad hies csigne using nonvehicular bicycle o eration assum >tions, t 1at is , those o osin esta is le traffic rules, are a nightmare to incor orate into the t>urrounuing ti111e-tested efficiency of the surroundjng vehicular roadway s stem. Tie c tal enge of esignin a safe, nonve 1icu ar icyc c trans onation facilit in the r.:ontcxt of vc; 1icu ar roadway system is ot · an oxymoron an , given federal guidelines, im ossibtc. The design nightmares this bike path has giwn birLh to in the Bryan Discricc are s m toms of an under ying roblem: t c fai ur-e to recognize cycHsts as drivers of vehicle . Are DkycJes Vehicles? Traffic law classifies road users as either drivers or edestrians. As of 198. , bicyclists are recognized as drivers of vehicles. Vehicular designation established for bicyclists all the rights to and res onsibiHties of che roa wa that motor vc ice ·rivers 1ave enjoyed. Be a sc vehicles differ in o eralin ~haradedstics, differin su c asses of vehicles have special driving insm1ctions. While drivers of motor vehicles may vvc:rt.ake on lhe right only under six conditions and ma not race, for exam k:, ue 10 11e increase danger rcpresente by their weight and ower, drivers of bic cles have two s ,ccia c riving rue:;. Om.: re~trict~ cycJists m riding as far right as practicable exec t under sev~ral specific conditions. The other restricls c clists to bic cle lanes w crcvcr the ·e iave been )rovi ~ , wit the same exceptions. All drivers must obe_ tl1e the gl!neral rules of the rnad and which1.:vcr ad itional mies a 1 co his or her own class. A rivers of ve k cs t.tre entit e access to t le roadway4. The 1991 ISTEA le ishuion r uires che acconunodation of various trauspo1tation t} )es. such as bic cte uansp01tation1 which haw nol effective! and routjncl · been accommodated in the motor vehicleadominatec.l transportation p aiming prncess . i ~ ~ estrian transportation is another of these reviousl -oveilooked modes, its operating characteristic~ differ substantia ly from those of vehicles. The accommodation of bicycle trans ortation will not come abom from the construction of sidewalks for bic cles. Bic c c trans ortation is w h.:ular 1e facility for vehicular o eracion is the roadwa . "Cyclists fare est w 1en t ley act, an<l an; treated, as operators of vchiclcsY· The Texas J3icyck Coalilim1 Advocates 11\e Advanccmcm of Bicyclil • A1.1.cbs, Safci;, and ucation in exas Mr. Lonn)' Traweek, Continued Page 4 It is imp011ant to recognize hicycles may be operatt!d for transportation or recreation. Whi e trip ur ose and operating s Jeed may <Hffer, for example, both types of icyc ists are best acconunodated under uidelines for bicycle transp011ation. The "design bicyclist" riding for trans 01tation is best served, according to WA's Se ecting Roadway esign Tremmems ro Acconmiodate Bicycles6 1 by the 'ollowing; * Direct acce~s to destinalions usua ly via the existing street an 1i way system. Ex )Cricnc ct bicyclists will tend co select collector a1 d a1terials, w lik t 10se with less ex eriencc tend to se ect residential roadways. The opp01iunit tu opi;ratc at maximum s )ee\l wit minimum e ays, an Sufficient o erating s ace on the roadway to 1e uce tie ne motor vehicle o erator to change osition when passing. for eit er a )icycHst or Why l>o Some Trans ortation Officials esist Ve l cu ar Accommu ation of Bicyc cs? First, resistance from transpo11ation planning agencies and officia s to acconunodate bicyclists on the roadwa stems frorn th\: general failure to recognize tie hicyck o erationaHy as a vehicle. This leads to the historic view that separation from vehicles and lacement with edestrians '' rotects" c ie vulnerable bicyc ists. Accidertt statistics have co vinced AASHTO and FWHA that roadway a1.:commo ation of bicyc istf> is optima except in the case of limlted·access freeways, for exam le, and in the desi n of recreational fadlitics along long, unintenu ted s enic corridors. Second, an extension of bic cle-asunon·vehic e t 1il ing is t c pi:rceplion of t 1e )icyc c-as~ o dway-obstructior (an extension of non-ve }jcu ar t 1i1 ing), w ich invo ves l le fo owin specific concern : "' car/bike cornsions berween an ov~n.akin t:a1 d )roaching from c in or to the side of the cyclist; The tradiLionat fear of numerous ovcrtakin car/bike co hions on s 1are roadways can be qu_ickly dis roved. A landmark stud b Cross and lsher7 (1977) found th~l collisions betwe~n a car overtaking from behind or to the side of a cyclist and striking che cyclist re resem less than 2 % of car/bjke collisions on the roadway (ranking 20th overall in car/bike coJJisions) and less than 0. Clo of a bicyc e acd ents. n a most 1000 car/bike collision)), Cross and Fisher found only oft iis ty e. T 1il'j colli!'.iion type oc urred eneralJ in rura areas with narrow avement sections an no street lighting. * car/car cornsium, cl ween a car overta ing a eye ist an anot 1er car; The Texas Bicycle Coalition Advocates the Advancemcut of Bi1.:)i.;li11s /\cccs~ • .,'afcLy, and E ucatlon in Texas Mr. Lonny Tr11wcck, Continued Page 5 The Cross and Fisher data show where conflict arises )etween an ove1taking ~ar and other motor traffh.:, the uvcrtakin motorist is fa r more like! to ensure adequate clearance between the motor vehicles than between his or her whilJt! aml the cyclist. * delays to motor tn.tffa; from icyc es in the traffic stream. While data show ovenakin accidents are few, t iat is not to suy minot e ays wil not occur. Delay extent is related to the t e of bike faci it on the road.way. Ddays in narrow roadway lanes carrying bicycle traffic amidst an direct y in front of ove11.aking traffic wm bi; •realer t 1an on roadways wit 1 )icyc e traf ic traveling adjacent to motor vehic es in wide cur anes or bike anes. cd i:nt~ resulting from these delays arc statistkally insignific nt8. Perha s the greatest hesitancy on the art of trans orlalion engineers to accommo ating bic clists as vehidc8 on roadways, articular y a11eria s, comes from never 1aving seen it done ucccssfully. The Arizona and Oregon st.<ctte DO s 1ave ma e a commitment to i\; ·c e·frien y artel'ia s with pro ressive phltoso >hies and state-of-the-art eomctric dt:sign In Oregon, for example, "Direct and continuous hikeways must be . rovided a on ~ arkria an major co lector routes ... Bike lanes are to be rovided on mo l urban ancrial and collector routes. here it is not feasible to rovidc bike lanes because of . hysicaJ constraints (eg c ose buildings or nvlroruncmally sensicive areas), wide oul1!iidc lanes sha 1-csume where t 1c constraint ends.9" Futther illus ration. follow later in the di cus ion. What's The Real Harm In Continuing To ProYide tonvehicu ar i e ac Uties? Nonvehicular, or off.road, ike aths ma be beneficia for some 1ec1eationa purposes. n cerms of bk l:k tran · onatio11, however, these facilities gen1;n.tlly aren't direct, don't a low users to maintain <.le~ira~ le s ecd~, an· re;;( uire unconventiona movements upon rejoining le larger roadway network. Aside from the cha len es inherent In desi in for safe ic 'l: ~ trans or11tliun 011 of · road facilities and related liability issues, there are othe1 reasons trans orUition l:Il ineers are moving away from it. nfortunate y, off-roa 11 cways e1 etuate to icyc ists and motorists alike the m c 1 chat bic •clists are t:st accommodat in tie >e estrian m<.\trix. Nonvehicular bjcyclist behavior is er etuated an car/bike, i ·e/ i e, and i ·dpede:-.trian accidents increase. The inex ericnccd bic cling population buys into the supposi:tl hazar ~ l>f on-road vehicular behavior and re uests auditional off-road bikewa s. No ont! benefits in the long tenn, Sup ort of both nonvehicular bic cte facilities and (there y) e ucation contri utes to the number of accidents ex erienced and/or caused , icyc ists eaving the off-roa · facility and behaving in a nonvehicular fashion. The vicious eye e continues, leaving The Tex at-Bicydc Coalition AdvvCi1tes the Advancement of icyclil\_k\ Accc~s, S1tfe1y, an ~ ucation iu cxas Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page 7 "such as alon heavily-traveled freeways , where the eman is enoug 1 to merit the extra cosc ( bike paths] are tluee to four time1> mure ex. ensive to construct t an shou er bikeways)11 ." Fu11her, the continuation of all state highway bkyc c roules must le provided into and through the ur an area y the municipa ity for continuity. There are many other success stories waiting to e investigat • y t iose see ing statc-of-t e~ art facilities and standards. All ic takes is a few phone ca s to get start· uncovering the network of state DOTs and cities committed to safe and effective icyc c:: transportation. TBC can provide names, numbers, and addresses for contacts nt municipal. state, and federal levels who ~au at'~iM you. A rief ist a cars on page 9 . What ls TBC's Vision for Roadwa s unde1· TxDOT urlsdlct on? Should TxDOT's Br an District acce t the (.;hal en c, T recommen s t t · istricl maintain its re utation for pro ressive aclion and construct all roadways under its jurisdicrion using bicycle-frjcndl scandards. Collectors and arterials in urban areas s iou carry bicycle traffic in 16' wide curb lanes or 6' bike lanes, while rural routes s 10u pro vi e for sa fe shou der travel. Signalized intersections should be bic ck-actuatoo for a movements, and roa Wfl.ys should be ctearl marked with si na e indicatin multimodal traffic design. The im Jementation of on-road bicycle faciliries should be a pan of al new con&tluc6on, an existing roadways should be retrofitted at.:1.:or iu • to t 1ei1 capita im 1rovcments sc iedu e. Retrofitcing can be as sim lie as re-srri ing wht:re pavement sections of sufficient width exist. Bi 'yclists traveling on these roa<.lwa 1 faci ifa~s are encoura ed to ma e re ictab e movements accordjn to the established rules of the road. Linkage of the Texas A venue facility to George Bush (slated for bike lanes) and University Drive wm be; accomplished nder ex.sting traffic laws. Car/bike, ike/bike, an ikc/ edestrian acci c::nls wi e owe1· on these facilities than on bike !tths. .. TxDOT's B1 1an Distrjct holds in ils hands the op urLunily to uemonstrate its commirn1ent to safe cravel for the thou:>ands who ride ic ·cles as well as fort ose w io on't. c • designed shared roac.lvvays reduce the ambiguities and mis crce lions eac i traffic type io s regarding the other, rcducin t e risk of <.:onfli\.:ls rcsu Li1P from t iese mis crccptions. Traffic o crations are cJearJ conve e through ~igna e, ~igna iL:alion an striping. These facilities are education in action. TxDOT's conunitmem to the safet and mobility of all citizens would be made clear . While the guiding concern in roadwa design is a wa s safety, it s 1ou e noted that the construction and maintenam;e costs of on·road facilities fall wet b1: ow t mse of off-roa facilities, as the 're sim J 1 a one·lane·wide extension of existing roadway constmction and maintenance programs. The Texas Bicycle Coalition A<lvo1.a1e~ the Advancemem of icycling Ac1.e:.~. Safely, an ~ ucation in Texas Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page 8 Should the Bryan District find Itself unable to share the progressive spfrit s own by cities in Arizona and Oregon and others, TBC recommends the termination of p am; or tie ike path due to the safety hazards discussed early on. It is the osirion of TBC that no bicycle fadlity is safer than a 1narginal one. This would be a golden opportunity to en'l race the future lost. The Safety ancl Mobility of the Bicycling Commun ty cpcn s on our espouse As local coordinator of TBC. represent a diverse group of students. professionals, and families who will be directly and indirectly impacted y your selection of a Texas venue bike facility for years to come. I'm available to assist you in ~my capacity can. Shou d you wish to discuss this or any related matter with me, I w~ come your ca . ou can reac i me at TTI, 845~4612, or at home, 260~1266. J look forward to working with you to enhance the safety ttn<l mobility of the eye ing community. (\rely, . ~J'.Utl-7V~~ Danise Hauser Local Coordinator, Texas Bicycle Coalition c\:: Bob A eton, istrict icyc e Coordinator Bob Richardson, Di trict De ign ~ngineer Ed Hard, College Station Trans rtation Planner Glenn Gadbc,i , Texa ic c e Coa ition, Au.'tin The Texais Bicycle Coalltton Advocates the Advimt..cmcnl of it.:.ydiui; Acce~s. 'a cty, an duc11tlon in Texas ~·~(CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ w DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station. Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Jim Callaway, Assistant Director of Development Services Jane Kee, City Planner Ed Hard, Transportation Planner !(j---- Bikeway Master Plan June 2, 1993 As per mine and Jane's meeting this morning, the following objectives and scope has been developed for the Bikeway Master Plan. • Develop pamphlet-type document with a plan on one side and corresponding verbiage on the other. The plan itself will be illustrated on an aerial and include existing and planned facilities along with bikeway nodes. This pamphlet will be developed in two Phases, with the BMP being Phase I and the informational side Phase II. • Staff will concentrate on developing the BMP at this time. The tasks required to accomplish this will include, but not be limited to, the following: Utilize related documents (primarily the TTI plan and the Austin Bicycle "Task Force" document) to develop a base plan to begin with. Divide the City into quadrants and field verify each proposed facility in each quadrant. Existing street width, its general condition, and street ROW (in some cases) should be identified and taken into consideration for each proposed bikeway. Th is information is necessary in order to gauge the reality of the plan , to recommend the best type and location of a bikeway for each particular street/park, and to identify future CIP projects resulting from the plan. The types of bikeways on the plan will be distinguished and identified as a bike route, lane or path . In some instances it may be that a facility could be identified as a future "bikeway" and not be designated as a route, lane, or path at this time. Incorporate the TAMU plan into the City plan (an inset) and develop a City plan such that both plans complement each other. Meet with TAMU, TXDOT and Bryan planners to inform and coordinate. ··suilding a Better City in Partnership with You· -' Callaway, Page 2 Address the following specific projects: 1. A Kyle Street bike path or lane as part of a future CIP widening project. This would complement the proposed bike path on the Texas Avenue widening project. 2. What to do with the Bush Bike lane. 3. Incorporate the planned bikeways in College Main Rehab. Project, the Krenek Tap Road Project, and any other City projects into the plan. 4. Incorporate proposed bikeways in the 2818 and Streetscape Reports into the plan. 4. Bikeways in the Wolf Pen Creek Plan. 5. Bikeways on the upcoming Bush widening project from 2154 to 2818 (Bush Library) and in any other State Projects. 6. All other new bikeways or bikeway changes identified from field work. The schedule for BMP development is as follows: • Attend Transportation Enhancements Public Hearing in Austin on June 10th. • Present plan to Staff on June 30th. • Present plan to Focus Group in the week of July 12. Receive comments from the focus until July 23. • Present to P&Z on August 5. • Present to Council on August 26. • Budget and develop bikeway plan/informational pamphlet in next budget year. Our goal is to have an adopted, approved Bikeway Master Plan by this Fall. We've come across some innovative ideas other communities are using we like to see used in CS. Marla will being doing the hands on work to develop the BMP. I will work with her on it as time permits and provide direction as necessary. Please let me know if there are questions , comments , other ideas, etc. cc: Marla Fendley I ·. Average Average Average Distance Speed Area Walking * 0 .33 mile 2 mph .34 sq. mi. • -Biking ~ 2 miles 8 mph 12.6 sq. ml. Biking vs. Walking 6 times distance 4 limes speed 37 llmes catchment area /, FIGURE 24 Pedestrian and bicycle transit access distances. Ref. Hare, P., et al.; Using Trip Reduction and Growth Management to Provide Affordable Hous i ng TRR 1321 1991 28a • ~711 f./JJ? /'~/ J~ d-//~ 7.1(/q Vo J?r/Y'd-(:15 ~ '}-{y(J 'l fi:i/IJ ~0 T ~ -U~ rl .~ ~r0fl s1~1:5 11-!I • r .1.,A f I''"/'" ';I> . 'J . V' N _, ..,,/ s" , ?I ~,1,.71,f t= v-i.r1'w"') • 1 ·I ¥>1.-S/f r V Q 5/-.-,,~7/_lff s -1.,5 ~ , f>( u -:>S<ft , p 1-rr. f! J 1 ~trvrY.I. ~ e a-y • /-' r,-,.1 "" r3 r / ~ / ~...,, ol ~? 1r:; ""' -Y/~r7 j-;,->Ajs -v j ,,. -P?:./'7 ~ ~ i? t"/rr;; XJ 7~>r /J l7 µ() rrrA' )" ~~ 51 ;-o~r"s ~ ,, "· '/,.?...,.~ I c-f ~J ;(~ 11 (VI ~'~T~ i ( r"-;1 0-W ~'JJ rrJ-y1?r~~J ~ rJ--N /'J1 r::vV..Y-7 '-'1°r11r/ 0 'l -.. ~~ ( t , . -. I . ~ s 7 I) .'' '/)' '/ -0 ry Jr.~ hi/'" '~1 r=.kr.J.J.":r;y j3!5.lfj fVP8N JG f-i;;crwclf~~ 5:J ~f,rn9 7-J-,, ~ 0 _j_-/1 S if I/ ~ tJ (/? _}_, f1 Ji ? ) lrtl p~ 0 YJ ~I ···~~.)~""OJ rv'<' I -1..,,.a--JA,,d-.0/~ lr(rd(] '-A{Jl??:J I ~ii oAj'-? (VO 1---,~d ~9 J}--v;Y f j ))-_ VP rl71'1Jf'I 5~1 ~y?-.,..5 Q/ '1;J /~~T. /.1J (j ?-J. (} ~ r~0?fJ1f/ -f}-( ~-1->~;5 • 0 J -!7:J /I }?};vr"'1! i'1J ~ 1;~fr1 '# , vw... f.1i.'7vj ~1"7 ~ ~ ~-,(<7 /JY'W1s r/VI />-;rr-~~Y "1AJ_ ... h ~fY'd--1/fl, ~k • fT"'7~/':5 I} '\A.JJ ~~ I ~ .J ~~ j;Vl? r7 f?hl'd'F.:S fl / '8~ h/'r 'i IF""P 'f~,-.-.-1 'fl J ":J "'~ SJ'/"lJrj,l~s 1-7.,.°':J o / ,. 0 -g ~~ 1 'i.. 1 -.b J b /./ I ?:J 7.J "/ r>-f'IP ~7 rJ ""f's r/...,...-f.'ff -:J <?-$ • • f31 t,/jftft~h o..t /lo/ (},!VJu.yf j/f--e~ ,-_,e_ c Jf/v ·fro~...., (;.,-( !fe t, ( ~ ~ r>-hw-. d~/1 "' /,lfA)_ ~516/J<;/fv k i,J-c 1:Jw_.,,;')°4'1 l~tph-1-~ f'J 6 ;, D~l-/ "-f 2 ---w-~ /,/k~~.J tJ-1 O#f ~ >/ ;k_ Q / 4 rJ.u. f 3. { DGJ'1 · /. c/..ej"'-.,.._~ '.51;;~,JLt_ ilk-e-u~1 {) <,_,_ "-r-<-"--(, ":</, '--cl-er j,., y-~ M r'?? «-t?-le /.,~,' ~ ~ ~:ye.~~ /ly CN-e..C/ r~ o/e.s!};t11';-..J k:k /"'-/-14 (~rv-t-.J ~ 1~4r~ cfr=-:/ 6-~~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SI~ ENGil'EERING DIVISIOl\I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas A venue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: Elrey Ash, Director of Development Serv~es . to City Engineer 1llAWlD-" FROM: Veronica Morgan, Asst. DATE: September 20, 1991 RE: Sidewalk I Bikeway Presentation Debbie, Edwin and I have had some discussion since the sidewalk presentation to the executive committee. I think the concensus from that meeting was as follows: * require sidewalks on BOTH sides of ALL streets * REQUIRE all sidewalk construction to be completed with the construction of the streets * DO NOT make any allowances for waivers from the requirements I think we all agree that these were good, constructive comments and all should be incorporated within the ordinance amendment. I will be working on the amendment and staff recommendations to incorporate all these comments. In addition to these comments there were two others. One was to incorporate bikeways into the overall presentation. The other was to take the presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to Council after the Streetscape presentation. At this point after talking with Edwin and looking at his workload, the ABSOLUTE earliest that bikeways could be incorporated and we could go to the Planning and Zoning Commission would be on November 7th, but more likely the November 21st meeting. I need some direction based on the proposed streetscape schedule. Do we try to put it in HIGH GEAR and force the presentation on the 7th or wait till a later meeting, perhaps even later than the 21st given the schedule for streetscape? In the meantime we will be working on the analysis and presentation in our SPARE time (yuk, yuk). Please let me know what the decision is at your earliest convenience. Thanks!!!!!! cc: David Pullen Debbie Keating Edwin Hard ~-~~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ PLANNING DIVISION Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Stati on, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 May 18, 1992 MEMORF~DUM TO: Elrey Ash, Development Services Director FROM: Jim Callaway, City Planner~ SUBJECT: Streetscape Plan -Bike Plan. When developing the RFP for this project staff included an element asking the consultants to "further develop and incorporate" the City's bicycle plan into a streetscape plan. The work called for in the scope of services and the relatively small budget for this project limited us to this starting point for the development of a bike/pedestrian system. The consultants have addressed bike planning considerations within the scope of services. As you know, both Edwin and I feel that we have pushed the consultants to the limits of the scope throughout the project. Any additional work in bikeway planning would require a revision to the scope. We have requested a proposal for addressing this issue. Attached is the consultants response. This proposal would represent a substantial change in scope. In fact, this would represent a new project. If we decide to pursue this issue, we could send out RFP's. Negotiating a contract with our current streetscape consultants would save two or more months. They have developed a considerable amount of knowledge about College Station; their work has been well received to date. ·• Landscape Architecture Urban and Development Planning 13154 Coit Road Suite l05 . Dallas, Texas 75240 (214) 907-0500 FAX (214) 907-0550 May 12, 1992 Mr. Jim Calloway, City Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 RE: Streetscape Study and Bikeway Plan Dear Jim: Newman, Jnckson Bieberstein, Inc. As a result of our meeting with you, Edwin, and Elray two weeks ago, NJB has begun to make some of the corrections to the study per the input we received from you. In addition, during our visit, you specifically mentioned that Ron Ragland was a bit disappointed in the "bikeway" component of the study. He felt that it was somewhat superficial and did not go into the detail he was expecting. As you recall, the initial goals of this study were to address the image problems of the city in the context of what was happening (or not happening) in the corridors of major and minor thoroughfares. Bikeways, as a component of these areas in many parts of the city, were logically included in this study. In that regard, we developed an overall streetscape plan that addressed many issues, including bikeways, in as much detail as possible given the amount of fee we had to work with. The section developed did incorporate several papers and studies completed as of the summer of 1991. It included some general design criteria for bikeways as they would relate to other streetscape elements, and provided some general recommendations for future routing of a bikeway system. Based on our conversations of 21 April concerning the desire to have a more comprehensive bike plan developed as a part of this study, I would recommend structuring the bikeway plan as a stand alone section of the streetscape plan. I would further suggest this stand alone section respond to the following: • Specific Goals and Objectives of a bikeway system. This should include input from Texas A&M University and local bicycle support and user groups. Mr. Jim Calloway May 12, 1992 Page Two of Four • Review of existing road cross-sections, design details, and maintenance standards to improve the bicycle friendliness of all roads. • Identification and evaluation of origin/destination points. Even though cyclists generally have the same origin/destination points as other road users, some points will generate heavier bicycle traffic. The most obvious example is TAMU. Public facilities, parks, playgrounds, shopping areas, etc., should be evaluated for inclusion in a grid network of interconnected bikeways to help meet the transportation needs of cyclists. • An analysis and evaluation of the various routes available to reach the destinations identified in the task above to include descriptions of any required modifications to existing roadways and intersections and the type of control devices required (signal types, bicycle detection signals, signage, etc). The goal is to provide the necessary tools to safely integrate bicycle and motorized transportation. • Detailed set of standards for system development to include widths, methods of providing smooth interaction between bicyclists and motorists, surfacing, signage, parking facilities, location within street R.O.W., etc. • Analysis of trade-offs involved in implementing bicyclist based patrol units . • Development of a bicycle safety/education program for primary students, TAMU students/staff, and motorists. • Costs and phases required to implement the plan. This will include an evaluation of funding assistance that might be available. I envision the final product including both narrative and graphic elements. The city, will be divided into quadrants similar to those utilized in the 1990 Texas Transportation Institute Study to illustrate routing recommendations. Typical cross-sections along the various routes would relate back to the standards developed as part of the study. In evaluating the nature of the tasks that would be undertaken to complete this effort, we determined that we should supplement our expertise with someone that has firsthand knowledge of bicycling; specifically the issues, problems, and concerns that cyclists face. In that regard, Mr. Michael Carr will join our team and be responsible for Mr. Jim Calloway May 12, 1992 Page Three of Four evaluating potential routes, providing input on design standards, and assisting in the development of a bicycle safety/education program. Michael is an avid cyclist who has been heavily involved in the development of the Dallas Bike Plan. He has earned a great deal of respect in various planning departments and cycling circles around the state for his knowledge of cycling issues. Perhaps even more importantly is his ability to see the development of a successful bike plan as a careful integration of the bicycle and automobile. He is very familiar with the AASHTO guides and criteria as well as knowledgeable of human dynamics and the political issues that will arise in the development of the plan. He has cultivated a strong network of other bike experts across the country who can help us to evaluate the various issues that will be faced in developing this plan. I have attached his resume and past bike plan experience to this letter. Based on the above described general scope, I would estimate a range of fees from $40,000 to $55,000 to complete the study. Before I get more detailed in determining a fee, I wanted to feel comfortable that the scope I was proposing was in line with your thinking. I have allowed for three trips to College Station as a part of the general fee described above. Trip One will be used to meet with City Staff and any local bicycle support groups for input. We will also utilize this trip to identify barriers to cycling and to evaluate the routing required to interconnect the city. Trip Two will be used to present the draft of the study to Staff and to receive input for the completion of the study. Trip Three will be utilized to present the final study to City Council. Additional trips will be billed on an hourly basis per our latest hourly rate schedule. Project expenses such as travel, telephone, postage and deliveries, photographs, photocopying, overnight accommodations, and meals will be charged on a direct basis. Mr. Jim Calloway May 12, 1992 Page Four of Four Please review the above points and let's discuss them at your earliest convenience. I hope that this approach will provide the City Manager a Bike Plan more in line with his expectations. Sincerely, NEWMAN, JACKSON, BIEBERSTEIN, INC. ~Ok . Karl von Bieberstein, ASLA Vice President KvB/yc BICYCLE EXPERIENCE RESUME FOR: Michael Douglas Carr Consulting Services Company 2227 Anniels Dr. Dallas, TX 75211-1902 (214) 943-5048 PHILOSOPHY: To achieve permanent change in government, there must be policy support from elected officials, technical support from staff, and concept support from citizens (to keep the previous two moving). Although progress can be made with only two, or sometimes even one, of the three just-mentioned components of change, a change is most likely to "stick" when all three components are acting together. Media coverage and support is frequently an important part of "gelling" ?Upport from the three components of change. I've focused my efforts in building coalitions spanning the three components, supporting the desired changes with a solid technical foundation and managing media coverage. Significant coalition building efforts have included: o approval of the Dallas Bike Plan o formation of the Texas Bicycle Coalition (statewide bicycle rights group) o turning the Plano bike ban effort into a Plano bicycling encouragement plan o initia l approvals of the bike parking requirement portion of the Dallas Bike Plan (final approval is in progress) Additional advisory efforts have assisted substantial progress in other areas: o Seattle, Washington o Las Vegas, Nevada o Plano, Texas o San Diego, California o Rowlett, Texas Other facets supporting bicycle expertise are summarized by categories: DALLAS BIKE PLAN : Route specification for the Bike Route System Street cross section specification for Bike Route Roads Provided bicycle-perspective for revision of Department of Public Work's book titled "Standard Construction Details" Bicycle parking standards (design, types and number per use category) Bike Route sign design and sign placement standards "Duties of a Full-Time Bicycle Coordinator" "Relative Bicycle Safety" "Texas Bicycle Laws " Major editing responsibility for the entire document BIKE TRAILS/PATHS: Trail signing standards Trail striping standards On-site review of several proposed trails and existing trail changes "Plan sheet" review of several trails (both new and rework projects) Trail construction quality inspection resulting in contractor rework and extended warranties On-site study of trail accident sites involved in litigation Review of depositions taken for trail accident law suits GENERAL: Board member of the 930-member Greater Dallas Bicyclists Association City of Dallas Bicycle Task Force City of Dallas Trail Safety Committee Chairman of the 450-member Texas Bicycle Information Committee Event coordinator for the annual 550-rider "Pedal, Pasta, Punt" (tm) Ride held each Super Bowl Sunday in January --Texas' largest free ride Adult bicycle commuter for since 1983 Self-contained bicycle touring throughout the U.S. and Canada Multi-week bicycle tour leader Extensive bike trail user experiences throughout the U.S. and Canada Bicycle commuter while an undergraduate and grciduate student at Texas A&M Bicycle-based newspaper delivery from 12 to 16 years of age WRITING: News and feature writer for the statewide Texas Bicyclist Magazine (50,000 monthly copies) and the Texas Bicycle Coalition newsletter Regular articles for the Dallas-based Spokesman, M-Aura and ENVIRONmentality Bicycling reporter for Metro Sports Selected titles illustrate the breadth of writing: "Duties of a Full-Time Bicycle Coordinator" "What Makes a City Bicycle-Friendly" "You Are a Vehicle!" (Texas Bike Law summary used by the Dallas Police Department and other organizations throughout Texas) "Sidewalk Bike Paths Negatively Impact Bicyclists" "Striped Bike Lanes Negatively Impact Bicyclists" "Wide Outside Lanes Benefit All Road Users" "Urban Cycling Skills Booster Shot" "Relative Bicycle Safety" (compares off-road and on-road bicycle accident rates) "Bicycle Commuters Do It in the Dark (and in the daylight too!)" "Bike Bans --Why They Start, Spread & How To Stop Them" "Bicycling is Viable for Use in the State Implementation Plan for Dallas county" "The Art of Change --City Ha 11 DO' s and DON' Ts" "Making Bureaucrats Jump (and Other Secrets to Bicycle Advocacy)" SPEAKING: Speaking engagements have been everything from prepared to extemporaneous and, at various times, included slides, foils, chalk board, notes on paper napkins. some speaking experiences: Keynote Speaker for City of Portland, Oregon "Reclaiming our Streets Conference'' Presentations before governmental bodies (Dallas, Plano and other City Councils, Dallas Park Board, Dallas Planning Commission, Dallas Zoning ordinance Advisory Committee, Plano Traffic Commission, etc) (These presentations are the most challenging because the policy makers are often apathetic or even hostile to the concept being presented.) Led bicycle awareness training for engineering staff of Dallas' Department of Public Works Workshop presentations on many subjects at several bicycle planner conferences Presentations to bicycle, environmental, health and other organizations TRAINING: Bicycle Design Training offered by the Washington State Department of Transportation for its engineering staff Effective cycling Course (nationally taught course in on-road cycling skills needed to communicate with and safely blend in with motorized traffic) Effective Cycling Instructor's Certification (in progress) National Bicycle Planner's Conference attendance in 1984 (Miami, FL), 1986 (Seattle, WA), 1988 (Tucson, AZ), and 1990 (Washington, DC) Regional Bicycle Planner's Conference attendance in 1985 (Austin, TX), 1987 (Missoula, MT), and 1989 (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) Joint League of American Wheelmen National Rally and Bicycle Planner Conference, 1991 (Olympia, WA) Scheduled speaker for September, 1992 Velo Quebec (international bicycle planner conference) NATIONWIDE RESOURCE NETWORK: Since bicycling expertise is not as widely in demand as, say, transportation planning, bicycle experts are usually the only expert within a given department or in a geographic area. This makes it imperative that cycling experts have a nationwide network of fellow experts to provide support when new situations are encountered. Just such a network is available through my contacts made while attending and giving workshops throughout the U.S. and Canada. COMPUTER TECHNICAL SKILLS : Technical skills developed in school and as a self-employed custom computer systems consultant have served well in dealing with engineers in various governmental agencies ranging from the Texas Department of Transportation to Dallas' Department of Public Works. Computer skills, usually operating systems or real-time control systems on mini-or micro-computers, have been kept current with continuing contract assignments. The most notable recent project resulted in a 15-page article appearing in PC Magazine. It involved the development of a suite of programs to benchmark the performance of personal computer operating systems and environments that provide multi-tasking DOS (i.e., DESQview, Windows, etc.). EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science (Physics), 1973, Texas A&M University, 151 credit hours with 3.3/4.0 grade point ratio Master of Computer Science, 1974, Texas A&M University, 38 credit hours with 4.0/4.0 grade point ratio REFERENCES: Available on request. ' Historic Preservation Committee Wednesday. November 3, 1993 Page 3 plans, it doesn't look as though the site will be made into a parking lot. Greg asked if there was the possibility that Scott & White would cooperate by allowing a landscaped area around a marker. Gary H. said that the Committee had tried to get them to participate in the moving of the cemetery, and they didn't respond. David said it may take a personal visit to get them to cooperate. Gary H. said he believes the wooded areas along the street will be left as is. The original cemetery site is just off the street in almost the same position as, the new cemetery. only on the opposite side of the street. Joan said if any type of "entertainment" needed to be provided, and if so, the tape made by Roger Feldman on the Mitchell weekend would be good to show. She has a copy of the tape, and said she will bring it for the committee to see when the slides from the Carter reinterrment are shown. VII. UPDATE ON COLLEGE STATION RAILROAD DEPOT CEREMONY: The dedication date for the railroad depots will be Aggie Muster, April 21. 1994, in the morning between 9 a.m. and noon, in coordination with the tnur of campus. A definite time will be determined at a later date. VIII. OTHER COMMITTEE CONCERNS: Greg stated that his ideas presented at the last meeting were the result of a brainstorming session, and he knew some ideas were not feasible. The idea he was most excited about was the Interurban Trolley, which he believes could be a historic parkway. Greg stated that Bryan/College Station was one of the smallest cities the interurban ever existed in. Greg said from his research it appears that all the track was scrapped. It's possible some of the cars were given to another city. He feels it would be nice if the committee could get one of the cars so that people could see what it really looked like. Gary H. mentioned that President Mobley spoke to him at his reception when he became Chancellor, about creating an agricultural village. He suggested possibly if A&M could get land then maybe something could be started along the lines of historic attractions that could be tied in with the Bush Library and located on the west side of campus. Gary H. discussed the idea of an agricultural museum with a lot of old Ag equipment. Chancellor Mobley claimed that there were a lot of old Texas houses around and the owners could donate them to College Station. He even suggested that A&M might provide the land if College Station would put up the money to do this. Gary said it would be good if it could be tied in with a replica of the railroad depot. There are a lot of good ideas for things that could be done. Gary feels that a lot of old equipment would be donated for a museum, but that there has to be someone at the University who is willing to push the idea to make it come about. Gary said its just like the idea of putting up a marker for the first broadcast of an A&M/Texas game from Bolton Hall. A State Historic marker adds credibility, but at this time there is an element within the University administration that does not like state historic markers because it will limit the ability of the University to do things. Gary said perhaps in another week or two he would contact Chancellor Mobley and remind him of the discussion they had on joint projects, and ask his advice on how to move on this. Gary said he feels that A&M would need to provide more than just the land. and he doesn't know if they have that kind of money. He said a committee would probably need to be appointed to decide what to do and who would pay for what. Greg said there were probably some old Aggies around who would like to get involved in that type of thing. Greg said he had another idea after he read about the City's approval to build more bikeways. The A&M faculty. in 1897, had a bicycle path along the railroad corridor. This is where the city is talking about building some of the ' -Historic Preservation Committee Wednesday, November 3, 1993 Page 4 bikeways. It's a very comprehensive plan but it would be nice if the portion that goes by the railroad track could have a marker commemorating the "Faculty Bicycle Club", as it was called, which was organized in 1897, and they maintained the bikeway for several years. He suggested naming that part of the path the "Faculty Bicycle Club" path. Gary said that if this is built, perhaps a marker could be done. Gary asked Greg to dig up as much info as he could find through the archives and the city, such as old photos, etc. David said the Junior Historians from the College Station Jr. High· contacted him and were looking for a project to do, and wanted to know if there was anything they could help the Committee with. Gary said yes, they could research the history of the names of streets in College Station. Find out who all the streets were named for. Bill Fitch could probably tell them most of the history behind the names of the streets in Southwood Valley. Then once they get that worked up perhaps they could do some type of little publication. David said he had heard that you couldn't have a street named after you unless you were dead. Gary said that was correct. David said the committee meeting in January should occur while most people are still on holiday and wanted to know whether to move the meeting or discuss it in December. Gary said to discuss it in December. IX. ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. BIKE/PED PLAN PROJECT OUTLINE Review existing bike and sidewalk plans and related materials. Review Council issues , related memos, etc. Determine nature, scope of focus group, initial bike plan: Needs: Improved bike plan, ped plan for interim use. Infra-structure planning and review. !STEA requirements. Immediate problems/solutions. Constraints: Time/personnel. 3 months internship. Ed/Jane to direct, give input. Scope/function of focus group needs definition before meeting. Format of bike/ped plan analysis. Inventory of current conditions: Existing facilities. Lanes , routes, paths, etc. Sidewalks. Special facilities (Lemontree-Bee Creek , etc.) Other. Bike/ped origins and destinations. Schools, parks, A&M, commercial areas, etc. Sources of riders/pedestrians. Problems. Hazards, barriers, lack of facilities, etc . Input from focus group. Overlay current plans. Analyze. ID proposed draft plan, plan alternatives. Prior to expanding or finalizing this outline: Consider other issues or elements to include , ex: greenbelts. ------------------- ----~ -------------~------------ I TO: FROM: DATE: -~~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ DEPARTMENT CF PUBLIC SERVICES Post Office Box 9960 2613 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3691 M E M 0 R A N D U M Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager Joe LaBeau, Director of Public Service~ :2.----- August 27, 1990 SUBJECT: BIKEWAY ROUTE ENFORCEMENT IN EDUCATION After meeting with Chief Strope and Director of Development Services, Elrey Ash, we came to the conclusion that the following steps need to be taken with regard to bike routes. 1. An intensified educational effort regarding routes and safe biking habits. This effort will be carried out by the police department and will include a revamped and customer friendly brochure. 2. All bike route signage and street markings will be examined and upgraded/improved where possible. 3. Long range opportunities for establishing new and improved bike routes in the community .. will be examined by our new transportation pianner, under the direction of Elrey Ash and Jim Callaway. Two particular opportunities for improved routing lie with the Texas Avenue widening project, and a possible movement of the bike lane from George Bush Drive to University/City ROW on the North side of George Bush Drive. It was suggested that this latter possible bikeway on George Bush Drive might perhaps be incorporated into a streetscape type project that would beautify the University's frontage on George Bush from Texas Avenue to Wellborn Road. If further details would be helpful in your response to this issue, please advise me at your earliest convenience. JL/rm cc Mike Strope Elrey Ash Jim Callaway Mark Smith RECEIVED AU 6 2 8 • I ?-J" '"" ~,/, q~? ~Py)/ '4:3 '/ I ..... ;/ .,..... b~r 1". I -.. ·Ive . 7£07'5 !!° fh't411-~ -7~--z ~ _ _.,......_ ___ _ -------i~-T-~~~~~' J2o~o~u~~~~~ • • I r7-?~ --,,cp_r;; ;-/~ (13/ s;; -?rf ---f I --~e'-.y .}~~~" ~ y y.,pl-'Yry~y7 l7Jf r~ rnry_1c; ':' 7"-'df~' -,I/? I plW~(fl-yo :s~~ (;'97 Jo /jy; ~·"VI -7'Cl/· ~-r~7TRP;J /YI> r-z. ~.S v y--p#ii WP/, ~ --~ ~~---..-- ------- "' . -~ . . 3 TOPS ~ 7524-CANARY ~!'>-WHITE ·--~ .. DEPARTMENT OF PLA."TNING Alm l>EVELOPHE rr 301 W. 2~U ST., r. O. BOX l088, AUSTIN, TE.X~S 78767 Dat.fo' :--1( 14 ! ' Tirue: 2-'. \Q PIV'-I' ' Pag~. ~ l _ (Including Cove r ) 1'0: Fax No.: Naru~; Offic e: Phone: C.t:S\\ CQ ''s.:J c s~~···~y'-v \~ ""t\,._;_. "~~+. L\ ~ ~ .. { ~ l-\ -~1 u FROM: N<:>.me : Offi c e : Departn;ent or P. :i nning aflJ D V<' opmen Phone : Fax. No. : (512) 499 -6385 ------------- I:"SS AGE: ----~~---- .... ., . LAnd Dev~ opa4'lnt Code .I' ge 517 -------------·----------------------------------------~-----------------~-~ ec. 1-5-101 HANDICAPPED FACILITIES (a) n ea~h parking facility containing 20 or mo~e spa~es, a portion of the otal number of parking spaces shall be specifically designated, located, and reserved for vehicles licensPrl by the St tQ for us~ by the a dicapped according to the following sehedule. TOTAL SPACES 0-19 20-50 51 -100 101 -150 151-200 201 -1000 1001 a d over HTNJHUM NUH8£R Of HANDlCAPPED SPActs REQUIRED 0 1 2 3 4 2.0X of total $paces 20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1000 ( ) Parking spaces and facilities use by the handicappP.d shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards established by State lav and the Transportation Criteria Manual. (Ord. 990921-K; PART 4, Effective date 10-3-89 ] Sec . 13-5-102 BICYCLE PARK.ING T (a Off-street parking for bicycles for each use shall be provided ih "-accord ~ith minimum requirements prescribed in Sec. 13-5-107. The te m "bicycle" as us~d h~rein shall also include motorized bicycles {M0Pcd3). (1) The location of the bicycle facilities sha11 be at least as convenient as the o t convenient auto parking and as clos~ to the desired ntrances as possible vithout interfering with ped~gtrian traffic. (2 V en the adequate number of bicycle sp~ces for a mixed use development is determined pursuant to Sec. 13-5-100, the type of spaces required hall ls be e ermined. (b Al provisions of this Article pertaining to off-street parking requirtments for autost so far as they do not conflict vith this $ection; shaJl also ~pply to bicycle parking. S~c. 13-5-03 BASIC REGULATIONS: OFF-STREET LOADING (a) Off-street loading facilities shall hP provided for any new building Co structed and for any nev usP PS:tablis:hed . Off-street loading facilhies shall be provided for any addition or enlargem~nt of an existing us~ or any c ange of oc cupan~y or manner of operation that ~ould result in addition~! loading spae being requirPd: provided, however, that the additiot•Ql loading spa e S a be rQqttired only for such addition, enlargement , or change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------Augu · , 1990 hapter 13-5: Transportation ~ 1 T I --r-1L lf1 I I T --. • .~1'1' '·:"'J • j_J 1T:rT t...uid Development Code Use cl~~sificatioo CIVIC USES <l 111 .i11.istrative Service!'; Avi~t)on Facilit ies Ccm tery Cluh or Lodge (ullege ~nd University Facili ties Com unity R ':c;l~:.itjl,11 Conv~]~sccnt Services Cultur~l Services D~y C~re Service~ D~t~ntion ~aciliti~~ Guidanc~ Services l!vspit til :.ervicP.s Local Utility Service~ H~i nt~n?nce i ervice F~cil itiP ~ H;ij ('r lJ\ility ·acilitiei;; H i l i l ;-i r y l 11 s t :\ 11 a ti o JH; f';!!l'k ;:ind P.ecre:'lti(111 d~tvicc:: Fost.11 fncilitie$ Prlr'f'l~r .• Educational F<"tcilitic::; l'u\;lic Assnmhly p~j ro~d rnciliti~~ R~ligious A$~cmuly Safely :.ervices S~t:eincl;ny £du e;~ ti on;:i 1 F::ic i l .it ic::; T t• ;rn s r 0 r t a t i ()II Te rm i n rt ls AGRICULTURAL USES Animal Ptod~1ctio11 C i: n p P l en 1 u <..: t i lll l Ho 1· t i t: 1,1 l tu l ~ ~'~'i'r"r \ Housing { 01' d . R90907-Ii r'/\RT i 0rrl. 890921-K; rART !Ord. 8901)2}.Jl.; P/>.RT I Ot t:l. 912 J -A; l-'AHT Aocrus t, l 990 2' Effective /1' Effective 6, Effoctiv€ 3 , F.ffectiv~ 'Hinim11m JHcycl c Parking R(}quire.od ( :u:: X o £ Motor yehicle S_pa~e} d~te dat~ date 03 tc:: 5' None None 51. 5. ... ,, .),, None s': Y. Schedule sr. 5'; Sche<lule chcdvlc Schedule Schedule sx 5Y. 5X 5},' Schedule St c:hedule 5X 57. None None None ~one 09-17-B9) 10 01 891 10-01-89] 12-17-89] D 0 (l D D D Peg~ 53Z Bjcycle Pacili ty Type Requirement (see Sd1edul-e H) 13 None None D R B None B B Schedule B B Schedule: Schedvl~ Schedule Schedule B c B R Sehc:dulc: B Sched ti 1 e B A Noqc None None lone Ch~pter 13-5: Transpo~tation • I Y I .-.-.1 I 1.""'I I I 1 .-,, " . ._ Jti --• j ....J T I : 1-T D D D ti D D D () !....and Devel opment Code Use Cl assificntion Hln1mum O(f-Streel Parkin Re uirement AGRICULTU RAL USES None Crop r-od1.1ction Hvtli<..:ul l utl,! Suppor Housing 1 space per dvclling unit or pe r 2 pe r sons c apa city F'ART II -BICYCLES ! RP,SIOENTIAL AND COHH.ERCIAL USES Use Cln~~ifl~atlon ALL ~ES IDENTIAL uses comirn cr 1\L usr.s Admi ni~tr~tivc & Busi ness Offices Agricultural Sales and Service$ Autom0live Rentol~ J\utomoti,·e 'Repair Service!; AutomotivA Saloc Au o~olivc ~ashing Il'l.ilding H;iinten ::inc~ Servi ces nus~ness Support Sarvicas Dus:in~;;;; or Tt·:.i r.· Sc l1ool C-'t~ljif~r 01.111d C::n 1 1 (cgc~ St :.i l.ilc C<)<.:kt.:~il Lounge Commercial Off-Street Parking Comm 11n ic~tions Services Construction Sales ~nd ervices C:c;n!.:vme r Convcn i cncc Sc.::ru ices: Cons ume r Repair Services Co1wen i ence Storage Eq~dp11te1 1t. Rera)1· Service::; Equipment Sales rxterminAting Services Financial Services Food Sales runer~l Services Minimum Di c ycle Parking Required (••s v ! Mv l ul Vch) de S aces) None 5~ Norie !'lone None None None None 5t 5X None None 54 ~None Sr. SY. sr. s •; .. None None None None 54 Sr. None Pnge 530 Off-St r eet Load ing Re9uire111ent None None None Bieyc l e Faci l ity Typl? R,~qv j t1?m~11 t (sec Sch<:<dulc H) None B Non(' None None None None None c B No n•.! No Pc B AN one c c c c None None None ~h· n i?. n B None /11 1r;~1!; t' ] 990 Choptcr 13-5: Tr::;rn!lf'<>t t a t :iot1 I .IT I c_nH .;n l I i I '(',::in ·;; 'l...l Land DevP.J opm i:-nt Code Use CJasslfication Gl!!nera Retail Services H(')tel -Ho tel Indoor E n t~tlainment I nd ooi Spin ls and Re c:: rea t :ion Kennels Laundty Services Liquor Sa les )1a ti na Hed ical Offices Outdoor Enterta inment 011td or Sports and Recreation Personal Improvement Services P erson~l Servi~~~ Pet Services rrohs~iurl31 Offices Regional Shopping Mall (Ove r 600,000 sq. fl.) Reseatch Services Restaurant Scrap and ~~lvage s~Lvices Service Station Stables Vehicle Storage Veterinary Sexvices Hiid mvm ni eye 1 e Parking RcquiL~d (as % of Hotor V~hi de Spaces) 5r. Sdrdulf.! L 57. 5>: None sr. SY. None .5 i. 57. sr. sr. :,r. None sr. 2Y. sr. St None None None None None rage 531 Bicycle Pacjlity Type Requirement (see Schedule H} H Schedule I. B B None B c None R l:l B B B N0ne B B 13 B None None None Nune None PART II -BICTCt.ES : .!_NDUSTRIAL, CIVTC:, AND AGRICULTURAi. USES Use Classification INOUSTRIAL USES Basic lndustry Custom Hanufa~turin g GPnPtal Uarehousin& & Distribution Light H ... nufacturinl!: Li111 i I f'O \J~ re:hou~ i 11g o. Oi s r ii l;11 t .i un Resou,ce xtraction toc.ky rds Hinlmum Bi cycl e P~rking Required (us 4 of Koto r Vehicle SpacQ) sr. 57. .) r. s': 5% None None Bicycle Facility Typ~ Requirement (sec Schedule H) B B (I 8 H None None ------------------~---------------------------------~----------------·----- Augus t , 1990 Chapt~r 13-5: Tta11~portation [ - Laud Development Code Page 537 SC!IEUVLE H: Bi cyc:lc Fad Ji tl T)'.l>e Requ i remt:?n t CatcgoE.Y One h<tlf of bicycle spaces sh;ill at l<!i.'.st hi> TypP II ::;pace!; and the remaining half at le(';st Typi:: 1 spAt:P<;, ri:. dc~cribcd in the Transportation Cr iteria Manua l . B All bicycle spaces shall be at l east 'T'ypP TT sp::ic:es, as de~cribed in the Transportation riteria Manual . c One-half of bicy~le spaces shall sp~ces , and the remaining hR f at as described in the Transportat i on SCIIEDULE N be At 1e~st Type II least Type TT T sp::icP.:--;, d teda Mi'nt1<1 l _ Off-Street Parking Requirements [or retirement housing (sm~ll si tP Anrl large site): Dvclling Unit Si~e Efficiency One bed room Two or more bedrooms Spa~es Per Unil (Bas@ Reguirement) 1. 0 l. 25 l . s The required numb@r 0£ off-street parking spaces f or a R~tiYPmPnt Housing (Small Site or Large Site) development may be reduced belov tl1P~P hA~P requirements according to the sch@dule of cred its and additio11<1 l regulations lisc~d below: Credi ts Vi thin 500 feet of an existing retail center which offe rs Food Sales, Personal Services, or General RetAil (limited or general) uses Vi thin 500 feet of a transit route off~ring service a t le~st 12 hours per d~y erved by private bus/van Heal service provided to all residents Housekeeping services to all residents Percentage Re uction lOr. SY. 5., 1. Vhere multiple ci-edits can be appli~d. aftll'r the initial perc~nlag<.? reduction, svbse<:gient r~rtentage t!::!ductions sha l be appliO?d t.o th,:;. h~Lrnrp of parking supply required. Multiple credits sha ll not be added tog~th er and Sl1btta<.:ted from the tot<il tElq\iired p.:irk.ing. August, 1990 Chaple~ 13-5: Tran~po rt~ti on t·J T I C.llH .;n I I l -, • A ::in '? • -, ..J :::"T • +-.T CONTBNTS 7 • 1. 0 GBNBRA.L 7.2.0 TTPJlS AND FUNCTIONA.L CRUACTEllISTICS 7. 2 .1 7 . 2 . 2 Bikevays Types of A. Type B. Type c. Type ikew&ys I Bik•way "Of f-Joad Sikeway" or II ikevay "!!cycle Lane" 1II Bikeway "Bicycle Comp•tible 7.3.0 GBOM'.ITJUC O!SIGN CRITBR.ll 7.J.l Design Criteria for Type k•vay8 A. Design Spttcd B. Curvature c. Gr ade Street" 7.3.2 Desi1n Criteria for Type II end III Bikevays A. Clearance B. Orain•J• Crates C. Railroad Grad~ Crossings D. Bicycle Ramps E. Int~rsections and Crossings 7.3.3 8iaycl• Sign~ and Pav•ment Harking~ TRANSPORTATION 06/01/88 J i,11"';li > I! I r 1--:u I I -~ •, --,,-, -, • _... I ath" SBCI'IOH 7 BIQVAYS Pare No. 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-4 7-4 7-4 7-4 7-4 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-10 7-10 7-10 Page 7-1 SIC'l'lOfi 1 -!I~A! 7 .1.0 Grum.RAL aikevays id~ntifi•d in th~ City'a Bikeway Plan are to be designed to accommodate the necessary criteria as stated in this section. 7.2.0 TYPBS I.NP FUNCTIONAL CB.ARACTDIS IC 7.2.l Bikev•Y• !ikeways identified in the City's Bikeway lan are to b destrn•d to accommodate the necessary criteria as stated in this s@ction. ln moat circumstances, bicycles share the roadway with other vehiclet. An additional three (3) to five (5) feet of pavement width should be u1ed to accommodate cyclists on major collectors and arterials. A 15 foot outer lan~ should be used vhere motor vehicles and bicycles share the outside lane vith no special lane markin1s for th• bicycle. Bicycle lanes, however, re~uire the addition of five (5) feet ~easured from outer lane line to face of cu~b. Sicycle l•nes should he limited to roadways in vhich parkini is prohibited. 7.2.2 Types of ikevays The pref erred ~ethod of providing bicyclt travel depends on the type of user and the primary purpose of the facility. The purpose and design criteri& vill be presented separat~ly for ••ch of the three (3) different typee of bicycle facilit1est (1) Bicycle Path. (2 ) Bicycle L.ant and (3) Bicycle Str•et . A. l'ype I Bikevay •off-Jo&d Bilr.evayM or RBicyc e at • Th~ bicycle path is used primarily for recr~ationa purpose!. It should be located in a park-type settin1 as fat from th• roadvay •• practicable. Intersections vith roadvaye should bt minimiltd and signed to avoid bicycle-motorist conflicts. If the path mus t be in the roadvay right of way there 9hould be a ~inimu di!tane of thrte (3) feet and desi r able five {5) feet sep&rating the path from the roadway. Separation from pedestrians i£ de s irable vhere feasible. Pi1ure 7pl shov5 typical vidth5 and clearanC•$ f or ~~ pAt B. Type II Bikevay • icye e• The bi cycle lane is loc. ed vitt , the vehicu ar r oadt1ay i ou lane and is i n tended f o th' preferentia or ex clusive use of b1cy The bicycle l•ne 1$ usually five (5) eet "ide end i 1neat J means of pavement markings . Typically, bicycle lenes should not bt used on roadYays which allow parkina unless designed to aeeo~modate TRANSPORTATION 06/01/88 Page 7-2 :=:nn 11 r 1 =n H .<r1 1 1 1 ·, ·,-,::in ~ • ..,_~ -.:'T 3.5' des1~oble H l.5' Min. / 8'-12' de::nrcble 3.5' des1,..ebla loE-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lf---i~ 6' Mlrnmum 1.5' Min. Hon. Cletironce 'to Obstocle. NOTE; Thv wider "'1d'\.ti$ :ihould be u$ed wherA high use lS expected. -------~---------------·~--------------~----------------------~------ SoUt·ce: FlGURE 7-1 TRANSPORTATION 06/01/88 Poge 7-3 t I 1 I c_,-,H ~II I I I -, • ' • ~:1 '""1..J both uses. The lane should cease far enough from intersecti on s o allov the cyclist to ~er1e into the traffic flo~ in order to evoid conflict ~1th vehicles turning ri1ht. Bicycle lanes should alvays be one (l) vay because of the haiards associated vith oppo9in1 di1e~tions of traffic. Pisure 7-2 shovs • typical bicycle lane desiin with and without parking. c. Typ~ III 81kevay •s1~ycle Co•patib @ treet" Most cyclists use stre•t• th~t have no special marking' or bi cycl es . Neighborhood and residential collectors are often compatibl• f or b icy cl~ use vithout additional pavement. Collectors and arterials used by commuters and experienced recreational cyclist• require a Mini~um 12 l/2 feet outer lane !or collecto~s and 13 1/2 ftet outer lane for arterials me~sured fro~ outer lane line to the top of iutter for the cyclist to share the lane vith a motorist. Signs may be used to define the street as a bicycle route as determined by the Dir•ctor of the Transportation and Public Services Oepart~ent . Fi111re 7-3 shovs a typical bicycle •treet. 7.3.0 CBOKETR.lC VESIGN CRITmUA 7.3.1 Deaign Cri erh for Typ.. I i k.evaya A. Design Speed The speed that a cyclist tr«vels is dependent upon the a•o~etri feAtures of th• traveled vay, type of bicycle, weather conditions and physical c:ondi tion of the ridu . In determining the desian speed of a bilt.e .... ay, the aeometric features of curvJture, superelevation, grade and width of traveled vay are used to produce a traveling speed that is at l~ast ·~ hi&h as th• preferred !peed of the faster travelers. Nearly al l bicyclists travel vithin a speed range of e•ven (7) to 20 mph v1th an 85th percentile spe~d of 15 mph. Dtsign speeds should USUAlly be 15 mph and on long dovngrades, speeds of 20 mph or ~ore may bt con9idtred. For bike lanes and bike streets, the des1rn speed ntces1ary to serve rnotor vehicle operation l.'111 adf'q11utly serve bicych t raffic nt•d•. B. Curvature for a given design speed of a bike~ay, consideration shou aiven t o the minimum radiu5 of ~urvatute. Yhere bicycle lan@! and bik 1treet1 fo l low the roftdway al!rnment, the curvatures des11ned to ac~ommod•t~ t he motor vehicles vill be more than adequate for bicycles. Bovevcr. care should be taken tor bikevays not par ll~ling roadv~ys to insure that thf' mini~um r~dius of eurvatvre is provided to permit unbraked turn' at the design speed. FiJure 7-4 sho~e a graph for dettrmin1ni the curvatur~ and superelevation for various bikevay d~sign spe•ds. It should be noted that the superelevation should never exceed 0.12 feet per foot. TRANSPORTATION 06101/88 Pa1e 7-4 vHl71 T • t--T Tc. .·r::-te-o n I I 5' l ~~ f'f1.-k1n9 81k• L•n• OPiICJN 'A' OPTION 'B' 5' H1l'I. & • .5'-8.!5' ihke 1:1 ..... , ... -g L"n• -----~-------~-------------------------------------------------------· Sovr-ce: FIGURE 7-2 FIGURE 7·3 • 1z.~· Min. on Colleeote" .~ •• ~. 13.~' Ml!'\,, on Art. .. uol Street.. 06/01/88 h T I hT 2 MlN, "/' Man. lm-w b• .-.cl ... o•d in non•p•de1v1un -·••> Poge 7-5 ) ) ) +I u.. c .. i.... 0 51:111 .. ce: 1 V ~ 10 M,P,H. N "'1" (,,() co '5l IS} IS) '5! . . csi Ci.) 5) ISl Superolevotlon Ro to ~ N ...... """! ISl Cil in Ft../Ft. y'l ten9 + f PLOT OF 1 _.,. -g R 1-f ~e n0 liMfRE 1 V = ve oc1'ty, ft../sec. g = occeler-et 1on f t./ae c~ r = ,..ed1us of curve, ln ft. f = co13f flc1ent of fr·1c.t1 n n CJr1 d ~·y peivfltmwri t :-0.4 ton9 = superelevot1on f"et.e, in f t./ft. CURV~TUAE SHALL BE SASEO ON A liORM~L OESIGri !:il"EEO OF Zfl M.P.H. W'ITH1N LH41TS SHOIJri. EITHff'l THE AADIUS an THE SllPEA£L.CVAtlON MAY eE VA~IEO TO ~ lT lNOTVlOUAL S!iUATlOl'J~. Tlo4F OCPENOf:IJT Vt'AJ.tlBU: HAY &E srLECTtO FRO~ Tl~ ADJACENT CHART. ou:c£,.JCINC O~AOES IN EXCtSS O~ ' PERC£NT WILL HAVE A O~Sl(iN 5P(E0 OF 30 ~.P.~. CLIM81NG OKADES Ir• l:>'.Cf:SS oi: 3 PERCEJJT MAY USE A HS M.P .I<!. OESJGN SPHO. THE: OESCENOltiG CAAOE OfTERMJNES TH£ DESIGN SPF.ED ON TWO-WAY 81K£\JAYS. FIGURE 7-.C Stondor-d S1..1per levot.1on for-1ke• y TRANSPORT ATIOf\l 06/01188 Poge 7 -6 ::-rn tJI l '=.t1H " hT•hT TL ~·iAf DIA Vhere the radius of curvature is less than 100 feet, it is advisable to ~iden the bikevay in order to increase the later•l space required by the cyclist as ht leans to tht inside of a turn. Figure 7-5 •hovs th• methodoloiY used in determining the necessary vidtnini to compensate for lean. The amount of vid•nins should be limited to a maximum of four (4) fut. c. Grade Vhether or not a bikevay is favorable to cyclists is largely dependent upon the rrade and aliin~ent of the bikevay. The amount of enerJY a cyclist txpe~ds in using a bikevay vill affect the usare of the bikevay. Therefore, the 1rades should be kept to a minimum. A bikevay grade should not exceed ten (10) percent. Figure 7-6 shov1 the desirable gradients for various leniths of rrade. Due to Austin'a topography, howev•r, exc~ptiona may be varranted in tome inttance1. Also assodrtted d th duirn speed h stoppini distance. Figure 7-7 gives the stopping sight distance for various speeds •nd related grade9. The stopping $ight diatance for crest vertical curves can be determined from Figure 7-8 . 7.J.2 Desi~ Criteria for Type II and Type I ik.evaya A. Clearance In order to prevent •ncroach~ent conflicts, adequate verti cal and horiiont•l clearances mutt bt provided. The mini~um vertical cl•arance for ov•rhead ob~t~uetions is eight (8) feet. The minimu~ lateral c1e8rance to an obstruction from the ed1e of th• hike~ay ii thrtt (3) feet. These clearances $re illu~trlted in Fi1ure 7-1. B. Drainage Grates For bicycle lanes end bicycle streets, the existing $trett drain•i• inlet grate$ m8y prov~ to be a hazard. Oraina~e inlet 1ratt1 with openings larg• @nougn to entrap narrov bicycle vht•ls thould be prohibited in future construction. Suitable desirn• include, but are not limit•d to diason•l bar~ t a 45 derr•e anil~, •lott•d 1r•t•1 with cross b•r• or slanted bars tran•ve~s• to traffic. L¢nt 1lotted 1rat11 vith vide {one (1) inch or mor•) openin1s parallel to traffic should not be used on streets . C. Railroad Grade Cro1sing The road-surface heiiht should be within one (1) inch of th• track height and th~ $lot betveon road and track Ahould be le$S th«n three (3) in~hes wide. The cyclist needs to eross tht tracks at a perpendicular angl~. It i$ desirable rhat the track angl• be no more than 20 degrees from the roadvay to avoid the cyclist iigzagging into traffic. TRANSPORTATION 06/01/88 Page 7-7 rrn t--J r I CJlH -in I I I-, •, .::in '9 • l,..J R:J:l•~•u• o' """"•t.u.-e tf ,.o,,. F19. 41 \ol• lo'1dV. ~4' b ........ 11 n:C•r1 trC1l 0"'9l• p( Vie QU'""'• ~,. 'th• dwfl•o'-lon l>•k•on "'-""i•".._ ""o.: 1mu"' <wl dwl'llP'19 .,h,.11 b• h"'1t.ltd 1.o ' '••t cJ 11.'.I -- When \l/ldenir~g reoche5 4ft. (~ i;::i5,4• ), thot. 1o11dth sholl be c erned on o r-ed1us of R-4 throvgh the cerit..-el portion of the curve c.6-96.4°) os sho\.11'1 on th~ t-l ght. FIGURE 7-5 JI I I I I I I I I I I -r- I I \ I I \ I I I I ~ I I -...... ~ I ...._ I I _J L • .. 5 • 7 11 L•ng'th of G.-ed• • 1S0h .. -----------------1 --~--~--~~-------·-~-------------------------·~---- Sou.-ce: Adept"d from c~~ of AustJn 81keway Design Mcnuol. iqs0 TRANSPORTATION 06/01/88 Poge 7-8 I I _ _) LANE BlK€ LANE I-NOTE• Lon• l>n., Shell Not Ove.-lep ---------~----------------------------------------------------------- FIGURE 7·18 TRANSPORT ~TlON 06/01/88 Poge 7-12 ~·~ r ~~~r~~OLLEGE ~~-::!~~ ~ College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409)764-3500 August 19, 1993 Lee Cole 2706 Woodcliff College Station, TX 77845 Dear Lee: I was sorry to hear about Scott having an accident on his bicycle. As you know, I am an avid cycler and really do appreciate how dangerous 1t is out on the streets of our community. The Council has agreed that there are pro-active steps we can take to make our community safer and friendlier for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. We are working on two fronts at the staff level. Our planning department and traffic planner are working with a citizen focus group to evaluate and modify the city's master hike and bike plan. They are also working with the Texaspepartment of Transportation district office to apply for federal funds to enhance this area of our transportation network. Your letter to the mayor and council lends support to our shared concerns and efforts and will be forwarded to our planning staff and TxDOT district office, along with our concerns that this vital are~ of the transportation system needs more attention and funds. Thank you for taking time to write! Sincerely, ~ Ron Ragland City Manager /sl cc: Honorable Mayor & City Council Lonnie Traweek, TxDOT District Engineer Tom Brymer, Asst. City Manager/Community Services Elrey Ash, Director of Development Services Ed Hard, Transportation Planner David Pullen, City Engineer b:\citinq\93015.doc Home of Texas A&M University ·.·. . -AUGUST. 3 ~ 1993 ------------~-~------'. 'COLLEGE STATION CITY.COUNC:J;:L . . . . ·. C.ITY·. OF.: COLLEGE STATION ' P~O. BOX 9:9()0 :. . COLLEGE STATIO?i; ,TEXAS . 7?'-842 ,_, . . .. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ·DEzill MAYOR RINGER AND coUNc:i::t. MEMBERS: ,. . . _. . . . . . .. \' . . ON · JUNE 22; 1993i. MY SON. ,.scoT.T; WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE WEST -~>N· .HARVEY ROAD (HWL 30 .. AND :·Tl!E EAsT.: .FE.EDER). HK · ATTEMPTED TO ~< THROUGH THIS INTtRSECTION :AND COLLIDED .WITH A VEHICLE TRAVELLING ' SOUTH·. . SCOTT ADMITTED 'THA1r .HE · DISREGARDED THE SIGNAL AND . . . . PROCEEDED ON A RED · ·LIGHT:. ., HE : STATED . THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO :GET_ . 'THROUGH 'THIS INTERSECT°ION 'ON ·A"GREEN LIGHT DUE .TO THE HEAVY . ·VOLUME OF TRAFFIC TURNING ·NORTH ·FROM BOTH THE .EAST AND WEST BOUND .· 'LANES. EvEN ·.-WHEN THE FEEPER·. ROADS BECOME ONE WAY IN SEPTEMBER~-, . BICYCLISTS AND" PEDESTRIANS WILL liAVE ·A PROBLEM CROSSING ON EITHER Si:DE OF 'THIS INT~ECTION:. , : ~ifli.E OTHER CHILDRE?i IN MY SUBDIVISION . CONFIRM THAT THEY, TOO_, DISREGARD THE SIGNALS AND RUN THE LIGHTS IN 'ORDER TO GET .To THE MALL .OR THAT THEY RUN .ACROSS THE BI-.PASS · · (HWY. 6) DUE TO THE .ENORMOUS GROWTH ·cw COLL.EGE STATION, AND AFTER THE OPENING OF OUR THEATER COMPLEX, MORE CHILDREN WILL EITHER-WALK OR RIDE THEIR BIKES THROUGH THIS .. INTERSECTION. . I AM VERY FEARFUL . THAT IF WE! DO NOT S~ONGLY '.REQUEST PROTECTIVE CROSSINGS ON .ALL FOUR SIDES FROM THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, WE WILL BE MOURNING THE LOSS or CHILDREN WHO BREAK OUR LAWS, BECAUSE WE DO NOT OFFER -THEM PROTECTION. I HAVE SPOKEN TO GEORGE BORSKI OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT WHO , INDEED, ADMITTED THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT OFFERED NO .SOLUTION. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH COMMISSIONER GARY NORTON AND MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, RANDY MICHEL. THESE GENTLEMAN HAVE AGREED TO WRITE A LETTER TO ROBERT ODSTRCIL, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION/OPERATION I WOULD APPRECIATE COUNCIL SUPPORT IN THIS MATTER,IN ANY FORM THAT IS EFFECTIVE WITH THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT .. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SINCERELY YOURS, .~, l Paper No. 9 5 .!. ~ t!f. R. PREPRINT Duplication of this preprint for publication or sale is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the Transportation Research Board. Title: User Counts on Bicycle Lanes and ~folti-Use Trails in the United States Author(s): William w. Hunter and Herman F. Huang Transportation Research Board 14th Annual Meeting January 22-28, 1995 Washington, D.C. ' USER COUNTS ON BICYCLE LANES AND MULTI-USE TRAILS IN THE UNITED STATES William W. Hunter and Herman F . Huang Highway Safety Research Center The University of North Carolina 134-1/2 E. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430 Submitted to the Transportation Research Board for Presentation and Publication Revised December 1994 ABSTRACT The research presented in this paper was conducted as a supplemental activity to the National Bicycling and Walking Study, with the objective of answering the question --if a facility is built, how many people will use it? The first section of this paper examines temporal patterns in the number of bicycle trips along bicycle lanes and trails. Hourly user counts averaged roughly 100 per location for lanes in Gainesville (FL). Madison (WI), Phoenix (AZ), and a trail in Raleigh (NC). Trails in Washington (DC) and Seattle (WA) attracted twice as many daily users on weekends as on weekdays; at one bicycle Jane location in Madison, bicycle volumes on Saturday were one-half those on weekdays . Counts from trails in Eugene (OR), Washington (DC), and Madison were generally three to five times higher during the summer months as they were in the winter. Since 1987, the average daily bicycle volumes per location along bicycle lanes in Gainesv ille. path s in New York City and a trail in Madison, have ranged from 400 to 1,200. In Eugene , the installation of bicycle lanes increased bicycle traffic along the routes by up to 40 percent. This paper also reports information on the mix of bicyclists and pedestrians found on multi-use trails. Along trails in Florida, Rhode Island, and Washington (DC), and one bicycle lane in New York City , bicyclists comprised three-fourths or more of all users. For two bridges in New York City and a trail in California, pedestrians dominated. INTRODUCTION With the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), states, metropolitan planning organizations, and localities have more flexibility to plan for and implement facilities and related programs for bicyclists and pedestrians. Planners, engineers, researchers, and bicycling/walking advocates are all interested in answering the question --if a bicycle or pedestrian facility is built, how many people will use it? The research presented in this paper was performed as a supplemental activity for the National Bicycling and Walking Study, with the objective of gathering information on the number of bicyclists and pedestrians using various facilities . Most of the bicyclist and pedestrian counts pertained to specific geographical areas . Data on bicycle trips were more readily available, perhaps because bicycle advocacy groups have been more active and are more widespread. It may also be that bicycle counts can be done mechanically and are thus less labor intensive. This paper focuses on bicycle trips that occur on bicycle lanes and multi-use facilities . Bicycle trip counts in mixed street traffic and pedestrian trip counts may be found in Hunter, Huang, and Pein (1). The first section of this paper summarizes temporal patterns in bicycle and pedestrian trip counts. Next, information pertaining to the mix of bicyclists and pedestrians on multi-use paths is presented. Possible explanations for the variations in trip counts among facilities are given. Finally, this paper offers guidelines for data collection. TEMPORAL PATTERNS IN TRIP COUNTS Time of Day As with automobile trips, the number of bicycling and walking trips varies by time of day. The city of Gainesville, Florida has records of bicycle counts taken since 1982(2). The number of locations counted has varied from one year to the next. Nine locations were counted from 1989-1991, and in 1992 two other locations were added. The locations have a mix of facilities available: • Location 23 -1.2 m (4 ft) designated bike lane. wide curb lanes, and sidewalks • Location 28 -wide curb lanes and sidewalks • Location 31 -1. 2 m ( 4 ft) designated bike lanes • Location 37 -wide curb lanes and sidewalks • Location 13 -undesignated 1.2 m (4 ft) bike lane and off-street facility with legal status of a sidewalk • Location 15 -designated 1.5 m (5 ft) bike lanes and sidewalks • Location 22 -undesignated 1.1 m (3.5 ft) bike lanes, designated 1.2 m (4 ft) bike lanes, and sidewalks • Location 25 -undesignated 1.1 m (3.5 ft) bike lanes, off-street facility with legal status of a sidewalk, and sidewalks • Location 32 -sidewalks • Location 40 -wide curb lanes and sidewalks • Location 54 -off-street facility with legal status of a side·.;, alk For 1993, counts were obtained in 15-minute inter\'als betwe:n 7 a.m . and 7 p.m. on weekdays, September through December. By time of day. the total :ounts for all 11 locations were lowest from 7 -8 a .m. and 6 -7 p .m. and highest at 8 -9 a.m. and 5 -6 p.m. The volumes were actually quite consistent from 8 a.m. to 6 pm .. with about 850 to 950 bicyclists per hour (total of all 11 sites). This pattern likely ref=cts work and school commuting. Since the 1970's, Madison, Wisconsin has been known as a city where bicycling is both popular and an important part of the local transportation system. The 1991 bicycle transportation plan for Madison and Dane County (.~) reports 159 km (99 miles) of bicycle facilities: Paths Lanes Mixed-traffic routes Sidewalk routes 32 km 21 km 95 km 11 km (20 miles) (13 miles) (59 miles) (7 miles) 2 Additional facilities include many rural farm-to-market roads and county trunk highways with paved shoulders, along with two state bicycle trails. The Madison Department of Transportation has been monitori:Jg bicycle use since the mid 1970's. At the Mills and University intersection near the heart of the University of Wisconsin campus, continuous bicycle counts are made using loop detectors . Two-way bike lanes, both 2 .4 m (8 feet) wide, are located on each side of University. University is a one- 3 way street, so one of the bike lanes is contraflow. The December 1993 weekday average bicycle volume was 2,309 for a 24-hour period. Peak hourly volume was 131 from 10-11 a.m. westbound and 122 from 3-4 p.m . eastbound. Average hourly volume was less than 10 bicycles from 1-8 a .m. eastbound and 1-7 a.m. westbound (Thomas Walsh, City of Madison, Department of Transportation, unpublished data). In Raleigh, North Carolina , the Avent Ferry Road Bicycle Path intersects both Western Boulevard (near the campus of North Carolina State University) and Gorman Street (a little over 1.6 km (1 mile) south of the campus)~). A one-day, twelve-hour count revealed that hourly pedestrian usage at Western Boulevard is highest (90-100) between 7 -9 a .m., fall s to around 60-70 during the mid-day hours , increases slightly between 2 and 4 p .m., then drops to about 50 or lower after 4 p.m. (Figure 1). Bi cycle usage fo llowed a sim ilar pattern. with 50-60 cyclists during peak hours and roughl y 30/hour during mid-day. These patterns likely reflect students travelling to and from class at the University. The peak hours for joggers may be those times when students are not in class . In the morning , most bicyclists are travelling northbound, to campus. Ove r 40 northbound cyclists per hour were counted between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m . During the afternoon, most bicyclists are travelling southbound, away from campus. About 40 southbound cyclists per hour were counted between 3 p .m . and 5 p.m. For the designated "Bike-to-Work Day" on Wednesday, February 28, 1990, the City of Phoenix established a temporary bike route (2.). Orange traffic cones were used to mark off separate bike lanes . A total of 560 unduplicated bicycle trips were recorded that day, approximately 200 more than on an average weekday. Of the 560 trips, 232 occurred between 7 and 9 a.m ., 74 between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., and 254 between 4 and 6 p.m. Eighty percent of 307 survey respondents were making work trips. Time of Day Summary: The summary below shows that hourly user counts averaged roughly 100 per location. Peak hour volumes were about one and one-third times average hourly volumes. The peak times tended to correspond with commuter and university schedules. Total Daily When Average Count Counted Peak Hour Count and Time Hourly Count Gainesville 10,116 1993 969, 5:00 pm -6 :00 pm 843 (12 hours, (88 per location) (77 per location) 11 locations) Madison 2,309 December 131 westbound, 96 (24 hours, 1993 10:00 am -11 :00 am 1 location) 122 eastbound 3:00 pm -4 :00 pm Raleigh 787 pedestrians September 90-100, 7:00 am -9 :00 am 66 pedestrians 435 bicyclists 1988 (pedestrians) 115 joggers (1 2 hours, 50-60, 8:00 am -9:00 am and 36 bicyclis ts 1 location) 3:00 pm -4:00 pm (bicyclists) 10-20, 11 :00 am -12:00 noon and 5:00 pm -6:00 pm 10 joggers (joggers) Phoenix 560 (6 hours, February 254, 7:00 am -9:00 am 93 1 location) 1990 Weekday, Weekend, and Day of Week In some locations , both a weekday and a weekend count were taken. Recreational users are expected to comprise a higher percentage of weekend users compared to weekday users. Where commuting dominates, daily weekend usage may be lower than average weekday usage . At the Mills and University intersection in Madison , Saturday counts were about half the weekday counts and Sunday counts were slightly over one-fourth of the weekday counts (Thomas Walsh, City of Madison Department of Transportation, unpublished data). On the other hand , a 1987 survey found 1, 700 weekend users on a trail near the Kennedy Center in Washington, D . C. but only 860 weekday users(§). A May 1990 survey of users of the Burke-Gilman/Sammamish River Trail in Seattle provides interesting data (Bill Moritz, University of Washington, unpublished data). Six count stations were used along the 40 km (25 miles) of trail from Seattle to Redmond. At the time of the survey all but 2.4 km (1 .5 miles) was a Class I facility. Volunteers worked 4 at stations from 7 a .m. - 7 p.m . on a Saturday and a Tuesday, counting total trail users in each direction by mode of travel and distributing survey cards to willing recipients. About 3,200 cards were returned and analyzed. The weather was moderate and without rain on both survey days. On Saturday, 13,204 bicyclists, 1,153 joggers, 1,367 walkers, and 148 other users were counted. The counts for Tuesday consisted of 4,225 bicyclists, 931 joggers, 992 walkers, and 61 other users. Double counting is present in these totals, but the extent is unknown. A bicyclist traveling completely from one end to the other and back (total of 80 km or 50 miles) would have been counted 12 times. 5 Figure 2 plots the number of bicyclists by time of day at the station near the University of Washington, with westbound being toward the university. Westbound flow peaked at about 190 bicyclists per hour from 2-3 p.m. on Saturday, while eastbound traffi.:: was 140 bicyclists per hour 1-3 p.m. and 4-5 p.m. The Tuesday plot shows two peaks: PO bicyclists per hour westbound from 8-9 a.m. and 180 bicyclists per hour eastbound from 5-6 p.m. Slightly over three-fifths of trail users were male. Saturday users travelled nearly twice as far as Tuesday users (22.4 km vs. 11.9 km) (13.9 vs 7.4 miles) but used the trail only half as frequently (80 times per year vs. 150 times per year). Eugene (population 117 ,000) is centrally located in Oregon and is home to the University of Oregon and its 18,000 students. The community has had a bicycle coordinator in place for some time and is considered to be pro-active for bicycling. The Eugene City Council adopted the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan in 1975 (]_). The plan proposed 120 routes covering 242 km (150 miles). By 1981 , 113 km (70 miles) of bike paths, on-street lanes , and signed routes were in place @). For one-week periods in 1978, daily variations in bicycle volumes at the Autzen Foot Bridge, the Dapple Way Extension (an on-street pedestrian and bicycle connector through a cul-de-sac), and the Ferry Street Bridge in Eugene did not show a consistent pattern (Figure 3) (]). For example, each location had a different peak day. Volumes on the Autzen Foot Bridge and the Ferry Street Bridge showed similar fluctuations by the day of the week. The volumes varied by a factor of two to three through the week. The Autzen Foot Bridge was used by 500 bicycles on Tuesday and 1,500 bicycles on Wednesday. Bicycle volumes on the 6 Ferry Street Bridge varied from 375 to 1,200 per day and were between 150 and 450 per day on Dapple Way Extension. Weekday, Weekend and Day of Week Summary: In Madison, weekday counts were about double the Saturday counts at the Mills and University intersection. Weekend counts were twice as high as weekday counts in Seattle . The peak days for three locations in Eugene were Sunday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Seasonal Figure 4 shows the monthly variation in bicycle volumes on Eugene's North Bank Bicycle Trail for 1974-1977 <]_). The volume was three times higher in the summer months than in the winter (over 300 vs . 110). At two locations along the Washington D. C. Mount Vernon Trail , Belle Haven and Daingerfield Island, automatic counters found that monthly user volumes vary seasonally (Table 1) (Q). The authors do not offer explanations for the unusually high counts at Belle Haven in May 1988 or July 1989, nor for the low count at Daingerfield in July 1988. Data from November 1991 through March 1994 are provided in Table 2 for the University Avenue location in Madison. In both 1992 and 1993, the highest usage occurred in September and October, when students have returned to the university and the weather is still mild. The counts were the lowest during the winter months. Peak hour volumes are generally 10 to 15 percent of the total. Table 3 shows the average 24-hour weekday automatic bicycle counts on the Law and Brittingham Park Paths in Madison from 1988 through 1992 (Thomas Walsh, City of Madison Department of Transportation, unpublished data). These are off-road facilities on park lands in the central business district that are close to the downtown and the university campus. Both commuter and recreational cyclists use the paths. The total length of the system is 6.0 km (3 .7 miles), and segments are nominally 2.4 -3.1 m (8-10 feet) wide. The counts are quite stable from one year to the next, with use tending to be 5-6 times higher April -October as in winter. Seasonal Summary: 7 Monthly and seasonal fluctuations in trip counts depend in large part on weather conditions. User volumes were generally highest during the summer and lowest in the winter. Examples of daily summer/winter counts include 697 vs. 138 on paths in Madison between 1988 and 1992 . At Daingerfield along the Mount Vernon Trail , the January-March 1988 monthly average was 3,807, increasing to 13 ,951 for April-September 1988. Annual Trends An examination of annual trends in daily counts can reveal changes in long-term travel behavior. Increases in daily counts over time may reflect a higher overall number of trips and/or modal shifts in favor of bicycling and walking . A northbound bicycle lane runs along A venue of the Americas in the Manhattan (New York City) Central Business District (2). The southbound lane runs along Broadway from Columbus Circle south to 24th Street, then continues south along Fifth A venue to Washington Square Park North. Since 1982, the Avenue of the Americas bike lane has had 12-hour volumes ranging from 772 to 1,594 (Figure 5). Volumes along Broadway/Fifth A venue ranged from 400 to 954 . As Table 3 shows, the annual average daily bicycle traffic on Madison 's Law and Brittingham Park Paths ranged from 414 to 552 (City of Madison Department of Transportation, unpublished data). The monthly average daily volume varied from 141 in January 1991 to 1,243 in June 1992. Twelve-hour (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) daily bicycle and pedestrian counts were taken for the bicycle paths along New York City 's Brooklyn Bridge, Queensboro Bridge, and Williamsburg Bridge (2). On the Brooklyn Bridge, average daily bicycle counts ranged from a low of 690 in 1989 to a high of 1,633 in 1987 . The number of pedestrians was 1, 190 in 1980 and 2,357 in 1987. The peak year for bicycles on the Queensboro Bridge was 1982 (811 bicycles counted) and for pedestrians, 1986 (408 pedestrians). In 1984, 501 bicycles used the Williamsburg Bridge bicycle path. By 1990, that total had declined by one-half, to 248. Table 4 shows the trend in 12-hour counts in Gainesville, Florida, from 1982 to 1993. Peak volumes occurred from 1984 -1986. The largest increase over the 11-year period (68.6 percent) occurred at Location 31 (1.2 m (4 ft) bicycle lanes) . The overall decrease in 1990 may be directly related to five student homicides. Location 28 (wide curb lanes and sidewalks), which is near the university, had the most pronounced decline (23.4 percent). For all 11 locations (intersections) combined, the total counts increased by 1, 128 (12 .6 percent) between 1992 and 1993 . In general, more bicyclists were observed at locations near the University of Florida (locations 23 , 28. 31 . and 37 as listed above). Thes e four locations accounted for 72 percent of the total, and all have bicycle facilities that feed into the intersection (Linda Dixon, City of Gainesville bicycle/pedestrian coordinator, unpublished data). Annual Trend Summary: The average daily bicycle counts per location in each city since 1987 are shown below: New York Gainesville Madison New York (bicycles on bridges) 1987 1067 NIA 767 812 1988 1023 464 1074 533 1989 1175 414 1038 451 1990 988 448 1102 517 1991 1108 552 930 893 1992 817 442 NIA NIA 1993 920 NIA NIA NIA N >TE: NIA = Not a pp hcable. 8 9 The data do not exhibit a consistent overall trend in any of the cities. Inspection of the most recent five years for which data are available shows that average bicycle counts per location dropped 255 (21.7 percent) in Gainesville, dropped 22 (4 .7 percent) in Madison, and increased 163 (21.3 percent) for bicycle lanes in New York. Average bicycle traffic on bridges in New York fell by nearly half 1987-1989, then rebounded . Year-to-year fluctuations can result from weather conditions, changes in local employment levels, facility improvements, changes in university enrollment, and any number of other reasons. Before and After Studies Before-and-after studies are intended to reveal the net change in the number of bicycling and walking trips along a facility before and after the facility was installed . This section also presents data for Phoenix, where baseline bicycle volumes are compared with those observed during Bike to Work Week. In the late 1970's in Davis, California , bicycle counts were taken along Anderson Road, Sycamore Lane, and Oak Avenue a few weeks before and one week after a bicycle lane was painted onto Anderson Road (J_Q). The three-hour (7:30 -8:30 a.m . and 3:30 - 5: 30 p. m .) ridership increased by 103 each on Anderson Road (7 percent) and Sycamore Lane ( 12 percent) and by 95 on Oak A venue ( 14 percent). The percent increase in bicycle traffic on Anderson Road with the bicycle lane was less than that on the other two routes, but along Anderson Road, the number of riders 25 years and older increased by 87 percent, from 255 to 477. Interviews with 108 cyclists living near the University of California -Davis revealed that 45 percent of the cyclists who had previously used other routes switched to Anderson Road. In Eugene, Oregon , bicycle lanes were installed along six streets in August 1993 (City of Eugene Public Works -Transportation Division, unpublished data). "Before" counts were taken in August, shortly before the lanes were installed, for a seven-hour peak count , and totalled 1, 309. "After" counts taken one year later totalled 1, 628, for an overall increase of 243 (see summary data below). Street August 1993 August 1994 Percent Change 8th Avenue 174 202 + 163 11th Avenue 226 256 +133 13th Avenue 438 527 +203 18th Avenue 148 196 +323 Chamelton Street 169 231 +373 Lincoln Street 154 216 +403 The Greenway Bridge in Eugene , Oregon , spans the Willamette River and connects existing bicycle paths on either side of the river. According to one-day surveys of 735 bicyclists using the Greenway Bridge and two other bridges in May 1978 and of 535 bicyclists in April 1978, work trips accounted for about 30-40 percent of all weekday trips (11). Another 15-20 percent of weekday trips were school trips. Although thi s survey was not conducted before the Greenway Bridge ,,·as built, about half of the bicyclists surveyed crossing the Greenway Bridge would not have made their trips if the bridge had not been built. The survey findings suggest that the Greenway Bridge eliminated about 500 automobile trips per week . Summer weekday counts on the Greenway Bridge exceeded 1, I 00 in 1982 , and weekend counts surpassed 2, 000 (~). 10 The C ity of Phoenix has been actively encouraging the use of bicycles for commuting through implementation of facilities, adding bicycle racks to all city buses, and providing showers and lockers at selected city buildings . The bicycle network totals 483 km (300 miles) and includes separate paths, on-street bike routes (signed only), striped bike lanes, and wide sidewalks Q1). There are more than 161 km (100 miles) of on-street bike lanes. More than 1127 km (700 miles) of various facilities will eventually be included in the network. Baseline bicycle usage volumes and riding characteristics data were obtained on nine bike lanes throughout the city in November and December of 1991 (1). Trained observers gathered the information for seven hours (7 :00 to 9:00 a.m., 11 :00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) at each of the nine locations . The times selected targeted commuting bicyclists. Two locations had traffic signals that could be actuated by bicyclists through special push buttons. Bike to Work Week was held February 24-28, 1992, and two special group rides were arranged for the Tuesday of that week . Data were collected at five of the original nine 11 sites during morning and afternoon commute times (total of five hours). Data collection was matched to the same day of the week as the baseline observations obtained earlier, except for the location (23rd Avenue) where an organized group ride was held. Comparative results are shown in Table 5. Observations were made on weekdays and in good weather conditions. Overall, 480 bicyclists were observed in November and December, or about eight per hour. Highest use was 16.7 bikes per hour (Lafayette Boulevard) during the late afternoon commute time. In general, volumes were highest in late afternoon (10.4), followed by early morning (7.2) and then midday (3 .9), but this would be expected , in that bicycle commuters were being targeted. In February, a total of 283 bicyclists were observed. or about 11 per hour. The number of cyclists per hour actually declined for Washington Street at 28th Street. An increase of about 50 percent during the morning and afternoon peak hours was seen on Campbell Avenue. The hourly flow during the morning commute on 23rd Avenue (where an organized group ride was held) more than doubled, from 10.5 to 24.5 . Before and After Summary: In Eugene, bicycle counts increased 24 % overall following the installation of bicycle Janes. Morning peak counts were about 503 higher during a Bike to Work Week in Phoenix. Counts increased from 7-14 percent at three locations in Davis, and bicyclists 25 years and older were particularly attracted onto one of the locations . Eugene Phoenix Davis (Anderson Road) -all bicyclists -bicyclists 2_ 25 yrs A VERA GE HOURLY COUNT PER LOCATION Before After 31 39 8 11 491 526 85 159 12 THE MIX OF BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS ON MULTI-USE PATHS Many facilities are built to serve multiple users, such as bicyclists , walkers, and joggers. These multi-use trails and paths are usually completely segregated from motor vehicle traffic. They are sometimes created along abandoned railroad corridors. As these trails often traverse parks, greenways, or other wooded settings, many cyclists and pedestrians use the trails for recreational purposes. Other trails are used by individuals commuting to and from work or school. This section presents trip counts for multi-use trails and paths. When available, information regarding the mix of bicyclists and pedestrians is given. Bicyclists and pedestrians were manually counted at five intersections spread along a 23 .5 km (14 mile) bike path built in 1990 between Providence and Bristol, Rhode Island CU). Counts were taken weekdays from 5-7 p.m . and weekends from 9-11 a.m. The counts were adjusted to estimate the average daily bicycle traffic (ADBT). The data showed an average modal split of 80 '7c bicycles and 20 % pedestrians. Several sources of counts on trails in and near Washington , D. C. are quoted in a report compiled by the Denver Service Center (§). In August 1983 , an 11.5-hour Sunday count found 1,048 users along a section of the Mount Vernon Trail south of Alexandria. Fifty-five percent of the total were cyclists, with runners/joggers and walkers accounting for the remainder. An 11 .5-hour Monday count found 788 users and nearly the same distribution of cyclists, runners, and walkers. A 1985 study counted 820 users per day on the Mount Vernon Trail at the Memorial Bridge but only 400 users per day at the 14th Street Bridge. The mix of users varies by location along the trail. At the Memorial Bridge, 50 percent of the users were cyclists and 60-65 percent were commuters. Nearly four-fifths of the users at the 14th Street Bridge were cyclists: 75-80 percent were commuters. At both locations, adult males comprised 80 percent of the users . In August 1993, the Oregon Department of Transportation set up two interview stations to interview users of the I-205 bike path in Portland (H). One station was operated for ten hours on one day only; the other station was operated for ten hours on each of two days. Bicyclists comprised 598 (64 percent) of the 932 users who passed the interview 13 stations and 217 (77 percent) of the 281 users who completed a questionnaire . Of the cyclists who completed a questionnaire, 38 percent listed travel as a trip purpose, 67 percent listed recreation, and 86 percent cited exercise. The average bicyclist rode 2.5 times per week and 19 km (12 miles) on the path. A weekend count conducted on a 6.4 km (4-mile) bicycle/pedestrian path in Brooklyn, New York, in September 1989 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. revealed 1,200 cyclists and 1, 100 pedestrians (John Benfatti, New York City Department of Transportation, unpublished data). When the Central Park Drives are closed to motor vehicles during the summer, 1,300 bicyclists use the drives IO a .m. to 3 p.m. Another 1, 100 cyclists use the drives 7 p.m . -10 p.m. Through the years, more pedestrians than bicyclists have used the Brooklyn Bridge bicycle path in New York City. In 1991. the daily averages were 1,183 bicyclists and 1,688 pedestrians. On the other hand , every year bicyclists outnumbered pedestrians on the Queensboro Bridge --by 602 to 140 in 1991 (a factor of 4.3). Pedestrian counts for the Williamsburg Bridge were done only in 1987 and 1989. In 1987, there were more bicyclists (368 vs 262), but in 1989, pedestrians dominated (467 vs. 248). A sample of three diverse rail-trails from across the U.S. was studied during 1990 and 1991(12). Eight years old at that time, the 42 km (26-mile), crushed limestone surfaced Heritage Trail traverses rural farmland in eastern Iowa. This trail was estimated to have 135 ,000 visits annually --65 percent bicycling, 29 percent walking, and 6 percent other. The two-year old, 26 km (16-mile) paved St. Marks Trail parallels State Road 363 and begins on the outskirts of Tallahassee, Florida and passes through small communities and forests toward the Gulf of Mexico. An estimated 170,000 people used this trail annually -- 81 percent bicycling, 9 percent walking, and 10 percent other. The 14 year-old Lafayette/ Moraga Trail is a 12 .2 km (7 .6-mile) paved trail 25 miles east of San Francisco, California and travels almost exclusively through developed suburban areas. This trail had an estimated 400,000 annual visits --20 percent bicycling, 63 percent walking, and 17 percent other. The Pinellas trail is a popular facility on the west coast of Florida connecting Clearwater with Largo and St. Petersburg. At present about 53 km (33 miles) of trail are open with 77 km (47 miles) planned to be built in the next few years. The trail is nominally 14 4 .6 m (15 feet) wide (3 .1 m (10 feet) for bicycles and in-line skaters and 1.5 m (5 ft) for pedestrians) and paved with asphalt. A 12-hour (6:30 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m.) survey of users was conducted on Tuesday, November 9, 1993 by the Pinellas County Department of Planning (Kay Medwick, Pinellas County Department of Planning, unpublished data). Eight locations near traffic generators such as schools, shopping centers, recreation areas, and medical centers were used as survey sites along the 37 km (23 miles) of trail in use at the time of the survey. Volunteers handed out a brief, self-administered questionnaire to trail users. To protect against double counting, users were asked if they had already filled out a survey . The survey produced 967 responses, and participation was felt to be good. The weather on the survey day was good, although a predkted 60 percent chance of showers may have lowered actual trail use. While the bi cyclist versus pedestrian mix was unavailabl e, other survey results indicated that: • use varied little by time of day • 63 3 of the users were male • 64 % were adults aged 25-65 • 40 3 live less than 0.4 km (1/4 mile), and 35 3 live more than 1.6 km (1 mile) from the trail • 55 3 usually travel less than 8.1 km (5 miles) each way on the trail , and 45 % more than 8.1 km (5 miles) • 88 % used the trail at least twice a week. and 45 3 at least five days per week • 67 3 use the trail for recreation, exercise. etc., and 33 3 for transportation to work, school , stores, etc. • 60 % of commuters use the trail fi ve days per week, and 87 3 at least two days per week • 51 % used a bike to get to the trail , while 27 3 walked, 203 used a car, and 2 3 some other means • the distance from trail to destination was less than 0.4 km (114 mile) for 293 of users, and more than 1.6 km (1 mile) for 41 3 of users Multi-Use Path Mix of Users Summary: The information pertaining to multi-use trails is summarized below. Average combined bicycle and pedestrian volumes per hour ranged from 25 to 240. On most facilities, bicyclists dominated, by as much as 81 to 19 percent. Pedestrians outnumbered bicyclists on three facilities. Percent Total Users Average 15 Per Day Per Hour Walkers/ Bicyclists Joggers Providence -Bristol, RI 200-4751 NIA1 80 20 East Bay Bike Path Washington, DC Mt. Vernon Trail south of 1,048 (11.5 hrs. Sunday) 91 55 45 Alexandria 788 (11 .5 hrs. Monday) 69 55 45 Memorial Bridge 820 NIA 50 50 14th Street Bridge 400 NIA 78 22 Portland, OR 1-205 932 (30 hrs) 31 64 36 New York, NY Brooklyn, bicycle/ped. path 1,200 cyclists l 12 hrs) 100 52 48 1,100 pedestrians (12 hrs) 92 Brooklyn Bridge, 1991 l, 183 cyclists (12 hrs) 99 41 59 1,688 pedestrians (12 hrs) 141 Queensboro Bridge, 1991 602 cyclists (12 hrs) 50 81 19 140 pedestrians (12 hrs) 12 Williamsburg Bridge, 1989 248 cyclists ( 12 hrs) 21 35 65 467 pedestrians (12 hrs) 39 Iowa Heritage Trail 135 ,000/year3 25' 65 35 Florida St. Marks Trail 170, OOO /year3 31 4 81 19 Pinellas Trail 967 (I 1.5 hrs) 84 NIA NIA California Lafayette/Moraga Trail 400, OOO/year3 NOTES: 1 Estimated average daily bicycle traffic based on 2-hour counts. ~ NI A = Not available. 734 3 Estimated based on surveys administered over a 12-month period, two days per week. representing 15 hours per day. • 15 hours/day. DISCUSSION 20 The bicycle and pedestrian counts reported in this paper vary widely from one location to another and even on the same facility (Table 7). Comparisons among cities are difficult, given variations in the time periods counted. For instance, the counts in Davis 80 16 were taken during one hour in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. Without information as to how counts vary throughout the day, a 12-hour or 24-hour estimate of usage cannot be obtained. In other cities. daily counts were taken over longer periods, such as 6, 12, or 24 hours . Some cities counted on only one or two selected days . The values thus obtained may not be representative of an average day during the year. Weekend counts tend to include a higher proportion of recreational users than weekday counts. Weekend totals may be higher, as in Eugene and Seattle, or lower, as in Madison, perhaps depending on the relative numbers of recreational users and commuters. Summer counts are higher than winter counts because of favorable weather conditions, as evident in Madison and Washington. It was beyond the scope of this research to investigate other possible explanations such as local land use patterns (which generate and attract trips) for variations in the counts among cities. With the variations in time periods, it is difficult to determine whether cities with high population densities (such as New York City) or college towns (Davis , Eugene, Madison, Gainesville) have higher volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians than other cities. A related question is , how many people would use the facility if the university were not there? A case study executed as part of the National Bicycling and Walking Study found higher rates or modal splits for bicycle commuting in college towns compared to other cities, perhaps because college towns were characterized by shorter commuting distances and higher ratios of bicycle lane mileage to arterial mileage than other cities (1§). Daily university class schedules are reflected by the hourly variations in counts on the A vent Ferry Road Bicycle Path in Raleigh. Counts along University Avenue in Madison were higher even in November than in the wanner months of June-August, because school was in session. Other factors that are likely to increase bicycle and walking trips are the availability of a connected bicycle lane or path network and the presence of light to moderate levels of motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle and pedestrian volumes may vary because of promotional activities (such as Bike to Work Week in Phoenix) or special situations (fear following the homicides of students at the University of Florida). Local terrain and the physical condition of facilities can also affect individuals' choices to walk or bicycle at all and their decisions to use a facility. 17 CONCLUDING REMARKS The counts in a number of cities suggest that bicycle lanes and bicycle paths can realize volumes of 1,000 - 2,000 per day, at least when weather conditions permit (Table 7). While planners in other cities may use these figures as a crude estimate of bicycle travel, they must be aware that counts obtained in one city may not generalize to other cities because of the conditions and limitations under which the counts were made. We did not find any studies that related bicyclist and pedestrian trip generation to a comprehensive range of land uses. However, Brownell estimated bicycle usage of a then- proposed 23 .3 km (14 .5 mile) bicycle facility between Providence and Bristol , Rhode Island (17). He relied upon the trip generation equations that estimated the total number of bicy cle trip s generated by each analysis zone in the facility 's area of influ ence as a function of employment, school enrollment, and population. If a local modal split is known or can be estimated, then that can be applied to trip generation rates given in the ITE's Trip Generation Manual ill) to estimate the number of bicycle and pedestrian trips that a particular land use would generate. Thus, the trips generated by a proposed trail can be estimated according to the existing building types and floor space. Sometime after the trail is in place, the estimates should be compared with actual counts, to evaluate and refine this "modal split" approach and other methodologies that rely upon equations . Ideally, it would be possible to estimate trips directly from some combination of building type, floor space, population, bicycle ownership rates, and information from surveys asking people whether they would switch to a proposed facility or where they would have biked and walked had the facility not been built. To achieve this ideal. a national database would be needed to provide the data for deriving equations that can be used to estimate trips . Trip counts inform the evaluation of facilities. An ideal approach might involve counting the number of bicyclists and pedestrians using an existing facility or street that serves as an important route before a new facility is installed, and then counting the number of users on both the existing and new facilities after installation. The inclusion of a control site will provide an indication of whether overall bicycle and pedestrian tripmaking is 18 changing. When staff and funding are available, trips should be counted at various locations for at least 10-12 hours per day, with days scattered throughout the year. Observers could note the gender and approximate age of users and distribute surveys to ask users about trip purposes and distances traveled. If only the number of users is desired, automatic counters provide continuous counts. The National Bicycling and Walking Study (12) discussed the benefits associated with increased levels of bicycling and walking. Surveys show that more people would bike and walk if there were more safe, attractive, convenient and well-maintained facilities -- sidewalks, trails, bike lockers, etc. Information about how many bicyclists and pedestrians are likely to use a proposed facility gives an indication of its benefits, and thus, whether it is worth the investment. From another perspective, transportation planners would have a sense for the role of bicycling and walking in the overall transportation scene. Traditionally, planners and other officials have given little, if any, consideration to nonmotorized modes of transportation. Given the requirements of ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments, bicycling and walking may become more key components of the American transportation system. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Federal Highway Administration funded this research as pan of the National Bicycling and Walking Study. REFERENCES 1. Hunter, William W., Huang, Herman, F., and Pein, Wayne E. A Compendium of Available Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generation Data in the United States. Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, July 1994. 2. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 1993. Bicycle Usage Trends Program. Gainesville, FL. Author, 1994. 3. Dane County Regional Planning Commission and Madison Department of Transportation. (In cooperation with the Pedestrian/Bicyclist Subcommittee of the Madison Transportation Commission.) A Bicycle Plan for the City of Madison and Dane County. Wisconsin. Madison, WI. Author, 1991. 4 . Greenways Incorporated, Transportation Potential and Other Benefits of Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Case Study No. 7 for the National Bicycling and Walking Study, Report No. FHWA-PD-92-040. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC, 1992. 5. Heffernan and Associates. Evaluation Study : Bike-to-Work DaY, February 28. 1990 . Prepared fo r the City of Phoenix. April 1990. 6 . Denver Service Center (Eastern Team). "Paved Recreation Trails of the National Capital Reg ion: Recommendations for Improvements and Coordinati on to Form a Metropolitan Multi-Use Trail System." Washington, DC, June 1990. 19 7 . Regional Consultants, Inc. Evaluation of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Eugene, Oregon, July 1979. 8 . Bikeways Oregon, Inc. Bicycles in Cities : The Eugene Experience, Vol. II , 1981 . 9 . New York City Department of Transportation. New York City Bicycle Statistics 1991. November 1992. 10. Lott, Dale, F .. Tardiff, Timothy, and Lott, Donna Y. "Evaluation by Experienced Riders of a New Bicycle Lane in an Established Bikeway System. -Transportation Research Record 683 , 1979, pp . 40-46. 11. Lipton, S.G. Evaluation of the Eugene, Oregon, Greenway Bicycle Bridge . In Transportation Research Record 739, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1979. pp. 29-37. 12. Cynecki, Michael J., Perry, Grace, and Frangos, George. "A Study of Bicyclist Characteristics in Phoenix, Arizona." Transportation Research Record 1405. Washington, DC, Transportation Research Record , 1993. 13 . Rhode Island Department of Transportation. 1990 Estimated BicYcle Volumes -East Bay Bicycle Path. Providence, RI , May 1991. 14. Ronk.in , Michael (Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation). Memorandum to Larry Olson (Region I Support Services Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation) regarding 1-205 bike path survey, December 7, 1993. 20 15 . Moore, Roger L., Graefe, Alan R., Gitelson, Richard J., Porter, Elizabeth. The Impacts of Rail-Trails: A Study of the Users and Property Owners from Three Trails. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, February 1992 . 16. Goldsmith, Stewart A. Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are and Are Not Being Used More Extensively as Travel Modes. Case Study No . 1 for the National Bicycling and Walking Study , Report No . FHWA-PD-92-041. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1992. 17. Brownell , John E. Providence-Bristol Bicycle Facility Trip Estimates . Rhode Island Department of Transportation Planning Division, Providence, RI, August 1982 . 18 . Institute of Transportation Engineers . Trip Generation Manual. 5th edition. Washington, DC. 1991. 19. National Bicycling and Walking Study . Report No. FHWA-PD-94-023 . Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1994. LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Mont!L y user volumes at two locations along the Mount Vernon Trail, Washington, D.C. Table 2. Monthly bicycle counts, University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin. Table 3. A verat~ 24-hour weekday bicycle traffic by month, Law and Brittingham Park Parbs, Madison, Wisconsin. Table 4. Bicycl: volumes, Gainesville, Florida, 1982-1993 . Table 5. Sunun:..:-y of bicycle observations in Phoenix . Table 6. Surnm.:.ry of bicycle counts. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Houri:· usage, Avent Ferry Road Bicycle Path at Western Boulevard, Raleigh, Kerth Carolina. Figure 2. Bicyc:ists by time of day, Burke-Gilman Trail near the University of W.ishington, Seattle, Washington. Figure 3. Daily variation in bicycle volumes, Eugene, Oregon. Figure 4. Voluc~s along two bicycle lanes , New York City. Table 1. Monthly user volumes at two locations along the Mount Vernon Trail, Washington, D.C. (§). Belle Haven Daingerfield Month 1988 1989 1988 1989 January 779 2,526 927 3,344 February 2,347 4,159 2,791 5,541 March 6,327 10,128 7,703 12,905 April 9,718 6,624 13 ,435 11 ,095 May 26,613 13 ,074 16,3 86 16 ,434 June 15 ,491 14,929 17 '723 16 , 180 July 15 ,383 43 ,674 7,262 18 ,941 August 13 ,652 13,652 14,859 15,355 September 2,156 10,501 14 ,043 14,428 October n/a 9,904 n/a 19, 129 November n/a n/a n/a n/a December n/a n/a n/a n/a Table 2. Monthly bicycle counts, University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin.1 Date Total Date Total Nov. 1991 3376 Jan. 1993 1148 Dec. 1991 1981 Feb . 1993 2122 Jan. 1992 1328 Mar. 1993 1707 Feb. 1992 2310 Apr. 1993 3634 Mar. 1992 2571 May 1993 3216 Apr. 1992 3466 June 1993 2921 May 1992 3574 July 1993 3418 June 1992 3179 Aug . 1993 2660 July 1992 3420 Sept. 1993 6486 Aug. 1992 2759 Oct. 1993 5895 Sept. 1992 6594 Nov . 1993 4430 Oct. 1992 5927 Dec . 1993 2309 Nov. 1992 3707 Jan. 1994 2343 Dec. 1992 1924 Feb. 1994 1231 Mar. 1994 2429 a Thomas Walsh, City of Madison, Department of Transportation, unpublished data . Table 3. Average 24-hour weekday bicycle traffic by month, Law and Brittingham Park Paths, Madison, Wisconsin. a (Average of Three Automatic Recording Stations) 5-Year Months 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Average January 42 89 119 41 107 80 February 1, 8 67 143 127 71 105 March 208 90 238 178 225 188 April 367 474 192 408 355 359 May 840 551 536 1083 601 722 June 1063 1096 785 1160 1243 1069 July 942 672 766 1152 702 847 August 778 747 924 959 678 817 September 581 546 830 763 560 656 October 335 369 524 399 409 407 November 207 176 231 217 253 217 December 91 93 90 142 101 103 Annual Total 5572 4970 5378 6629 5305 5571 Annual Avg 464 414 448 552 442 464 Apr-Oct Avg 701 637 651 846 650 697 Wintet Avg 133 103 164 141 151 138 3Thomas Walsh, City of Madison, Department of Transportation, unpublished data . Table 4. Bicycle volumes, Gainesville, Florida, 1982-1993 .3 YEAR NUMBER INTERSECTION 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 13 NW 34th Street and NW 39th Avenue 93 105 130 162 111 84 129 15 S. Main Street and SW 2nd Avenue 804 NIA 669 630 529 560 518 22 SW 34th Street and SW 20th Avenue 795 1,312 1,251 1,053 893 626 731 23 SW 13th Street and SW 16th Avenue 760 1,478 1,824 2,026 1,231 1,369 1,384 25 SW 34th Street and SW 2nd Avenue 594 NIA 1,066 1,296 853 867 760 28 W 13th Street and W University Avenue 2,085 NIA 2,479 3,188 2,873 2,327 1,944 31 SW 23rd Terrace and Archer Road 956 NIA 1,268 1,368 1,191 732 1,034 32 NW 34th Street and NW 8th Avenue NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 37 W 17th Street and W University Avenue NIA 3,714 3,139 3,365 3,646 2,876 2,484 40 E 9th Street and E University Avenue NIA NIA 247 225 247 165 224 54 NW 23rd Avenue and 83rd Street NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA D II TOTAL 6,087 6,609 12,073 13,313 11,574 9,606 9,208 D Figure includes data for locations where available. NIA= Counts were not taken at th.is location for this year. 1989 157 566 812 1,564 868 2,462 1,121 NIA 2,768 259 NIA 10,577 Note: It should be nOled that 1990 counts were taken during and immediately following the live student homicides in the Fall of 1990. During this tense period in Gainesville, students were advised to travel in groups and avoid after dark travel. This m11y e:itplain the decrc.1se in bicycle volume observed in the Fall of 1990. Incidentally, the decrease in bicycle volume is noticed primarily at locations adjacent to the University of Florida campus and not other locations in Gainesville. 3Linda Dixon, City of Gainesville bicycle/pedestrian coordinator, unpublished data. 1990 1991 1992 1993 156 176 187 143 581 667 668 529 957 732 675 631 897 1,621 1,493 785 767 929 697 819 1,886 2,112 1,504 2,290 1,121 1,144 I, 134 1,612 NIA NIA 297 410 2,305 2,281 1,508 2,594 225 314 224 233 NIA NIA 601 70 8,895 9,976 8,988 10, 116 Table 5. Summary of bicycle observations in Phoenix (li). November -December 1991 February 1992 Bikes Per Hour Bikes Per Hour Traffic Number Number Location Control Observed llam -Observed 7-9 am 3-6 pm 7-9 am 1 pm 3-6 pm 23rd Ave at Traffic 86 10.5 11 .0 14 .3 100 24.5 17 .0 Camelback Rd Sig nal Encanto Blvd Traffic 34 4 .0 1.5 7.7 30 4.5 7.0 at 7th Ave Signal 7th St at Traffic 47 5.0 2.5 10.7 38 5.0 9.3 Broadway Rd Signal Washington St Traffic 47 7.0 3.5 8.7 36 5.5 8.3 at 28th St Signal Campbell Ave Traffic 60 10.0 4.0 10.7 79 15 .5 16 .0 and 28th St Signal Encanto Blvd Stop 58 6.0 3.0 13 .3 NAa NA NA and 39th Ave Sign Lafayette Blvd Stop 90 16 .0 4 .0 16 .7 NA NA NA at Arcadia Sign Sweetwater Stop 29 3.5 2.0 6.0 NA NA NA at 28th St Sign 3rd Ave at Kone 29 3.0 3.0 5.3 NA NA NA Encanto Blvd (One-Way) Total 480 7.2 3.9 10.4 283 11.0 11.5 a NA = ~ot available. Table 6. Summary of bicycle counts. Location Type of f-'acili1y Time Period Range of Counts Clearwater-Largo-Pinellas Trail 11/9/93 967 total St. Petersburg, FL 6:30 am -6:00 pm weekday 2,000 -3,000 users 33 % use trail to go to work, school, shopping Davis, CA On-street bicycle lane Weekdays, 1974 : 2551 3 hours before 7:30 am -8:30 am 4 77 I 3 hours after 3:30 pm -5:30 pm Eugene, OR Bicycle path Summer weekday, 1978 1, 100/day Summer weekend, 1978 2,000/day Bicycle lanes Weekday, 1978 100-3,000/day Bicycle path 1974-1977 100-400/day Bicycle paths 1977, 1978; Tue, Thu, Sat: 2,6, or 10.5 hrs Bicycle routes 5/21178-5/27178 at 2 < 200 -> 1,400/day locations Bicycle lane & path 9/26178-10/2178 450/day lane One week, 12 N to 11 pm 567 /day path Gainesville, FL Urban intersections 1993: 7 am -7 pm 70-2,594/day connected to bike lanes, wide curb lanes, sidewalks Madison, WI Bike paths 1988-1992, weekday. 24 hrs 41/day 1/91 -1,243/day 6/92 Urban intersection December 1993, 24 hours 2,309/day (weekday) 1, 193/day (Sat), 647 /day (Sun) Urban street 1991-1994 1, 148/day (1/93) -6,594/day (9/92) New York, NY Urban streets Summer 113 -1.069/day Class I bicycle path weekday, 1991 602 - 1,183/day 7 am -7 pm Class III hicydc lane 67>-I. I R6/ day Tahlc 6 . Summary of hicydc counls . (\011'1) Location Type of Facility Time Period Range of Counts Phoenix, AZ Temporary bike lanes Wed, 2/28/90: 5601 6 hours 7-9 am, l l-l pm, 4-6 pm Bike lanes at intersections Weekdays, Nov & Dec.: 29-90/ 7 hours 7-9 am, l l-l pm, 3-6 pm Bike lanes at intersections 2/24 -2/28: 30-1001 5 hours 7-9 am, 3-6 pm Portland, OR Bicycle path Two days in August, 1993: 598 10 hours/day Providence, RI Bicycle path 1991 : Estimated from counts Weekdays 5pm -7 pm 225-4 75 /day Weekends 9 am -11 am Raleigh, NC Bicycle path September 14, 1988, 1,331/day 7 am -7 pm Seattle, WA Burke-Gilman Trail Sat 5119190 & Bicyclists: Pedestrians: Tues 5/22/90: 13 ,204 (Sat) 2,520 (Sat) 7 am -7 pm 4,225 (Tues) 1,923 (Tues) Washington, DC Mt. Vernon Trail Aug. 1983 : I ,048 total Sun -11 hours Mon -11 hours 788 total 1985 820 total (Memorial Bridge) 400 total (14th St. Bridge) ( 60-65 % commuters) Monthly 1988-1989 Belle Haven 779 (1/88) -43,674 (7 /89) Daingerfield 927 (1/88) -19,129 (10/89) (75-80% commuters) 100 90 80 • 70 ~ • 60 • :I -50 0 ~ 40 • .a 30 E :I 20 z 10 0 Figure 1. Hourly usage, Avent Ferry Road Bicycle Path at Western Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina (1). 7-B B-9 9-10 10-1111-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Haur 0 • Ped11tr1en1 B1cyc111t1 • Joggers " ~ u " :J 0 ~ u "' E J z ., -u " :J 0 u :J -J z Figure 2. Bicyclists by time of day, Burke-Gilman Trail near the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington .a 200 190 ~ 180 170 r 160 ~ 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 ~ 70 60 50 40 30 190 180 170 r- '60 t 150 140 130 ~ I '20 ~ 110 100 90 t 80 70 t 60 50 ~ 40 ~ 30 t 20 10 •) I 7-8 I 8-9 BiK E'3 o t U NIVER:: IT·( 9-10 Saturday, Moy 19, 1990 10-11 11-12 13-14 12-13 n1.1E OF DAY D s ;ke3-E /\ \ \ I \ ' ' I ~5-16 ! . 17-18 14-15 ~6-17 18-19 BI K ES o t U NIVER SIT '( Tue'5doy, Moy 22, 1990 ;\ I !\ /\ I I ; \ ~//. I 7-8 e-9 9-10 I ~0-11 11-12 I 13-1 4 12-13 '"1).AE CF DAY !/ / / I / I '.5-16 14-15 '.6-17 I 17-18 18-19 + Bik=-.v •Bill Moritz, University of Washington, unpublished data. Figure 3. Daily variation in bicycle volumes, Eugene, Oregon(]). It.DO 12CD IOX> 4 200 -------.....___- >-'r t ~ ~ 'r VI L 4. l&J D ~ c! 0 Q 2 Ill ti 0 z ti> p tt 0 ::> 2 UJ UI :> ,.... ::> 0 ~ ~ ~ ti ~ Cf) [_ ..... lL VI D~Tt:>. COLLE.C"'t"E.0 8Y c. rt'( o~ EUGE."lE J T~AF~1C. 'DE.PA~H./'\Et-.!T . Figure 4. Volumes along two bicycle lanes, New York City .a Avenue Of The Americas 1000 .---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----, 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 ......... 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 Broadway/Fifth Avenue 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 a Adapted from (2). , STA.N.DA~D {;lKfi PAlH -DE""IAt LS ---------- J--1~.::on Sef'BV\1~ '2$~~ 5 /'12..-c..tc:T: "SC::-c..lJCJ-tUS ~ ___ pc_c__~r /t'C. ~ £f/f:zf;eluzb:::lrD_ IP _y~~- /Ve:;l-~ Se::-°'Pt::>t/frF T'Y~ 5c~.:> ~' 7'f'--A/ bnt~ 4t:Jt...c/ ~i? /474t-~ ~-/~t. ~ -<...»v.Pc:'Jt... P/lr-1t~,+~ -&e:::~t::-,,,,U.C... /'?U ~~c-?v/ -lo~, Jl,PP,.~ 2/~~ere----------- ------- DALLAS BIKE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The use of the bicycle for transportation has increased rapidly within the last decade. It is an attractive travel mode because it is inexpensive, reliable, creates no noise or air pollution, requires little space, and offers healthful exercise along with fun. Following an analysis of the elements contained in the 1975 Bike Plan, a complete updating and reorientation was deemed both desirable and necessary. Whereas the 1975 Plan emphasized an independent, recreation oriented bikeway system, the 1985 Bike Plan involves a comprehensive interface with all elements of the urban transportation system, including roads, transitways and pedestrianways. The goals of the 1985 Bike Plan are to improve the mobility of adult bicyclists, to increase bicycle safety on the road, and encourage bicycle use for transportation in order to aid in the achievement of a balanced transportation system. These goals can be achieved by meeting the following objectives: 1. to enhance safe roadway operations for bicyclists through improved street and intersection design (providing bicycle crossing signs and bicycle-sensitive loop-detectors at selected high volume intersections, and building selected new roads with wide outside lanes) and maintenance (ensuring adequate sight distance and reducing damage to bicycles and danger to riders from broken glass, debris surface irregularities and slotted drainage gates), 2. to provide or encourage the provision of bicycle parking facilities at public and private educational, shopping, cultural and employment centers as well as DART stations, 3. to improve roadway safety by educating motorists and bicyclists, who, since 1983, have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles, to better co-exist on public roads, 4. encourage city departments and federal, state, regional and county agencies to include coordinated Bikeway Plan elements when they plan capital improvement projects. The 1985 Plan identifies three basic methods to effectively accommodate bicycle travel: + on existing roads with signed bike routes, + on selected future roads with wider (14') outside lanes, + off-street with construction of separate bicycle trails. ii This plan recommends a majority of shared use signed roads supplemented with a small amount of off-street trails. Fonds to achieve the Plan objectives are available through city and county bond operating programs, the Federal Government, the institution of a mandatory bicycle license fee and private Investors. This plan can serve as a guide for City Council decisions related to bicycle operations, and can also be used by the Council of Governments and the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation to review funding requests by the City of Dallas for phased implementation of the Plan. iii December 22, 1992 Mr. Ed Hard Transportation Planner Development Services City of College Station P. 0. Box 9960 College Station , Texas 77840 Dear Mr. Hard: Public Works Training Division 409 · 845 · 2911 800 . 826 . 0027 The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-8000 Thank you for participating as a speaker at the 22nd Annual Public Works Short Course, February 14 -17, 1993 at Rudder Tower on the campus of Texas A&M University. Enclosed for your information is a draft program for the event. A more detailed package of information will be mailed to you in January, 1993. Please call me personally for any special assistance including visual aids you desire for you presentations. Also please fax to me your bio for introduction purposes. As a program speaker you will be provided complementary registration and a parking pass for the A.M. or P.M. period covering your presentation. On behalf of the leadership of the Texas Chapter, American Public Works Association and the Texas Engineering Extension Service we thank you again for your support and participation in this important professional development event for the public works industry. Contact me for assistance at 409/845-2911 and fax 409/845-5726. Carl Norris, P.E. Division Head L .:_ 2 3 ~'l January 22, 1993 Mr. Ed Hard Transportation Planner Development Services City of College Station P. 0. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840 Dear Mr. Hard: Technology Resource Center 409 · 845 · 2948 800 · 826 · 0027 The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-8000 Thank you again for speaking at the 22nd Annual Public Works Short Course, which will be at Texas A&M University in College Station from Feb. 14-17. I have enclosed the second Short Course brochure and a photocopy of the Short Course program. The date, time and room number of your presentation are marked on the program. Also enclosed are a map of the Texas A&M campus that highlights areas where the Short Course will be held, a biographical information form and audiovisual equipment request form. Please return these forms as quickly as possible if you have not already done so. They may mailed or faxed. The fax number is 409/845-5726. When you arrive at the Short Course, please park in the University Center parking garage, across the street from Rudder Tower, where you will receive a parking ticket. Then stop by the registration desk on the second floor of Rudder Tower, where your parking ticket will be validated, and you will pick up your speaker's nametag and a copy of the final program. If you wish to attend the whole course or the banquet, please fill out and return the registration form included in the brochure. If I may be of any further assistance, please call me at 409/845-2948. since'V Ro ney Rather Resource Materials Specialist RECEIVED JAN 2S 199Z ?-.h'j "'(/ ' --;:) < () J ~ -; ~r tr--' (Y7 ' . " ~~IS Jr/' 0 ~/ 7 -#4'?, 'j..J--P / Wy'J#(l /A/}11 ~ d O' eJ ·cr4 1J r1h . . °/ n ~ )/.10 t '~'(JI--mjJ_ . ' ~ ~4<J ?"~ ~H VI ~1 ·71 ( f"P'YYP,j · 'd ~(:t~H £;:H (~/IC/ 1.~}J)?:J 1121! STRATEGiC PLANNING THE STRATEGIC PLANNING APPROACH OBJECTIVES The objective of a strategic plan is to in- crease the safety and use of the bicycle in a specific area by looking at the problems and possibilities, and designing programs along the lines of ·the 4Es of bicycle plan- ning. Experience has shown that to improve the cy- cling environment, action is required in four areas: Engineering, which this manual is par- ticularly concerned with, Education, Enforce- ment and Encouragement. Any attempt to. im- prove the cycling environment in an area will require action in each of these areas. An out- line of the action areas is set out in the table below. In the engineering section of the plan, a bicycle network should be developed compris- ing various on-carriageway treatments supple- mented by off-carriageway links, recreation ENGINEERING OBJECTIVE To provide on ground facilities for cyclists ACTIONS To provide: 1. a safe bicycle transport system for all classes of cyclist; 2. adequate parking facilities; 3. facilities for recrea- tional cycling; and 4. safe residential neighbourhoods for cycling. EDUCATION OBJECTIVE To promote bicycle safety and informa- tion through educa- tion programs ACTIONS To provide: 1. formal school based education programs to teach safe cycling; 2. community educa- tion programs which teach safe cycling, en- courage use of the bicycle and inform non cyclists. such as motorists, about cycling is- sues; and 3. support for local cycling groups paths, and parking and ancillary facilities. It will also recognise and incorporate mar:iy roads and streets where no specific action is necessary to cater for cyclists. In addition to a network of routes imple- mented through an engineering program, it has been recognised that strong social and behavioural factors exist that militate against both increased cycling and the safety of cyclists. Consequently, to achieve the basic goal stated above, concurrent action is re- quired in non engineering areas. Engineering measures alone will not lead to safer cycling. A strategic plan that only considers engineering aspects will not achieve the objectives of increased bicycle safety and use. ENFORCEMENT OBJECTIVE To improve the at- titude and behaviour of all road users with regard to cycling ACTIONS To ensure: ENCOURAGEMENT OBJECTIVE To encourage and market cycling ACTIONS To promote: 1. effective law enfor-1 · positive changes in community at- titudes towards the bicycle as a vehicle and the cyclist as a legitimate road user; cement programs relating to both cyclists and motorists; and 2. good road be- haviour through appropriate reinfor- cement programs. 2· awareness of bicycle facilities and programs; 3. the bicycle as an optional vehicle for a variety of trips; and 4. cycling for recrea- tion. 15 --' ost Office Box 1121 .ustin, Texas 78767 DARO OF DIRECTORS lckl LaRue hRlr ~uston ob CraWford lce-Chnlr c1<1nnoy 'ave Danford reasurer an A11tt.llllv 1orothy Abbott ecretary lsno •eoft Adi'lms .rlington mn Baird IOUSlvll 1oanna Bassett iClllStOn )r. Joe Jackson ;orµus Clitl~li -iep. John Hirschi Nichitn r"C1!I" _ee Mixon 1ouston ~"ulPenA iou;;ton Charles Poteet Da!la!l Karn Lett Auckrlegal Ro1mu Rei(.\\ John Schotleld 'fyltir Alck Waring Au~tin ChArlM Gandy Exocutiva Dln;ctor Glenn Gadbois 01mc1or of Pm\11 a111~• Mr. Lonny J. Traweek TEXAS BICYCLE COALITION Texas Department of Transp011atiun P.O. Box 3249 Bryan, Texas 77805 October 24, 1993 Dear Mr. Traweek: 512 476-RIDE As local coordinator for the Texas Bicycle Coalition (TBC), I'm writiug a l the request of local bicyclists concerned with the safety of th~ bii.:ydc facility proposed as a portion of TxDOT's Texas Avenue widening projt! ·t. This lercer presents formally the concerns of TBC's 1;on.sthuency and discusses specific facility alternatives, case studies of these facilities, and the underlying concepts and philosophies which support their use. We hope TxDOT w ill find this information useful in the design of this and other bicycle facilities , and welcome the opportunity to respoml to any comments, questions, or requests for additional information TxDOT may need. A list of citations for specific comments follows the letter. I'd be happy tu provid!; Tx.DOT copies of any of these documents from my library upon request. While the length of this multi- page letter is considerable , your ev~luation of this document will help determine both the future function of highway transportation in Texas as well as the number of lives lust i.n the Bryan District . First, a statement of my background is in order. I'm a registere<l hmdscapc architect and researcher for the Texas Tran~purLation nstitute. I completed Northwestern University Traffic Institute's Bicycle Facility and Planning Workshop in August. As local coordinator of the Texas Bicyck Coallth.m, I work to advance bicycle access1 safety, and education in the Bryan/College Station area. During the past year, I've served on the College Station Bikcway Master Plan Focus Group and mobiliw<l ll campaign whi.ch collected over 3,000 signatures in support of the plan's adoplion. hn an attending member of the MPO Technical Comrniuee. Currently , I'm assisting both Bryan and College Station planning st.aff s in the preparation of a bike map proposal under TxDOT' s enhancements program. Should fundi ng for this project be granted, TBC will provide volunLeer labor to C()mplete route selection <ind evaluation, significantly reducing production costs for the project. The Texas Bicycle Coaiition Advocates the Advancement of Bicycling Access , Safety and Education In Texas ' 09:23 TT! SI XTH FLOOR 003 Mr. Lonny Traweek. C1.1ntinued Page 2 l met with Bob Richardson on Monday, October 18th to discuss bicyclists· concerns wHh the proposed hike path. Mr. Richardson and I reviewed the preliminary schematic plan, discussing projecc consrraims and possiblt: solutions. In the week since our meeting, Jtvc consulted with federal and state transportarion engineers, bicycle facility planners, attorneys, and expen wi mcsses to formulate stat~·of-the~art recommendations for TxDOT. How C~m Bicyclists Not Want A Bike Path? Following are the hazards regarding the proposed cvmbiruHion 8' 2-way bike path and 4' pcdesrrian walk running from Kyle to Lim:oln uu the commercial side of Texas A venue. Each of the following hike parh characteristics contradicts or js strongl y cautioned against in AASHTO's Guide fur che Development of Bicycle Facilities1: ~' ~~). >i< Contraflow facilities require unconventional turning movements by bicyclists at _ ,,,......ry intersections/cross-fl ows and path termini. These movements place bicyclists, motorists, . ~ @ at1d pedestrians in contlict. Hazards result from users operating against accepted rules of 'J. h/i~I""' the road and in unexpected locations . Accident statii>tics have prompted federal standards """/ which caution against the use of contraflow facilities. Multi-use (bicycle and pedestrian) paths and bicycle sidewalk facilities are strongly discouraged by federal standards . Palo Alto's bicycle-pedestrian collision rate increased by 54 % with imp leme ntation of similar fad lities2• Bicyclists using hik~/bike paths are more likely to have serious accidents (292 accidents p~r million miles travclc<l) than bicyclists traveling major arterials (114 accidents per million miles t raveled)~. II' The sho11 (2-block jengch), discontinuous (lt!rmini 1;0IU1ections dffficult to make) and ftequemly interrupted nature of rhe propos!jd bike path (10 cross-fl ows in less than l mile; the closest approximately 70' apart) requires repeated stops and reductions of speed speed and creacc multiple conflict pointfi wit i ambiguous right-of-way between bicyclists and motorists. At AA SHTO's standard design speed for bicycle path1> of 20 miles per hour, bicyclists must be prepared w yield right-of-way i.;very severa seconds to evaluate hazards or prevent collisions at cross-flows carrying nwtor traffic to commercial shops, resraurants, munic ipal and utility offices, a fire station and l1 gas stations . Accident ~ statistics have prompted federal standards which caution against the use of bike paths inunc:diately adjacem to arterials and jn situations with greater than minimal cross-flows. >1< The proposed facility will im:rease risks from current levt:ls, presenting additional hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians using the bike path as well i.:IS motorists traveling the Texas Avenue corridor. 'J'hc lexas Bicycle Coalition Advocates the Advancement of Bh.:ydi1is Acce~8. Safety, and !3d1icatlo11 In Texas U =1 •C....._J I I ! ~ ! I\ I n r LLJl_JK Mr. Lom1y Traweek, Continued Page 3 "' ·The proposed bike path is geometrlcally sub·standard and ill·shcd m1der federal guidelines. This places TxDOT in a p osicion to respond to kgal challenges (resulting from accidents) on the basis of ministerial and dbcrctional liability. An Engineer's Nightmare While TxDOT's Bryan District is to be applauded for its conunitm~nt to providing for safe bicycle travel along highways in ics jurisdiction, it is di:ar Lhat additional study and policy discussions are needed to avcomplish this goal. The safoty problems associated with thc- proposed Texas A venue bikt! path are not new; similar facili.tie8 were extremely popular in the 1970s -until the ace idem sratistics were collected and analyzed. Fadlities designed using nonvchicular bicycle operation assumptions, that is, those opposing established traffic rules, are a nightmare co incorporate into the ourroumling tin1e-tested efficiency of the surrounding vehicular roadway system. The challenge of dei>igning a safe, nonvehicuJar bicycle transportation facility in the ~ontcxl l.>f vehil:ular roadway system is both an oxymoron and, give11 federal guidelines, impossible. The design nightmares this bike path has given binh to in the Bryan District are symptoms of an underlying problem: the failure to recognize cyclists as drivers of vehicles. Are Dkydes Vehicles? Traffic law classifies road users as either drivers or pedestrians. As of 1983, bicyclists are recognized as drivers of vehicles. Vehicular designation established for bicyclists all the rights to and responsibjljties of the roadway that motor vehicle drivers have enjoyed. Because vchicies differ in op~rating 1.:haracterislics, differing subclasses of vehicles have special driving instn1ctions. While drivers of moror vehides may ovt:rtake on the right only under six conditions and may not race, for example, <luc to the increased danger represented by their weight and power. drivers of bicycles have two special driving ruk:;. Ont: restricts cyclists to riding as far right as practicable except under several specific conditions. The other restricts cyciists to bicycle lanes wherever these have been provided, with the same exceptions. All drivers must obey the the general rules of che road and whichever additional rules apply w his or her own class. AH drivers of vehidc1.' arc entitled access to the roadway4. ., The 1991 ISTEA legislation requires che acconunodation of various transportation types, such as bicycle transportation, Which have not effectively and routinely been accommodated in the motor vehicle-dominated transportation pla1ming prncess. Whiie pc · estrian transportation is anmher of these prev iously-overlooked modes, ics operating charai..:teril:itics differ substantially from those of vehicles. The accommodation of bicycle transportation will not come about from the construction of sidewalks fol' bicycles. Bicycle transportation is v1,;hh.:ular. The facility for vehicular operation is the roadway. "Cyclists fare best when they a~t, an<l are lreated, as operators of vehicles .5'' The Texas Dicydc Coalition Advocates ille Advanccmcm of Bicydiut; Ac1..1;bS, Safety , and Education in T1;xas .... Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page 4 It is imp011ant to recognize bicycles may be operated for transportation or recreation. While Lrip purpose and operating speed may differ, for example, both types of ;bicyclists are best accommodated under guidelines for bicycle transportation. The "design :bicycHBt " riding for transportation is best served, according to FHWA's Selecting Roadway Design Treatmems to Accommodate Bicyc/,es6, by the following; * Direct. access to destinalions usually via the <.:x isting street and highway system. Experienced bicyclists will tend ro select collectors and anerials, whik those with less experience tend to select residential roadways. The opp011unity tu opi;rate at maximum speed with minimum delaysi and Sufficient operating space on tht; roadway to reduce t11e need for either a bicyclist or muwr vehicle operator to change position when passing . Why Uo Some Transportation Officials Resist Vehicular Accommodation of Bkyc!cs? First, resistance from transpo11ation planning agencies and officials to acconunodate bicyclists on the roadway stems from the general failure to recognize th~ bicycle operationally as a vehick. This leads to the historic view that separation from vehicles and placement with pedestrians "protects" che vulnerable bicyclists. Acciderlt i:;Uttistics have convinced AASHTO and FWHA that roadway a1.:c;ommouation of bicyclists is optimal except in che case of limited-access freeways, for example, and in the design of recreational fa1.:ilitic:s along long, uninterrupted scenic corridors. Second, an extension of bkycle-as~non-vehicle thinking b th<.: perceptio1i of the bicyck-as- roadway-obstruction (an extension of non-vehicular rhinking), which inv(>lves the following specific concerns: + car/bike collisions between an uvert.aking 1.:ar approaching from behind or to the side of the cyclist; The tradiLional fear of numerous overtaking car/bike 1.:ollisions on shared roadways can be qu_ickly d isproved. A landmark study by Cross and Pishcir7 (1977) found that .,. collisions between a car overtaking from behind or to the side of a cyclist and striking "' the cyclist represem less than 2 % of carfbike collisions on the rdadway (ranking 20th overall in car/bike collisions) and less than 0. 3 % of all bicycle ac:..:idents. In almost 1000 car/bike collisions, Cross and Fisher found only 2 of this type. Thi::; collision type occurred generally in rural areas with narrow pavement sections and no street lighting. "' car/c;ar collisions bcl ween a car overtaking a cyclist and another car; The Texas Bkydc Coall!lon Advocates the Advam:cmern of lli1.=y1,;lius J\cccss. Safety, and Education ln Texas 09:25 TT! SI XTH FLOOR 006 Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page S The Cross and Fisher data show where conflict arises between a1i ove1taking i.:ar and other motor traffo.;, the overtaking motorist is far more likely to ensure adequate clearance between the motor vehicles than between his or her vehide am.1 tht cyclist. delays to motor traffi~ from bicycles in the traffic stream. While data show ovenaking accidents are few, that is not to ~it)' minor delays will not occur. Delay extent is related to the type of bike facility on tht: rua<lway. Ddays in narrow roadway lanes carrying bicycle traffic amidst and directly in front of ove1taking traffi,.; will b1.: greater than on roadways with bicycle traffic traveling adjacent to motor vehicles in wide curb lanes or bike lanes. Ac.:dut:nts resulting from these delays arc statisdcally insignificant8• Perhaps the grcarest hesitancy on the part of transportation engineers to accommodating bicyclists as vehlcle8 on roadways, particularly atterials, com(;s from never having seen it done successfully . The Arizona and Oregon state DOTs have made a conunitment tu bicycle·friendly arterials with progressive philosophies and state-of-the-an geomctri(; design. In Oregon, for example, "Direct and continuous bikeways must be provided along all arterial and major collcctoi- routes ... Bike lanes arc co be provided on most urban ancriai and collt:1.:tor routes. Wher(; it is not feasible to provide bike lanes because of physical constraints (eg close buildings or environmentally sensitive areas), wide uulside lanes shall resume where the constraint ends.9 " Further illustration~ follow later in the discussion. What's The Real Harm In Continuing To ProYlde Nonvehicular Bike Facilities? Nonvehicular, or off-road, bike paths may be beneficial for some recreational purposes. In terms of bicycle transportation, however, these facilities generally ar.:n't direct, don't allow users to maintain 1.ksirable sp~b, and require unconventional movements upon rejoining the larger roadway network. Aside from the challenges inlierent ln desiging for safe bicydc transportation on off-road faciliries and related liability issues, there are other reasons transportation engineers are moving away from it. Unfortunately, off-road bikcways perpetuate to l icyc ists and n1otorists alike the myth chat bicyclists are b~st accommodated in the pedestrian nnHrix. Nonvehicular bicyclist behavior is perpetuated and car/bike, bike/bike, and bike/pedestrian accidents increase. The inexperienced bicycling population buys jnto the supposed haz.an.ls 1..>f on-road vehicular ht!havior and requests additional off-road bikeways. No on~ bl.!ncfils in lhe long tenn. Suppon of both nonvehicular bicycle facilities and (thereby) education contributes to the number of accidents experienced and/or caused by bicyclists kaving the off-road facility and behaving in a nonvehicular fashion. The vicious cycle continues, leaving The Texas Bir;ydl: Coalition Advocates tlle Advancement of Bicyclin.g Accc~s. S11fety, and E<lucation iu Texas 09:25 TT! SI XTH FLIJOR 007 Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page 6 bicyclists, legitimate drivers of roadway vehicles, injured or killed on off-road facilities they assumed were safer than the roadway facilitie~ they're denied access to .: But J'm Not In The Business Of Bicyclist Education True. While TxDOT may considei undenaking bicycle education (;amp~igns in some form at the state level, the distrjct doesn·c. However, we all want TxDOT to maintain. ill.i reputation as a leader among state DOTs. Citizens look to their distrkt personnel to constmct fadlities which meet federal guidelines and, in the case of !STEA, fedtra1 lcglsiarion. Roadway acctss for inexperienced bicyclists is provided hy residentiai, and later, colk:cwr streets . Jn the spirit of ISTEA, TxDOT should embrace vehicular cycling through a commitment to state-of-the-art arterial design which provides for bicycle transponation. The statistics-supponed safety of vehk:ular (.:)'ding and shared roadways requires educated users. Bicycle education is_, in 6 words, following tile rules of the mad. College Station is committed to expanding its educational efforts in the schools. This year, TBC suppo1ted and saw signed into law bills providing for chiidren's bicycle education as well as bicycle awareness information in tht! Driver's Safety Handbook and driver's education courses for both bicyclists and motorists. TBC has produced TV spocs featuring bike education. Texas A&M University mails smdents bicycle regulations each semester. Motbrist.s i1ml bicyclists alike are becoming increasingly aware of the vehicular nature of cycling through these and other effons. The point is , most experienced bkycll ~ts operate vehicula.r!y already; oLhtrs: are coming along. Ir is difficult to advocate cyclist responsibility, however, without providing <.:ycfoas access to highways designed to accotnmodate them. Success Storlcs: Progressive Acconunodatlon of Vehicular Cycling In discussions with federal and state transportation officials, I found exampk:s of progressive facilitks are available for study . Arizona and Oregon, among other states, are receivi1'ig acclaim for the design of prnven-safc and bicycle-friendly arteriali>. Arizona· s Bicycle Coordinator10 described a 6-lane arterial in Tuscon, I believe, with a raised median, an arterial strikingly similar to post-expansion Texas A venue. Thi: ADT is aboul 40,000 and posted speed limit 35. Bike lanes were provided on either s.ide of the roadway , With bicycle-actuated signals and grade separations where necessa1y fo r saft;ty . The fat.:ility borders one side of a university. Just a few years okl, the facility has been a tremendous success . Oregon's commirmem to a bicycle-friendly state is evident in its statewide bicycle plan. All roadway types, from residential to arterial, are designed and ma intaine<l; to support bicycle crave!. Four facility type~ cover th1.: slate: wide curb lanes, bike Janes, ~houlder bikeways. and separated bike paths for areas where cross-nows are minimized or can be eliminated, The Texas Bicycle Coalition Atlvm:atcs ti11; Advancement of R!cycllng Access, Safety , 11m( Edu:.:;,tillH ln TcJCa~ . ' 09:26 TT! S IXTH FLOOR 008 Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page 7 "such as along heavily -traveled freeways , where the demand is high enough to merit the extra cost ([bike paths] are tlu·ee to four tim~i> mure expensive to construct than shoulder bikeways)11." Fu11her, the continuation of all srate highway bkycte routes must be provided into and throu~h the urban area by the municipality for continuity. There are many other success stories waiting to be investigated by those seeking statc-of ~the~ art facilitie_ and standards. All it takes is a few phone calls to get started uncovering the network of state DOTs and cities committed to safe and effective bicyde transportation. TBC can provide names, numbers, and addresses for contacts at municipal. state, and federal levels who can as sist you. A brief list appears on page 9 . \.Vhat ls TBC's Vision for Roadway,, under TxDOT Jurisdiction? Should TxDOT's Bryan Disrrict accept the challenge, TBC recommends the district maintain its reputation for progressive acllon and constrnct all roadways under its jurisdicrion using bicycle-friendly s[andards. Collectors and arterials in urban areas should carry bicycle traffic in 16' wide curb lanes or 6' bike lanes, while rural roures should provide for sa fe should er travel. Signalized intersections should be bicyde-actuatoo for all moveu'.1ents, and roadways should be clearly marked whh signage indicating multimodal traffic design. The !mp.lemcntation of on-road bicycle facilities should be a part ()f all new construction, and existing roadways should be retrofitted a(;\.:orJiug to their capital improvements schedule. Retrofitting can be as simple as re·striping where pavement sections of ~ufficicnt widlh exist. Bicyclists traveling on rhese roadway fa1,;Hitit.:s are encouraged to make predictable movements according ro the established rules of the road . Linkage of the:: Texas A venue facility to George Bush (slated for bike lanes) and University Drive will be accomplished under existing traffic laws. Car/bike, bike/bike, and bike/pedestrian acei<lents will be lowe1· on these facil ities than on bike p~ths . TxDOT's B1yan District hoids in ics hands the oppurlunily to demonstrate it. commi<ment to safe crave! for the thou:sands who ride bicycles as well as for those who don't. Well· designed shared roadways reduce lhc ambigu ities and mh;pcrceptions each traffic type hold~ regarding the other, reducing the risk of cunfli(;ls n;sulling from these mispcrceptions. Traffic operations are clearly conveyed ihrough signag~. ~ignalization ai1d striping. These facilities are educ;ation in action. TxDOT's conunitmem to the safety and mobility of all citizens would be made clear. While the guiding c;oncem in roadway design is always safety, it should be noted that the consuucrion and maintenan\.:e costs of on-road facilities fall well bdow those of off-road facilities, as they're simply a one·lane·wide extension uf l.!xisting roadway constmction and maintenance programs. The Texas Bicycle Cvalitit>n Advocates the Advancemenr of Bicyclin!: Ac1,:ei;s, S11foly. and Education in Texas ' ,.. I ' . " 09:27 TT! SIXTH FLOOR 00'3 . Mr. Lonny Traweek, Continued Page 8 Should the Bryan District find Itself unable to share the progressive spidt shown by cities in Arizona and Oregon and others; TBC recommends the tcnnination of plans for the bike path due to the safety hazards discussed early on. It is the posirion of TBC that no bicycle facility is safer than a marginal one. This would be a golden opportunity to ei~1brace the future lost. The Safety and Mobility of the Bicycling Community Depends on Your espouse As local coordinator uf TBC, I represent a diverse gruup of students, professionals, and families who will be directly and indirectly impacted by your selection of a Tex.as Avenue bike facility for years to come. I'm available to assist you in any capacity I can. Should you wish to discuss this or any related matter with me, I welcome your call. You can reach me at TTI, 845~4612, or at home, 260~1266. I look forward to workin$ with you to enJrnnce . the safety iind mobility of the cycling community. {1\rely, vuu-~~~ Danise Hauser · Local Coordinator, Texas Bicycle Coalition t:t:: Bob Appleton, District Bicycle Coordinator Bob Richardson, District Design Engineer Ed Hard, College Station Transport.ation Planner Glenn Oadbc>is, Texas Bicycle Coalition, Austin The Texas Hic:yde Coalltlon Advocates the Advanc.:cmcnt uf Bii;yding Ac\::e~$, Safccy, and. Educatlon in Texas . . 09:27 TT! SI XTH FLOOR 010 Mr. Lonny 'J'ra"'eek, Continued Page 9 CITATIONS 1. AASHTO . August 1991 . Guide for the Developmem of Bicycle Facilities. pp. 2 1 ~ 25, 36-37. 2. Forester, John (Bicycle Facilities Consultant; Author of Bicycle Tran.\portalion and Effecti ve Cycling). Octob~r 1993 . Personal Conversation . 3. Kaplan, J .A. 1975. Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bilyc:le-U.w:.r. Federal Highway Administration. 4. Porester, John. 1983. Bicycle Transponation. The MIT Press . Cambridge, Massachussetts. 384 pp. 5. Ibid. 6. Wilkinson, Wm. C. et al. November 10, 1992 . Selecting Ruudway Design Treatm ents to Accomnwdate Bicycles. Draft Repon, FHWA. 32 pp. 7. Cross, Kenneth ct al. 1977. A Study of Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Accidents: ldent(fi.carion of Problem Types and Cowuermeasure Approaches. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 8. Forester, John. 1983. Bicycle Tramponation. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachussetts. 384 pp. 9. Oregon Department of Transportation. July 1992. Oregon Bicycle Plan . pp. 20-21 . 10. Corbett, Richard (State Bicycle Coordinaror for Arizona DOT). October 1993. Personal Conversation. 11. Oregon Department of Transportation. July 1992. Oregon Bicycle Plan . pp. 4 . CONTACTS Richard Corbett, Arizona DOT Bicycle Coordinator; (602) 628-5313 Michael Ron.kin, Oregon DOT Bicycle Coordinator; (503) 378-3432 John Allen, Effective Cycling Instmctor/Expert Witness, Massachussetts: (61 7) 891-9307 Michael Carr, Bike Fac ility Consultant, Dallas; (2 14) 943-5048 P .M . Summer, Bicycle Coordinator, City of Dallas; (214) 670-4039 The Texas Ilicyclc Coa.litiou Advocates the Ad vancement of Bicycling Ai.;uc:i~. Si1fo1y, and Education in Texas RECEIVED 0 CT 2 7 1993 1709 Glade College Station, Texas 77840 (409) 693 4166 Mr. Ed Hard College Station Development Off ice P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Mr. Hard: October 26, 1993 Yesterday we were informed of the proposal to change Glade Street from a bicycle route to a bicycle lane. As Glade residents we object strenuously to such a change. We have frequent guests in- to our home for Bible studies and other activities and need to have them park their car on the street as our drive is too small and inconvenient for the number of cars . In addition any time a commercial or other vehicle park:. in our drive it requires that we drive across our lawn to have access to Glade Street. We ~ therefore prefer commercial vehicles to park on the street. In addition I often ride my bicycle to the A&M campus and have encountered absolutely no problems on Glade. Because of the dips and curves on the street and the fact that it is obviously a res- idential street cars drive within the 30 mile per hour speed limit almost all the time. In short the proposed change would be unbal- anced in the inconvenience that it causes compared to any conven- ience that it might bring bikers. It seems that there might be more philosophy behind this proposal than actual demonstrated need. My wife and I would be at the City Council meeting on October 28 if we did not have prior commitments of our time. We trust that this letter will be considered by the council members. Sincerely, ~1-#/1 1 ';.J../'11~ ~~·. Spoede ~~ ,d. ~eLJz__ Nancy5. Spoede cc Mayor Larry J. Ringer Mr. Ron Ragland, City Manager .// ,l Gtographltal Mobntty and Commllttng for .,I '""'°""--"'*'°'·~.-~ JA'• -Con. ffll~--.... _._,.~.J .~td ATMs ~ of 50,000 or Mort and ~ ~ c.mtal Offt• of SMU11 t--l,lllM"Cl----d!y--M-u1lo--ti!y--N-r"1_~_,111_· ""--~--lfll' __ .. _~ __ d!y __ ...,..,. __ llff_._.... __ dtl ___ ~ __ dty_ .. ===-,_ __ dl'r-i NATMn' ._ rua °' ~ '* ,.._ ·····--·········-·········· -····-··-······· ·-···········--··········· ...,.-. L!Ott el~ ....................... . ..... ~ ctftwrtlltt Smt .......................... . ~ ·······-·························· -""""·········· ..................... . klil!. .................................... . , W-1 ... r ....... ._ .............. ,.4 ................ .,. ............. . ktll *"'· ........ "' .. ., ................... . ~ ....................... ·················· ~'""'' ....._ J,..,.,, -······-······ ... . w..-. .................................... . t.ff,...m ho.IN In \kwltd •"'n •• , ••• , .. . ......... . Sootllt """~ ••••••• ...................... .. tilllnM """""···· ··••·•••••••••• •••••••••• '°"" \m•L •••••.• ••· . • ••••••••·•·•• "' -FM>'! "' 1~15 ••• • • •••••••.••• ~~lnlHS •••••••••••••••• tllfflr'lnl Sllllt .............................. . 1r. NlrrH '-it> i. l97L ................. . Antn<fr,p ...... It• 19?~ -··--•••••H••···· '*""'-' . . • . .. . . . ......... -.......... . Nol'!!\ CAlllfol •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• W!l .................................. . """'··········· ............ ······ ... . ~ ............... _ ................. ---··-·····--.. ;.rr'"4 Nttft In 1975. • ••••••••• ······•••• """'""'° ...... ~'l9B ... . .•••••••• SW('TII> a.ustl f'1 MICUH'l1 ,..._ I• ,_, .W ......, ~~·· 191~ ......... « .. •··········· .,_ Al?rw6 f'Oltt'I It• l9AO. ••• • •••••••••••••••• lr1T'll'ltcrflM!MOl.,!9&o ................... . "~~11\1980 •••••••••••••••••••••• !Miit """' " ....., ....... ""' ........... , ••••. No1 Mli ...mi ony -· ................... . ~ ~'"" 1" 19H ....................... . '" ""'*' ._ ,, 19&11 ...................... . -"' llrllrvltt " 198¢. • • • • • • • . • •• • • • • • • • ~~Ir· 19~~---··········-······ .. ~ -"' *"' vc pcn!T1 ................ . llai ~"'9 toil!!. ..,. PO"Mf ............ -••• -••• 1'1.ACJ Of WDU .... ,,,... ............. -......•. ,.,.. OI"""' .-.4 ... •· •.. ·····••••••••·•····• w~·""~"'~ ..................... . WOl\tf W')ldr ~ of t~ •• • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • ~olll-~~¢~ ••••••••••• ""'"'~"°'~ ························ OJ 1'1JC$f'O«l •mi; T\ wc:a: 1 ---a ¥!'"'8-1 u ~""' -.............. .. .ot;.di .................................. . ~ ...... c ............ ··•••••••··•••··•·•• Intl 111 """ •••••••••••••••••••••••• (~ (.ar .............................. . tl\d. °' -...................... .. l'\bllr-O!i:rti ••••••.••••••••••••.. ·•••••• .... Cf nttf!c=". •• • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • . ••••••• Sob ..... ·-~""""············-·· .•.•.... ..... ""'1 .......................... ·-········· luJ.«, ..................................... . a.,yttr .............................. •••••·••••• ""'~ ············· ...................... . .. ....., !Id, ................................... . Olt•-................................... . ..u.i ~ ._ ..•.••••••.•.•...•••.•••••••••••• rtf'iATt VfHICl.l °'MAIK"f -~ ,. )"°"'...,. _.., ,.;.-..... . ~"""' .................................... . : = = ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t::.':'! ~::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............. ,......,. ................................ . tuva flMl TO WOlll """""l•,,... --,... .. 11111 -.. ..... ································ i.-tfo:. 10 """"• ...................... ·-···· I~ "' It "*"1111 •••• ••••·· ..................... . ); l!l '9 ~ ·························-····· >0~44-•••••.•..••.••••••••....••••.•.. '5 "' --...._ .............................. . ••6.•· .... , .... _ ............................................... .. .... m UB t 210 m 721 41 ta SHU s :ios l 155 ~ 301 I.\ 1 um 11 S\a 25 564 s ,.., I 116 l •$4 3S 114 10 w , 411 416 t ws It 6~ '° SI 1 too 1&2 I 01& 4S 161> 270 l ,.l $00 i h 11t m 11290 as "21 ,, 127 HU ,,., uo llJ '" •U .. "" .., 6.)0 • 69• 71 <9(16 ~?St 9171 1 era 0 ~1 . 4S 208 m I ~IS m I ~1 m .. , ISO ?1! w ttl 16 578 2$ ~2 s ~~ 7 61S 1~ 11 ~ m 2 "' l fl2 7 sw, 1 "' 2~ uo 1•1 116 Sl9 2o 14' s 417 1 ·~· ·~ 1.14 1t1m ~6 440 71 461 4' tH It 41C> 'm IU J4 t)4 21 tt7 17 (Ml 95~ "' 2 am I) '" 18 Ila Ul& I 171 ff4 "' l.l• JO 133 '6m JO ... ; 6 709 7 ~· 1 935 1 106 t£3 l ''° Ioli :u 147i ,,. "81 '6.U lJ lSl •en . ,, eOO 411 l.IJ .. ~ 2• 131 20 60¢ 3 ~· 14 6 '2!2 "u~ ,. ·~ s 111 .,, -93 197 1.11 11 CM~ 6S 16~ 1.~01 46 a 153 a 7'9 l>S "" Ml . U? IO, .. 18 7S9 10 M6 I l2l A.'l 3 l AD9 1t ts4 1e 441. 10693 3 2S.O 3 «W t9'I 140 79 tl ll '46 l) 9.U , 016 w U7 )06 l.16 It .. . '" 10 t21 t &6t 11<;1) "' 15.1 70.% ".,. s 06 2t 6lS 4 716 ,. 409 19 6V2 59 1 '8S 4 71? 11.l asr 63~ 1 316 l 719 l 023 1 n~ 6& m ~ 462 It lt 117 S8 19 019 ~ 173 lo? 1 694 n 2 606 u l&O u 161 ' 4S.0 s 711 16 2 V7~ IOUJ 1 '9& I '91 4S5 •1 )() I.IS lCI ~ IO 1 ·~ f2 ICI I01 9~ Mt 60 01& 13 '~ um "oos I "" IH IN ffl . 2 $\6 ' S6? l OS2 ..... 73 1?2 lS l56 ) 370 1 SIS tu , ,, Y!Dll#\ ~•Ser 11rerrt ~ •••••• """'°·· 14 J '2.7 IU U.1 U.5 "---~--------~~----...-~----~----~.-.------------~-..~--~----------' GENERAl SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TtXil 45-211 11:52 TT! S IXTH FLUOR -------·· ··---------~---·-·--·-------''itd¥. I n :J :J I ~ x Ui -I-I- Ul lfl lhe bicycle is a form of transportation from which broad socio'1 environmental, and economic benefits accrue. Current trends such as global worming, trpffic congestion, and dependence on imported oil necessitate focussing on the bicycle as part of the transportation solution. Transportation Study Boord Preliminary Findings September 1990 •·:J ! •·:J .~:J I Bicycling I The bicycle rransponali1 benefits that Ihe ben.efils they are t rar budget cnse Ta..x and oth Vv'hen bicyc benefits also public r..a\'e ::.ravelled-f; lccn.:..ie from oil sp1lls . As shov,:n m pocket sa1,.-ir over Sl per These estLrn: levels in the by existing t (0 52.00. Iransponati costs, pl us a public ~...r1 19 And thats ju There are fe1 insignificant ll'.: 0 0 _J LL, -1 Ui .. -1 .... f'') (Tl '• ...... ~ -1 -< < f i ' '· I I ~ l -~ T ~ _i ~ ...,d_ Bicycling Benefits Minnesota The bicycle has been \Videly regarded as a key element o: a more balanced transponati.on system, due to the multimde of environmental, social, and health benditS that accrue from it5 use (sidebar, page 14). The benefits of bicycling are panicularly signifrc.a.11t for pubhc policy makers when they are translated into economic benefirs and ta.x. sa"mgs. ~spect.ally in times of budget cnses. fax and other savings from bicycle use. \\-'hen btcydes are substitmed for car crips, the social, heath and environmeu;:Jl \Jene fits also translate into massive economic benefos. Monetary savings to tb_e general public have been calculated to be ac 1easl S.05 to $_22 fo:: every bicycle mile travelled-from lowered air pollution, oil tmporrs. and congestion. Additional savings accrue from such things :is a lessening of the greenhouse effecr and a lowered risk of oil spills_ As shov:n m Fi_gure s, when high\va>' capital investment s.avmgs potenu.al and oet-of- pocket sa1.1ngs co the indiv1du1l consumer are included, the savings can amoum o ova S 1 per bi.cyde mile travel ed. ~ _/ These esnmatcs are funher corroborated by incemi\.·e biq·ck mileage reimbursement £.\)I levc!.s m the US and abroad. currently ra_T'lging from $.11-Sl 18 per mtle, and further fl:::::ll u~ by existing btkeway mvestm.ents that ptace \.'alues on eac:i bicrl mile travelled at up V\ {O 52.00. :i.ma--~ ,,/I Transport.3..tion biktn~ saved Hnnesotans in excess of 524 minion m out of pocket -\)~ .~ coses, plus an estimated 57 to 530 mHhon in t3X and other SJHngs w the ge~ral nn-~!!'I ~ • "1. \_f,, p ubhc n 1989 alone. • ~ ~ And rhar s just the beginning . ~ There are few public works whtch give nmhing but positive ret~ms for rebtttvely .. ....,. ms1gnificant public mvestments. Bicycle accomrnodauon.s are among those fev..-_ 11 : 51 TT I S I X l H f-LUUk' e·frnrng the Bic 1c e r ividcn · Ft urc 5 Estimated Savin s Per Bicycle Mi e Travelled (BM'O (suhstit1.ncd for car 1r.1 ··l) Oul of pocket savmgs tom 1vi ual consumers· Hig 1WJY capn~1l investment sa\'ings otcntia : Tax and othc1 general public savings: (eg air quality, oil impe>rls, congesuon) Reduced oil impon . $.01 -$.07/BMT Re uccd trade dcfic-it $ 01-$.01/BMT Noise reduction: NA I<ccraii on value: Greenhouse effe ct : Air pollution· Oil spills C(>n gc:s1 imi : Health/fitnrs : Sl.\btot;\l: Total J otcntial savings: NA NA $.QJ.$.10/BMT NA $.02-$.04/13MT NA $.05-$.22/BMT $. l 8-$.58' /BMT $.08-$.3 3/B 1T $.31 -$l J 3!BMT • O;t>rd o;i l~T <.>ptr:<ting lU>l> of$ 21 -61 pt'r ;rull!, and >icyde o lCli1tin cost£. of S.03 Cl mi c Snu1Cc$ Appendix D ;A· 1101 '~In rnlly R\'ailah .:: ther eco ornic benefit s Bh:yc ing op )OJ ttmili~s rn rnnce the cnvironmen1al qualit)' of life. T b tan translate into a competitive advantage m attracting indust1y. In a 1982 !>urvey thl! \Vashmgwn DC based Panners for Livable.Places found that env1ronme:ntal quality was the single )i ggest fact0r that m.fluenccd corporate decision$ as 10 w )ere l() lo<<•te hcadquaner:> offices. :>icycle touri11g, ;an cif the adventure tourism market, has been grov·ling at over l 0% per year in the US . ln 1989 over 1.1 mtlhon Americans s )ent an a average of $20-$60 pe1 day 011 bicycle touring vac.Hion:,, mosl in 1 u1 ~I areas. The volume of one nation;.\l tour operator has grown from $425,000 in 1984 to $5 million in 1989. Bicycle touting has the at <led attraction of not generatin debilitating motor vehid~ traffic volumes m hn.c,1 romtrnmi1ies ~~~HME~T_.J~~~G~E.gr-,o~-,, __ ,__ . ______ ~~ ~ ti n'~'·k .. ,.,/- 1 ACCOUNT NO. ~ f 5 ·")_ Q Date Sent: I/ · I · q ~ PROJECT NO. q I q '()() t~~ /l>:'.50 l)...fM Please deliver the attached to: Address[· ~ -- Fax Numb r: I~ --a1q {.. FROM: ,[AAMi~ . .+t~ Texas Transportatlon Institute e Tex A& University System Colleg tationt Texas 77843-3135 Office: (409) 845-5815 ax: (409) 845·9761 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Area Code 409 Telephone 845 • 1469 Fax 845 • 9761 ... -;.. September 24, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Hard, College Station Transportation Planner FROM: Danise Hauser, Texas Bicycle Coalition Local Coordinator~ SUBJECT: Suggestions for BMP presentation to P&Z and Council As we discussed today, it occurred to me at the Planning and Zoning meeting last Thursday that the audience of BMP presentation (P&Z last time, Council next time) could use a few words' education on bicycling and the benefits BMP offers the noncycling as well as cycling . community. Did you ever have David Pugh for your PLAN courses? His admonition that planners sometimes wear the educator and visionary hats seems appropriate here. In terms of detailing the benefits of the BMP, it seems we have to paint a picture to some extent. My perception was that P&Z didn't understand (for example): bicyclists can be divided into 2 groups, recreational and transportational. Speaking of terminology, your term "serious cyclist" is appropriate for members of both groups, not only the long-distance recreational rider. Using the bicycle for transportation involves considerable skill and experience to ride safely and defensively along with motor traffic. different types of riders require different types of facilities. This 3-facility approach satisfies both types of riders and all age groups. It seemed the P&Z members envisioned children as the primary group of bicyclists. Representatives of all rider types helped formulate and soundly endorse the plan. promotion of bicycling benefits the community as a whole, not just the bicyclists. If Council were to ask what BMP's real benefits to the community would be (which, for appearances' sake, they most likely won't), how would you respond? While I know the BMP has been a priority for Council, so you may not expect much opposition, why not take this opportunity to update and educate these folks? Why not show them how much more the BMP will do than they ever expected when they at first said, somewhat ambiguously, "Hey, let's have bikeways ... " You're the city's expert on it; let them know what a good idea this is. I know it's not your role to be bouncing off the walls for the plan, but perhaps well within your role as transportation planner and a member of city staff to show your audience what this could do for the city long term. THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM •COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843-3135 In terms of presenting the greatest justification/ greatest benefits to the community (on the Post- Its I've used forms of the word "defend") from the BMP, I feel they are as follows: increased safety to all users of the roadway; enhanced mobility for all segments of the population; movement towards balanced transportation system with reduced reliance on motor vehicles; incorporation of bicycle facility planning into routine planning (I know the ordinances do this too); first step at acknowledging the considerable bicyclist population in the city (data extrapolated from the 1980 census shows 4500 B/CS residents commuting to work via bicycle), removing barriers to effective travel, and working towards a city with a bicycle-friendly city. In terms of what other cities have done and language used, see the attached Dallas and Washington bike plans. The FHWA document includes language on bicycle considerations in municipal planning. The article "The Bicycle Advocate" describes well the advocacy picture, . and, incidentally, has tidbits on bicycling benefits too. Ed, please pardon my zeal for educating when it comes to bike issues. I know you have many things to consider when you present to P&Z or council [ie time slot, completeness, politics, your employment(!), the color of your tie], and I'm the bike advocate -not you. Still, when I see an opportunity for us to update to current reality the image many have of bicyclists and bicycling, I can't help wanting to capitalize on that opportunity. I find that opportunity in just a few sentences included in your presentation to council. I look forward to the informal workshop meeting on October 13th as well as the public hearing on the 14th. Thanks for all of your support and hard work on the BMP; the community is behind you. THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM• COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843-3135 COMMISSION ROBERT H. DEDMAN, CHAIRMAN RAY STOKER, JR. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAYNE B. DUDDLESTEN Mr. David J . Pullen, P.E. City Engineer Ci ty of College Station P. O. Box 9960 P.O. BOX 3249 DRY AN, TEXAS 77805-3249 (409,.l 778-216J May L4, J990 College Station, Texas 77842-0960 Dear Mr. Pullen: ENGINEER-DIRECTOR ARNOLD W. OLIVER, P.E. CONTACT: I finally have an answer concerning your inquiry about the possibility of constructing sidewalks and/or bicycle paths along the frontage roads on the State Highway 6 By-pass. The general consensus of the Department personnel I have talked to about this is that this would be permitted under the municipal maintenance agreement the Department has with College Station. We would be very i nterested in working with you on this and would be happy to meet with you and your staff to review any definite proposals that you have. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. RLR:me cc : Mr. Patrick T. Williams, P.E. Mr. George Boriskie, P.E. Sincerely, ~ -!cRk..J 4 Robert L . ~~~ardson, P.E. Supervi sing Design Engineer RECEIVED MAY 2 5 1990 I I r-J ~ I "'•~ ·~ I', TEXAS AVE. ;-· ( ' ' \ • ) COLLEGE AYE. \ ·1--GLE COLLEGr ---• MAIN ---- -·-r==. i -.;;;;:::::: . ri Q )o ~ GO a: w > z ::> z :s a. w ~ -m z 0 -~ ~ "" w CJ w ..J ..J 0 0 z Ill 0 z ... I E• ~ ::> I ~· 0 t- a: I < I ~I .... Ill 0 !£ I > m I Q I a: ~~ w Ill I A. z !2 I Q 0 • I ;• 0 !2. .... ii t') • • Ii i~ .,~ Ill ... ~~ i UNIVERSITY DR. -4 n "' . :2 '--...'""' : n n . • "',. 2 '·1 ..... IQ I • -._, _ _._ __ . r < ,---I m !" IC Q 1> ,,__ _ _."' 1z IQ > I 1r-,,, .~ I I I I > »1 ~· •1 ____________ .,,. ,____ I~ LINCOLN 1. 1iil FRANCIS ~ -··----------r--· .. I GILCHRIST C • -----~ c: ;--------+---;t RSEY T. --~ ..... = --I •••r•••i••••• DOMINIK I I 1> __ ,_+..::.::::.=..:~=----... 't:I!'------~~ ' •-. i I t----~'!!.V.!~.!.T,! ~~K..' .... - lo I am I 1: I 1: HWY. ae f-f I 10 1: I az I • I I I .,...___. HOUIMAN I ----~------~-L. •••.I.• -t•' •• • • • • • 94llt I I I l~lt.fl '~ I I~ I ~~'!fe \~ I I~ I -. • •\ 'Cfo \ lllf •tt ~~ • •; 1 ' 1'tvoo,'o I I C:: .. : 1f I I fl .. • , ,, I • • • • ·----&;..------J P~111e::.... 0.1_---..,.~ l' ... • ---- 0 ' ' ' ' I I -4 "' )( > • > < "' . COLLEGE STATION BIKE PLAN 010 BIKE ROUTE SIGNED BIKE ROUTE ---------- llGNED BIKE PROHIBITION •• •• • 37..00 PER VIOLATION BIKES MAY ~ TH£SE STA£El'S BUT NOT TRAY!l WITH THROUQH TAAfflC UNIVERSITY DR. , n "' . ~ \......"""' = n n . • "',.. ~ '·1 .... IQ I -·-·-....1.-· ,.. < ,--I "' !" IC Q I? 1,.__,,. "' 1Z 1,., > I 1r-< •"' !" I I I > 2'1 ~· •• ------------"' r----1;; LINCOLN 1. 1iil FRANCIS ~ -··----------r--- .. I GILCHRIST C •. -----._ c :-------....,.j~--.....;:C-RIEY T. ~ ~ Z I ---r---i----· DOMINIK --t• • t----~M!V.!da!T.? ~~';_8 - - - I HWY. le I I 1> ' ·-. I~ lo I 1111 I/: I 1: ,, I 10 1: I 1z I I I I -~-· HOU•MAN I .......__......i~--.--..--.... -L. - - -.1--.... , ·-- - - - -._ I I t l~lf-t~ ,, I I~ I --~'te \~ \ I~ I 4-• •\'Cf-\ lllf e11 ~~ • •t 1 ' ""'oo,'o I I c::' .: 1f I I fl .. .. 1"' I • • • • .. ____ a;.. _____ -J p~lllC::• .. j.J..---""'~l' .. • ---- 0 ' ' • • I I I I I I I , "' )( > • > < "' . COLLEGE STATION BIKE PLAN 610 BIKE ROUTE SIGNED BIKE ROUTE ---------- llGNED BIKE PROHIBITION •• •• • 37..00 PER VIOLATION BIKES MAY CM>SS THESE STREETS IUT NOT TIV.Yfl WITH nwxJ0H TIW'J'IC ~ I Texas Department of Transportation DEWITT C. GREER STATE HIGHWAY BLDG.• 125 E. 1111-i STREET • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2483 • (512) 463-8585 April 15, 1994 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program TO: ALL PROJECT NOMINATORS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES On April 28, 1994, the Texas Transportation Commission will consider and adopt the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program projects for Fiscal Years 1992, 1993 and 1994. For your convenience we have enclosed a copy of the project scores for the 292 eligible projects submitted. It is the recommendation of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) that the commission adopt approximately 82 projects for a total estimated cost of $90 million. Individual projects selected by the commission are still required to go through the federal environmental review process. This process requires that each project be analyzed in detail for environmental and socioeconomic aspects, as well as possible negative impacts on the community or region of the state. Selected projects will comply with the department's established public involvement procedures. F.a.ch project will then be subject to environmental clearance by the Federal Highway Administration. These projects have been scored in accordance with rules published in Title 43 Texas Administrative Code, Part 1 (Chapter 11), Section 11. 200-11. 205. As specified, these projects wete scored by representatives of the following state agencies: Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Commerce, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, Texas Historical Commission and Texas Natural Resource Conservation · Commission. The enclosed list of project scores indicates the cutoff line for projects that the staff recommends. If your project is scored above the indicated cutoff line (staff recommendation), there is no need for you to disrupt your busy schedule to make an appearance and present testimony before the commission. If your project is scored below the cutoff line (staff recommendation), your project previously determined eligible for potential Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program funding will be reconsidered for future program calls. We anticipate that there will be three more program calls of approximately $30 million each. The firs t of these additional yearly calls will be in the summer of 1994. An Equal Opportunity Employer All Project Nominators -2-April 15, 1994 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Our staff will contact each sponsor of projects not selected to explain the scoring process. TxDOT staff, in coordination with the other five state agencies, will hold regional Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program meetings to assist you with future program calls in preparation of submissions and to explain the scoring criteria. If your project is not on the staff recommendation list and you wish to address the commission, a personal appearance is not required or necessary. As outlined in our letter of April 11, 1994, we will accept and encourage written comments to the commission. They should be addressed to: Ms. Myrna Klipple Texas Department of Transportation 125 East 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2483 and received by 5 p.m., April 26, 1994. Letters can be mailed or faxed to Ms. Klipple at (512) 475-3072. Thank you for your interest in the Enhancement Program and we look forward to working with you in the future. Attachments cc: Texas Transportation Commission Senior Management Team Management Team Sincerely, Robert Cuellar, P. E. Deputy Executive Director Transportation Planning and Development Staff recommends the following projects for inclusion in the initial program: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator HO.HR.0192 240 Harrisburg/Sunset Rails to City of Houston HGAC Trails FW.TR.0054 240 Ft. Worth Trinity River City of Ft. Worth NCTCOG Trail Extension Project CC.NU.0106 230 The Bay Trail City of Corpus Christi & Corpus Christi MPO Texas A&M -Corpu,s Christi " BR.MM.0011 230 Milam County Courthouse Milam County Milam County Restoration Project BR.BZ.0199 225 College Station Bike Loop City of College Station Bryan-College Station MPO OD.PC.0028 215 Fort Stockton Santa Fe Depot City of Fort Stockton City of Fort Stockton Restoration WF.C0.0005 220 Gainesville Santa Fe Railroad Community Preservation City of Gainesville Depot Restoration Foundation, Inc. AT.HS.0245 225 Marshall Depot Marshall Depot, Inc. City of Marshall HO.HR.0189 220 West White Oak Trails City of Houston HGAC SA .BX.0092 220 Historic San Antonio Mission City of San Antonio San Antonio -Bexar Trails County Urban Transportation Study 1 Staff recommends the following projects for inclusion in the initial program: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator SN.TG.0254 210 · Historic Santa Fe Depot City of San Angelo San Angelo MPO TX.TX.0019 210 Texas Historical Sites (GIS) THC & TxDOT THC & TxDOT Database SA.KE.0006 205 Boerne Corridors City of Boerne City of Boerne LF.SA.0123 200 Mission Dolores City of San Augustine City of San Augustine ' WA.ML.0119 200 MK.T Depot Restoration City of West City of West SA.CM.0095 200 Pedestrian Walkway at 1st .. Comal County . ' Comal County Crossing Bridge & Guadalupe River SA.CM.0094 200 Refurbishment of Faust St. Comal County ·' Comal County Bridge FW.TR.0057 200 Restoration of T &P Ft. Worth Transportation NCTCOG ' Authority DL.C#.0295 200 U.S. 75/SH 190 Trail City of Richardson NCTCOG and Landscaping OD.MD.0029 200 Midland Draws Hike/Bike City of Midland Permian Basin Regional Trail Network Planning Commission PH.CF.0120 200 Boca Chica Scenic Texas Parks & Wildlife Texas Parks & Wildlife Acquisition in Cameron Department Department County 3 Staff recommends the following projects for inclusion in the initial program: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator TL.GG.0339 180 Walnut Hills Link City of Longview Parks & Longview MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Leisure Services DL.DL.0312 180 Bernal-Canada Drive Hike & City of Dallas NCTCOG Bike FW.TR.0078 180 North Electric Multi-Use City of North Richland Hills NCTCOG Trail & Landscaping DL.DL.0321 180 McKinney A venue Trolley City of Dallas, McKinney NCTCOG Extension Ave. Transit Authority DL.DL.0324 180 Houston Street Viaduct City of Dallas NCTCOG MP.MP.0023 180 The Great Texas Coastal Texas Parks & Wildlife & Texas Parks & Wildlife Birding Trail TxDOT PA.RR.0004 180 DeMorse Restoration Project Red River County Historical Red River County . Society TX.TX.0020 180 County Courthouse THC THC Documentation Project BW.BR.0009 175 Depot Civic & Cultural Brownwood Civic City of Brownwood Center Brownwood, Texas Improvement Foundation SA.KR.0093 175 Heart of the Hills City of Kerrville City of Kerrville FW.TR.0087 175 Bike Lanes Along North Tarrant County NCTCOG Tarrant Parkway FW.TR.0051 175 The Trails of Euless, Phase I City of Euless NCTCOG 6 Staff recommends the following projects for inclusion in the initial program: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator TL.SM.0343 175 ··Tyler's Cotton Belt Depot Heart of Tyler, Inc. Tyler MPO AU.TV.0213 170 Billboard Inventory City of Austin Austin Transportation Study PH.CF.0226 170 Rare Antique Engine Shelter Historic Brownsville Brownsville MPO at the Former So. Pacific RR Museum YK.GZ.0129 170 Gonzales Alternate City of Gonzales Cit)', of Gonzales Transportation Enhancements AU.WM.0221 170 Granger Community Granger Communitx..Depot/ City of Granger Depot/Library Library Committee AU.BP.0242 170 Renovation of the Rabb-City of Smithville City of Smithville Mccollum Building . AU.GL.0237 170 Fort Martin Scott Fredericksburg Heritage Gillespie County & TDOC Federation AU.HY.0227 170 Dripping Springs Community Hays County & TDOC Hays County Gardens AU.HY.0225 170 Hays County Courthouse Hays County Historical Hays County Commission BM.CH.0167 170 Chambers County, Phase 1 Chambers County HGAC of Galveston Bay Loop HO.HR.0187 170 East Brays Bayou Trail City of Houston HGAC HO.HR.0188 170 West Brays Bayou Trail City of Houston HGAC 7 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator FW.TR.0041 165 Landscaping on Six Flags City of Arlington NCTCOG Drive at SH 360 DL.DL.0333 165 Rehabilitation of Monroe Dallas Area Rapid Tran~it NCTCOG Shops TL.CE.0341 165 Texas State Railroad Texas Parks & Wildlife Texas Parks & Wildlife Renovation Department Department AU .GL.0219 160 Lady Bird Johnson Municipal City of Fredericksburg City of Fredericksburg Park HO.MQ.0152 160 Magnolia Station Magnolia Historical .& City of Magnolia Beautification Commission LF.NA.0257 160 Fredonia St. Rehabilitation City of Nacogdoches City of Nacogdoches HO .HR.0149 160 Tomball Railroad Depot Hike Jerry Eversole, County HGAC ' & Bike Trail Burroughs Park Commissioner HO.HR.0166 160 Battleground at Deer Park City of Deer Park HGAC Historic Bridge Relocation HO.HR.0142 160 Bellaire Blvd. Beautification City of Bellaire HGAC PH.HG.0122 160 Preservation of Historic City of Mission Hidalgo County MPO Shary Building on US 183 in Mission 9 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator TX.TX.0111 160 · Grape Trail Texas Wine Marketing Texas Department of Institute Agriculture MP.MP.0091 160 A Regional Research Design Center for Archaeological UTSA for Prehistoric Research Archaeological Sites in South Texas ' WA.ML.0127 160 University Parks Trail City of Waco Waco MPO WF.WC.0112 160 Holiday Creek Pedestrian & City of Wichita Falls Parks Wichita Falls Bicycle Trail & Recreation Department YK.CD.0203 155 Colorado River Interpretive LCRA LCRA Sites FW.TR.0046 150 Pioneer Trail Historical Landmark Preservation NCTCOG Marker Project Committee AU.GL.0220 150 Old Church on Main City of Fredericksburg City of Fredericksburg HO.GV.0158 150 Fort Travis 1930 -Fort Galveston County Beach HGAC Landing Park Board of Trustees PA.FN.0027 150 Bonham Heritage Corridor City of Bonham City of Bonham DL.DN.0278 150 Valley Ridge Greenbelt City of Lewisville NCTCOG Hike/Bike Trail SN.TG.0255 150 Pedestrian Mallway City of San Angelo San Angelo MPO FW.TR.0088 150 Tarrant County Courthouse Tarrant County NCTCOG 11 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator HO.HR.0185 150 · Southeast Houston On-Street City of Houston HGAC Bikeway Network HO.HR.0191 150 Port to Port: Houston City of Houston HGAC Heritage Corridor Project AU.CW.0205 150 Historic LEAP Project City of Lockhart & Caldwell City of Lockhart & County Calqwell County DL.DL.0279 145 South Mesquite Pedestrian City of Mesquite NCTCOG Bikeway ,, CC.SP.0107 145 Sunset Lake Wetlands City of Portland Corpu~ Christi MPO Preservation & Recreation Project DL.DL.0331 145 Union Terminal Renovation City of Dallas NCTCOG TL.SM.0196 140 Renovation of Goodman City of Tyler Parks Dept. Tyler MPO Museum DL.DL.0287 140 Paschall Park Bridge & City of Mesquite NCTCOG Pedestrian Bikeway HO.GV.0157 140 Dickinson Depot City of Dickinson HGAC HO.GV.0148 140 Bicycle Lanes for Sunset City of Friendswood HGAC Drive FM 528 to FM 2351 AU.TV.0244 140 Wells Branch West Loop Wells Branch Municipal Austin Transportation Study Trail .. Utility District 13 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No . Score Title Sponsor Nominator HO.GV.0178 140 · The I-45 Scenic Marshland Scenic Texas, Inc. HGAC Estuarial Corridor SA.ME.0090 135 Thomas J. Devine Railroad Medina Economic City of Devine Square Development Foundation FW.TR.0068 135 Johnson Road Greenwalk City of Keller NCTCOG AU.TV.0239 135 Saltillo Plaza City of Austin, Capitol Austin Transportation Study Metro •' WA.ML.0025 135 Comprehensive Tourism City of McGregor City of McGregor Development, Landscaping DL.DN.0271 130 Hill Top Park Pedestrian and City of Flower Mou~d NCTCOG Bike Trail r AU.TV.0214 130 Historic East 6th Street City of Austin Austin Transportation Study FW.TR.0066 130 Chisholm Park -TU Utility City of Hurst NCTCOG I Easement HO.GV.0147 130 Bicycle Path & Pedestrian City of Friendswood HGAC Bridge for Stevenson Park FW.TR.0069 130 SH 377 City of Keller NCTCOG Gateways/Wildflowers Historic Streetscape 15 Staff recommends the foil owing projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator FW.TR.0042 130 · Landscaping N. Collins City of Arlington NCTCOG Street FW.TR.0067 130 Big Bear Creek Greenbelt, City of Keller NCTCOG Phase II DL.DL.0285 130 Paschall Park to Debusk Park City of Mesquite NCTCOG Pedestrian & Bikeway ' HO.FB.0162 125 West Airport Blvd. City of Meadows HGAC Landscape •' FW.JN.0037 120 Kimball Bend Historic & Johnson County Johnson County Scenic Hwy. -Phase I FW.JN.0086 120 Old Chisholm Trail Road Johnson County NCTCOG TL.RK.0340 120 Depot Restoration Rusk County Historical Rusk County/City of Maintenance Foundation Henderson TL.SM.0200 120 Tyler Bicycle Transportation Tyler Bicycle Club Tyler MPO Plan FW.TR.0063 120 Belknap/NE 28th St. Median Haltom City Beautification NCTCOG Project & Revitalization Board BR.BZ.0198 120 Bryan -College Station Bike City of Bryan -College Bryan -College Station Map Station MPO 17 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: - TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator FW.TR.0053 120 ·Evans A venue Streetscape -City of Ft. Worth NCTCOG Phase I HO.HR.0168 120 West University Place West University Place HGAC On-Street Bikeway Network AU.TV.0207 120 West Bull Creek Hike & Travis County Austin Transportation Study Bike ' AU.BP.0016 120 Downtown Enhancement City of Elgin City of Elgin Project -Elgin FW.TR.0052 120 Rosedale Forest Park City of Fort Worth NCTCOG Entryway HO.MQ.0146 120 South Frazier Beautification City of Conroe HGAC HO.GV.0156 120 Galveston Rail Passenger City of Galveston HGAC Depot Enhancement DL.DL.0296 120 US 75/DART City of Richardson NCTCOG Landscaping/Pedestrian Way DL.DL.0273 120 Sidewalk Construction Along City of Garland NCTCOG SH 78 AM.PT.0103 120 Amarillo Route 66 City of Amarillo Amarillo MPO Streetscape DL.DL.0280 120 Edwards Church Road City of Dallas NCTCOG Stormwater Retention 19 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator DL.DL.0274 110 · Beltline -IH 30 Landscape City of Grand Prairie NCTCOG AU.TV.0208 110 Commons Ford/Barton Creek Travis County Austin Transportation Study Hike & Bike HO.HR.0164 110 Terry Hershey Park Bicycle Harris County HGAC Trail Extension HO.HR.0345 110 City of Humble On-Street City of Humble HGA.C Hike/Bikeway Network " AM.RD.0102 110 City of Canyon Gateway City of Canyon Randall County Project WF.YN.0117 110 Revitalizing Hist. Downtown City of Graham City of Graham Graham & Commerce Park FW.TR.0075 110 Transp. Enh. & Hist. Pres. City of Mansfield NCTCOG Activities along Bus 287 loop EP.CU.0264 110 Broadway Enhancement Broadway Beautification & City of Van Horn I Project Development Co. AU.MP.0234 110 Texas Heartland Network Blanco, Hays, Gillespie Texas Department of Counties Commerce AU.TV.0232 110 Mansfield Dam Visitor Lower Colorado River Austin Transportation Study Center Pedestrian Authority Walkway/Bikeway 21 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator HO.HR.0163 100 Bicycle Storage.at M.D. M.D. Anderson Medical HGAC Anderson Cancer Center Center DL.DL.0302 100 Sachse Bicycle Pedestrian City of Sachse NCTCOG Enhancement Project AT.CP.0248 100 Sidewalk Project along SH City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg 11, Downtown Pittsburg ' DL.DL.0272 100 Landscaping Enhancement City of Garland NCTCOG SH 78 S. Garland Ave. AU.BT.0206 100 Historic Downtown City of Burnet City of Burnet Revitalization -Burnet, TX DL.DL.0299 100 Coit Road Landscaping City of Richardson NCTCOG DL.DL.0297 100 Spring Valley City of Richardson NCTCOG Road/Centennial Blvd. Landscaping FW.TR.0040 100 Old Town Linear Park City of Arlington NCTCOG HO.MQ.0151 100 Bicycle Pathway Project in Montgomery County HGAC the Woodlands LF.AG.0003 100 Downtown Lufkin/State Main Street Lufkin City of Lufkin Highway 59 MP.MP.0243 100 LBJ Scenic Hill Country City of Austin Austin Transportation Study Trail &TPWD 23 Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator HO.HR.0131 90 · Hunters Creek Village City of Hunters Creek HGAC Perimeter Hike & Bike Village Extension BW.LM.0010 90 Historic Hancock Springs Oran Mills Roberts Chapter City of Lampasas Hostess House of the DRT HO.MQ.0165 90 Montgomery Bicycle City of Montgomery HGAC Pedestrian System AT.PN.0247 90 Panola College Pedestrian City of Carthage .. City of Carthage Overpass WA.BL.0014 90 Miller Springs Natural Area, Temple & Belton ISDs & Killeen-Temple MPO Bell County Miller Springs Alliance AU.GL.0236 90 Stonewall Discovery Center Stonewall Heritage Society TDOC & Gillespie County DL.DL.0269 90 IH 20 Beautification City of Duncanville NCTCOG ( 4 locations) LA.WB.0252 90 Hamilton Hotel Restoration -City of Laredo Laredo Urban Laredo Transportation Study FW.TR.0080 90 Baker Blvd. Beautification City of Richland Hills NCTCOG DL.DL.0326 90 Simpson Stuart Streetscaping City of Dallas NCTCOG FW.TR.0058 90 Lakeridge Bike Loop City of Grand Prairie NCTCOG DL.C#.029 1 90 US 75 Gateway Project City of Plano NCTCOG 25 .. • Staff recommends the following projects for consideration during subsequent program calls: TxDOT No. Score Title Sponsor Nominator DL.DL.0275 70 · Median Beautification & City of Irving NCTCOG Gateway Projects ~ BR.WA.0349 70 Renewal & Landscaping of City of Huntsville City of Huntsville Spur 94 YK.CL.0128 70 Little Chocolate Bayou Park Calhoun County Calhoun County DL.DL.0290 60 Town East Boulevard City of Mesquite NCTCOG Pedestrian way ., AU .TV.0210 60 East Austin Historic Survey City of Austin Austin Transportation Study Along E. 1st, 6th, 7th, 11th DL.DL.0282 60 North Galloway A venue City of Mesquite .. NCTCOG Pedestrian way DL.DL.0276 60 Valley Ranch Land City of Irving NCTCOG Acquisition WA.BL.0013 60 I City of Temple Railroad & City of Temple Killeen-Temple Urban Pioneer Museum Transportation Study DL.DL.0303 60 SH 78 Corridor Enhancement City of Sachse NCTCOG Plan, Sachse CC.NU.0109 60 Exterior Preservation & USS Lexington Museum Corpus Christi MPO Illumination on USS Lexington 27 ~·* (CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ w PLANNING DIVISION Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO : Mark Smith, Assistant Director of Public Services Jim Irving, Superintendent of Traffic Maintenance FROM: Edwin Hard, Transportation Planner ft[ DATE: December 3, 1990 RE: Bikeway Routing/Planning The purpose of this memo is to provide each of you with current information on Bikeway Routing. I would very much appreciate both of your review and comment on the attached map as well as the information to follow. This may or may not be an issue to be discussed at our next TMT meeting. As per the request of Officer Bubba Sayers of the CSPD, I have prepared an update to the City's existing bikeway route map. This map, shown on the attached page, was prepared based an inventory of the existing bikeway route/lane signs in the City. The "updated" existing signed bike routes are shown by colored markers superimposed on the Bikeway Master Plan map. An inventory to determine the accurate locations of signed routes was conducted due to conflicting information between the CSPD Bikeway Map and the Bikeway Master Plan Map. The inventory involved a windshield survey whereby approximately 100 bikeway signs in the City were accounted for and mapped. I would be interested to see if this number is consistent with records either of you may have. Officer Sayers also requested consideration of additional routes south of F.M. 2818. Due to adequate pavement width and moderate traffic volumes, Longmire and Rio Grande are the best suited streets to provide additional north-south routing south of F.M. 2818. It is my belief that bike route crossings with major thoroughfares should be minimized. Therefore, the proposed Longmire and Rio Grande routes should be connected with the Southwood route via a local street prior to their intersection with F.M. 2818. Additionally, Deacon Street should be considered as an east-west bike route alternative south of F.M. 2818. The above are but a few of the bikeway routing and planning alternatives that the City needs to consider in the near future. There are still street segments north of F.M. 2818 that warrant routing consideration. Also, there are existing routes that need additional bikeway signs to better define their route and/or "No Parking" signs for safety purposes. Some of my more pressing thoughts on bikeway alternatives and concerns are listed below. 1.) The Welsh Street segment from Deacon to Holleman should be considered as a route. An alternative would be to end the route at Southwest Parkway and connect this segment with the Glade route via a small jog on SW Parkway. 2.) Extend the Francis route from Munson east to Glenhaven. 3.) Designate Williams Street (immediately in front of College Hills Elementary) as a route. 4.) The bike lanes on Holleman (between Texas and Winding) indicated on the attached map are-n ~in place-b-u · b mplet irrapproximately one month. 5.) More routes need to be designated on the north side of campus. A route beginning on Cavitt (City of Bryan) travelling north with a bike path through Hensel Park is a good alternative suggested by a TTI report. 6.) The opportunity to establish a bike lane or path along Texas Avenue from University to Bush should be examined and considered in the Texas Avenue widening project. This route segment would provide connection to the Walton/Main Drive bike route. A bike path separated from travel lanes would be preferred. A meeting should be held between appropriate City personnel or perhaps within the TMT to discuss the existing bike routes as well as route alternatives to be signed in the near future. The appropriate personnel and forum to discuss this matter should be determined by Jim Callaway and Mark Smith. A copy of this memo has been forwarded to Officer Sayers for his information. If a consensus is reached within a relatively short period of time as to the new bike routes (if any) the City will sign in the near future, this information could be included on the updated Bike Route map the Police Department provides for public distribution. ~-· .. . COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP COST ESTIMATES Statewide Transportation Enhancements Program 1 W.Fronta e, Krenek Ta to Emerald P 2,800 $77,000 2 Central Park Interior, Perimeter 4,200 $115,500 3 PSC, Krenek Ta to Bee Creek 1,200 $48,000 4 PSC, Alon Bee Creek to Texas Ave. 1,050 $29,000 5 Texas to Valle View, Putt Putt 660 $18,200 6 Texas Ave., Bee Creek to Cemeta 500 $13,750 7 Texas Ave, Behind Cemeta throu 1,800 $50,000 8 Bee Creek and Lemontree add 6 feet 2,500 $42,000 9 Bee Creek Park, Pavillion across brid e to An elina St. 350 $9,625 10 Bee Creek Park, Connection to A tmts. on Potomac St. 70 $1,500 11 Lemon Tree Park, Connection to Haines St. 300 $9,000 12 Throu h Wolf Pen Creek Park 400 $11,000 13 1,550 $43,000 14 500 $13,850 15 900 $25,000 16 1,200 $34,000 17 1,600 $44,000 21,580 $584,425 1 Bush, Texas to Wellborn 5,640 $7,600 2 Bush, FM 2154 to Marion Pu h 200 $650 3 Marion Pu h, Bush to Amtrak 400 $800 4 Lincoln, Texas Ave. to SH 60 . 4,620 $6,050 5 Walton, Texas Ave. to Gilchrist 3,560 $4,500 6 Stallin s, Dominik to Univers· Oaks 500 $1,000 7 CP Lane, Col ate to SW Parkwa 800 $1,150 8 Anderson, Bush to Halik 3,300 $4,300 9 Holleman, Mall Entrance to Dartmouth 880 $1,400 Total 19,900 $27,450 " ... _ .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP Across Bee Creek to Putt Putt Across Bee Creek to Ari elina Lemontree Park Near Halik COST ESTIMATES Continued Lemontree Park to Haines Two 60' Brid es Util. Esmt., Mall to A artments Kiwani's Nature Trail Kiwani's Nature Trail Total 1 Texas Ave. at Bee Creek 3 SH 30 at WPC Tributa Total 1 Gilchrist to Dominik 9,000 S . Ft.@.42$ 2 Central Park Lane 30,300 S . Ft. @ .58$ Total Subtotal Desi n Cost 10% of Construction . ,., ... "• 60 $28,000 100 $5d,OOO 40 $20,000 120 $56,000 30 $16,000 30 $12,000 30 $12,000 410 $194,000 75 $85,000 65 $68,000 75 $85,000 215 $238,000 450 $3,800 1,515 $17,600 1,965 21,400 1,065,275 106,528 $175,nO COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP Annual Maintenance Cost Estimates Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Maintenance Area Hours Per Year Cost 96 . $960 208 $2,080 312 $3,120 NA $2,500 NA $1,000 Subtotal 616 $9,660 mi~·~~;~:Aial;l·~4~~~1b~~i:~~~f~;:~~~~~:(tm~~~~~.:::t·: ... , .... · · ;j:;:::;;y:::.·· . '·_·.::);·: Maintenance Area Hours Per Year Cost @$40/hr. 40 $1,600 @ $15/hr. 72 $1,080 @$34/hr. 208 $2,448 700 $98,000 NA $5,000 NA $7,000 Subtotal 1020 $115,128 ·:r:-:-:c::.·· ··· · .... ,_._,.,.,,.:·:---.. :);ii;/ :r,:::'/),···,··· ;~TAL i 1,,~St j~3J"9rinM~~;.f~. . ... ) VARIES -· , t---1 • I 4 ... . . EXPANSION JOINl SPACING -100 (SEE JOINT DETAILS) 'CONTRACTION . . .. jQINT SPACING -s.oo'' ·· " (SEE JOINT DETAILS) .•. STANDARD c·oNCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL . • # 6 WIRE MESH OR ·3 II 0 BARS AT 1211 a . ,. CENTERS REQUIRED · VARIES I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r . I (iii) Rev. 9/92 Bike Paths Bike paths are facilities used exclusively for bike traffic with rninirnal cross flow by motor vehicles. They should be located primarily in greenbelt areas or park-type areas. If a bike path is to be located in the right-of-way of an adjacent roadway there should be a minimum of five feet (5') separating the bike path from the roadway. The paved width and the operating width required for a bicycle path are primary desiqn considerations. Figure 5 depicts a bicycle path on a separated right-of-way. Under most conditions, a recommended all-paved width for a two-directional bicycle path is ten feet (10'). In some instances, however, a minimum of eight feet (8') can be adequate. This minimum should be used only where the following conditions prevail: (1) bicycle traffic is expected to be low, even on peak days or during peak hours (2) pedestrian use of the facility is not expected to be more than occasional, (3) there will be good' horizontal and vertical ~ent providing safe and frequent passing opportunities, ( 4) the path will not be subjected to maintenance vehicle loading conditions that would cause pavement edge damage. Under certain conditions it may be necessary or desirable to increase the width of a bicycle path to twelve feet (1 2'); for example, because of substantial bicycle volume, probable shared use with joggers and other pedestrians, use by large maintenance vehicles, steep grades and where bicyclists will be likely to ride two abreast. FIGURE 5 BICYCLE PATH lL !2.J 2' 5' ore· min wldtti•--..__ (min) P.t.V[O (min) GRADED GR~DED • One-woy: 5' minimum wldtn Two-way: !!' minimum wldtn 9-23 ' The nurumum width of a one-directional bicycle path is five feet (5'). It should be recO<]Ilized, however, that one-way bicycle paths often will be used as two-way facilities unless effective measures are taken to assure one-way operation. Without such enforcement, it should be assumed that bicycle paths will be used as two-way facilities and designed accordingly. A minimum of twb-foot width graded area should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the pavement; however, three feet (3') or more is desirable to provide clearance from trees, poles, walls, fences, guard rails, or other lateral obstructions. A wider graded area on either side of the bicycle path can serve as a separate jogging path. The vertical clearance to obstructions should be a minimum of eicJht feet (8'). However, vertical clearance may need to be greater to permit passage of maintenance vehicles and, in under crossings and tunnels, a clearance of ten feet (10') is desirable. 8-0 Water Supply 8-0.l All subdivisions shall be provided with water supply and distribution systems for fire protection and domestic use. The design of which shall be approved and enforced by the City Engineer in accordance with applicable city, state and federal statutes, codes, City of College Station construction specifications and acceptable engineering practice. 8-0 .2 Public fire hydrants of City of College Station standard design shall be installed as a part of the water distribution system in accordance with applicable city codes. 8-P Sanitary Sewers 8-P.l All subdivisions shall be provided with an approved sanitary sewerage system, meeting the standards of the City Engineering department. Curved sewers of not less than one hundred foot (100') radius are accepted, manholes of not over five hundred foot (500') spacing. 8-P.2 If the sewerage system includes treatment facilities, the plan must be approved by the Texas State Department of Health, and subdivider must have a permit for the discharge of emuent from the Texas Water Quality Board, before the approval by the commission. ~ Drainage Drainage shall be provided to handle runoff as calculated, street inlets for a five (5) year rain, storm sewers for a five (5) year rain, and bridges for a twenty-five (25) year rain, all as approved by the City Engineer. Water shall not be carried on the street for a distance greater than a five (5) year rain will overflow the curb. Drainage shall be handled in natural stream channels insofar as practical. No construction shall impede, constrict, or block the flow of water in any natural or improved watercourse. 8-R Utility Lines All utility lines that pass under streets or alleys shall be installed before the street or alley is paved, with ernbed.rnent, backfill, and depths as approved by the City Engineer, or the crossing shall be bored. 8-S Gas or Oil Lines High pressure flammable gas or fuel lines are defined as those which are operated or may be expected in the future to operate at a pressure of over sixty (60) pounds per square inch. High pressure flammable gas or fuel lines, installed on public property, shall be buried with a minimum cover of thirty inches (30"), and shall be marked by an all-weather typed sign, 9-24 Rev. 9/92 I I i .I II