2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan - Mid

Transcription

2006
Regional
Bicycle
Transportation
Facilities
Plan
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
285 East Main Street
Columbus, OH 43215
2006 REGIONAL BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PLAN
of the
Prepared by:
285 East Main Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Bernice Cage, Principal Planner
Ahmad Al-Akhras, Assistant Director of Transportation
Robert E. Lawler, Director of Transportation
June 2007
Preparation of this document was financed by appropriations from
Franklin, Delaware, Licking and Fairfield counties, and municipalities in
Delaware and Franklin counties, together with planning funds from the
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration
with the Ohio Department of Transportation.
2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Plan Update ................................................................................ 4
Transportation Vision, Goals and Objectives ...................................................... 4
Organization of the Report .................................................................................. 6
Policy Issues .................................................................................................................. 7
Routine Accommodation ..................................................................................... 7
SAFETEA-LU ..................................................................................................... 8
MORPC-Attributable Funding Programs ............................................................. 9
State and Local Laws and Regulations ............................................................... 9
Assessment of Current Conditions and Needs ............................................................. 10
Growth and Land Development ........................................................................ 10
Users of the Bicycle Transportation System...................................................... 12
Potential Demand ............................................................................................. 16
Bicycle Parking Needs ...................................................................................... 20
COTA Bike Lockers .......................................................................................... 21
Bike and Bus .................................................................................................... 22
Safety Assessment ........................................................................................... 26
Crash Analysis Software ....................................................................... 27
Crash Analysis ...................................................................................... 28
Bicycle Crashes .................................................................................... 31
High Street ................................................................................ 33
Broad Street .............................................................................. 36
Cleveland Avenue ..................................................................... 37
Main Street ................................................................................ 39
Parsons Avenue ........................................................................ 40
Mound Street ............................................................................. 41
Sullivant Avenue ........................................................................ 42
Livingston Avenue ..................................................................... 43
Champion Avenue ..................................................................... 44
Fifth Avenue .............................................................................. 45
Bikeway Characteristics ............................................................................................... 46
Roadway Suitability Evaluation Tools ............................................................... 46
The Bicycle Transportation System .............................................................................. 56
Performance Criteria for the Bicycle Transportation Network ............................ 57
Design and Location Criteria ............................................................................. 58
Desired Travel Corridors ....................................................................... 59
River Corridors ...................................................................................... 62
Rail Corridors ........................................................................................ 64
Utility Corridors...................................................................................... 66
Barriers and Bridges ............................................................................. 66
Regional Connections ........................................................................... 67
Regional Activity Centers ........................................................... 67
Proposed Bikeway Functional Classifications ................................................... 71
Regional Bikeway Network ............................................................................... 74
Bicycle Facilities Estimated Costs..................................................................... 77
1
Bibliography
Appendix A
Bicycle Safety Education
Appendix B
Ohio Revised Code – Bicycle Laws
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Policy, Routine Accommodations, 2004
Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOT-Owned and Maintained
Facilities
Principles for Allocation and Management of MORPC-Attributable Federal Funding
Bikeability Checklist
Bicycle Level-of-Service Model Description
FHWA Treatment Tables
Estimating Potential Bike Trips
Appendix C
Federal Funding Sources
Appendix D
Sample Parking Ordinances
Appendix E
Breaking Barriers to Bicycling: Bicycle Lanes Best Practices and Pilot Treatments
Shared-Use Paths Best Practices and Pilot Treatments
2
Introduction
The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) as the
metropolitan planning organization in central Ohio is required to plan
for the “development and integrated management and operation of
transportation systems and facilities (including bicycle transportation
facilities) that will function as an intermodal transportation system.”
The planning process for metropolitan areas is further required to:
consider a range of projects and strategies including those that
will increase the safety and security of the transportation system
for non-motorized users
increase accessibility and mobility options available to people
improve the quality of life
enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system for people
Public interest for more bicycle facilities prompted MORPC and the
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) to develop policy
requiring the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
transportation improvement projects.
In 2004, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC)
created a routine accommodations policy on the use of federal
attributable funds; “Accommodating Bicycles and Pedestrians in
Transportation Projects - a Policy Statement.”
In 2005, ODOT adopted its first routine accommodations policy;
“Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOTOwned and Maintained Facilities.”
In 2005 the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) placed bike racks
on buses and offered free rides to those who used the bike racks.
That summer the community witnessed first-hand the need for more
3
bicycle facilities. The increase in bicyclists was phenomenal as they
struggled through city streets to reach destinations.
Every three years, the Regional Bikeway Plan is updated with new,
existing, committed, and proposed bikeway corridors. As
communities review opportunities to add bikeways when constructing
and reconstructing transportation projects, the issue and challenge of
connectivity have emerged.
Purpose of the Plan Update
MORPC’s responsibilities and bicyclists’ increased interest have
created the necessity for a comprehensive update to the Regional
Bikeway Plan. The purpose of the Regional Bikeway Plan is to:
Provide a bikeway planning guide for local jurisdictions,
considering land development, roadway widenings, and highway
improvements or zoning changes.
Facilitate development of a transportation system that provides
direct and convenient bicycle travel within and between residential
areas, places of employment and neighborhood activity centers.
Provide for the development of a regional bikeway system
meeting the travel needs of the bicycling public.
Provide for a regional bikeway system that is integrated with
central Ohio’s surface transportation system.
The plan continues to respond to the bicycle travel needs of central
Ohio by providing a skeletal system of bikeways in the transportation
planning area: Delaware and Franklin counties, Etna Township and
Pataskala in Licking County and Violet and Bloom townships in
Fairfield County.
Local jurisdictions should incorporate MORPC’s updated regional
bikeway plan into comprehensive or capital improvement plans to
assist in the continuity, expansion and extension of the regional
bikeway system.
Transportation Vision, Goals & Objectives
The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has two federal
policy alternatives:
Accommodate current bicycle use and/or
Increase the level of use
4
With regional growth and transportation issues that are occurring in
central Ohio, MORPC in early 2005 revisited its transportation goals
and objectives to determine if it addressed the current needs of
central Ohio. The question was put forward, “how should central Ohio
spend its regional transportation money?” A vision of the region and a
thoughtful set of goals for transportation were needed to ensure the
transportation projects funded would meet our needs and improve the
region.
The Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives, developed for the next
Regional Transportation Plan to be adopted in 2008, are shown
below:
VISION: A transportation system that enhances environmental, social
and economic well being of the region.
Goal I: Provide a safe, secure and efficient transportation system
Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
Ensure transportation infrastructure and development are built
concurrently.
Use technology to better inform the public of real-time travel
options.
Preserve and acquire rights-of-way for desired volumes of traffic
(all modes).
Design travel ways for appropriate speeds and desired volumes of
traffic (all modes).
Prioritize projects that result from a collaborative, interjurisdictional process.
Goal II: Provide an accessible transportation system with a range
of choices
Provide facilities for desired levels of pedestrian, bicycle and
transit travel.
Ensure connection of facilities to the regional transportation
network.
Ensure simple and convenient intermodal connections for both
passenger travel and freight movement.
Prioritize transportation infrastructure that minimizes automobile
travel.
Goal III: Protect the social, environmental and economic well
being of the citizens of the region
Prioritize transportation infrastructure for developments that
minimize the need for automobile travel.
Advance transportation projects that do not shift economic activity
away from developed areas, especially between jurisdictions.
5
Ensure that transportation facilities are accessible by all users.
Analyze public information and education programs to determine
and improve their effectiveness.
Reduce transportation’s contribution to regional air quality
problems.
Reduce transportation’s contribution to regional water quality
problems.
Incorporate aesthetic considerations (e.g., landscaping and good
design practices) into the development of transportation facilities.
Protect habitat, natural areas and cultural resources.
Reduce noise impacts of transportation.
Reduce the energy demands of the transportation system.
To achieve the transportation goals and objectives pertaining to the
bicycle as a mode of transportation, MORPC plans to:
1.
Give priority to projects that will close gaps in the bikeway
system, eliminate barriers; provide linkage, and/or continuity to
any existing facilities when planning and programming
improvements.
2.
Identify federal and state funds for eligible projects.
3.
Encourage planners and engineers to include the needs of
bicyclists when designing transportation facilities in urban,
suburban and rural areas.
4.
Encourage the appointment of bicycle coordinators by local
member governments.
5.
Encourage local jurisdictions to incorporate the regional
bikeway plan network as part of its comprehensive plan.
Organization of the Report
The remainder of this document progresses sequentially through the
steps followed to develop the plan. The steps include:
policy issues
legislation impacting facilities and potential funding
assessment of bicycle travel needs
description of general bikeway characteristics
the bikeway transportation system
6
Policy Issues
Routine Accommodation
During the 1990’s, Congress spearheaded a movement toward a
transportation system that favors people and goods over motor
vehicles with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (199l) and the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21) (1998).
ISTEA and TEA-21 contained explicit language on providing bicycle
and pedestrian provisions. TEA-21 specifically stated, “Bicycle
transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered,
where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and
reconstruction of transportation projects, except where bicycle and
pedestrian use are not permitted” (Section 1202). Other federal laws
including the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) reinforced the need for
bicycle facilities.
FHWA prepared in response “Design Guidance: Accommodating
Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach: A US
DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into
Transportation Infrastructure (Guidance).” The Design Guidance
incorporated three key principles:
a.
b.
c.
a policy statement that bicycle and pedestrian facilities will
be incorporated into all transportation projects unless
exceptional circumstances exist
an approach to achieving this policy that has already
worked in state and local agencies
a series of action items that a public agency, professional
association, or advocacy group can take to achieve the
overriding goal of improving conditions for bicycling and
walking
While the intent of the Design Guidance was for every transportation
agency to make accommodations for bicycling and walking a routine
part of their planning, design, construction, operations and
maintenance activities, bikeways for transportation in central Ohio
were not being constructed.
MORPC, recognizing the importance of and encouraging the
construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, wanted to put into
place a mechanism that would provide the same or similar intent as
the noted guidance. In that, MORPC adopted in 2004
Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrians in Transportation
Projects - a Policy Statement, a bicycle and pedestrian planning
policy for all project sponsors seeking MORPC-attributable federal
funds. See Appendix B for the complete policy.
7
Many transportation projects, however, do not use MORPC’s
attributable funding and subsequently, are not subject to this policy.
As an additional effort to encourage communities to accommodate
bicycles and pedestrians, MORPC in 2005 developed Internal
Guidelines to Recommending Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.
This document directs staff on a standard approach to state and local
agencies whose projects, which use some other source of funding,
come to the attention of MORPC.
ODOT’s Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on
ODOT-Owned or Maintained Facilities requires that bicycle and
pedestrian facilities be considered in new construction or
reconstruction projects. See Appendix B for the complete policy.
SAFETEA-LU
On August 10, 2005 the President signed into law the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
With guaranteed funding for highways, highway safety, and public
transportation totaling $286.5 billion, SAFETEA-LU represents the
largest surface transportation investment in our nation’s history.
SAFETEA-LU builds on ISTEA and TEA-21 supplying the funds and
refining the programmatic framework for investments needed to
maintain and grow our vital transportation infrastructure. See
Appendix C for a full description of federal programs that fund eligible
bikeways.
8
MORPC-Attributable Funding Programs
Every two years, MORPC solicits funding applications for
transportation projects that are located within its transportation
planning area. MORPC revised its principles, procedures, and
application for the STP, CMAQ and TE programs. The Principles for
Allocation and Management of MORPC-Attributable Federal Funding
can be found in Appendix B.
State and Local Laws and Regulations
There are several laws that are important in the planning and
construction of bikeways.
Ohio Revised Code – Bicycle Laws (see Appendix B)
Article XII, section 5a of the Ohio Constitution, § 5735.27. Distribution
and use of gasoline excise tax fund and highway operating fund. (See
Appendix B.)
9
Assessment of Current Conditions and Needs
Growth and Land Development
Land use patterns and development are critical to transportation
planning.1 The land use and transportation systems are intricately
related. The land use system defines the origin and destinations of
travel patterns. Transportation planning tools, such as travel demand
models, utilize land use data to measure the ability of the
transportation infrastructure to meet travel needs and to test impacts
from various transportation projects.
Central Ohio continues to be the fastest growing area in the state. An
additional 430,000 people are forecast between 2000 and 2030.
Change in Population, Housing and
Employment: 1990-2030
Population (1,000's)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Population
1990
Housing
2000
Employment
2030
Slightly over one-half of the new population is forecast for Franklin
County. Delaware County is expected to add more than 150,000
people. The portions of the study area in Fairfield and Licking
counties are each projected to add more than 13,000 people.
In Franklin County, most growth continues to be forecast at the
peripheries of the county. Robust growth is expected in Grove City.
Other high growth areas include the area between Hilliard and Dublin
on the west side of Franklin County, the New Albany area and the
area around Groveport, Canal Winchester and Obetz. Overall,
however, it is projected that growth will continue to be strongest in the
northern half of the study area.
Forecasts for Delaware County, including Delaware City, and the
suburban communities across the northern arc of the outerbelt
account for nearly one-half of all new population growth.
1
2030 Regional Transportation Plan
10
Change in Population
Change in Households
Change in Jobs
11
Users of the Bicycle Transportation System
Nearly 100 million people in the United States own bicycles. The
Bicycle Federation of America estimates that fewer than 5 percent
would qualify as experienced or highly skilled bicyclists. Since the
federal policy goal is to accommodate existing bicyclists and
encourage increased bicycle use (see Policy Issues), there will be
more novice riders than advanced bicyclists using the highway
system. Therefore, any roadway treatments intended to
accommodate bicycle use must address the needs of both
experienced and less experienced riders. One solution to this
challenge, according to FHWA’s Planning and Design Guidance, is to
develop the concept of a “design cyclist” and adopt a classification
system for bicycle users such as the following:
Group A – Advanced Bicyclists: These are experienced riders who
can operate under most traffic conditions. They comprise the majority
of the current users of collector and arterial streets and are best
served by the following:
www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden
Direct access to destinations usually via the existing street and
highway system.
The opportunity to operate at maximum speed with minimum
delays.
Sufficient operating space on the roadway or shoulder to
reduce the need for either the bicyclist or the motor vehicle
operator to change position when passing.
12
Group B – Basic Bicyclists: These are casual or new adult and
teenage riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in
traffic without special provisions for bicycles. Some will develop
greater skills and progress to the advanced level, but there will always
be many millions of basic bicyclists. They prefer:
www.pedbikeimages.org/DanBurden
Comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct route,
using either low-speed, low traffic-volume streets or designated
bicycle facilities.
Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial
and collector streets (bike lanes or shoulders) or separate bike
paths.
13
Group C-Children: These are pre-teen riders whose roadway use is
initially monitored by parents. Eventually they are accorded
independent access to the system. They and their parents prefer the
following:
Access to key destinations surrounding residential areas,
including schools, recreation facilities, shopping, or other
residential areas.
Residential streets with low motor vehicle speed limits and
volumes.
Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on
arterial and collector streets or separate bike paths.
These lists support combining group B and C bicyclists in most
situations. Therefore a “design cyclist” concept is proposed that
recognizes two broad classes of bicyclists: Group A riders and Group
B/C riders.
Group A riders will be best served by making every street “bicycle
friendly.” Provide adequate space for bicycles and motor vehicles to
share the roadway with minimum need for changing lanes or lane
position. The desired outcome is to have sufficient space to
accommodate shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles with
minimum delays and maximum safety for all users. This can be
accomplished by:
Establishing and enforcing speed limits to minimize speed
differentials between bicycles and motor vehicles on
neighborhood streets and/or by implementing “traffic-calming”
strategies that do not create barriers/hazards for cyclists.
Providing wide curb lanes on collector and arterial streets built
with a curb and gutter (urban section). Providing usable shoulders
on highways built with no curb and gutter (rural section).
Generally, group B/C bicyclists will be best served by a network of
neighborhood streets and designated bicycle facilities, which can be
provided by:
14
Ensuring neighborhood streets have low speed limits through
effective speed enforcement or controls and/or by implementing
“traffic-calming” strategies that do not create barriers/hazards for
cyclists.
Providing a network of designated bicycle facilities (e.g., bike
lanes, bike paths, or side-street bicycle routes) through the key
travel corridors typically served by arterial and collector streets.
Providing usable roadway shoulders on rural highways.
Group B/C riders will be best served by identifying key travel corridors
(typically served by arterial and collector streets) and by providing
designated bicycle facilities on selected routes through these corridors.
Design Bicyclists
Group Needs
A
Direct access to destinations
(5%)
Operate at maximum speed with minimal delays
Sufficient operating space - Roadway or Shoulder
B/C
Comfortable access to key destinations
(95%) Low speeds and low volumes
Well-defined separation on roadway
Accommodations
Enforce speed limits
Wide curb lanes (urban)
Paved shoulders (rural)
Ensure low speeds
Bike lanes, paths or routes
Paved shoulders
15
Potential Demand
Local agencies and policy makers ask the question of how many
people will actually use new or improved bicycle facilities. Where
should they spend limited resources to get the most “bang for the
buck” and what type of facility should be constructed?
Comparison
Studies
Aggregate
Behavior
Studies
Sketch Plan
Methods
Discrete
Choice
Models
Regional
Travel
Models
There are several ways to estimate future levels of bicycle use
including:2
Methods that predict non-motorized travel on a facility by comparing it to usage and
to surrounding population and land use characteristics of other similar facilities.
Methods that relate non-motorized travel in an area to its local population, land use,
and other characteristics, usually through regression analysis.
Methods that predict non-motorized travel on a facility or in an area based on
simple calculations and rules of thumb about trip lengths, mode shares, and other
aspects of travel behavior.
Models that predict an individual’s travel decisions based on characteristics of the
alternatives available to them.
Models that predict total trips by trip purpose, mode, and origin/destination and
distribute these trips across a network of transportation facilities, based on land use
characteristics such as population and employment and on characteristics of the
transportation network.
Attractions
Trip distance
Demographics
Land use patterns
Travel conditions
Topography and
climate
Community
attitudes
Time and
geographic scope
Conditions3 that should be included in forecasting bicycle travel:
Certain activity centers tend to be major attractors for cycling, including
commercial districts, school-college-university campuses, employment centers,
recreation centers and parks.
Most bicycling trips are less than 5 miles in length, although recreational trips
are often much longer.
Young (10-20) and low-income people tend to rely on cycling for transportation.
Bicycling for transportation tend to increase with density because higher
density makes this mode more efficient.
Wide roads with heavy, high-speed vehicle traffic can form significant barriers
to bicycling. Bikeways and their conditions can have a significant impact on the
amount of bicycling that occurs.
These factors can affect bicycling, but not as much as might be expected. For
example, the cities of Seattle, Portland and Missoula report significantly higher
levels of bicycle transportation than many “Sunbelt” cities that are flat and have
mild climates.
Local attitudes can have a major impact on the level of cycling in a community.
More people would bicycle if it were perceived to be more socially acceptable.
Time and geographic scope
2
Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Overview of Methods, USDOT, Publication No.
FHWA-RD-98-165, July 1999.
3
Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation, Techniques for Measuring Walking and Cycling Activity and
Conditions, TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, July 9, 2004.
16
It may take several years for a community to fully achieve its full
bicycle travel potential.
Along with the conditions, factors influencing bicycling should be
considered including:4
Age
Gender
Education
Students
Car and License
Having a Driver’s
License
Size of Town
Employment Status
Professional Status
Household Income
Trip Length
Parking Fees
Facility Conditions
Travel Costs
Bicycle Parking
Community Values
Climate/Weather
4
Bicycle use increase into middle age and then decrease. Cyclists tend to
have lower average age than non-cyclists.
Men tend to cycle significantly more than women.
Bicycle use increases slightly with education.
Students are the largest bicycle commuter group. Universities, colleges
and schools are major generators of bicycle trips.
People who do not have a car available are more likely to cycle.
People who cannot drive are more likely to cycle.
A population of less than 100,000 appears to offer a better environment for
cycling, and so may have higher rates of cycling than larger cities.
Higher unemployment is associated with more cycling.
Among employed people, professionals and managers appear more likely
to cycle than blue collar and sales workers.
Utilitarian cyclists tend to have lower average incomes compared with noncyclists. Recreational cyclists tend to have higher than average incomes.
Cycling is most common for short (<5 mile) trips.
Commuters who must pay for parking may be more likely to bicycle.
Bicycle facilities (paths and lanes) and roadway conditions considered
favorable to cycling tend to increase bicycle travel.
Market trends or transportation demand management measures that
increase automobile trip costs may induce shifts from driving to bicycling.
Bicycle parking may affect some cycling decisions, particularly the
availability of high-security, covered bike storage at worksites.
Some communities appear to accept and support utilitarian cycling more
than others.
Some people may bicycle only in pleasant weather.
Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation
17
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately .3 percent of
commuters in Franklin County and .1 percent in Delaware County bike
to work.
Census data are taken in the last week of March, which reflects in
seasonal variation. Nationally, the National Household Travel Survey
(NHTS) data indicate that average monthly bicycle travel is 110
percent of March bicycle travel. It also indicates national bicycle
travel for work makes up about 5 percent of all bicycle travel. To keep
things simple and to keep the estimate conservative, a multiplier of 20
(100/5) is used to estimate all bicycle trips from census work trips.5
Using MORPC’s Travel Demand Model, the number of home to all
trips 5 miles or less with an age limit of over 10, one can estimate
potential bike trips. Using that same model, the number of all trips
can also be estimated to calculate bike trip share.
5
Bicycle Benchmarking Report, draft, Thunderhead Alliance, Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, August 2004
18
Current Bike to Work*
All Bike Trips
Potential Bike Trips (2000)**
All Trips (2000)**
Current Bike Trip Share
Potential Bike Trip Share
Franklin County
1504 (.3%)
30,080
Delaware County
29(.1%)
580
Both Counties
1533(.4%)
30,660
1,303,927
4,580,333
.67%
28.46%
*2000 U.S. Census **MORPC’s Travel Demand Model
19
As depicted in the conditions and factors listed, transit-dependent
riders are candidates for bicycling. COTA’s bike-and-bus program
can be an element in determining the potential number of bike trips.
Not knowing what percentage of these boardings were transfers, we
will assuming 4 bus trips to and from a destination (2 trips are bus
transfers), with 32,688 boardings, a base minimum of approximately
8,000 bike trips occurred between March 30 and September 1, 2005.
This averages out to approximately 90 bike trips per day. See Bike
and Bus.
The amount of bicycling, and the size and type of benefits gained from
it, should depend, at a minimum, on the above conditions and factors
including the quality of the bicycling environment in an area.6 The
Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota found from studies
based on the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul that people
value bicycle facilities, in that they are willing to incur additional time
costs in order to use higher quality facilities such as bike lanes. The
presence of facilities also appears to be associated with higher
amounts of riding.
Bicycle Parking Needs
More businesses are requesting bicycle racks than in years past.
Many of these businesses are located in and around areas of high
bicycle activity such as the CBD, Short North, the Brewery District,
schools, restaurants, retail malls, recreation centers and public
libraries.
The amount of bicycle parking needed for a particular facility depends
upon a variety of factors such as:
the type of occupancy
location and proximity to streets with heavy bicycle traffic
relationship of the facility to adjacent and nearby businesses
Bicyclists tend to shun bike parking unless the parking is very close to
their destination. The best way to determine the need and amount of
bicycle parking is to identify those locations where parked bikes
exceed the available parking, and to find those locations where bikes
are parked and no parking is provided. In this manner, parking can be
provided to meet the need. The relocation of unused parking facilities
to higher demand locations can help make available resources go
further.
There are two general location criteria for bicycle parking facilities:
1.
They should be in a visible, well-lit area to help deter theft.
6
Tools for Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle Network Improvements, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, December 2005.
20
2.
They should be in a convenient location in relation to the
bicyclist’s destination, usually close to a building entrance.
Additionally, bicycle parking should not interfere with
pedestrian traffic and should be protected from potential
damage by motor vehicle traffic.
However, some businesses have stated that they do not like the
appearance of many bicycles parked near their most prominent
entrance, and the parking usually ends up in a dark, secluded place in
the rear or on the side of the building – the exact location in which
bicyclists do not want to park.
Many cities are passing ordinances requiring developers to provide
safe and convenient off-street bicycle parking. See Appendix E for
sample parking ordinances. Employers should also be required to
provide bicycle parking for employees. A bicycle parking ordinance is
an integral part of comprehensive bicycle planning. It is not enough to
develop and maintain a bicycle-friendly road system. Travelers would
be reluctant to use their bicycles if secure bicycle parking facilities did
not exist at their destinations. Adequate parking benefits not only the
current bicyclists, but can also encourage others to use bicycles for
transportation.
Chicago created a bicycle station, Millennium Park Bicycle Station,
which provides to its members:
24-hour secure bicycle parking
access to showers and lockers
free use of the shared bike program
10% off bicycle repairs and accessories
$25 off carsharing membership
discounts on bike the drive and other events
For more information call 888-BIKE-WAY or visit the website at
www.chicagobikestation.com.
The bike station is located in a very prominent area in Grant Park and
close to a bike path.
COTA Bike Lockers
To promote a more intermodal transportation network, the feasibility
and mechanics of linking transit with bicycle facilities must also be
achieved. COTA continues to support bicycle transportation by
placing 48 bicycle storage lockers at five park-and-ride lots. Site
locations for the storage were identified from input received from the
community. COTA also has installed bike racks on all buses.
21
Bike and Bus
In the fall of 2004, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) installed
bike racks on all buses. To kick off the new bike racks, COTA in
partnership with MORPC and Columbus Outdoor Pursuits (COP)
offered free fares to riders using their bikes with a bus trip. The
successful Bike 'n Bus summer promotion was scheduled from
Memorial Day through Labor Day 2005.
COTA recorded a total of 32,688 bike boardings between March 30
and September 5, 2005. The downtown area showed the greatest
number of boardings, but throughout the summer rack usage was
recorded across the county.
22
Following the free fare promotion bike rack usage continued. The
recorded boardings after Labor Day when the promotion ended are
listed below:
September 6, 2005
262
September 7, 2005
268
September 8, 2005
220
For comparison’s sake, bike racks were installed in September 2004,
but the highest one-day total before the free promotion period was
only 55 bike boardings. Late July and into August 2005, COTA
averaged in the range of 600 to 700 boardings per weekday.
Locations with over 40 total bike boardings between March 30 and
September 5, 2005 are shown in the table below:
Location
MAIN ST & OHIO AVE
SULLIVANT AVE & CENTRAL AVE
RUHL AVE & LOWELL RD
SULLIVANT AVE & DEMOREST RD
HIGH ST & BROAD ST (EAST)
HIGH ST & NORTH BROADWAY
NORTHERN LIGHTS PARK & RIDE
HIGH ST & LONG ST
HIGH ST & MORSE RD
MAIN ST & JAMES RD
GREAT SOUTHERN PARK & RIDE
S HIGH ST & E MAIN ST
BROAD ST & CENTRAL AVE
BROAD ST & HAGUE AVE
HIGH ST & BROAD ST (WEST)
HIGH ST & HUDSON ST
HIGH ST & RICH ST
HIGH ST & 11TH AVE
HIGH ST & NATIONWIDE BLVD
HIGH ST & BROAD ST (SOUTH)
HIGH ST & BROAD ST
Bike Boardings
42
44
45
47
47
52
53
53
54
58
63
63
63
66
66
77
83
112
117
141
170
23
Bus Routes with the total of over 40 bike boardings from March 30
through September 5, 2005 are shown in the table below:
Bus Route
James Road Crosstown
Kenney Road Local
Morse/Henderson Road Crosstown
St. Clair Avenue Local
West Fifth Avenue Local
West Mound/Northwest Blvd Local
Whittier/Neil Avenue Local
Hudson Street Crosstown
Indianola/Parsons Avenue Local
Frebis/Hamilton Road Local
Long Street/South High Street Local
Sullivant/Mt. Vernon Avenue Local
Livingston/Cleveland Avenue Local
East Broad/West Broad Street Local
East Main/North High Street Local
92
18
95
11
5
3
7
81
4
8
16
6
1
10
2
Bike Boardings
45
56
56
63
79
97
107
113
169
233
303
355
470
568
875
The Bike 'n Bus summer promotion was an excellent opportunity for
promoting bike use. Through the efforts of COP, MORPC and COTA
commuters were more aware of the benefits of bicycling and public
transit.
24
25
Safety Assessment
Between 2000 and 2004 over 1500 bicycle/motor vehicle crashes7
were reported in Delaware and Franklin counties. Approximately 33
percent of the bicyclists involved were under the age of 16, and 64
percent were male. One evaluation criterion for proposing a bikeway
corridor is safety. (See Design and Location Criteria.)
Finding high crash locations and bottlenecks is one step in the
problem-solving process of improving bicycle safety. Identification of
the areas where bicycle crash problems exist is where education,
engineering, and enforcement measures, as part of a complete
program of safety, will be most beneficial.
While few bicycle crashes are associated with deficient roadway
designs, bicyclists and motorists usually contribute to crashes through
a disregard or lack of understanding of laws and safe driving. Usually
only bicycle crashes with motor vehicles are reported. Of those that
are reported, many occur at road intersections and driveways, where
bicyclists and motorists cross paths. Injuries from bicyclists hitting
fixed objects such as mailboxes, poles, potholes, or curbs and
slipping on leaves or gravel often go unreported.
As a result, most bicycle crashes are not reported frequently enough
to establish a pattern of unsafe bicycling locations or conditions.
Other steps to improve the identification of unsafe locations for
bicycling include:
Using bikeability checklists (see
appendix for more information).
Noting bicyclist and driver behavior
and examining roadway and bicycling
characteristics at specific sites.
Observing and recording the number
of bicycle-motor vehicle conflicts at
specific sites.
Mapping locations that have a high
incidence of bicycle crashes in an
area.
Calculating a bicycle level-of-service.8 (See Bikeway
Characteristics.)
Once the locations have been identified:
Request and review crash statistics.
Map the sites.
7
Crash information is derived from the 2000-2004 ODPS TRACTAPE crash data matched to the reported intersection or address
referenced and not necessarily the specific crash location.
8
Identification of High-Crash Locations, Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Highway
Administration
26
Look for correlations between crash sites and entrances to
shared-use paths/sections of road use by bicyclists.
Review the cause of the crash.
Survey the area.
The results will lead to education, engineering, or enforcement
measures and in some instances, will require a mixture.
Crash Analysis Software
There are several tools available that will assist in analyzing crashes:
FHWA has developed an electronic resource, Pedestrian/Bicycle
Safety Resource Set, which contains information on
pedestrian/bicycle safety guidelines, crash types, countermeasures,
outreach tools, technology and more.
For more information, or copies of the CD-ROM, contact Leverson
Boodlal, P.E. at (202) 366-8044, email
Leverson.Boodlal@fhwa.dot.gov or go to:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ped_bike.htm.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool
(PBCAT) is a crash typing software product
intended to assist state and local pedestrian/bicycle
coordinators, planners and engineers with
improving walking and bicycling safety through the
development and analysis of a database containing
details associated with crashes between motor vehicles and
pedestrians or bicyclists. See http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/tools.htm for
more information.
27
Crash Analysis
An initial review of the crash data from the 2000-2004 Ohio
Department of Public Safety TRACTAPE shows the following
information pertaining to the bicycle/motor vehicle crashes. These
data are currently being reviewed for accuracy but the reported
circumstances contributing to accidents in the transportation planning
area are:
Bicycles – improper crossings and failure to yield (29%)
Motorists – Failure to yield (14%)
44 percent occurred between 3 and 7 p.m. - evening peak hours
Frequent day of the week:
Friday, over 17 percent
Wednesday, approximately 17 percent
Largest age groups:
9-12 years, approximately 15 percent
22-30 year olds, approximately 12 percent
An example of what the reported contributing circumstance may look
like follows:
Improper Crossing/Failure to Yield9 - the bicyclist turns into the path of a motor vehicle while
attempting to cross a street.
9
Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Resource Set, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Publication No. FHWA-SA-00-005, Version 1.0
28
A bicyclist does not yield to motor vehicle traffic that has the right-of-way.
The motorist is following too close to properly pass the bicyclist.
AA
The motor vehicle fails to yield to the bicyclist who has the right-of-way.
29
A menu of countermeasures for types of crashes is available in the
Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Resource Set. By selecting the type and
the implementer, the following information is provided for each:
Bicyclist training – materials and programs where the trainee is
the bicyclist, the bicyclist’s parents or the motorist
Implementer training – materials and programs where the trainee
is the implementer of the countermeasure program; that is, a
planner, designer, enforcer or instructor of the program
Videos – videotapes designed to be shown separately; that is, not
those needed as part of training programs
Brochures
Flyers
Booklets
Reports/guides
Other materials – hang tags, identification cards, maps, posters,
public service announcements and other materials that did not fit
into the above categories
30
Bicycle Crashes
A synopsis of the ten top roads for bicycle crashes in the planning
area follows. The top ten crash locations represent 25 percent of total
reported crashes. These locations indicate bicycle usage on minor
and major arterials.
For the purpose of analysis, each road has cluster areas where a
concentration of bicycle crashes has been identified. Characteristics
of the road are also provided.
The Top 10 Bicycle Crash Streets (2000-2004)
Crash Per
Annual
Road
Bike
Mileage
Linear
Crash Per
Crashes
Mile
Linear Mile
High St – Downtown to Morse
105
7.15
14.7
2.9
Rd
Parsons Ave – Groveport Rd
to Livingston Ave
Broad St – I-270 (West) to
Ohio Ave
Sullivant Ave – Georgesville
Rd to Davis Ave
Cleveland Ave - Downtown to
Morse Rd
Main St – Ohio Ave to
Reynoldsburg
Livingston Ave – Downtown
to Hamilton Rd
Mound St – Hague Ave to
Souder Ave
Champion Ave – Marion Rd to
Leonard Ave
5th Ave – US 33 to I-71
Total
29
2.33
12.4
2.5
67
7.98
8.4
1.7
35
4.95
7.1
1.4
39
7.02
5.6
1.1
49
9.34
5.2
1.0
30
6.18
4.9
1.0
12
2.95
4.1
0.8
15
3.86
3.9
0.8
14
4.41
3.2
0.6
392 (25%)
56.19
7.0
1.4
Functional
Classification
Urban Principal
Arterial10
Urban Minor
Arterial11
Urban Principal
Arterial
Urban Minor
Arterial
Urban Principal
Arterial
Urban Principal
Arterial
Urban Principal
Arterial
Urban Minor
Arterial
Urban Principal
Arterial
Urban Minor
Arterial
10
Principal arterials serve the major centers of activity, the highest traffic volume corridors, the longest trips and the highest proportion of
vehicle miles of travel.
11
Minor arterials interconnect with and enhance the major arterial system. This system carries travel of moderate length at a lower level
of service than major arterials.
31
32
High Street
High Street has seven cluster areas that have a concentrated number
of bicycle crashes: Graceland Area, North Broadway Area, North
Campus Area, OSU Area, Short North Area, Nationwide Arena Area
and the Franklin County Courthouse Area.
High Street is a major arterial that bisects Franklin County running
north-south. It has been identified in COTA’s North Corridor Light-Rail
Study as a major corridor and houses many major destinations such
as Graceland Shopping Center, The Ohio State University (OSU), the
Short North District, Nationwide Arena District, the Central Business
District (CBD), the Ohio State House, the City Center Mall, the
Franklin County Government Complex, German Village/Brewery
Districts, and Great Southern Shopping Center.
Residential housing completes those sections of High Street that are
not occupied by commercial development. Average daily traffic on
High Street ranges from 16,700 to 30,500.
High Street Bicycle Crashes (105)
Cluster
ADT
Graceland
12
Number
of Lanes
29,807
35
5
n-20,008
s-18503
35
5
25
5
23,108
25
5
w-20,204
e-16,704
25
5
Nationwide Arena
14,204
35
5
County Complex
18,703
35
5
North Broadway
North Campus
(Hudson)
th
OSU (16 )
Short North (2nd)
12
Posted
Speed
27,508
2004 Orthos, ER Mapper
33
34
Broad Street
Broad Street is a major arterial that bisects Franklin County running
east-west. It houses many destinations such as Battelle Darby Creek
Metro Park, Doctors Hospital West, Westland Mall, Great Western
Shopping Center, the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Ohio
Department of Public Safety, Rhodes Park, Glenwood Park, the
Columbus Development Center, Mt. Carmel Medical Center, Veterans
Memorial, COSI, Alexander Park, Genoa Park, the Ohio State Capital,
Columbus Museum of Art, East High School, Franklin Park and
Conservatory, Wolfe Park, St. Charles Prep School, the Columbus
School for Girls, the Columbus County Club, and Mt. Carmel East.
The ADT for Broad Street ranges from 5,800 to 61,000.
There are six clusters of bicycle crashes concentrated along the
Broad Street corridor: Westland Mall (Phillipi Road), Hague,
ODOT/ODPS (I-70), Central Avenue, High Street, and Hamilton Park.
Broad Street Bicycle Crashes (67)
Cluster
Westland Mall
Hague
ODOT/ODPS
Central Avenue
High Street
Hamilton Park
ADT Posted Number
Speed of Lanes
29,003
45
6
28,906
35
6
38,000
35
7
w-24,704
e-22,607
35
6
30,009
35
8
31,403
35
7
Broad Street, from Norton Road to Hague Avenue, has been identified
for widening in the 2030 Transportation Plan. The Westland Mall
(Phillipi Road) and Hague Avenue clusters would benefit from bicycle
facilities placed within these improvements.
35
36
Cleveland Avenue
Cleveland Avenue is a major arterial that runs from Broad Street to
Polaris Parkway in southern Delaware County. There are five clusters
of bicycle crashes that are concentrated along this corridor: Morse
Road, Westerville Road, Linden McKinley High School/26th Avenue,
Seventeenth Avenue, and Long Street.
Cleveland Avenue and Morse Road provide access to many retail and
fast food establishments. Morse Road is a major arterial that runs
east-west, while Cleveland Avenue runs north-south. The ADT for
this corridor ranges from 9,200 to 51,900.
Cleveland Avenue houses many destinations such as the Westerville
Sports Complex and Community Center, Heritage Park, Sharon
Woods Metro Park, Mt. Carmel St. Ann’s Hospital, Northern Lights
Shopping Center, Fort Hayes Career Center, Columbus State
College, Columbus College of Art and Design, and the Columbus
Museum of Art.
Cleveland Avenue Bicycle Crashes (39)
Cluster
Morse Road
Westerville Rd
Linden McKinley
17th Avenue
Long Street
ADT Posted Number
Speed of
Lanes
n-24,109
n-6
s-18,409 45/35
s-5
17,504
35
4
18,705
35
4
9,203
35
4
n-14,803
s-10,403
35
4
37
38
Main Street
Main Street is a major arterial that runs east-west. Located east of the Scioto River, Main Street
houses several destinations: City Center Mall, Franklin University, Capital University, Big Walnut
Park and J. F. Kennedy Park. The ADT for Main Street ranges from 11,000 in Franklin County to
39,500.
Although the bicycle crashes are somewhat evenly distributed along Main Street, there are six
clusters of bicycle crashes: Linwood Avenue, Nelson Road, Cassady Avenue, Beechwood Road
and Hamilton Road and Huber Park (Big Walnut).
Main Street Bicycle Crashes (49)
Cluster
Linwood
Avenue
Nelson Road
Cassady
Avenue
Beechwood
Road
Hamilton Road
Huber Park
ADT Posted
Speed
11,004
35
Number
of Lanes
5
e-30,505
26,605
35
25
5
5
w-28,205
e-21,203
w-21,203
e-27,005
28,809
25
5
35
5
35
5
39
Parsons Avenue
Parsons Avenue is a minor arterial that travels north-south from Broad
Street south to SR 317. While there are only a few large destinations
along Parsons, Children’s Hospital and Indian Mound Park, the area
between Broad Street and Marion Road is made up of small retail,
fast food restaurants, family restaurants, libraries, thrift stores, post
offices, doctors’ offices and other neighborhood-scaled commercial
developments. There are three clusters of bicycle crashes
concentrated along Parsons Avenue: Whittier Street, Frebis Avenue
and Innis Avenue. The ADT ranges from 1,600 to 22,600.
Parsons Avenue Bicycle Crashes (29)
Cluster
Whittier
Street
Frebis
Avenue
Innis
Avenue
ADT Posted Number
Speed of Lanes
21,204
35
4
22,608
35
4
22,608
25
4
40
Mound Street
Mound Street is a minor arterial that runs east-west between the
Scioto River and Alum Creek. It also runs west from the I-70/71 split
to Brinker Avenue. A major destination, the Franklin County
Courthouse complex, is located at Mound and High streets. Cooper
Stadium is located on Mound Street west of the I-70/71 split and a
small shopping center is located at Mound and Central Avenue. The
crashes on Mound Street are clustered in one area near Whitethorne
Avenue. The ADT ranges from 600 to 36,000.
Mound Street Bicycle Crashes (12)
Cluster
Whitethorne Avenue
ADT Posted
Speed
10,001
35
Number
of Lanes
4
41
Sullivant Avenue
Sullivant Avenue is a minor arterial that runs east-west between
Galloway Road and the Scioto River. Except for Dodge Park at the
Scioto River, there are no major destinations along Sullivant Avenue.
However, Sullivant Avenue is similar to Parsons Avenue in that there
are small retail, fast food establishments and neighborhood-scaled
commercial development mixed with residential located along this
arterial. There are four clusters of crashes concentrated along
Sullivant Avenue - Hague Avenue, Woodbury Avenue, Central
Avenue, and Souder Avenue. The ADT ranges from 3,200 to 23,000.
Sullivant Avenue, from Georgesville Road to Central Avenue, has
been identified in the 2030 Transportation Plan for widening. The
Hague Avenue, Woodbury Avenue and Central Avenue clusters
would benefit from bikeways constructed with this widening.
Sullivant Avenue Bicycle Crashes (35)
Cluster
Hague Avenue
Woodbury Avenue
Central Avenue
Souder Avenue
ADT Posted Number
Speed of Lanes
15,908
35
2
w-19,107
35
4
e-21,105
w-24,704
35
4
e-22,607
6301
25
4
42
Livingston Avenue
Livingston Avenue is a minor arterial that runs east-west between
High Street and SR 256. There are several major destinations along
this corridor: the Afrocentric High School, Children’s Hospital
Complex, Driving Park Recreation Center, Bishop Hartley High
School, Walnut Ridge High School, Big Walnut Park, Reynoldsburg
High School and Blacklick Woods Metro Park. There are two clusters
of bicycle crashes concentrated along this corridor: Alum Creek Drive
and Beechwood Road. The ADT ranges from 12,200 to 39,900.
Livingston Avenue Bicycle Crashes (30)
Cluster
Alum Creek Drive
Beechwood Road
ADT
Posted Number
Speed of Lanes
34,403
35
6
39,900
35
5
43
Champion Avenue
Champion Avenue is a one-way collector that runs north from Marion Road to Mt. Vernon Avenue.
There is one main cluster of crashes concentrated from Newton Street to Whittier Avenue. The
ADT ranges from 2,100 to 6,300.
Champion Avenue Bicycle Crashes (15)
Cluster
Newton(N) Whittier(W)
ADT
1,500(N)2,700(W)
Posted
Speed
25(N)
35(W)
Number
of Lanes
1
44
Fifth Avenue
Fifth Avenue is a major arterial that runs east-west from McKinley
Avenue to US 33 and a minor arterial from US 33 to Hamilton Road.
A major destination located along this corridor is Port Columbus
International Airport. This corridor houses a lot of neighborhoodscaled commercial and retail development. There are three clusters
of crashes concentrated along Fifth Avenue: Grandview Avenue, Neil
Avenue, and Lexington/I-71. The ADT ranges from 8,300 to 21,600.
Fifth Avenue Bicycle Crashes (14)
Cluster
Grandview Avenue
Neil Avenue
I-71/Lexington Ave
ADT Posted Number
Speed of Lanes
18,009
25
4
12,304
25
4
16,608
25
4
45
Bikeway Characteristics
Roadway Suitability Evaluation Tools
In urban environments, the facilities that would serve main movement
for motor vehicles are significantly different than the facilities serving
main movements for bicyclists or pedestrians. The movement of
motor vehicle traffic requires a smooth, direct and uninterrupted route
and little in the way of amenities. The movement of bicycle traffic is
influenced by “comfort” and “safety” as well as smooth, direct and
uninterrupted routes. 13
The appropriate design treatment for bicycles on roads depends on
geometrics and traffic operations. The most significant factors for
determining the appropriateness of various design treatments are:
Traffic volume
Average motor vehicle operating speeds
Traffic mix – proportion of heavy vehicles
On-street parking
Sight distance
Number of intersections and entrances
Effective travel width
Pavement surface conditions
New construction/retrofitting
As a minimum, all roads should be constructed to serve the
experienced traffic user. There are a number of methods available
that can help determine the appropriate design for users: FHWA
Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI), Transportation Research Board’s
Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) model, and FHWA Tables. (See the
Appendix.)
The Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) can evaluate an entire corridor
or just one problematic segment. This model predicts the overall
comfort level rating of a bicyclist under geometric and operational
conditions of the roadway. Information on this model can be found at
www.hsrc.unc.edu/research/pedbike/bci/.
The Bicycle Level-of-Service (LOS) Model evaluates bicycling
conditions. This model is one of the most accurate methods of
evaluating the bicycling conditions of shared roadway environments.
It uses the same measurable traffic and roadway factors that
transportation planners and engineers use for other travel modes.
The Model clearly reflects the effect on bicycling suitability or
“compatibility” due to factors such as roadway width, bike lane widths
13
Urban Roadway Classification, Before the Design Begins, Gerry Forbes
46
and striping combinations, traffic volume, pavement surface
conditions, motor vehicle speed and type, and on-street parking. The
Bicycle LOS score results are pre-stratified into service categories “A,
B, C, D, E, and F” reflecting users’ perception of the road segments’
level of service for bicycle travel. Mapping the LOS rankings will
define bike route corridors and define segments of the corridor where
LOS is less than “C” and roadway improvements are needed.
Engineers can test various improvements through manipulating the
factors to improve the level of service. See appendix and
http://www.fhiplan.com/md_bike_ped_plan/pdfdocs/bicyclelos.PDF for
more information.
The Florida Department of Transportation has developed a “point”
level of service concept, Multimodal LOS “Point” Level of Service
Project Final Report – August 2001, which helps identify a short D/E/F
segment of an otherwise acceptable corridor. It has also developed a
model for bikeways and intersections - Intersection Level of Service:
The Bicycle Through Movement. Both of these documents can be
viewed at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/.
The Texas Department of Transportation’s Bicycle Suitability Criteria
for State Roadways in Texas identified and developed bicycle
suitability criteria for evaluating state roadways in Texas. Based on
information gathered and analyzed for the study from 16 states, the
following characteristics were recommended to represent bicycle
suitability on state roadways (listed in order of importance).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Shoulder width (or travel lane width where no shoulder is present)
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume per lane
Speed limit (as a surrogate for average vehicle operating speed)
Shoulder (or travel lane) pavement conditions
The bicycle suitability ratings of roadways will be used in several
ways:
Prioritize bicycle improvement projects for constrained
financial resources
Identify gaps or deficiencies in a regional or intercity bicycle
network
Evaluate roadway conditions for use by bicycle commuters
and recreational cyclists
FHWA now has available “Shared Use Path Level of Service
Calculator – A User’s Guide”, from National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA, 22161 (703) 487-4650, Report # FHWAHRT-05-138, July 2006. This guide addresses questions such as how
wide the path should be, should bicyclists and pedestrians be
separated, etc.
All federally funded bikeway improvement projects in the State of Ohio
must adhere to ODOT’s Design Guidance for Independent Bicycle
Facilities or ODOT’s Design Guidance for Roadway-Based Bicycle
47
Facilities and as stipulated in the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials Guide (AASHTO).
The following discusses the various bikeways and FHWA’s suggested
applications.
48
Wide Curb Lane
An outside travel lane with a width of at least 14 feet.
Where traffic speeds exceed 40 mph and when average daily traffic
exceeds 10,000, 15- or 16-foot lanes are considered desirable.
Movement is the primary function.
Wide curb lanes have three widely accepted advantages. They can:
Accommodate shared bicycle/motor vehicle use without reducing
the roadway capacity for motor vehicle traffic.
Minimize both the real and perceived operating conflicts between
bicycles and motor vehicles.
Increase the roadway capacity by the number of bicyclists capable
of being accommodated.
One major disadvantage is that wide curb lanes do not warn motorists
that bicyclists will be using the lane.
Wide curb lanes with a minimum of 14 feet allow the motor vehicle
driver to pass the bicyclist without changing lanes during the
commuting hours when parking is prohibited. At other times, when
parking is permitted, there is ample room for the bicyclist to pass a
parked car without getting out of the curb lane.
Wide curb lanes require the least amount of additional maintenance of
the different facilities. The sweeping effect of passing motor vehicles
and routine highway maintenance is usually enough to keep the lane
free of debris and in good condition for bicycling.
Wide outside lanes are especially valuable for and often favored by
experienced traffic riders (A users) who are not easily intimidated by
high traffic volumes and speeds. These riders do not require a
designated space in which to ride or designation of the street as a
bike route.
49
The same is not true for the inexperienced/young riders (B/C users).
Except on low-volume streets, wide outside lanes are not generally
sufficient to provide the degree of comfort and safety required by less
skilled bicyclists or children and will do little to encourage them to ride.
Wide curb lanes will be most applicable in urban areas on major
streets where experienced traffic riders will likely be operating.14
Bike Lanes
A portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and/or
pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.
Where average daily traffic flows exceed 10,000 or average motor
vehicle speeds exceed 30 mph, 5-foot bike lanes will serve
inexperienced/child riders better than wide outside lanes or other
design treatments. According to the Chicago Bike Lane Design
Guide, bike lanes work best when cars are traveling between 25 and
35 miles per hour, the posted speed for most urbanized areas.
Movement is the primary function and access is secondary.
Bicycle lanes delineate available road space for preferential use by
bicyclists and motorists and encourage each to move predictably.
Bicycle lane markings (a painted edge line and/or stenciled pavement)
increase bicyclists’ confidence that motorists will not stray into their
path of travel, while passing motorists are less likely to swerve out of
their lane to the left to avoid bicyclists on their right.
Extending the pavement to the curb will reduce the chance of a wheel
getting caught in the gutter seam.
14
FHWA-RD-92-073.
50
Bicycle lanes should always be one-way in the same direction as
adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Two-way bicycle lanes on one side of
the roadway are unacceptable because they promote bicycling
against the flow of motor vehicle traffic. Wrong-way bicycling is a
major cause of bicycle fatalities and violates the “Rules of the Road”
stated in the Uniform Vehicle Code.
Other important issues include the presence of on-street parking and
the number and complexity of intersections. Bike lanes are not
advisable where angled parking is present.
Bike lanes require an additional commitment to maintenance. Bike
lanes must be kept free of debris and loose gravel to remain useful
and safe, which will require routine sweeping beyond that necessary
for streets with no bike lanes.
More information on the design of bike lanes can be found in
MORPC’s Breaking Barriers to Bicycling: Bicycle Lanes Best
Practices and Pilot Treatments, 2005.
Paved Shoulders
A paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe
designed to serve bicyclists.
In rural areas where vehicle speeds exceed 40 mph and average daily
traffic flow is 2,000 or more, shoulders should be a minimum of 4 feet
wide when designed to accommodate bicycle travel. When the traffic
mix includes heavier vehicles and trucks, shoulder widths should
increase to 6 feet or more. Movement is the primary function.
Shoulders are useful as places for bicyclists to ride. AASHTO and
many states explicitly recognize that adding or improving shoulders is
51
often the best way to accommodate bicyclists - especially in rural
areas.
Shoulders less than 4 feet should not be signed for bicyclists since
they fail to meet prevailing State and/or AASHTO guidelines.
As traffic speeds increase, traffic mix includes heavier vehicles and
trucks, and traffic volumes rise, added width is desirable. For
example, once vehicle speed exceeds 40 mph and AADT is 2,000 or
more, shoulder width should usually be increased to 6 feet.
Bicyclists will use shoulders where they are paved and maintained to
the same surface standard as regular travel lanes. Other surface
irregularities, such as rumble strips, textured paving, and raised lane
markers and reflectors, should be located so as to leave a portion of
the shoulder free for bicyclists.
Like bike lanes, shoulders should be kept clear of debris, which often
means a regular inspection and maintenance program.
Shared-Use Paths
A facility physically separated from the roadway and intended for
multiple uses including walking, roller blading, strolling, etc.
Where adequate, uninterrupted right-of-way is available, separate
shared-use paths can be used to good effect in providing long,
continuous routes for commuting or recreational trips, access to
destinations not otherwise available to bicyclists, and as cut-throughs
between buildings and other breaks in the street network. Access is
the primary function and movement is secondary.
52
Separate shared-use paths are also known as multi-use trails or
greenways even though they are slightly different facilities. A trail
typically runs along an independent right-of-way such as an
abandoned railroad corridor, and a greenway is a park-type corridor of
land that may or may not incorporate a trail within its boundaries.
Shared-use paths should be thought of as extensions of the highway
system that are intended for the exclusive or preferential use of the
bicyclist. There are many similarities between design criteria for paths
and those for highways. On the other hand, criteria for horizontal and
vertical clearance requirements, grades, and pavement structure are
dictated by operating characteristics of bicycles that are substantially
different from those of motor vehicles. These provide service
primarily for recreational cyclists, but can serve utility trips.
Shared-use paths are not inherently more dangerous than other
bicycle facilities if they are well designed, thoughtfully applied, and
adequately maintained.
Shared-use paths should not have their continuity destroyed by
frequent motor vehicle cross flows and intersections with highways.
This increases potential conflicts and is likely to make the route less
popular with bikers seeking to maintain momentum, particularly
experienced traffic riders.
For more information on the design of shared-use paths see
MORPC’s Shared-Use Paths Best Practices and Pilot Treatments,
2006.
Shared Lanes
Shared motor vehicle/bicycle use of a “standard” width travel lane.
Residential areas with low motor vehicle traffic volumes and average
motor vehicle speeds of less than 30 mph will normally be adequate
for inexperienced/child riders if the lane width is at least 12 feet.
Where existing lane width is less than 12 feet, additional lane width or
lower operating speed is called for. Access is the primary function.
Shared lanes are streets and highways with no special provision for
bicyclists. Shared lanes typically feature 12-foot lane widths or less
53
with no shoulders, allowing cars to safely pass bicyclists only by
crossing the center line or moving into another traffic lane.
Shared lanes do not usually require any special signing for bicyclists.
However, share-the-road signs alert motorists to expect bicyclists on
the road and advertise the opportunity to bike.
Other exceptions include situations when:
Specific destinations or potential alternate routes for bicyclists
need to be shown.
A short gap exists between special bicycle facilities, such as
between two trails, and bicyclists require signing to lead them
to the next facility.
Alta Planning + Design completed a study, San Francisco Shared
Lane Marking Study, in 2004 for the San Francisco Department of
Parking and Traffic. The study researched the safety aspects of two
designs; the modified bike-in-house marking and the bike-andchevron marking.
The results of the study indicate that while each marking improved
cyclist’s position on the road, the bike-and-chevron marking had a
greater effect on the distance between cyclists and passing vehicles.
54
Modified bike-in-house marking.
Bike-and-chevron marking.
55
The Bicycle Transportation System
The bicycle transportation system encompasses a basic system of
local connectors linking the various communities and regional activity
centers in the planning area. Local connectors consist of arterials,
collectors, and residential streets as well as bridges, existing
bikeways, and railroad lines. Combining the basic system of local
connectors with expansions and extensions provides a unified
regional system that is flexible enough to accommodate changes and
incorporate new routes. Existing routes, committed routes and
proposed transportation corridors are reviewed to provide continuity,
expansion and/or extension to the bicycle transportation system.
The classification of bikeway and exact alignment are not provided on
proposed corridors, as this should be the responsibility of the
implementing agency during detail design. River, rail, utility and roads
are all corridors proposed in this plan for bikeway improvements.
56
Typical corridors in which the provision of bicycle-compatible roads
and facilities should be considered will cover an area two to six blocks
wide, depending on local conditions. A proposed corridor can include
waterways, greenways, utility corridors, service roads, rail rights-ofway, easements and roadways. A corridor is a general area in which
an alignment will provide essentially the same service to bicyclists as
traffic.
This section of the report outlines the general criteria considered in
evaluating potential bikeway corridors, reviews the primary
opportunities for bikeway routes and identifies the recommended
bicycle transportation system. Each river, rail, utility, and
transportation corridor is assessed and evaluated to determine
whether it serves a bicycle travel need or improves a deficiency in the
bicycle transportation system.
Performance Criteria for the Bicycle Transportation Network
Direct and continuous improvements, safe, convenient and free of
unnecessary delays should be provided along all arterial and major
collector routes to accommodate commuting and other bicycle users.
A network of bikeways should provide access to schools, residential,
commercial and recreational areas, and transit park-and-ride lots.
Where necessary, bicycle facilities should be provided to cross over
physical barriers, such as freeways, railroads, heavily traveled roads
or waterways. (See Bridges and Barriers.) Bikeways can minimize
bicycle travel distances and make bicycling more convenient and
safe.
In order to create a bicycle transportation network, bicycle facilities
must be designed and constructed to allow bicyclists to ride in a
manner consistent with vehicular operation.
Performance criteria define the important qualitative and quantitative
variables to be considered in determining the desirability and
effectiveness of a bicycle transportation network.15 These can
include:
Accessibility - This is measured by the distance a bicycle facility is
from a specified trip origin or destination, the ease by which this
distance can be traveled by bicycle, and the extent to which all
likely origins and destinations are served.
No residential area or high priority destination (school,
shopping center, business center, or park) should be denied
reasonable access by bicycle.
15
FHWA-RD-92-073, p 6
57
Directness - Studies have shown that most bicyclists will not use
even the best bicycle facility if it greatly increases the travel
distance or trip time over that provided by less desirable
alternatives. Even for B/C bicyclists, the route should still be
reasonably direct. The ratio of directness to comfort/perceived
safety involved in this tradeoff will vary depending on the
characteristics of the bicycle facility.
Continuity - The proposed network should have as few missing
links as possible. If gaps exist, they should not include traffic
environments that are unpleasant or threatening to group B/C
riders, such as high-volume or high-speed motor vehicle traffic
with narrow outside lanes.
Route Attractiveness - This can encompass such factors as
separation from motor traffic, visual aesthetics, and the real or
perceived threat to personal safety along the facility.
Low Conflict - The route should present few conflicts between
bicyclists and motor vehicle operators.
Costs - This would include the cost to both establish and maintain
the system.
Ease of Implementation - The ease or difficulty in implementing
proposed changes depends on available space, existing traffic
operations and patterns and city laws and ordinances.
Design and Location Criteria
Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles and can be ridden on most
public roadways. All new highways, except where bicyclists are
legally prohibited, should be designed and constructed under the
assumption that they will be used by bicyclists. Bicycle lanes, bicycle
routes, shared-use paths, shoulder improvements and wide curb
lanes are desirable and should be constructed wherever a highway is
improved.
The following factors, similar to system performance criteria, should
be considered in the detail design and location of bicycle routes, lanes
or paths:
Access - destinations
Directness - delays
Continuity - barriers
Safety – traffic type, volume, speed, user conflicts
Topography
Attractiveness-locale
Surface Quality
58
One road-certified cycling instructor suggests the following list of
design, construction, and maintenance features to look for in a road
suitable for bicycling:
Long enough phases by traffic signals to cross intersections, especially wide ones.
Traffic signal sensors which are sensitive enough to sense bicycle wheels. At intersections
where the cut lines for the wires are not visible, durable markings should be installed to
indicate where to put the wheels so that they are sensed.
Use the signal phasing at Single Point Urban Interchange intersections which does not trap
cyclists in the crossing region when traffic from the right gets the beginning of their green
phase.
If bulb outs or similar protrusions stick out into the streets, they should be well marked
with reflective poles or similar devices so that they are more visible than parked motor
vehicles, especially at night and during poor visibility conditions.
Paint stripes, crosswalk markings, etc. should have sand or reflective beads included with
the paint to help maintain traction when wet.
Make sure the pavement is kept as smooth as possible. Patch potholes as quickly and
smoothly as possible. Avoid depressed manholes and other similar discontinuities.
Eliminate the wheel-eater water drain grates.
Don’t design ordinary streets as freeways. Don’t put merging/diverging freeway ramps or
weaving lanes on surface streets and roadways. Use diamond interchanges.
Provide enough suitable parking facilities, especially the upside down U lockups.
An assessment of bicycle crashes plays a vital role in determining
what routes the bicyclists are currently using. The bike and bus
assessment gives the origin of the bicyclists by showing where they
are boarding the bus. It also gives an indication of the amount of
bicycle usage in the area. This information helps determine desired
travel corridors.
Desired Travel Corridors
Travel corridors can be thought of as “desire lines” connecting origins
to destinations. For motor vehicle traffic, most peak morning trips are
made between residential neighborhoods and employment centers.
In the evening peak hours, the opposite is true. In the evening or on
weekends, the pattern is more dispersed as people travel to shopping
centers, parks, and the homes of friends and relatives.
59
In the MORPC transportation planning area, the desired travel
corridor for bicycles is determined by using several data sets; bicycle
commuters, bicycle crash locations, bike boardings on bus locations,
and potential bike trips.
The map on bicycle commuters shows the density and origin of
bicyclists by census block group. Another indication of origin is the
COTA bike boardings.
The location of bicycle crashes shows some of the corridors bicyclists
are currently using.
The map on bike trips in 2005 and 2030 shows all potential
destinations that are within 5 miles of origin. These are trips that
could be taken by bike. COTA bike-on-bus allows bicyclists to travel
even further than 5 miles, which expands potential bike trips.
60
61
River Corridors
The transportation planning area is endowed with six rivers that are
well suited for developing a regional bicycle transportation system.
Given that the river corridors generally run north-south in parallel, the
development of bikeways along these corridors, together with major
east-west connectors, forms the basic framework for a regional
transportation system. The Scioto River, the Olentangy River, Alum
Creek, Big Walnut Creek, Blacklick Creek and Big Darby traverse
Delaware and Franklin counties. If fully developed into bikeways,
these north-south river corridors could:
bring bicycle enthusiasts and tourists in from other areas of the
country
bring additional revenue to Delaware and Franklin counties
serve all classification of bicyclists. From the child rider to the
enthusiast, sufficient bikeways and corridors would be available
to serve all users. Directness would be available for
commuters, minimal to no motorized traffic for the child riders
and long stretches for the touring bicyclist
62
reflect a lower cost/benefit ratio as the corridors would be used
for both recreation and transportation.
In 1998 a partnership was formed by the City of Columbus and
Franklin County Metro Parks to cooperatively develop trails throughout
the county. The Columbus Franklin County Park Trail System will
occur along six waterways: Olentangy River, Scioto River, Alum
Creek, Big Walnut Creek, Blacklick Creek, and Big Darby Creek. By
2010 it is estimated that approximately 165 miles of park trails will be
completed.
The rivers of Delaware and Franklin counties lend themselves to a
logical loop system for bikeways. Cross-connectors could break the
major loop paths into loops of a more functional riding distance
(approximately 10 to 20 miles).
These loops can be further broken down into feeder routes. They
would function as commuter routes, which would tie into the
recreational bikeways to form a region-wide bikeway system. These
feeder routes would also service schools, churches, business
establishments, etc.
On a statewide scale, the riverside bikepaths would serve as major
through routes for the touring bicyclist, in part because all the state's
rivers converge just south of the Franklin County line.
In 2005, the Columbus and Franklin County Metropolitan Park District,
the City of Columbus Recreation and Parks and MORPC’s Greenways
Program developed a unified approach to identify and sign the trails
along the river corridors. Developed by Kolar Design, Inc., this
signage program, under the name of Central Ohio Greenways,
provides a unique but similar look, through color and design, to the
trail system. See the appendix and the website at
www.centralohiogreenways.com.
63
Rail Corridors
Converting abandoned railroad rights-of-way to shared-use paths is
becoming increasingly popular. Local communities have discovered
that an abandoned rail corridor can be recycled into trails for
transportation, recreation and nature conservatives. Hilliard and
Westerville are two municipalities that have identified bike paths on
abandoned railroad rights-of-way. There are several rail-trails
currently in use in Delaware and Franklin counties: over ½ mile of
existing path along the Chessie Tracks in Powell, the Mt. Vernon
Secondary Industrial Track from the Char-Mar Ridge Preserve to SR
3 in Genoa Township, 3.3 miles of the Heritage Rail Trail in Hilliard,
2.2 miles in Westerville between Schrock and Maxtown roads on the
old Conrail Railroad, and I-670, complemented by an adjacent
shared-use path of approximately 2.65 miles.
The Ohio Chapter of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (Ohio RTC) was
created in 1989 and has worked to establish and expand interest in
the rail-trail conversion process. Ohio RTC has identified over 30 railtrail conversion projects underway throughout the state. Currently,
there are two railroad companies, Norfolk & Southern Corporation and
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) that own and operate railroad lines in
the central Ohio area. Locally, eight potential rail-trails conversion
projects (the Ohio to Erie, Hilliard-Marysville, Delaware-Ostrander,
Westerville-Delaware, Grandview-Marble Cliff, I-670, Fifth-Leonard
and East) were identified by the Ohio RTC. However, all railroad lines
are not abandoned.
The Ohio-to-Erie Trail is a proposed 462-mile long multipurpose trail
that will connect the Cleveland lakefront to the Cincinnati riverfront
using abandoned railroad rights-of-way and canal towpaths. This
alignment is proposed to travel from the Camp Chase Industrial Rail
Line from the Franklin/Madison County Line through downtown
Columbus north of Broad Street on CSX, south of the Airport to
Newark.
64
From the Franklin/Madison County line to approximately High Street
in downtown Columbus (a total of 11.8 miles), the line is owned by
Camp Chase. East of High Street to Franklin/Licking County (a total
of 17.8 miles), the line is owned by CSX, creating a total of 29.6 miles
in MORPC's planning area, none of which are completely abandoned.
Efforts are underway to secure easements and approximately $4.5
million in funding to complete the 11.9-mile portion of the Ohio-to-Erie
trail from the Madison County Line to the Scioto River.
65
Utility Corridors
Utility corridors also provide bikeway opportunities. These corridors
involve large areas of land that accommodate utility lines with enough
separation from abutting development to ensure public safety. The
City of Dublin has identified a utility corridor between Summitview and
Bright roads for a bikeway.
Bridges and Barriers
Manmade and natural barriers prohibit continuous bicycle travel.
Natural barriers are usually in the form of rivers and hills. With the
construction of railroads and interstates came manmade barriers,
which prohibit bicycle traffic and create bottlenecks. The building of
bridges was supposed to provide for the continuation of travel.
Historically, however, bicycles were never considered when bridges,
viaducts and overpasses were constructed or rehabilitated, or when
stairways were built to accommodate pedestrian traffic. As a result,
critical crossing points were created, causing bicyclists undue delay
as they sought more accommodating routes.
The design of the service interchange also creates a barrier for
bicyclists. Without specific provisions for bicyclists, designs such as
the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) are proving difficult for the
A bicyclists to maneuver.
According to ISTEA,
"When a highway bridge deck being replaced or
rehabilitated with federal funds is on a highway
where access is not fully controlled and where
bicycles are permitted, the bridge must provide
66
accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians if
the secretary of Transportation determines that
bicycles can be safely accommodated at a
reasonable cost."
Bridges, viaducts and overpasses are being constructed, replaced
and widened throughout the planning area. Bicycle travel across
bridges, viaducts and overpasses in the region will only be improved
when designs for bicycle travel are included in the planning, design
and construction of the facility. Designs with ramps rather than stairs
can accommodate bicycles and wheelchairs, as well as pedestrians.
Where there are bridges which cannot accommodate additional width
for bicycles, planners should consider constructing improvements
underneath the bridge. Because of the design life of a bridge and with
the growth that is expected in central Ohio, providing additional width
to accommodate a bikeway is paramount in serving bicycle traffic.
Regional Connections
With the growth that is occurring and expected by year 2030, it is
important that communities plan and design bikeways to connect
residential communities to regional activity centers and points of
interest. There are currently 402 miles of existing and 100 miles of
committed bikeways in the central Ohio area. The activity centers
located within MORPC’s transportation planning area and designated
on the Proposed Regional Bikeway map include the following:
Regional Activity Centers
Delaware County
1. Columbus Zoo Park
2. Delaware Central Business District
3. Delaware County Fairgrounds
4. Delaware Lake
5. Delaware State Park
6. Dublin Central Business District
7. High Banks Metro Park
8. Hoover Reservoir
9. Ohio Wesleyan University
10. O’Shaughnessy Reservoir
11. Polaris Amphitheater
12. Polaris Mall
13. Powell Central Business District
14. Sunbury Central Business District
15. Wyandotte Lake Amusement Park
Franklin County
16. Battelle Darby Creek Metro Park
17. Beulah Park
18. Bexley Central Business District
67
19. Blacklick Woods Metro Park
20. Blendon Woods Metro Park
21. Canal Winchester
22. Capital University
23. Chief Leatherlips Monument Scioto Park
24. City Center Mall
25. Columbus
26. Columbus Crew Stadium
27. Columbus Museum of Art
28. Columbus College of Art and Design
29. Columbus State Capital
30. Columbus State Community College
31. Cooper Stadium
32. COSI
33. DeVry Institute of Technology
34. Downtown Columbus
35. Downtown Dublin
36. Downtown Gahanna
37. Downtown Hilliard
38. Downtown New Albany
39. Downtown Reynoldsburg
40. Downtown Upper Arlington
41. Downtown Westerville
42. Eastland Mall
43. Easton Mall and Town Center
44. Fort Hayes
45. Franklin County Fairgrounds
46. Franklin University
47. Graceland
48. Grandview Heights
49. Grove City
50. Groveport
51. Heritage Rails- to-Trails
52. Hoover Reservoir
53. Inniswood Metro Gardens
54. ITT
55. Lennox Center
56. Martin Luther King Center
57. Mershon Auditorium
58. Nationwide Arena District
68
59. Ohio Dominican
60. Ohio Historical Center
61. Ohio Village
62. Otterbein College
63. Park of Roses
64. Pickerington Ponds Metro Park
65. Port Columbus International Airport
66. Rickenbacker International Airport
67. St. John’s Arena
68. Scioto Downs
69. Schottenstein Center
70. Sharon Woods Metro Park
71. Short North
72. The Ohio State University
73. The Ohio State Fairgrounds
74. Three Creeks Parks
75. Thurber House
76. Tuttle Mall
77. Wexner Center
78. Whitehall
Fairfield County
79. Pickerington
80. Six Covered Bridge Bikeway
69
70
Proposed Bikeway Functional Classifications
To aid in the process of prioritizing expenditures of public funds on a
street system, the federal government developed a street
classification system based on the traffic functions of streets (CFR
Title 23, Chapter I, Part 470, Subpart A)16.
Functional classifications of the transportation system classify roads
according to their accessibility, speed, and function for motor vehicle
traffic.
Interstates or expressways move the largest volumes of through
traffic at greater speeds and have full access control.
Arterials and collectors primarily move through traffic, but also
collect traffic from local streets, major commercial, industrial and
other major centers, and provide interchange access to interstates
or expressways.
Local roads provide access to adjoining land, primarily residences
and neighborhood services.
As classification decreases, from interstate to expressway to arterial
to collector to local, the amount of access control and speed
decreases and the function becomes increasingly used for localized
traffic.
Like the functional classification of roads, the function of the various
bikeways is to provide movement and safe access to destinations.
MORPC reviewed the proposed regional bikeway corridors and along
with a committee placed them in a functional hierarchy. This allows
the communities to view what corridors should have priority for federal
funds. This will also provide a method for communities to allocate
funding to all classifications. A description of the Bikeway Corridor
Functional Classifications is described below:
Trails along separate rights-of-way: long network of connecting multi-use trails along
major waterways, railroads and utility easements
 can be used by all types of users
Long Regional connectors:
16
other long connecting routes along the street
 provides direct travel over longer distances
 probably mostly located along more major
roadways (arterials)
 can be used by serious bicyclist for travel
purposes
Arterial Transportation Management Study, Arlington, Virginia, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
71
Short connectors:
shorter connectors along the street interconnecting
communities
 provides pretty direct travel over shorter
distances
 probably mostly located on lesser roads
(collectors and minor arterials)
Local loops and spurs:
short, local, multi-use connectors within and
between neighborhoods, parks, etc.
 can be used by all types of users (including
young kids)
 probably shared-use paths
Other issues the committee discussed included:
We should not compare the trails to the streets because the trails are already
improved.
Communities must provide the opportunity for people to reach destinations by
bicycle.
The more hostile roads (high ADT, high speed) need the bike facility the most (higher
priority), where friendlier roads already accommodate bicyclists.
Communities should preserve the characters of bicycle-friendly streets.
Diamond lanes, also known as bus lanes, should be used by bicycles.
East-west connections should be considered for higher priority.
While preparing the functional class, we need to be realistic about what can be
achieved. It may be difficult for local jurisdictions to reduce the width of travel lanes
to accommodate bicyclists.
72
73
Regional Bikeway Network
The proposed regional bikeway system identifies the bicycle travel
corridors that are of regional significance. This network of corridors
was developed using local and countywide plans as a framework. It
also provides a snapshot of what is needed to build a connected
system of bikeways to support safe and convenient bicycle access
throughout the region.
The development of the regional bikeway system is oriented toward
utilitarian bicycle trips and emphasizes regional connectivity to
adjacent jurisdictions and connections to transit. Short connectors
and local loops/spurs may serve other purposes, and identifying the
regional network does not imply that these proposed bikeways are
somehow demoted or will not be funded.
In comparing the origin of commuter bicyclists, the COTA bike-bus
boardings, and location of bike crashes and destinations to the
existing bikeway map, the current network of existing bikeways does
not provide adequate bicycle transportation service throughout the
planning area. The majority of the existing bikeways are clustered in
suburban communities with little or no linkage to adjacent
communities. Perhaps this explains with over 400 miles of existing
bikeways, why only .3 percent of Franklin County and .1 percent of
Delaware County commute by bicycle.
A comparison between existing bikeways and those along a federalaid route shows that the majority of the network is fragmented and not
able to accommodate regional bicycle travel.
74
75
76
The proposed regional bikeway corridors were selected based on the
following criteria:
Provide connections to every town and city in the
transportation planning area.
Provide connections to the transit system, airports, and bus
stations.
Provide connections to major activity centers such as
universities, hospitals, parks, athletic venues and shopping
malls.
Provide access within or through the major central business
districts of the region.
Comprise part of the existing, committed or proposed
Greenway Trail system and the Ohio-to-Erie Trail. (See River
and Rail Corridors.)
The proposed regional bikeway system is defined by bikeway
corridors, and the exact alignment/treatments (street, path, lane or
route) are not determined. The proposed regional bikeway plan
recommends 916 miles of bikeway to complete the network.
Bicycle Facilities Estimated Costs
According to ODOT,17 the cost of installing a bike lane is
approximately $182,000 per mile (both sides), depending on the
condition of the pavement, the need to remove and repaint the lane
lines, the need to adjust signalization, and other factors. It is most
cost efficient to create bicycle lanes during street reconstruction,
street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. Shared-use
paths are approximately $471,000 per mile. Bikeway Bridges (.3
miles or less) are averaging $1 million.
The Proposed Regional Bikeway Plan proposes 918 miles in
bikeway with a price tag of $166- $431 million.
Bike Lanes (916 miles @ $182,000)
Shared-use Paths (916 miles @ $471,000)
17
$166 million
$431 million
ODOT Average Cost Per Mile Data for Bicycle or Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects Awarded 2003-2005
77
Bibliography
http://www.adv-cycling.org/outreach/
www.bikeleague.org
www.chicagobikestation.com
www.dot.state.oh.us/SafeRoutes
www.dot.state.oh.us/bike
Alta Planning + Design, San Francisco Shared Lane Marking Study, 2004, San Francisco
Department of Parking and Traffic.
Big Darby Accord Master Plan, 2006.
Bikeability Checklist, www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikeabilitychecklist.pdf.
Borealis Outdoor Adventure, Bicycle Crashes and Collisions,
www.borealisoutdoor.com/content/can-bike/crash1.htm.
Brown Township, 2005 Brown Township Comprehensive Plan
Village of Ashley, Bike Memo – March 25, 1999
Village of Canal Winchester, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, Bicycle Benchmarking Report, draft, Thunderhead Alliance,
August, 2004
City of Columbus, Draft Columbus Bicycle Plan, August, 1998
City of Columbus, South Linden Neighborhood Plan, 2003
City of Columbus, North Linden Neighborhood Plan, 2003
City of Columbus, Linden Area Traffic Management Plan – 2003
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks – all maps
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks Multi-Use Trails- Greenway Development, 2001-2004
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Alum Creek Trail – The Creeks to Alum Creek Drive
Extension, June, 2000
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Alum Creek Trail – Livingston to the Creeks,July 2000
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Big Walnut Trail – SR 161 to Morse Road, July 2000
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Scioto Trail – Grandview Avenue to Trabue,July 2000
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Alum Creek Trail – Main Street to Fifth Avenue ,1999
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Alum Creek Trail – I270 to SR 161, May, 1999
City of Columbus, Recreation and Parks, Alum Creek/I-670 MUT Connector, Segments 1, 2, 3,
B&N
Crider, Linda B., Multimodal LOS “Point” Level of Service Project, Final Report, August 2001,
Florida Department of Transportation, www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los.
City of Delaware, Ohio, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
78
City of Delaware, Comprehensive Plan, 2003-2008, Department of Planning and Community
Development
City of Delaware, Ohio, Bikeway Master Plan – February 2002, Department of Recreation Services
City of Delaware, Ohio, Bikeway/Pedestrian Plan – December 18, 2001, Department of Recreation
Services
City of Delaware, Ohio, Delaware Bikeway System Map – 2000
City of Delaware, Ohio, Strategic Master Plan for Parks, Recreation and Open Space, nbbj
Delaware County Master Plan 1993, Frank Elmer Associates, Wilbur Smith Associates, Hammer,
Siler, George Associates
Delaware County Thoroughfare Plan, October 17, 2001, ms Consultants
Right Where You Want to Be, Delaware County Ohio,
City of Dublin, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
City of Dublin, Community Plan, April 1999
City of Dublin, Bike Path System, July 1998
Elk Grove Township, Arlington Heights, Illinois, Bicycle Safety, www.elkgrovetownship.com, 2007
Federal Aid Highway System Functional Classification Map
Federal Highway Administration, Planning and Design Guidance, FHWA-RD-92-073
Federal Highway Administration, Identification of High-Crash Locations, Bicycle Countermeasure
Selection System, U.S. Department of Education.
Federal Highway Administration, Bicycle Safer Journey, Interactive Bicyclist Safety Awareness,
FHWA-SA-03-013
Federal Highway Administration, Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide – Providing Safety and Mobility
Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-102
Florida Department of Transportation, Trail Intersection Design Handbook, HSRC, University of
North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, FHWA-RD-96-104.
Forbes, Gerry, Urban Roadway Classification, Before the Design Begins
The City of Gahanna Bike Route Plan Map 2000
The City of Gahanna Bikeway Master Plan Map 2000, Edsall & Associates
The City of Gahanna, Creekside Trailway Loop Study, Gahanna City Engineer, June 30, 2000
The City of Gahanna Parks and Recreation, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Genoa Township,Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Genoa Township, “A Nice Place to Live” map
Village of Granville, Pathway Plan – February 1994
The City of Grove City, Parks and Open Space Master Plan – January 1, 2002, nbbj
Grove City Trail System, EMH&T, 2006
The City of Grove City, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Grove City Capital Improvement Program, 2007
79
Harkey, David, Bicycle Compatibility Index, , UNC Highway Safety Research Center, Federal
Highway Administration, www.hsrc.unc.edu/research/pedbike/bci.
City of Hilliard, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Bikeway Map – December, 2002
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Tools for Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle
Network Improvements, Minnesota Department of Transportation, December 2005.
Landis, Bruce W., Bicycle Level of Service Model, Evaluation Methodology, SCI,
www.fhiplan.com/md_bike_ped_plan/pdfdocs/bicyclelos.pdf.
Landis, Bruce W., Intersection Level of Service: The Bicycle Through Movement, Florida
Department of Transportation, www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los.
Liberty Township, Comprehensive Plan of Liberty Township, August 1995
Maricopa Association of Governments, Metropolitan Phoenix Area, 2005 Bikeways map.
www.mag.maricopa.gov.
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Breaking Barriers to Bicycling: Bicycle Lanes Best
Practices and Pilot Treatments,2005, www.morpc.org
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (Draft), Inventory of Railroad Operations and Rights-ofWay in Central Ohio, July 2005,
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission’s Highway Functional Classification
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Shared-Use Paths Best Practices and Pilot Treatments,
2006
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan
University of Minnesota, Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, August 2005,
Transportation Research Board, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Active Communities,
Transportation Research Group, NCHRP Project 7-14,
Village of New Albany, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
New Albany Community Trails Project – February, 2004
Village of New Albany Leisure Trails Connects – June 2000
Village of New Albany Leisure Trial Plan Map, September, 2000
Village of New Albany Leisure Path – May 1999, EMH&T
Village of Obetz, Proposed Obetz Bikeway Layout Map – June, 2000, RD Zande
Ohio Department of Public Safety, 2000-2004 TRACTAPE
The Ohio Department of Transportation, Design Guidance for Independent Bicycle Facilities, 2005
The Ohio Department of Transportation, Design Guidance for Roadway-Based Bicycle Facilities,
2005
The Ohio State University, OSU Bikeway Map, 1994
The Ohio State University, Ohio State – Civic Center Bikeway Connector
The Ohio State University, OSU- Campus Bikeways Subdistrict Plan (Draft 2006)
80
Orange Township Parks, Trails and Greenways Master Plan, draft 2003
Orthos, ER Mapper, 2004
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT), www.pedbikeinfo.org/tools.htm.
City of Pickerington, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
City of Pickerington, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Master Plan, December 2000, DLZ
City of Pickerington, Proposed Bikeway Plan Map – July 1998, Parks and Recreation
Village of Powell, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Village of Powell, Paths Bikeway Update, April, 2002
Village of Powell,Bikeway and Walkway Master Plan, May 2001
Village of Powell,A Master Plan for Walking and Biking in Powell, Ohio, September, 1999
Village of Powell,Powell Comprehensive Plan, December 1995
Village of Powell,The Village of Powell Recreation/Transportation Access System Master Plan
Village of Powell, Map from Delaware County Engineer – January 1995
Village of Powell,You Can Get There from Here
Village of Powell, Northwest Area Plan, April 1999, A Joint Plan by the Village of Powell and Liberty
Township
Todd, Sharon, ODOT Design Guidance for Roadway-Based Bicycle Facilities, 2005, Ohio
Department of Transportation, Office of Local Projects,
Rails to Trails: Greenways to Discover Columbus
The Ohio to Erie Trail: Bringing it all Together
The Ohio to Erie Trail Alternative Location using Heritage Trail to Hilliard and Scioto River Bike Path
to Columbus, August, 1998
Turner, Shawn M., Bicycle Suitability Criteria for State Roadways in Texas, Research Report 3988S, Texas Transportation Institute, 1997
U.S. Department of Transportation, Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel:
Overview of Methods, Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-165, July 1999.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Resource Set, Federal Highway
Administration, Publication No. FHWA-SA-00-005, Version 1.0
U.S. Department of Transportation, Good Practices Guide for Bicycle Safety Education, Federal
Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-02-001, www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/fhwa.html
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Resource Set, , Federal Highway,
Administration, FHWA-SA-00-005, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ped_bike.htm.
U.S. Department of Transportation, BIKESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System, Federal
Highway Administration, Program of Improvements, http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe.
U.S. Department of Transportation, BIKESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System,
Identification of High-Crash Locations, Federal Highway, Administration
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bicycle Safer Journey, Interactive Bicyclist Safety Awareness,
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-03-013.
Upper Arlington, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Upper Arlington Planning Report
81
Upper Arlington,Bicycle Usage and Bikeway Potential March, 1974
Upper Arlington Master Plan
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation, Techniques for
Measuring Walking and Cycling Activity and Conditions, TDM Encyclopedia, July 9, 2004.
Washington Township Land Use Plan – May 1993
City of Westerville, Parks/Open Space/Wetlands Map, Parks and Recreation 2020
City of Westerville, Conservation Easements/Bikeways February, 2002
Westerville Parks and Recreation Map
City of Westerville, Parks Recreation Open Space 2000
City of Westerville, Short and Long Range Master Plan, Edsall and Associates
City of Westerville, Westerville Bikeway Loop system Map
City of Westerville Bikeway system Map – September 1999, Planning and Development
Department
City of Whitehall, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
City of Worthington, Updated Regional Bikeway Map, 2005
Worthington Comprehensive Plan Update & 2005 Strategic Plan for Worthington, Myers
Schmalenberger/MSI
City of Worthington, Olentangy Bikeway Extension Map – 1987
Worthington Capital Improvement Program, 2007.
82

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan - Mid

Transcription

Similar documents

REDMOND Bicycling Guide Regional Map

re:cycle by tyler stallings-exhibition catalogue, october

Shakespeare: "...that in black ink my love may still shine bright.”

Indy Ride Guide

Infrastructure Itinerary in Seville

English - City of Davis

Two Three One

Heinz Stücke Guinness Book of Records holder

Riding Pittsburgh`s Dirty Dozen | Bicycle Times Magazine

handbook on cycling inclusive planning and promotion