I I' I ANALYSIS OF BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN TRIPS ON I THE PELICAN ISLAND CAUSEWAY I Draft Final Report
I by
Darrell W. Borchardt, P .E. I Study SupeiVisor Associate Research Engineer
I and
David Fenno I Assistant Research Scientist I I TTl Contract #95-509
I Prepared for Texas A&M University at Galveston I TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE I J'he Texas A&M University System Houston, Texas 77024 I
I April 1996 I I I I
I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I This work. was initiated by concerns of the administrative staff of the Mitchell Campus of Texas A&M University at Galveston about the safety. of bicycle and pedestrian traffic I commuting to the university campus using the Pelican Island Causeway. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the following persons for their assistance in this endeavor: Mr. I Maximilianio Hinojosa (TAMUG), Mr. Herbert Turner (TAMUG), Col John P. Basilotto I (TTIIT AMUG), and the operators of the causeway bridge. I I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS I I Acknowledgements 11 Introduction 1 I Traffic Engineering Study 2 Traffic Volume Study 2 I Spot Speed Study 6 Level of Service Analysis 11 I Delay Study 12 Accident Experience 15 I Survey of Students and Employees 16 Responses to Question 1 17 I Responses to Question 2 21 Responses to Question 3 21 I Responses to Question 4 24 Responses to Question 5 25 I Responses to Question 6 27 Responses to Question 7 28 .I Responses to Question 8 29 Responses to Questions 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 30 I Responses to Question 14 30 Summary 31 I References 33 Appendix A. Results of Traffic Volume Studies I Appendix B. Vehicle Classification Studies Appendix C. Detailed Spot Speed Study Data I Appendix D. Pelican Island Causeway Accident History I Appendix E. Survey and Return Mail Envelope as Distributed I I iii I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
I Appendix F. Written Responses to Reasons for Not Cycling (Question 3) Appendix G. Details Observed of Others Crossing Causeway (Question 5) I Appendix H. Other Recommended Improvements as Specified (Question 7) I Appendix I. Demographic Information (Questions, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) Appendix J. Additional Comments by Respondents (Question 14). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iv I
I LIST OF FIGURES
I Page
1. View of Bridge Travelling Southbound 1 I 2. Traffic Count Locations 3 I 3. Bicyclist Using Pelican Island Causeway , 6 4. Regulatory and Warning Signs as Posted Approaching Bridge from the South 7 I 5. Speed Distributions for the Pelican Island Causeway 9 6. Signals and Gate Arms as Operating during Periods of Normal Traffic Operations 13 I 7. Distribution of Bridge Closures with Respect to Time of Day 14 8. Average Number of Daily Bridge Closures by Day of Week 14 I 9. Distribution and Return of Surveys 18 10. Location of Off-Campus Respondents by Home Zip Code 20 I I II I I I I I I I I v I
I LIST OF TABLES
I Page 1- 1. Estimates of Trip Purpose from Traffic Volume Study 4 2. Peak Hour Volumes on Seawolf Parkway-Typical Weekday 5 I 3. Manual Classification Counts at the North End of Causeway 5 4. Summary of Pelican Island Causeway Spot Speed Study 8 I 5. Characteristics of Level of Service Classifications 11 6. Motorist Delay Due to Pelican Island Causeway Drawbridge Operations 15 I 7. Responses to the Question "Where do you live?" 19 8. Responses to the Question "If you live off campus, how do you get to campus?" 21 I 9. Responses to the Question "Is a car or truck available for your use?" 21 10. Responses to the Question "Is a bicycle available for your use?" 22 I 11. Responses to the Question "If yes, how many times do you ride per week?" 22 12. Responses to the Question "What is the trip purpose?" 23 I 13. Responses to the Question "If no, why?" 23 14. Responses to the Question "Have you ever walked or bicycled across the I Pelican Island Causeway" 24 15. Responses to the Question "If yes, do you feel traffic on the .causeway posed I a threat to your safety?" 24 16. Responses to the Question "Have you ever seen anyone else walk or bicycle I across the causeway?" 25 17. Summary of Details Concerning Observed Crossings 26 I 18. Estimated Total Weekday Trips Across the Causeway by Vehicle, Monday through Friday 27 I 19. Responses to the Question "Would any of the following improvements to the Pelican Island Causeway increase the number of times you cross the bridge I on a bicycle or by walking?" 29 20. Response to the Question "What purposes would these trips serve I (check all that apply)?" 29 I I vi I
I INTRODUCTION
I Concerns have been expressed within the administrative offices of the :Mitchell Campus of Texas A&M University at Galveston (TMv!UG) about the safety of bicycle/pedestrian traffic I' using the Pelican Island Causeway for commutes to or •from the university campus. The causeway, the only roadway that connects Galveston Island with Pelican Island, is a. two-lane I roadway that closes to all roadway traffic for bridge raising to allow passage of shipping traffic through the Galveston Channel (Figure 1). The Texas Transportation Institute (TTl) has I· completed a two-part study to address this concern as follows: an evaluation of the causeway bridge from a traffic engineering perspective and a survey of TMv!UG stUdents· and employees. I Specific concerns of students residing on campus as well as those of daily commuters were addressed. This document represents the final results of the traffic study combined with the I results of the surveys. I I I
I I I I I Figure 1. View of Bridge Traveling Southbound I 1 I
I TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY
I A traffic engineering study was completed for the Pelican Island Causeway and Seawolf Parkway to determine existing traffic conditions and to evaluate operations. A five-task study I was designed in order to collect adequate data to characterize the existing conditions of the I roadway. The first task was to perform a volume study to determine the daily traffic demand as well as the types of vehicles present in the traffic stream. A second task of a spot speed study I of traffic along the causeway to determine the roadway's speed characteristics. The data was then used to complete the third task of evaluating the level of service of the traffic on the causeway I bridge. The fourth task consisted of a delay study to estimate the average delay incurred by motorists during drawbridge operations for ship traffic using the Galveston Channel. The final I task of the study was to investigate the accident history along the causeway. To reflect typical conditions, all data collection efforts were conducted while normal classes were in session at the I university campus.
I TRAFFIC VOLUME STUDY I The traffic volume study was designed to address the following questions:. 1) What are the traffic volumes along Seawolf Parkway and the causeway bridge for a typical weekday, I Saturday, and Sunday? 2) When do the morning and evening peak hours occur? 3) What are the different classifications of vehicles within the traffic stream? and 4) How many pedestrians I and bicyclists use the causeway on a typical weekday to get to/from Pelican Island?
Traffic volumes for typical weekdays Saturdays, and Sundays were determined with I 1 automatic traffic counters for two one-week time periods: November 14-20, 1995 and January I 17-23, 1996. The locations of the count sites as well as the 24-hour totals are presented in Figure 2. These locations were selected to estimate what proportion of the traffic is related to I TAMUG, the industrial/commercial interests, and the recreational traffic to Seawolf Park. A I complete listing of volumes by hour, day, direction, and location is presented in Appendix A. I I 2 I I
I NORTH EtD OF CA.UseNA.Y TA.MUO MAIN ENTRY EAST OF TA.MUG EAST OF COA.STWIOE EB WB TOTAL ENTRY EXIT TOTAL EB WB TOTAL EB WB TOTAL Weekday 3100 2970 6070 Weekday 2060 1950 4010 Weekday 1050 1120 2170 Weekday 100 1.30 230 Saturday 1290 1310 2600 Saturday 820 670 1490 Saturday 580 610 1190 Saturday 150 200 350 I Sunday 1390 1250 2640 Sunday 990 690 1680 Sunday 570 570 1140 Sunday 170 230 400 I I I
PELICAN SPIT I MILITARY RESERVATION I I N I I I I I I 1/4 1/2 3/4 I SCALE: t' = 1 1.41LE I Figure 2. Traffic Count Locations I 3 I
I The traffic along Seawolf Parkway decreased in magnitude eastward along the roadway. If the volumes east of Coastwide are considered as recreational, volumes east of TAMUG as I recreational/industrial, the remainder could be considered as related to the university campus. Table 1 presents an estimate of the percentage of trips as described. This representation indicates I that the majority of the traffic may be generated by TAMUG as well as an increase in the recreational traffic on weekends. Although the magnitude of the industrial/commercial traffic I decreases on Saturdays and Sundays, the percentage is generally the same. This representation will change throughout the year depending upon the activities on the campus as well as that of I the seasonal tourist traffic. Additional industrial development could also change these I percentages. I Table 1. Estimates of Trip Purpose from Traffic Volume Study Trip Purpose Assumed Related to: Time Period I TAMUG Industrial/Commercial Recreational Weekday 64.2 32.0 3.8 Saturday 54.2 32.3 13.5 I Sunday 56.8 28.0 15.2
I The results of the traffic counts.were also used to determine the times and volumes of the I morning and evening peak hours. The peak hour volume is the highest hourly volume during the morning and evening peak periods. The peak hour volumes at the four count locations are I presented in Table 2. The time in parenthesis identifies the time of the peak hour at each location. As expected, the highest hourly volumes were observed at the north end of the I causeway bridge during the morning peak period. The morning peak hour at the TAMUG entrance occurred from 7:00-8:00 a.m. at a rate of243 vehicles per hour, while the evening peak I hour for the TAMUG exit occurred from 2:00-3:00 p.m. at a rate of 202 vehicles per hour. The highest combined hourly volume for the entrance and exit of the T AMUG campus occurred from I 12:0Q-l :00 p.m. at a rate of 437 vehicles per hour. The peak hour volumes east of Coastwide were significantly lower as most of the trips at this location are distributed evenly throughout the I day. I I 4 I I Table 2. Peak Hour Volumes on Seawolf Parkway-Typical Weekday
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I Count Location EB WB EB WB
North End of Causeway 349 256 293 346 I (7-8 am) (11 am-12 pm) (12-1 pm) (5-6 pm)
East of TAMUG 188 95 81 185 I (6-7 am) (11 am-12 pm) (1-2 pm) (5-6 pm) East of Coastwide 10 11 12 18 I (11 am-12 pm) (lQ-11 am) (1-2 pm) (3-4 pm) TAMUG Entrance (Southbound) 243 247 (7-8 am) (12-1 pm)
I TAMUG Exit (Northbound) 171 202 (11 am-12 pm) (2-3 pm) I
Manual counts were conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., November 15-16, 1995, to I determine the classification of vehicles at the north end of the causeway. Each vehicle was I classified into one of twelve types of vehicles normally used in traffic engineering studies. The results ofthe manual classification counts from November 15, 1995 are summarized in Table 3. I Approximately 95 percent of the vehicles entering and exiting Pelican Island were classified as passenger cars, pickups, and vans, while the remaining five percent was comprised of heavy I trucks. A more detailed listing of these study results are presented in Appendix B.
I Table 3. Manual Classification Counts at the North End of Causeway Eastbound Westbound Classification I Volume Percent Volume Percent Passenger Cars 1,117 48.8% 989 47.1% Pickups and Vans 1,069 46.3% 1,013 47.9% I Motorcycles 4 0.2% 2 0.1% Buses .}0 0.4% 7 0.3% Single Unit 2-Axle 50 2.1% 58 2.6% I Single Unit 3-Axle 19 0.8% 19 0.8% Single Unit 4-Axle 5 0.2% I 0.0% Semi-Trailer 3-4 Axle 9 0.4% 9 0.4% Semi-Trailer 5-Axle 15 0.7% 15 0.7% I Semi-Trailer 6-Axle 2 0.1% 3 0.1% I Note: Results based on data collected from 7:00 ·a.m. to 5:00p.m., November 15, 1995. I 5 I I The manual count location was also chosen such that pedestrian and bicycle movements across the causeway could be monitored and recorded (Figure 3}. A total of 11 bicyclists and
two pedestrians were observed crossing the causeway on Wednesday, November 15 1995~ I 1 Similarly, 11 bicyclists and four pedestrians were observed crossing the causeway on the next I day. The eastbound trips were typically observed tooccurduring the morning hours, whilethe westbound trips were usually completed in the evening. This would be expected for student · I and/or employee trips to the university campus. I I I I I I I I I I Figure 3. Bicyclist Using Pelican Island C~useway I SPOT SPEED STUDY I Spot speed studies are used by transportation engineers for a number of purposes including establishing speed limits and passing zone restrictions, identifying locations for traffic signs and I 6 I I
I. signals, accident analysis, identifying hazardous locations; monitoring speed trends, and measuring the effectiveness of traffic improvements or enforcement. Spot speeds are vehicle speeds I measured at a given location, usually determined by using a laser or radar device. The purpose of the spot speed study was to determine the speeds at which vehicles are passing pedestrians and I bicyclists and, in general, the level of compliance with the. 3 5 mph (56 kph) posted speed limit on the bridge (Figure 4). I I I I I I -I I I I }?igure 4. Reguhatory and Warning Signs as Posted Approaching Bridge ·from the South I The spot speed study for the causeway was conducted on November 30, 1995 using a -1 laser speed device. Two locations and time periods were selected for the study. Northbound vehicle speeds were sampled at the north end of the causeway from 6:00-9:00 a.m., while speeds I for the combined direction were sampled near the center of the bridge between 3:00-4:00 p.m. Weather conditions at the time of each survey were clear and dry. A minimum of 125 free--flow I 7 I I
I vehicle speeds were required to collect adequate information for a valid statistical analysis. Free flow vehicles are vehicles that are traveling at the driver's desired speed. Thus, in a string of I vehicles, only the first vehicle's speed is sampled, as the remaining drivers may be impeded by I the lead vehicle. ,,
The results of the spot speed study are graphically illustrated in Figure 5. The frequency I distributions presented in Figures 5(a) and 5(c) represent the percentage of vehicles traveling at I any given speed, whereas the cumulative frequency distributions of Figures 5(b) and 5( d) can be used to determine the percentage of drivers traveling at speeds above or below a given speed. I The key speed statistics used to describe the distribution of vehicle speeds at these locations are summarized in Table 4. A complete listing of the speeds of each sampled vehicle is presented I in Appendix C.
I Table 4. Summary of Pelican Island Causeway Spot Speed Study North End of Causeway 1 Middle of Causeway2 I Number of Vehicles Observed 142 150 Speed Statistics, mph (kph) Posted Limit 35 (56) 35 (56) I Minimum Observed 31 (SO) 34 (55) Average 46 (74) 46 (74) Maximum Observed 63 (101) 58 (93) I Percent Exceeding Posted Limit 99% 93% Percentile Speeds, mph (kph) 15th 42 (68) 39 (63) II 50th 46 (74) 46 (74) 85th 52 (84) 53 (85) 95th 55 (89) 54 (87)
I 10 mph (16 kph) Pace Speed 42-51 (68-82) 42-51 (68-82) Percent in Pace Speed 72% 62% Percent under Pace Speed 12% 20% I Percent over Pace Speed 16% 18%
Notes: I 1 North end of causeway data collected from northbound vehicles, 6:0Q-9:00 a.m., November 30, 1995. 2 Middle of causeway data collected from northbound and southbound vehicles, 3:0Q-4:00 p.m., November 30, I 1995. I •• 8 ------
12 100 . I t::::+'""w j~~m:i ~ ; I I ~ 10 II I v 90 A_v ·-+t-I !tI - -H-· ~ ~- I ' 1 1 I ! c: so _ _ 1 ++ •---· I! I . _ vt-r-+- --r- _J 1___ I ]_I , I ;i __ l \ I Q,) 1 ~ 8 ~~-!- -f-- ---~ -- --- ::I 70 --~-~- ---r- .,1-_ --- -i-- ~--'_vi II I t_- ___ I '-1-~-1-t~_-i-~_-i 0" 60 1 -!- _ ·- t/ - -n ·! ~-~ -- 1 r-T 1 1 . : I >- 1 () : I -~I -- ·-~-'tr- I ---, t- ll .1-- 1-j--Ll---+~---~--LH-+-l-t-f, I I -'-- ~ c: 6 1----- Q,) ~J_- u. ::I I Q,) 0" i I ' J ~\vi\ 4 .2:..... ~ m u. 1/ ' :; ~~ ::J±ffitttJ#m1~+~~tttlt~-~t~l I /~ \ 2 / / _v E / ::I \ /-1-\. /'- () 0 I 1\v 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 30 Speed (mph) Speed (mph)
a) Frequency Distribution at North End of Bridge b) Cumulative Distribution at North End of Bridge
10 1oo I ! , i , I - , . ' i v '-~ I ·r I I : I , \0 I ~ 1 - 9o iTIT1fTT l ~ -1---f- -- -+ f-rt- -t--+LHtl-t 14-+--H++t-tt-~-H 1\ 8o t- . - - t- -~- -L-+- J+L t--W-~-~~--1--H-H-j-~_ 8 · ~1JJJ-' I J ~ I I I !,..- I I l I 1 . l i i r--t- I I I c: ;i I I I ~ Q,) I I :;, ~~ -- --~ ~ 1liH-j ~-~-~+rttTJ~_; __ ~ ~ I \ 6 I' CT >- r- I () ~ il I 1 I liT;! c: i i/ - I ' u. so Q,) +--HT r-t \v Q,) ::I 4 I 0" f II .2: 1 + · fj 1/ IJ ~ I I 1\1/ -ro 1r I I I . ~~ ~.+ H~ ~ •a~t +~ ~It= ~r~ u. 1-r../ \ :; 20 - t--1---f- --1----t---+ +p ~ - -1-- -·i- -, __,___ -r----H~ -n- r J -~ 2 v:.- 1 1 1! • · . I 111: v~-w II\ E 10 - - +I ,-j ' ... :;, HJ- -t;;.~~ -t' --1--rt .- ·"--.--L-r-; L~ 1-110 i 1-l--+-~-i-) [V , () o L..o-.lJ-J:L_UtLL. j_U_LJJjj __;__LLLl_~l. _j_J_JJjJ_l 0 I 40 45 50 55 60 65 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 30 35 Speed (mph) Speed (mph)
c) Frequency Distribution at Mid-bridge d) Cumulative Distribution at Mid-bridge
Figure 5. Speed Distributions for the Pelican Island Causeway I
I The results of the spot speed study indicated similar trends at both study locations. The 50th percentile speed or average vehicle speed on the causeway was 46 mph (74 kph) at both I locations. The 85th percentile speed is used in establishing speed limits as it is considered to represent the upper limit of reasonable speeds for prevailing conditions. For this study, the 85th I percentile speed was 52 mph (84 kph) at the north end of the causeway and 53 mph (85 kph) at mid-bridge. The results of this analysis suggest that a more appropriate speed limit for the I causeway may be higher than that currently posted. However, there are overriding safety I concerns such as the operation of the drawbridge and narrowness of the bridge cross-section that likely justifies a speed limit of 35 mph (56 kph). The 15th percentile speed is often used as a I measure of the lower limit of what is considered a reasonable speed for prevailing conditions. The 15th percentile speeds on the causeway were 42 mph (68 kph) at the north end of the I causeway and 39 mph (63 kph) at mid-bridge. I Speed differential or the difference in speed between vehicles is an important factor in some traffic accidents. With all other conditions equal, a higher speed differential results in an I increased potential for an accident. Drivers traveling between the 15th and 85th percentile speeds are typically considered to be at a lower accident risk than drivers traveling faster than the 85th I percentile speed or slower than the 15th percentile speed. In general, drivers on the causeway show little respect for the posted speed limit. The violation rate or percentage of drivers I exceeding the 35 mph (56 kph) speed limit was 93 percent at the mid-bridge location and 99 percent at the north end of the causeway. The highest vehicle speed recorded was 63 mph (101 I kph), 80 percent higher 'than the posted speed limit on the causeway bridge. The high speed differentials between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists coupled with narrow cross-section of the I bridge can make the causeway dangerous to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Random enforcement of the. speed limit compliance on the causeway should have an effect of lowering vehicle speeds I and reducing the risks to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the causeway.
I The 10-mph (16-kph) pace speed identifies the interval which contains the greatest number of speed measurements. For both locations, this was estimated at 42-51 mph (68-82 kph). The I percent of vehicles traveling at speeds within the 10-mph (16-kph) pace gives a measure of the I spread of the distribution. A high percentage indicates a low dispersion of vehicle speeds, I 10 I
I whereas a low percentage indicates a high dispersion ofvehicle speeds. The 10-mph (16-kph) pace in this study contained 72 percent of vehicle speeds at the north end of the causeway and I 62 percent of vehicle speeds at mid-bridge. Thus, the majority of the vehicles crossing the I causeway do so at a speed near the average speed of 46 mph (74 kph). I LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Level of service (LOS) is a measurement used to describe the operational conditions I within the traffic stream of a facility. The principle factors that influence LOS are speed, I volume, and capacity of the roadway. Other factors that influence LOS to a lesser degree are lane width, shoulder width, presence of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream, presence of no- I .passing zones, and oth~r geometric features. Once these factors have been quantified, the LOS of a facility may be estimated. The result of the calculation is an LOS classification ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing ideal conditions and LOS F representing a facility with undesirable operating conditions. Some of the characteristics describing each LOS classification are presented in Table 5.
I Table 5. Characteristics of Level of Service Classifications LOSA Free flow, passing demand well below passing capacity, almost no platoons of three or more I vehicles LOSB Stable flow, passing demand below or equal to passing capacity I LOS C Stable flow, passing demand exceeds passing capacity, increase in number and size of platoons, susceptible to congestion due to turning/slow moving vehicles
LOSD Approaching unstable flow, passing is extremely difficult, platoons of 5 to 10 vehicles are I common
LOSE Unstable flow, volume at or near capacity, passing is virtually impossible, no gaps in traffic I stream, slow moving vehicles cause large platoons I LOSF Forced flow, volumes well below capacity, heavy congestion, queue formation Source: Reference (l). I The Highway Capacity Software (~ was utilized to complete an LOS estimation for the I Pelican Island Causeway. The causeway road section can be described as a two-lane highway I 11 I
I on level terrain, with 13 foot (3.9 meter) lanes, no shoulders, and no passing allowed along its entire length. Traffic stream characteristics included a 60/40 directional split of traffic during the I peak hour, five percent heavy trucks, 95 percent passenger vehicles, and a peak volume of 511 vehicles per hour (total for both directions). The results of this analysis indicate that the I causeway operates at LOS C under peak conditions as well as the majority of the day. LOS C is characterized by stable flow that is susceptible to congestion due to slow moving vehicles and I lack of passing capacity. This can be easily observed by watching vehicles as they drive across I the causeway. Slow moving vehicles will cause the formation of platoons as passing is prohibited on the bridge. Although the causeway operates at LOS C under typical conditions, this will vary I throughout the day as traffic demands fluctuate. I DELAY STUDY I The Pelican Island Causeway drawbridge is raised periodically to allow ship traffic to pass through the Galveston Channel (Figure 6). The objective of the delay study was to determine I .the frequency of bridge closures due to drawbridge operations as ~ell as to quantify the average delay experienced by motorists during bridge closures. The log book at the drawbridge I operations building was examined for a two-month period from September 10, 1995 to November 11, 1995 to determine the frequency of bridge closures. A total of 471 bridge closures were I observed to take place during this time period, an average of 7.5 closings per day. The distribution of closure times with respect to time of day is presented in Figure 7. Approximately I 48 percent of bridge closures occurred during the morning hours, with less than one percent of closures occurring during the morning peak hour for vehicle traffic. Although 52 percent of I bridge closures occurred during the afternoon hours, less than 5 percent of closures were noted during the hour of peak afternoon traffic. The average number of bridge closures per day by day I of week is illustrated in Figure 8. In general, bridge closures were more frequent on weekends and less frequent during the middle of the week. Traffic on the causeway is also occasionally I stopped to allow bridge workers safe- access to/from the parking area next to the drawbridge operations building. The closure time for this procedure is approximately one minute and causes I minimal delay to motorists. I I 12 I I I I I I I I I I I· I I
I Figure 6. Signals and Gate Arms as Operating During Periods of Normal Traffic Operations I I I I 13 I ------~------I I I 12%
U) ~ I :::J 10% U) 0 (.) 8% Cl> I C) "tJ "£: m 6% '+- 0 I Cl> C) 4% as c: -Cl> ~ 2% I Cl> a..
I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I Time of Day
I Figure 7. Distribution of Bridge Closures with Respect to Time of Day I
U) I ~ 10 :J U) 9 u0 8 7 0 I -L. 6 Q) .0 5 E :J 4 z 3 I Q) C> 2 ~ 1 Q) 0 ~ I Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat I Day of Week I Figure 8. Average Number of Daily Bridge Closures by Day of Week I I 14 ----- ~~------. I
I Bridge operations were studied from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., November 15, 1995, to determine the delay experienced by motorists during bridge closures. A total of eight bridge I closings were observed during this period. The duration of these bridge closures varied between four and nine minutes with an average closure of five minutes and thirty seconds. Drawbridge I operators commented that the maximum time they are allowed to keep the bridge closed to vehicular traffic is 15 minutes. Calculations were made to determine the average stopped delay I per vehicle during each of the eight bridge closures. Average stopped delay represents the average time vehicles arriving during the closure spent stopped in a queue. The results of the I delay study calculations are summarized in Table 6. I Table 6. Motorist Delay Due to Pelican Island Causeway Drawbridge Operations
Time Bridge Time Bridge Duration of Observed Queue Average Delay I Closed Opened Closure per Vehicle (min) Northbound Southbound (min: sec)
8:28 8:32 5 14 7 2:56 I 9:00 9:05 6 23 14 3:16 9:07 9:15 9 27 20 5:33 9:24 9:27 4 14 10 2:18 I 9:41 9:44 4 20 13 2:11 9:58 10:02 .5 26 23 2:39 11:21 11:25 5 10 24 2:42 I 13:21 . 13:27 7 22 22 3:40 I Note: Results based on data collected between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m., Novem~er 15, 1995. I ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE The accident history of the Pelican Island Causeway traffic was investigated to determine I the frequency and types of accidents that have been reported during the past 10 years. Of primary interest was to determine the number of accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists. I Accidents were classified as vehicle-vehicle, vehicle-pedestrian, or vehicle-bicyclist. During these 10 years of the total number of 26 accidents reported, none were noted to involve pedestrians or I bicyclists. The accident information, as obtained from Galveston Police Department, is included I in Appendix D. I I 15 I
I SURVEY OF STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES
I The second portion of this study was to complete a survey of students and university employees. Specific questions on the survey addressed daily travel patterns to and from the I campus as well as general demographic information. Additional questions were directed to I current and potential methods and frequencies of using the causeway for bicycle and/or pedestrian trips to the campus. I The initial work task required careful consideration of the goals of the study to design the I questions to be included on the survey. Improper wording on the questions can also have an impact on the return rate by annoying some portions of the study population. Using experience I in design and distribution of other surveys, TTl staff prepared the survey as presented in Appendix E. Each distributed survey included a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey I and how the results would be used. A pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope was provided for return of the completed survey by the· students and employees. In order to assure participants that I any response would be anonymous, no numerical codings were included on the surveys. The surveys were provided on colored paper only to identify which demographic group to which each I was distributed as follows: blue for on-campus students, yellow for employees, and green for students residing off-campus. I The most efficient method of distributing the surveys to the students residing in the I dormitories and university employees was to use the campus mail distribution system. This was completed with the assistance of Mr. Herbert Turner. A total of 600 surveys were distributed to I students residing on campus via each individual drop box on November 30, 1995. The 250 surveys for university employees were routed to their respective departments for distribution on I December 1, 1995. Delays were encountered in receiving a mailing list to be used for the I' students residing off campus. As a result, 650 surveys were not mailed until February_ 26, 1996. As the survey forms were returned to the TTl office, each was stamped with the date of I receipt and each coded with a unique numerical identification number. This was done primarily I to aid in the data entry and subsequent analyses. Initially, it was intended to distribute all surveys I 16 I
I at approximately the same time. Because the mailing of surveys to off-campus students was not completed until almost three months later, one could state that different populations of students I were surveyed. Given the nature of the survey and considering that the student enrollment would likely not have significantly changed between the two academic semesters, the above statement I may not apply to this particular study.
I Of the 600 surveys distributed to those living in the campus dormitories, 120 have been returned. This represents a return rate of 20.0%. A much higher return rate of 39.2% resulted I from receiving 98 of the 250 surveys of university employees. A total of 170 of the 650 surveys mailed to off-campus students were returned for a rate of 26.2%. Combining all three surveys, I a return rate of 25.9% is realized. Past experience from other surveys has indicated to typically expect about a 20 percent return rate for most surveys. About 80% of the surveys were returned I within the first week after distribution. The rate of return significantly decreased after that initial I week. Figure 9 presents a representation of the returned surveys. Factors that affect return rate include disinterest, misplaced surveys, and incorrect addresses. The latter applies directly to those I residing off campus. I RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1 I The first question on the survey contained three inquiries concerning the respondents place of residence and method of getting to campus each day. The initial inquiry requested specifics I as to where the respondent lived; this was to confirm that the students living in the dormitories and the employees correctly received the proper color coded survey. It does appear that some I students residing off campus received their survey via an on-campus mail drop and do not live in the dormitories. In a similar fashion, a small number of employees indicated a residence in I' on-campus housing; this would be expected for students that are also employed by the university. It is not known if any student/employee completed more than one survey, but this is highly I unlikely. Table 7 presents a summary of the responses to the above question. I I I 17 ------
45% I I Employees
40% -~ ~ 1-- -
-f-~--" .... .1/ , 35% Cl) _V t:
.. ~ I f- ....::s 30% ·--· Cl) Off Campus Students J 0:: I Cl) 1-1--I- C) J! 25% v~v t: ._/ Cl) ~v ..(.) ~'I Cl) a. 20% I Cl) VI / 00""""' > On Campus Students +I ;-- .!! / I ::s 15% -- E I :::s 1/ (.) ~v
. - - ~~- 10% I -·f- .-· i- ~ r- 1/ I --- -- 5% I
)~ ~ 0% December January February March April
Date
Note: Survey Distribution- 600 Dorm Students (ll/30/95), 250 Employees (11130/95}, and 650 Off Campus Students (2/26/96). Figure 9. Distribution and Return of Surveys I
I Table 7. Responses to the Question "Where do you live?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Dormitory 100 85.5 4 4.1 20 11.7 124 32.2 I. Apartment 11 9.4 22 22.4 78 45.9 Ill 28.8 House 6 5.1 68 69.4 68 40.0 142 36.9 Other - - 4 4.1 4 2.3 8 2.1
I Total 117 30.4 98 25.4 170 44.2 385 - I Responses to the question "If you live off campus, what street do you live on?" was I designed to determine approximate physical locations, of those commuting to the campus. It would serve to identify an audience of potential cyclists for those with short commutes. Based I upon the response received to date, the question should have been worded to request the home zip code of the respondents. Using the street and/or city names supplied, the zip codes for each I response were determined. Figure 10 presents a depiction of the residences of 241 respondents that provided street address information for which a zip code could be determined. This indicates I that 209 (87%) respondents live on Galveston Island and could be considered as candidates for I bicycling and/or walking to the Mitchell Campus. The final portion of the first question inquired as to the methods that those living away I from the campus dormitories completed their daily commute. Summarized responses to this question are presented in Table 8. The results indicated that ten respondents used a bicycle to I get to the campus. The traffic studies observed a similar number (11) of daily bicycle trips. No respondent indicated walking to campus as their selected mode of transportation. Several I respondents indicated more than one mode to get to campus; these were coded as "other" for the I statistical analysis. Twenty-four of those surveyed indicated that they drove and bicycled to campus; likely an indication of driving to campus and then using the bicycle for on-campus I transportation. Four of those surveyed indicated a combination of drive/ride with others and a single respondent indicated bicycle/ride with others. I .I II 19 I I I I ~ELlWAYB GALVESTON BAY I I
I ) \ 583 -,..:~ ( I \ .,~ ~ r-<' V , \ I J I I N I 515
,-\ ..... --- I ,_ __ _,., '- I .;-" l 1./531 I (""' 566 I I LEGEND .... _~AA r c.~' 541 I -- I I ----- ZIP CODE BOUNDARIES I I ') OJ \ COASTLINE I -"\ - !XXI NUMBER OF SURVEYS RESPONDENTS I WITHIN ZIP CODE J NOTE: ALL ZIPCODES BEGIN WITH 77 I I 012345678 I UW!..!!..!I tJ'\, SCALE IN MILES I \, SCALE: 1" = 8 MILES ""' I I
I Figure 10. Location of Off-Campus Respondents by Home Zip Code I 20 I I Table 8. Responses to the Question "H you live ofT campus, how do you get to campus?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Drive 7 35.5 74 80.4 109 72.2 190 72.2 I Ride with Others 2 10.0 1 1.2 2 1.3 5 1.9 Bicycle 1 5.0 5 5.4 4 2.7 10 3.8 Walk ------I Other 10 50.0 12 13.0 36 23.8 58 22.1 I Total 20 7.6 92 35.0 151 57.4 263 - I RESPONSES TO QUESTION 2 The second question inquired as to the availability of an automobile by the student and/or I employee. This would setve to identify those without motorized transportation as ideal candidates for bicycling and/or walking across the causeway. As indicated in Table 9, over four-fifths of I those responding to the sutvey indicated the availability of a vehicle. Of those living in the dormitories, about one in four indicated that they did not have a vehicle. These students most I likely have to rely on other students or methods (i.e., taxi cabs) for transportation off the Mitchell Campus to Galveston Island and to other destinations as well. Of those that specifically I responded "No" to this question, eight indicated using a bicycle to commute to campus each day. I Table 9. Responses to the Question "h a car or truck available for your use?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Yes 87 73.7 89 90.8 160 94.7 336 87.3 I No 31 26.3 9 9.2 9 5.3 49 12.7 I Total 118 30.6 98 24.5 169 43.9 385 I RESPONSES TO QUESTION 3 I The third question inquired as to the availability of a bicycle and how each individual used the bicycle. A total of four separate responses was requested. The initial question inquired I as to the availability of a bicycle. As presented in Table 10, 63.0% of those returning the sutveys I 21 I
I indicated that a bicycle was available for use. The percentage was fairly even for those living on· campus and university employees. Over 70 percent of those residing off campus indicated I the availability of a bicycle. I· Table 10. Responses to the Question "h a bicycle available for your use?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Yes 64 54.2 55 57.3 123 72.4 242 63.0 I No 55 45.8 41 42.7 47 27.6 142 37.0 I Total 118 30.7 96 25.0 170 44.3 384 The remaining portion of the question gathered information on the frequency of bicycling, I trip purposes, and specific reasons for not cycling. Almost 70% of the on-campus students indicated cycling at least one day each week while only 40% of the employees cycle at least on I a weekly basis (Table 11 ). Almost 60 percent of the off-campus students indicated riding at least once a week. Overall, slightly more than one-half of all survey respondents cycle on a weekly I basis. Table 12 presents the indicated trip responses. Most indicated using the bicycle for I recreational purposes, while one in four used the bicycle for trips to school. Twenty-one respondents specified other trip purposes as follows: Never (2), racing (1 ), friends (4), get food I (1), doctor (1), barber (1), library (2), exercise (6), car in shop (1), errands (1), and to the Fort Crockett Campus (3). The trips to the Fort Crockett Campus may be of some importance as the I university begins to expand services to that location; especially for those without motorized transportation. I Table 11. Responses to the Question "If yes, how many times do you ride per week?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. % I Daily 9 14.1 7 12.3 11 9.2 27 11.2 3-4 Times 14 21.9 8 14.0 21 17.5 43 17.8 1-2 Times 21 32.8 8 14.0 36 30.0 65 27.0 I· Less 20 31.2 34 59.7 52 43.3 106 44.0 I Total 64 26.6 57 23.6 120 49.8 241 I 22 I I Table 12. · Responses to the Question "What is the trip purpose?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. o/o
School 18 17.5 15 17.9 67 32.7 100 25.5 I Work 10 9.7 29 34.5 29 14.1 68 17.3 Shopping 18 17.5 5 5.9 9 4.4 32 8.2 Recreation 47 45.6 32 38.1 92 44.9 171 43.6 I Other 10 9.7 3 3.6 8 3.9 21 5.4 Total 103 26.3 84 21.4 205 52.3 392
I NOTE: Respondents could select more than one response.
I An additional question was directed at those that indicated not riding a bicycle. As indicated in Table 13, the most common answer with 79 responses was for the "roads are too I dangerous" category. Several additional comments were also provided as listed in Appendix F. Generally, these additional comments were reiterations of one of the generic responses provided I on the survey. Most commented something similar to "don't have one" with a few comments related to dangerous roads, health issues, and places of residence. One comment specifically I stated "causeway dangerous" and another stated "bridge not safe" indicating that at least two respondents directed their response to the subject of bicycling to Pelican Island via the causeway I bridge. I Table 13. Responses to the Question "If no, why?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Don't enjoy cycling 6 9.8 4 10.2 4 6.1 14 8.5 I Roads are too dangerous 21 34.4 22 56.4 36 55.4 79 47.9 Cost of a bicycle 12 19.7 1 2.6 7 10.8 20 12.1 I Other 22 36.1 12 30.8 18 27.7 52 31.5 Total 61 37.0 39 23.6 65 39.4 165 -
I NOTE: Respondents could provide more than one response. I I I 23 I
I RESPONSES TO QUESTION 4
I The next question began to address the actual activity of those surveyed as to personal experiences with crossing the Pelican Island Causeway by walking or bicycling. As presented I by Table 14, a somewhat surprising percentage (48.6%) of all respondents indicated they had used the causeway as a pedestrian or bicyclist. Considering that the bridge is some distance away I from the campus facilities and also considering the lack of major attractions located near the north end of the structure, a much lower percentage was expected. The original intent of the I question was to obtain an indication of those that completely cross the bridge. Many of the positive responses may have been from those that walked partially along the bridge to "just take I a look". I Table 14. Responses to the Question "Have you ever walked or bicycled across the Pelican bland Causeway?"
I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total
Response No. % No. % No. % No. % I Yes 62 52.5 38 38.8 87 51.5 187 48.6 No 56 47.5 60 61.2 82 . 48.5 198 51.4
I Total 118 30.6 98 25.5 169 43.9 385 I Almost all of the respondents that have crossed the causeway indicated they felt a "threat" from the traffic while crossing the causeway (Table 15). The combined responses for the two I items of Question 4 begin to confirm that many have crossed the causeway on a bicycle or by walking. If this type of response would have been anticipated, additional space on the survey for I . comments regarding each of their personal experiences would have been provided.
I Table 15. Responses to the Question "H yes, do you feel traffic on the causeway posed a threat to your safety?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Yes 64 95.5 42 97.7 92 98.9 198 97.5 I No 3 4.5 l 2.3 l 1.1 5 2.5 I Total 67 33.0 43 21.2 93 45.8 203 I 24 I
I RESPONSES TO QUESTION 5
I The fifth question was designed to determine the frequency of bicycle and pedestrian traffic using the causeway by inquiring if others had been obsetved completing the crossing. I Ninety-six percent of those answering the question indicated they had obsetved this occurring on . at least one occasion (Table 16). This information as well as traffic studies obsetving cyclists I on the causeway, setve to conclude that there is documentable usage of the causeway by I bicyclists. Although the question did not seek to specifically identify if a pedestrian or bicyclist was obsetved, most instances are likely bicyclists. I Table 16. Responses to the Question I "Have you ever seen anyone else walk or bi~y~le a~ross the causeway?" On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total I Response No. % No. % No. % No. % Yes 110 93.2 96 98.0 166 98.2 372 96.6 No 8 6.8 2 2.0 3 1.8 13 3.4
I Total 118 30.6 98 24.5 169 43.9 385
I This question also requested those respondents that recalled seeing a bicyclist and/or pedestrian on the bridge to provide any details of the event they could remember. Most of the I returned sutveys provided very informative and in some instances, graphic responses. To summarize these details, different categories were developed for discussion purposes as I summarized in Table 17. Many respondents had several comments relating to more than one type of response. The most frequently comment as noted on 99 sutveys was that the I bicyclists/pedestrians caused a traffic hazard to motor vehicles on the causeway. In this case, the hazard is defined as slowing the vehicular traffic and/or causing the motorists to swerve into the I opposing lane of traffic; this is of concern due to the geometries of the roadway ... Many sutveys I (87) indicated the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians on the causeway. The majority indicated they had obsetved bicyclists. A total of 64 respondents indicated a dangerous situation for the I cyclists making the trip. Many of these also commented that the roadway and causeway bridge are too narrow (55) for safe passage of the two-way traffic and bicyclists/pedestrians at the same I time. The presence of bicyclists during nighttime hours and/or the· lack of roadway lighting was I 25 I
I discussed by eleven respondents. Although only twelve returned surveys indicated excessive speeding by motorists, the actuality of this occurrence may be higher since many had previously I indicated that bicyclists slowed down the vehicular traffic. The use of the bridge by fishermen was noted on seven surveys and five indicated the need for a separate lane or path for use by I bicycles and pedestrians. I Table 17. Summary of Details Concerning Observed Crossings I Stated Detail No. of Responses Bicyclists cause traffic hazard, slow traffic down, hard to pass, must swerve 99 to on-coming traffic in other lane to avoid bicyclists
I Stated presence of bicyclists and/or pedestrians 87 I Appeared dangerous/unsafe for cyclists 64 Road/bridge/lanes to narrow 55 I Traffic driving at excessive speeds 12 Bicyclists at night/lack of bridge and roadway lighting 11
I Fisherman walking across the bridge 7 I Related personal experience 6 Need separate bike lane/path 5 I Probably the most important responses are from six respondents that related personal I experiences either bicycling across the causeway or have had numerous near collisions with pedestrians and/or bicyclists. One cyclist noted that "Everyone speeds by and the bicycler looks I worried, as I am when I ride" while a motorist observed that "I personally have almost hit two bikers/pedestrians during foggy conditions." Another indicated the name of a person that was hit I by a truck while biking across the causeway. A bicyclist also commented that "people including myself must duck and hold the railing when trucks/heavy vehicles pass." A motorist commented I "Once I stopped my car to help a biker who was on the ground. He had hit the curb trying to avoid a car, no lie" and another noted to have observed "a female and small child fall on bicycle I while on causeway." I I 26 -~·------I
I Clearly, the additional comments indicate a concern by both motorists and bicyclists/pedestrians for crossing the causeway bridge. Although an attempt was made to I summarize these concerns in the previous paragraphs, a better understanding is available by I reading the individual responses as presented in Appendix G. I RESPONSES TO QUESTION 6 I Question six determined the average number of one-way trips across the causeway to estimate the traffic demand generated by the university. A separate response was requested for I weekday and weekend trips, serving to determine any difference in traffic patterns. The responses ranged from 0 to 30 trips each week by vehicles for a typical Monday to Friday. The I most common response for on-campus students was two trips per week and for employees and off-campus students was 10 trips per week; this was expected and is considered as typical for I those commuting to the campus and remaining there for the entire day as well as for those residing on campus. As presented in Table 18, the average weekly trips across the causeway I bridge is estimated to be 7.9 trips for those residing in the campus dormitories and 9.4 trips for employees. The highest average number of trips was estimated by those residing off campus of I 12.1 trips per week. The quantity of trips by the on-campus students is surprising; one would expect the students would be less mobile than indicated by the survey. I Table 18. Estimated Total Weekday Trips Across the Causeway by Vehicle, Monday through Friday I On-Campus Employees Off Campus Minimum 1.0 (4) . 1.0 (2) 2.0 (2) Maximum 30.0 (1) 24.0 (I) 30.0 (3) I Average 7.9 (108) 9.4 (92) 12.1 (160) Most Common 2.0 (13) 10.0 (18) 10.0 (29)
I NOTES: 1. Responses of 0 trips not included in analysis. 2. Number in parenthesis indicates number of respondents. I ·A total of 29 on-campus respondents and 37 off-campus students indicated making at least I one bicycle trip across the causeway during the week compared with only nine employees. This average to 3.8 (on campus) and 2.2 (off campus) weekly trips per student and 5.6 trips per I employee each week. The majority of those responding to the question indicated no trips I 27 I
I bicycling each week. Only seven on-campus students indicated walking across the causeway at least once per week while no university employees indicated such action. Two students residing I off campus indicated walking once each week.
I The total responses for Saturday and Sunday trips across the causeway are, as expected, less than that for the typical weekday. The most common number of vehicle trips for all survey I groups was two total trips. Averages of 3.9 and 3.1 trips wete estimated for the two student groups and employees, respectively.· A total of 53 students and four employees indicating I bicycling across the causeway on weekends compared with nine students walking across the I causeway. I RESPONSES TO QUESTION 7 I Prior to the survey, TTl staff discussed potential improvements that would likely increase the frequency of crossings by either bicycling or walking. The four that were identified are as I follows: improved lighting, reduced speed limit, on-road bicycle lane, and off-road bicycle path. These were included on the survey as well as additional space for respondents to any other I suggested improvements. Table 19 presents the responses to Question 7. While the students indicated by over a 2: 1 margin that improved lighting would increase bicycle trips, employees I slightly rejected that option. All survey gr~ups rejected the effect of a reduced speed limit with 90% responding "no" to the question. The use of an on-road bicycle lane was slightly favorable I while an off-road bicycle path was positive on over three-fourths of the surveys. The additional comments as specified by are presented in Appendix H. Most of these comments were. directly I related to each of the four improvement alternatives posed on the survey. Several indicated the need for a separate lane;· with a few indicating to utilize the existing railroad tracks to the east I of the causeway structure. I I I I 28 I
I Table 19. Responses to the Question "Would any of the following improvements to the Pelican Island Causeway increase the number of times yo-.a cross the bridge on a bicycle or by walking?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. % I Improved Lighting? Yes 72 67.9 36 46.8 112 71.8 220 64.9 No 34 32.1 41 53.2 44 28.2 119 35.1 Total 106 31.3 77 22.7 156 46.0 339 I Reduced Speed Limit? Yes 10 9.7 7 10.3 12 8.6 29 9.4 No 93 90.3 61 89.7 l27 91.4 281 90.6 I Total 103 33.2 68 21.9 139 44.9 310 On-Road Bicycle Lane? Yes 56 52.3 27 39.4 91 60.3 174 52.9 I No 51 47.6 44 60.6 60 39.7 ISS 47.1 Total 107 32.5 71 21.6 151 45.9 329 Off-Road Bicycle Path? Yes 95 84.1 59 69.4 132 82.0 286 79.7 I No 18 15.9 26 30.6 29 18.0 73 20.3 Total 113 31.5 85 23.7 161 44.8 359 I Specified Other Comments 22 - 16 - 21 - 59 I RESPONSE TO QUESTION 8 I This question was the final inquiry to address the potential changes in bicycle and/or pedestrian patterns with the addition of a separate bicycle lane or path. Although the majority I of the respondents indicated that no trips would be made, 60 on-campus students, and 34 employees, and 107 off-campus students indicated making weekday trips by bicycling or walking I across the causeway. This could be significant in evaluating the potential demand for a bike lane or separate bike path along the causeway. Table 20 presents the anticipated purposes of these I newly generated trips by bicycling or walking. Table 20. Responses to the Question "What purposes would ·these trips serve (check all that apply)?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. % I School 24 14.1 13 17.8 100 53.5 137 31.9 Work 18 10.6 31 42.5 17 9.1 66 15.4 Shopping 39 22.9 0 - 5 2.6 44 10.2 I Recreation 75 44.1 26 35.6 56 30.0 157 36.5 Other 14 8.3 3 4.1 9 4.8 26 6.0 I Total 170 39.5 73 17.0 187 43.5 430 I 29 I
I RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 9, 10, 11, 12, AND 13
I The final five questions were included on the survey form to gather demographic information of the survey respondents. If necessary, the survey results could be reviewed in I detail according to academic classifications, employment longevity, age, gender, and education level. This is sometimes necessary ·in surveys with large sample sizes that may include many I respondents of different backgrounds. At the present time, such detailed analysis .by the I demographic groups is not necessary. Appendix I presents the demographic information of students residing in the on-campus dormitories and the employees that responded to the survey. I RESPONSES TO QU-ESTION 14 I Although the responses to specific questions are important, much information can be I obtained by allowing the respondents an opportunity to make written comments. In many cases this allows the survey group to state further opinions about the subject. These comments are I sometimes the most important part of any survey; many times providing solutions or describing problems not anticipated by the researchers. These were constructive comments provided by the I respondents relating to the speed limit, safety, need for an off-road lane/path, lighting, shuttle bus service, traffic impacts, use of the railroad tracks, and environmental concerns. The authors feel I that each of the respondent's concerns by those offering additional comments as presented in Appendix J should be reviewed in detail. I I I I I I I 30 I
I SUMMARY
I The results of the traffic engineering study indicated that the causeway bridge presently operates at an acceptable level of setvice. The majority of the traffic using Seawolf Parkway is I generated by the university campus. Although no traffic accidents were noted to have been I reported on the causeway involving bicyclists or pedestrians during the past ten years, the excessive speed of vehicles on the bridge increases this potential. I The second portion of this report presented the results of sutveys distributed to students I and university employees as part of the evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian trips along the Pelican Island Causeway. Study results indfcated that there is an existing usage of the roadway I by bicyclists and pedestrians for attending classes at the Mit~hell Campus. Motorists that encounter bicyclists while crossing the causeway have expressed many concerns about impacts I to traffic and the safety of the cyclists. Over 96% of those responding to the sutvey have seen others walk or bicycle across the causeway and 48% indicated they made the trip themselves. I Of the four improvements specified on the sutvey, improved lighting and the provision of an off road bicycle path were considered as favorable for increasing bicycle and pedestrian traffic to the I' University campus. Many respondents provided additional comments on the sutvey relating to the speed limit, safety, need for an off-road lane/path, lighting, shuttle bus service, traffic impacts, I and the use of the railroad tracks.
I This document presents a good ovetview of the use of the Pelican Island Causeway by bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to the Mitchell Campus. Study results indicate a concern for I the safety of these persons on trips along the narrow roadway. It would be in the best interest of TAMUG to proceed with additional steps to further investigate bicycle usage along Seawolf I Parkway. It is recommended that the following steps be undertaken by TAMUG to address this I important issue: Proceed with additional studies to examine the issue of a separate bike path or I bike lane: I I 31 I
I Evaluate the potential economic growth and future development of Pelican Island; I Determine best alternative of bike way design; Investigate other public and private funding sources that support bike I activities; Evaluate the future use of the causeway bridge as well as any long range I transportation plan for Pelican Island; and I Anticipated use· of the Ft. Crockett facilities by staff and students. Evaluate other transportation options which would aid in reducing those desiring I to bicycle or walk across the causeway bridge: Shuttle service; and I traffic control strategies. Complete public relations program to inform students and employees (as well as I others as determined) that T AMUG administration is concerned with this issue.
I' Although each ~f the three recommended steps are of equally importance, the one referring to public relations may be critical at the present time. The completion of the survey 'I have made the staff and students aware that the administration is concerned and is expending resources to improve the safety of those electing to bicycle or walk to campus. As most of those I bicycling were determined to be students, student involvement is an important aspect to this issue.
I The Texas A&M University System is often recognized as a leader in areas of academics and research. By identifying the concern for those bicycling or walking to campus, the Mitchell I Campus of Texas A&M University at Galveston will move to the forefront of establishing the I safety and needs of its students as one of its top priorities. I I I I 32 I
I REFERENCES I 1. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board. I 2. Highway Capacity Software, Release 2.1, 1995. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 33 I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A. RESULTS OF TRAFFIC VOLUME STUDIES I I I I I I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N I N S T I T U T E ======I IJEEKLY VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
I LOCATION : SEAIJOLF PI(IJY EB E END OF CAUSEIJA DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION OF FLOIJ : SEAIJOLF PI(IJY EB CHANNEL : THIS IS 1 OF 2 SITE NO 30312591
I DAY OF IJEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY IJEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 5 - DAY 7 - DAY IJEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOO GOOO 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE ·------·------I TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME
0- 1 I 20 20 20 41 20 36 25 26 1- 2 23 23 12 30 30 28 22 24 2- 3 13 19 11 9 11 32 13 16 3- 4 25 27 19 13 12 23 21 20 4- 5 I 14 18 18 17 5 20 17 15 5- 6 54 54 50 49 23 19 52 41 6- 7 269 246 272 224 54 54 253 186 7- 8 370 397 349 282 41 27 349 244 I 8- 9 295 209 192 270 51 41 241 176 9-10 184· 262 195 219 211 66 41 214 168 10-11 224 223 195 232 255 63 50 226 1n 11-12 I 217 189 162 157 167 69 67 178 147 12-13 302 295 289 298 282 71 95 293 233 13-14 234 219 221 207 192 88 92 215 179 14-15 174 173 206 174 113 107 182 158 15-16 161 I 143 169 135 99 97 152 134 16-17 158 123 131 116 96 102 132 121 17-18 138 143 144 98 77 96 131 116 18-19 108 113 116 71 86 94 102 98 I 19-20 77 81 58 67 45 85 71 69 20-21 67 58 82 52 45 57 65 60 21-22 72 50 47 77 43 55 61 57 22-23 I 54 36 40 54 38 38 46 43 23-24 37 24 44 42 42 38 37 38 ---·---·-·------~------~------~------~------AM PEAK (6-9) VOLUME: 934 852 813 776 146 122 844 607 AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: I 370 397 195 349 282 69 67 349 244 PM PEAK (3-6) VOLUME: 457 409 444 349 272 295 415 371 PM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 302 295 289 298 282 113 107 293 233 DAILY TOTAL: 3290 I 2201 + 2006 + 3093 2928 1288 1394 3098 2549 + --- INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N I N S T I T U T E ======I \.IEEKLY VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
I LOCATION : SEA\.IOLF PKUY US N END OF CAUSE\.IA DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION Of FLO\./ : SEA\.IOLF PK\.IY US CHANNEL : THIS IS 1 Of 2 SITE NO 30310017
I DAY Of \.lEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY \.IEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 5 - DAY 7 - DAY \.lEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE I ______...... ----~------... ------TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME
I 0- 1 12 13 11 24 14 23 15 16 1- 2 11 21 16 11 15 20 15 16 2- 3 10 19 10 2 20 16 10 13 3- 4 17 21 10 10 16 14 14 15 I 4- 5 12 9 6 9 5 10 9 8 5- 6 24 11 20 17 6 14 18 15 6- 7 61 45 47 35 21 20 47 38 I 7- 8 75 73 59 54 28 17 65 51 8- 9 102 100 98 92 33 14 98 73 9-10 190 146 154 155 161 48 55 161 130 10-11 192 206 189 193 205 71 56 197 159 I 11-12 276 236 252 235 283 83 71 256 205 12-13 209 313 251 274 251 100 95 260 213 13-14 229 157 212 131 249 96 81 196 165 14-15 250 249 273 259 104 99 258 206 I 15-16 240 272 236 233 119 97 245 199 16-17 271 234 209 233 98 101 237 191 17-18 368 350 352 315 86 122 346 265 I 18-19 160 176 180 117 109 98 158 140 19-20 151 101 133 110 61 76 124 105 20-21 90 77 87 61 42 46 79 67 21-22 84 71 79 49 69 39 71 65 I 22-23 65 45 79 65 42 34 63 55 23-24 38 22 31 26 25 34 29 29 ------~------0------AM PEAK (6-9) VOLUME: 238 218 204 181 82 51' 210 162 I AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 276 236 252 235 283 83 71 256 205 PM PEAK (3-6) VOLUME: 879 856 797 781 303 320 828 656 PM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 368 313 350 352 315 119 122 346 265 I DAILY TOTAL: 3137 1370 + 2655 + 2924 2871 131, 1252 2972 2441 + --- INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N I N S T I T U T E ======I \.IEEK(Y VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
I LOCATION : TAMUG - SB MAIN ENTRY DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION OF FLO\./ : MAIN ENTRY - TAMUG CHANNEL : THIS IS 1 OF 2 SITE NO 30312605
I DAY OF UEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY \.IEDNESDAY THURSDAY FR IOAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 5 - DAY 7 - DAY \lEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE I -~·••••••---••••-•-•••••••--••••••••--•••-•••••c•-••••••••••••••-•••-•••••••••-•••••·-~•c-••••••••-••••-•-• TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME
I 0- 1 21 5 12 41 20 40 20 23 1- 2 3 11 6 33 34 41 13 21 2- 3 1 0 6 4 11 32 3 9 3- 4 18 12 13 12 10 21 14 14 I 4- 5 2 6 5 3 16 4 6 5- 6 24 9 27 18 17 7 19 17 6- 7 71 35 58 47 7 8 53 38 I 7- 8 296 213 300 163 11 4 243 164 8- 9 363 127 157 233 4 4 220 148 9-10 225 158 255 170 24 18 202 142 10-11 188 132 234 184 163 23 23 180 135 I 11-12 128 117 152 106 127 48 27 126 101 12-13 181 231 276 265 283 51 67 247 193 13-14 136 118 226 163 172 56 71 163 135 14-15 112 158 174 148 88 90 148 128 I 15-16 97 142 129 112 68 79 120 104 16-17 87 130 87 100 68 86 101 93 17-18 99 164 109 67 58 89 110 98 I 18-19 68 123 91 59 69 94 85 84 19-20 54 81 44 51 55 102 58 64 20-21 33 62 78 40 49 57 53 53 21-22 37 53 41 61 47 66 48 51 I 22-23 30 38 26 53 45 39 37 38 23-24 22 32 25 30 46 24 27 30 ------~------~------AM PEAK (6-9) VOLUME: 730 375 515 443 22 16 516 350 I AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 363 213 234 300 233 48 41 243 164 PM PEAK (3-6) VOLUME: 283 436 325 279 194 254 331 295 PM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 181 231 276 265 283 88 102 247 193 I DAILY TOTAL: 2296 1169 + 1871 + 2362 2192 912 1105 2293 1890 + --- INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N I N S T I T U T E ======I \JEEKLY VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
I LOCATION : TAMUG · NB MAIN EXIT DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION OF FLOU : MAIN EXIT - TAMUG CHANNEL : THIS IS 2 OF 2 SITE NO 30312605
I DAY OF \.lEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY \JEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 5 - DAY 7 · DAY \.lEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE ------·------·------I TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME
I 0- 5 3 6 14 8 16 7 9 1- 2 1 4 4 6 8 13 4 6 2- 3 2 0 2 3 6 10 2 4 3- 4 2 2 2 6 17 2 5 I 4- 5 5 7 5 7 2 5 6 5 5- 6 4 4 5 9 3 12 6 6 6- 7 13 8 10 11 6 3 10 8 7- 8 31 31 23 20 8 7 26 20 I 8- 9 60 39 39 46 17 2 46 34 9-10 128 97 121 100 20 18 111 81 10-11 125 130 156 126 147 24 24 137 105 I 11-12 182 147 200 152 173 33 36 171 132 12-13 153 209 193 210 187 47 47 190 149 13·14 152 96 160 83 191 53 43 136 111 14-15 201 . 205 207 194 58 53 202 153 I 15-16 163 238 183 159 55 52 186 142 16-17 170 166 118 130 44 45 146 112 17-18 181 168 188 133 45 68 167 130 18-19 92 135 113 66 49 62 101 86 I 19-20 126 82 107 74 39 52 97 80 20-21 74 58 79 39 25 33 63 51 21-22 75 55 64 44 62 31 59 55 I 22-23 54 38 75 34 31 22 50 42 23-24 30 15 22 15 20 21 20 20 ••-·••••••••-•-•••••••••••-••••-m••••---••••••-•-••••••-•••••-e•-••••••••-••••-•••-••-•••----•••••-••-•••••••••-•• AM PEAK (6·9) VOLUME: 104 78 72 77 31 12 83 62 I AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 182 147 200 152 173 33 36 171 132 PM PEAK (3·6) VOLUME: 514 572 489 422 144 165 499 384 PM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 201 209 238 210 194 62 68 202 153 I DAILY TOTAL: 2029 777+ 1869 + 1943 1804 669 692 1947 1548 + •• - INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N I N S T l T U T E ======I UEEKLY VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
LOCATION : SEAWOLF PKWY EB E OF TAMUG I DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION OF FLO\J : SEAWOLF PKWY EB CHANNEL : THIS IS 1 OF 2 SITE NO 30314582
I DAY OF WEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY UEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 5 - DAY 7 - DAY WEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOO GOOD 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE ______., ___ ,... ______..,. ______... _____ ... ______
I TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME I 0- 5 13 8 6 8 6 8 8 1- 2 17 9 9 2 11 8 9 9 2- 3 8 11 7 0 3 5 7 6 3- 4 8 6 4 0 2 4 5 4 I 4- 5 11 12 12 8 5 3 11 8 5- 6 22 25 15 16 6 7 19 15 6- 7 191 182 212 167 40 37 188 138 7- 8 119 109 97 98 28 25 106 79 I 8- 9 68 85 80 64 28 30 74 59 9-10 55 54 47' 65 47 29 55 49 10-11 68 68 33 56 80 43 34 61 ' 55 11-12 73 79 42 63 76 32 41 67 58 I 12-13 86 77 74 73 74 32 55 77 67 13-14 90 87 85 75 69 38 44 81 70 14-15 60 52 58 66 51 57 59 57 I 15-16 51 44 51 55 52 46 50 50 16-17 45 30 41 46 51 36 40 41 17-18 33 43 43 44 32 29 41 37 18-19 25 25 33 18 33 22 25 26 I 19-20 16 18 17 24 12 9 19 16 20-21 19 16 11 16 5 8 15 13 21-22 17 10 8 22 6 9 14 12 22-23 17 10 7 9 5 8 11 9 I 23-24 12 4 5 14 6 17 9 10 -~------••••C•••-••••------••••-c••••••------·------•••--•-•••••------••••-•G•••------AM PEAK {6-9) VOLUME: 378 376 389 329 96 92 368 277 I AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 191 182 42 212 167 47 41 188 138 PM PEAK (3-6) VOLUME: J29 117 135 145 135 111 131 129 PM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 90 87 85 75 74 52 57 81 70 I DAILY TOTAL: 1116 817 + 486 + 1032 1039 576 569 1051 898 + --- INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N I N S T 1 T U T E ======I WEEKLY VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
I LOCATION : SEA\JOLF PKWY WB E OF TAMUG DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION OF FLOU : SEA\JOLF PKYY WB CHANNEL : THIS IS 1 OF 2 SITE NO 30314139
I DAY OF WEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY S - DAY 7 - DAY WEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE
I TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME I 0- 1 4 6 4 6 7 8 5 6 1- 2 8 20 12 5 11 10 11 11 2- 3 6 12 7 0 12 3 6 7 3- 4 13 12 7 6 9 1 9 8 I 4- 5 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 4 5- 6 22 3 11 7 2 4 11 8 6- 7 42 36 37 23 11 9 34 26 7- 8 35 51 32 34 16 7 38 29 I 8- 9 39 53 56 36 16 11 46 35 9-10 78 55 49 59 21 35 60 49 10-11 78 75 54 63 66 40 29 67 58 I 11-12 94 101 83 93 106 49 45 95 82 12-13 66 108 92 82 91 48 48 88 76 13-14 91 63 94 55 69 46 42 74 66 14-15 67 60 78 75 42 47 70 61 I 15-16 81 90 68 71 61 52 77 70 16-17 110 92 84 105 53 62 98 84 17-18 197 196 171 178 41 55 185 140 18-19 68 43 63 51 53 36 56 52 I 19-20 20 28 35 23 21 25 26 25 20-21 18 22 14 19 18 14 18 18 21-22 18 17 16 10 19 8 15 15 I 22-23 13 8 6 27 7 4 13 11 23-24 13 7 6 9 3 13 9 8
AM PEAK (6-9) VOLUME: 116 140 125 93 43 27 118 91 I AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 94 101 83 93 106 49 45. 95 82 PM PEAK (3-6) VOLUME: 388 378 323 354 155 169 361 294 PM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 197 108 196 171 178 61 62 185 140 I DAILY TOTAL: 1184 598 + 886 + 1052 1079 609 574 1119 950 + --- INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N I N S T 1 T U T E ======I WEEKLY VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
I LOCATION : SEAUOLF PKUY EB E OF COASTUIDE D DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION OF FLO\./ : SEA\oiOLF PKUY EB CHANNEL : THIS IS 2 OF 2 SITE NO 30310778
I DAY OF \.lEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY \JEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 5 - DAY 7 - DAY WEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOO GOOO 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE ~------·------I TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HCXJRLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME I 0- 1 0 0 1 0 1 1-. 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2- 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 3- 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 I 4- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5- 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 6- 7 5 1 4 1 1 2 3 2 7- 8 6 5 4 3 5 3 5 4 I 8- 9 3 9 6 6 5 9 6 6 9-10 6 4 7 9 13 8 7 8 10-11 6 14 8 9 8 15 11 9 10 I 11-12 8 15 7 7 13 17 12 10 11 12-13 12 12 12 9 6 13 35 10 14 13-14 14 12 15 13 5 11 14 12 12 14-15 8 10 8 14 18 21 10 13 I 15-16 9 13 8 10 22 22 10 14 16-17 5 2 5 15 13 3 7 17-18 2 4 6 4 6 10 4 5 18-19 1 2 3 0 4 4 2 2 I 19-20 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 20-21 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 21-22 2 1 3 2 0 0 2 I 22-23 0 0 2 0 0 23-24 0 0 2 2 2 2 ------~------Q------~------AM PEAK (6-9) VOLUME: 14 15 14 10 11 14 13 13 I AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 8 15 8 9 13 17 12 10 11 PH PEAK (3-6) VOLUME: 16 18 16 19 43 45 17 26 PH PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 14 12 15 13 14 22 35 12 14 I DAILY TOTAL: 93 77 + 75 + 97 94 151 174 99 119 + --- INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I T E X A S T R A N S P 0 R T A T l 0 N 1 N S T I T U T E ======I UEEKLY VOLUME COUNT SUMMARY SHEET
I LOCATION SEAUOLF PKUY UB E OF COASTUIDE D DATE : 1-17-1996 DIRECTION OF FLOU : SEAUOLF PKUY UB CHANNEL : THIS IS 2 OF 2 SITE NO 30312634
I DAY OF UEEK: MONDAY TUESDAY UEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 5 - DAY 7 - DAY UEATHER GOOD GOOD GOOO GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 1 I 22 1 I 23 1 I 17 1 I 18 1 I 19 1 I 20 1 I 21 AVERAGE AVERAGE I ------TIME HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME
I 0- 1 0 0 0 2 0 1- 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2- 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3- 4 0 0 1 ·a 2 0 0 I 4- 5 0 0 2 0 0 5- 6 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 6- 7 6 1 2 2 1 3 2 7- 8 5 5 2 2 3 1 4 3 I 8- 9 1 6 2 3 3 2 3 3 9-10 6 12 4 12 8 8 8 8 10-11 7 18 8 13 9 11 8 11 11 I 11-12 4 20 10 7 14 18 18 11 13 12-13 14 23 14 17 12 14 29 16 18 13-14 24 12 19 19 6 17 35 16 19 14-15 13 18 10 11 17 23 13 15 I 15-16 21 17 16 17 38 32 18 23 16-17 , 1 8 5 9 42 31 8 18 17-18 6 6 4 7 12 28 6 10 18-19 1 3 5 0 5 6 2 3 I 19-20 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 20-21 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 21-22 2 3 2 0 0 2 1 I 22-23 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 23-24 0 0 3 2 ------~------AM PEAK (6-9) VOLUME: 12 12 6 7 7 4, 9 8 I AM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 7 20 10 13 14 18 18 11 13 PH PEAK (3-6) VOLUME: 38 31 25 33 92 91 32 52 PM PEAK HIGHEST HOUR: 24 23 19 19 17 42 35 18 23 I DAILY TOTAL: 128 101 + 108 + 116 114 195 233 128 156 + --- INDICATES SUM IS NOT FULL 24-HOUR TOTAL I INDICATES DATA IS UNAVAILABLE I I I I I I I· I I I I I I APPENDIX B.
I VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION STUDIES I I I I I I. I I I ------PELICAN -ISLAND VEHICLE---- & PEDESTRIAN CLASSIFICATION SURVEY------
FOR THE NORTHBOUND DIRECTION
Data collected on Wednesday, November 15, 1995
TOTAL PASS PICKUPS BUSES SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SEMI· SEMI· SEMI· MOTOR· NON· TRUCK BIKES PEDS AUTOS & VANS UNIT UNIT UNIT TRAILER TRAILER TRAILER CYCLES TRUCK SUM 2 AXLE 3 AXLE 4 AXLE 3·4 AXLE 5 AXLE 6 AXLE
7 TO 8 AM VEHICLES : 330 172 152 2 327 3 2 2 X OF TOTAL: 52.12 46.06 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.61 99.09 0.91
8 TO 9 AM VEHICLES : 301 151 138 6 3 2 290 11 2 X OF TOTAL: 50.17 45.85 0.33 1.99 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 96.35 3.65
9 TO 10 AM VEHICLES : 253 123 111 2 11 2 1 2 1 236 17 X OF TOTAL: 48.62 43.87 0.79 4.35 0.79 0.40 0.00 0.79 0.40 0.00 93.28 6.72
10 TO 11 AM VEHICLES : 226 106 109 5 2 2 216 10 X OF TOTAL: 46.90 48.23 0.44 2.21 0.44 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 95.58 4.42
11 TO 12 AM VEHICLES : 159 80 69 6 2 150 9 %OF TOTAL: 50.31 43.40 0.00 3.77 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.63 0.00 0.63 94.34 5.66
12 TO 1 PM VEHICLES : 266 138 114 9 3 252 14 %OF TOTAL: 51.88 42.86 0.00 3.38 1.13 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.00 94.74 5.26 11 1 TO 2 PM VEHICLES : 231 109 110 7 2 2 220 4.76 % OF TOTAL: 47.19 47.62 0.00 3.03 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.87 o.oo 0.43 95.24 13 2 TO 3 PM VEHICLES : 230 98 117 2 4 3 3 3 217 % OF TOTAL: 42.61 50.87 0.87 1.74 1.30 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 94.35 5.65 156 10 3 TO 4 PM VEHICLES : 166 75 81 2 3 3 6.02 %OF TOTAL: 45.18 48.80 0.00 1.20 1.81 0.60 1.81 0.60 0.00 0.00 93.98 136 2 4 TO 5 PM VEHICLES : 138 65 68 3 1 1 1.45 %OF TOTAL: 47.10 49.28 2.17 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 98.55
NOTE : NON-TRUCKS INCLUDE PASSENGER AUTOS, PICKUPS, VANS, MOTORCYCLES AND BUSES ------·PELICAN ------ISLAND VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN CLASSIFICATION SURVEY &
FOR THE SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION
Data collected on Wednesday, November 15, 1995 PEDS TOTAL PASS PICKUPS BUSES SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SEMI· SEMI· SEMI· MOTOR· NON· TRUCK BIKES AUTOS & VANS UNIT UNIT UNIT TRAILER TRAILER TRAILER CYCLES TRUCK SUM 2 AXLE 3 AXLE 4 AXLE 3·4 AXLE 5 AXLE 6 AXLE
I 75 2 7 TO 8 AM VEHICLES : 77 36 38 1 o.oo 1 97.40 2.6o X OF TOTAL: 46.75 49.35 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 1 93 1 8 TO 9 AM VEHICLES : 100 43 49 2 3 o.oo 1 93.oo 1.oo X OF TOTAL: 43.00 49.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 I 1 134 18 9 TO 10 AM VEHICLES : 152 65 67 2 10 4 3 0.00 o.oo 1 88.16 11.84 X OF TOTAL: 42.76 44.08 1.32 6.58 2.63 0.00 0.66 1.97 I 6 1 I 212 9 10 TO 11 AM VEHICLES : 221 113 98 o.oo 1 95.93 4.o7 %OF TOTAL: 51.13 44.34 0.45 2.71 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 I I 307 10 11 TO 12 AM VEHICLES : 317 155 152 8 2 0.00 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 o.oo 1 96.85 3.15 X OF TOTAL: 48.90 47.95 I I 242 8 12 TO 1 PM VEHICLES : 250 115 127 7 0.00 o.oo 1 96.8o 3.2o %OF TOTAL: 46.00 50.80 0.00 2.80. 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 2 1 I 179 18 1 TO 2 PM VEHICLES : 197 87 92 12 3 0.00 6.09 1.52 ' 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.51 o.oo 1 90.86 9.14 %OF TOTAL: 44.16 46.70 I 2 1 I 228 14 2 2 TO 3 PM VEHICLES : 242 110 118 7 3 o. oo 1 94 . 21 5 • 79 0.00 2.89 0.41 0.00 1.24 0.83 0.41 %OF TOTAL: 45.45 48.76 I 2 I 268 9 3 TO 4 PM VEHICLES : 277 132 136 3 3 1 o.oo 1 96.75 3.25 0.00 1.08 1.08 0.00 0.36 0.72 0.00 %OF TOTAL: 47.65 49.10 I 2 2 1 273 10 4 TO 5 PM VEHICLES : 283 133 136 2 2 4 0.71 0.00 o. 11 1 96.47 3.53 %OF TOTAL: 47.00 48.06 0.71 0.71 1.41 0.35 0.35
NOTE : NON-TRUCKS INCLUDE PASSENGER AUTOS, PICKUPS, VANS, MOTORCYCLES AND BUSES ------PELICAN ISLAND VEHICLE & PEDESTRIAN CLASSIFICATION SURVEY FOR THE NORTHBOUND DIRECTION
Data collected on Thursday, November 16, 1995
MOTOR NON· TRUCK BIKES PEDS PASS PICKUPS BUSES SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SEMI- SEMI- SEMI- TOTAL TRUCK SUM AUTOS & VANS UNIT UNIT UNIT TRAILER TRAILER TRAILER CYCLES 2 AXLE 3 AXLE 4 AXLE 3-4 AXLE 5 AXLE 6 AXLE
2 2 2 391 4 I 7 TO 8 AM VEHICLES : 395 207 182 98.99 1.01 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 ~Of TOTAL: 52.41 46.08 I 249 6 I 2 8 TO 9 AM VEHICLES : 255 118 130 3 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.39 97.65 2.35 1 ~ OF TOTAL: 46.27 50.98 0.00 1.18 0.39 0.00
4 255 10 2 9 TO 10 AM VEHICLES : 265 128 127 3 2 0.38 1.51 0.00 0.00 96.23 3.n ~ OF TOTAL: . 48.30 47.92 0.00 1.13 0.75 0.00
4 268 11 10 TO 11 AM VEHICLES : 279 134 134 2 3 2 0.72 1.43 0.00 0.00 96.06 3.94 ~OF TOTAL: 48.03 48.03 0.00 0.72 1.08 0.00 2 146 10 11 TO 12 AM VEHICLES : 156 62 83 6 1.28 0.00 0.64 93.59 6.41 X OF TOTAL: 39.74 53.21 0.00 3.85 0.64 0.00 0.64
2 2 277 5 12 TO 1 PM VEHICLES : 282 135 140 1 2 0.71 0.00 0.71 98.23 1.n X OF TOTAL: 47.87 49.65 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0. 71 6 161 13 1 TO 2 PM VEHICLES : 174 83 78 5 3.45 0.00 o.oo 92.53 7.47 %OF TOTAL: 47.70 44.83 0.00 2.87 0.57 0.57 0.00 218 9 9 2 TO 3 PM VEHICLES : 227 107 110 96.04 3.96 3.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 X OF TOTAL: 47.14 48.46 0.00 I 202 10 1 2 2 4 5 3 TO 4 PM VEHICLES : 212 107 95 4.72 1 0.00 0.00 0.47 2.36 0.00 0.00 95.28 %OF TOTAL: 50.47 44.81 0.00 1.89 I 4 125 6 I 4 TO 5 PM VEHICLES : 131 55 70 3.05 0.00 0.00 95.42 4.58 1 X OF TOTAL: 41.98 53.44 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.00
NOTE : NON-TRUCKS INCLUDE PASSENGER AUTOS, PICKUPS, VANS, MOTORCYCLES AND BUSES ------PELICAN ISLAND VEHICLE & PEDESTRIAN CLASSIFICATION SURVEY
FOR THE SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION
Data collected on Thursday, November 16, 1995
TOTAL PASS PICKUPS BUSES SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SEMI· SEMI· SEMI· MOTOR- NON· TRUCK BIKES PEDS AUTOS & VANS UNIT UNIT UNIT TRAILER TRAILER TRAILER CYCLES TRUCK SUM 2 AXLE 3 AXlE 4 AXLE 3·4 AXLE 5 AXLE 6 AXLE
7 TO 8 AM VEHICLES : 60 26 30 1 2 57 3 X OF TOTAL: 43.33 50.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 . 3.33 0.00 0.00 1.67 95.00 5.00
8 TO 9 AM VEHICLES : 84 30 48 2 1 1 80 4 X OF TOTAL: 35.71 57.14 1.19 2.38 1.19 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.00 1.19 95.24 4.76
9 TO 10 AM VEHICLES : 177 71 96 2 5 3 167 10 X OF TOTAL: 40.11 54.24 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 2.82 1.69 o.oo 0.00 94.35 5.65
10 TO 11 AM VEHICLES : 241 121 107 4 3 3 3 228 13 X OF TOTAL: 50.21 44.40 0.00 1.66 1.24 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 0.00 94.61 5.39
11 TO 12 AM VEHICLES : 295 116 168 2 6 1 284 11 X OF TOTAL: 39.32 56.95 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.68 2.03 0.34 0.00 96.27 3.73
10 2 12 TO 1 PM VEHICLES : 295 147 136 5 2 2 2 285 3.39 % OF TOTAL: 49.83 46.10 0.00 1.69 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.68 96.61 192 4 1 TO 2 PM VEHICLES : 196 79 112 2· 2 2.04 %OF TOTAL: 40.31 57.14 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.51 97.96 13 2 TO 3 PM VEHICLES : 258 130 113 7 2 4 2 245 % OF TOTAl: 50.39 43.80 0.00 2.71 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.78 94.96 5.04 248 14 3 TO 4 PM VEHICLES : 262 102 146 9 1 4 5.34 %OF TOTAL: 38.93 55.73 0.00 3.44 0.00 0.00 0.38 1.53 0.00 0.00 94.66
4 294 10 4 TO 5 PM VEHICLES : 304 142 148 2 2 6 96.71 3.29 %OF TOTAL: 46.71 48.68 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.66 1.97 0.00 1.32
NOTE : NON-TRUCKS INCLUDE PASSENGER AUTOS, PICKUPS, VANS, MOTORCYCLES AND BUSES ------I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C.
I DETAILED SPOT SPEED STUDY DATA I I I I I I I I. I I I Spot Speed Study Data I Location: North End of Causeway Time: 6:0o-9:00 am (November 30, 1995) I Direction: Northbound Vehicles Speed (mph) Number of Vehicles Percent Cumulative Percent I 34 2 1.4 1.4' 35 0 0.0 1.4 36 1 0.7 2.1 I 37 2 1.4 3.5 38 3 2.1 5.6 39 4 2.8 8.5 I. 40 2 1.4 9.9 41 3 2.1 12.0 42 12 8.5 20.4 I 43 14 9.9 30.3 44 11 7.7 38.0 45 7 4.9 43.0 I 46 14 9.9 52.8 47 17 12.0 64.8 48 3 2.1 66.9 I 49 8 5.6 72.5 50 10 7.0 79.6 I 51 6 4.2 83.8 52 8 5.6 89.4 53 4 2.8 92.3 I 54 2 1.4 93.7 55 2 1.4 95.1 56 3 2.1 97.2 I 57 0 0.0 97.2 58 0 0.0 ,97.2 59 1 0.7 97.9 I 60 1 0.7 98.6 61 1 0.7 99.3 62 0 0.0 99.3 I 63 1 0.7 100.0 I I I I I
I Spot Speed Study Data I Location: Mid-Bridge Time: 3:0Q-4:00 pm (November 30, 1995) I Direction: Northbound and Southbound Vehicles Speed (mph) Number of Vehicles Percent Cumulative Percent I 31 1 0.7 0.7 32 0 0.0 0.7 33 3 2.0 2.7 I 34 4 2.7 5.3 35 3 2.0 7.3 36 3 2.0 9.3 I 37 1 0.7 10.0 38 4 2.7 12.7 39 4 2.7 15.3 I 40 2 1.3 16.7 41 5 3.3 20.0 42 6 4.0 24.0 I 43 13 8.7 32.7 44 11 7.3 40.0 45 12 8.0 48.0 I 46 12 8.0 56.0 47 10 6.7 62.7 48 8 5.3 68.0 I 49 8 5.3 73.3 50 6 4.0 77.3 51 7 4.7 82.0 I 52 3 2.0 84.0 53 9 6.0 90.0 I 54 8 5.3 95.3 55 1 0.7 96.0 56 4 2.7 98.7 I 57 1 0.7 99.3 58 1 0.7 100.0 I I" I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D.
I PELICAN ISLAND CAUSEWAY ACCIDENT IDSTORY I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I Number of Accidents Year I "ehJcle-"ehJcle "ehJcle-Pedestrian "ehJcle-Bicyclist I 1995 0 0 a 1994 2 () a I 1993 / /} 0 1992 ~~ 0 0 I' 1991 3 0 0 1990 ;)__ 0 0 I 1989 J.j 0 0 I 1988 J 0 0 1987 3 0 0 I 1986 G~ D () I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX E. SURVEY AND RETURN MAIL ENVELOPE AS DISTRIBUTED I I I I I I I I I I I I TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE • The Texas A&M University System
TRAFFIC INFORMATION PROGRAM Telephone (713) 686-2971 TexAn 850-1390 I FAX (713) 686-5396 I I I
I Dear Student or Staff Member: We need your help in a special study of bicycle usage being conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System. Any information that you may be able I to provide concerning bicycle and/or pedestrian trips using the Pelican Island Causeway is needed. The survey addresses your current usage as well as potential usage of the roadway while attending classes at the Mitchell Campus of Texas A&M University at Galveston during the 1995 Fall I Semester.
Please take a few minutes to answer the enciosed survey questionnaire. Your answers will I provide valuable information concerning bicycle and pedestrian trips of students to the campus.
Your cooperation and timely return of the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage I paid envelope will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance in this important I undertaking. I I 'I I I I 701 NORTH POST OAK • SUITE 430 • HOUSTON • TEXAS 77024-3818 I I TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY AT GALVESTON BICYCLE SURVEY This survey is being undertaken by the Texas Transportation Institute of The Texas A&M University System, in cooperation with the Physical Plant of the Mitchell Campus, Texas A&M University at I Galveston.
1. Where do you live? 0 Dormitory 0 Apartment 0 House I 0 Other (specify)------I If you live off campus, what street do you live on?------If you live off campus, how do you get to campus? 0 Drive 0 Ride with others I 0 Bicycle 0 Walk 0 Other (specify)------2. Is a car or truck available for your use? 0 Yes 0 No I 3. Is a bicycle available for your use? 0 Yes 0 No If Yes, how many times do you ride per week? 0 Daily 0 3-4 0 1-2 0 Less
I What is tht;!Jrip purpose (check all that apply)? 0 School 0 Work 0 Shopping 0 Recreation 0 Other (specify)------
I If No, why? 0 Don't enjoy cycling 0 Roads are too dangerous 0 Cost of a bicycle 0 Other (specify)------
I 4. Have you ever walked or bicycled across the Pelican Island Causeway? 0 Yes D No I ·If Yes, do you feel traffic on the causeway posed a threat to your safety? 0 Yes D No 5. Have you ever seen anyone else walk or bicycle across the causeway? D Yes D No
I If Yes, please give any details you can remember:------
I 6. What is the total number of one-way trips you make across the Pelican Island Causeway
Monday through Friday: __ by vehicle __ by bicycle __ by walking I Saturday and Sunday: __ by vehicle __ by bicycle __ by walking 7. Would any of the following improvements to the Pelican Island Causeway increase the I number of times you cross the bridge on a bicycle or by walking? Improved lighting? DYes o No I Reduced speed limit? DYes 0 No On-road bicycle lane? DYes o No Off-road bicycle path? DYes 0 No I Other( specify)?______
I (Over) I I
... I 8. If there were an on-road bicycle lane or an off-road bicycle path on the causeway: Estimate the total number of bicycle/walking one-way trips you would make for: I __ Mon-Fri Sat-Sun For what trip purposes (check all that apply)? 0 School 0 Work 0 Shopping I 0 Recreation 0 Other (specify)------9. If you are a student, what is your academic classification? 0 Freshman I 0 Sophomore 0 Junior 0 Senior 0 Graduate Student 10. If you are a staff member, how long have you been employed with the University? I __ years months 11. What is your age? __
I 12. What is your sex? D Male 0 Female
13. What is the last level of school you have completed? 0 Less than High School I 0 High School Diploma 0 Associate Degree D Baccalaureate Degree D Master's Degree D Doctoral Degree 0 Special Professionai(M.D., D.V.M., etc.) I 14. We would appreciate your additional comments:. ______I I I
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. I Please return this form at your earliest convenience in the postage-paid envelope. I I .I I I ------· ------
NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE BUSINESS REPLY MAIL UNITED STATES FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 148 COLLEGE STATION TX POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
ATTN TRAFFIC INFORMATION PROGRAM TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE 701 N POST OAK RD STE 430 HOUSTON TX 77024-9698
11 ••• 11 ••• 111 ..... 1.1.1 •• 11.1 ••• 11 •• 1.1 •• 1•• 1.1 •• 1.1 I I I I I I I I I· APPENDIX F.
I WRfiTEN RESPONSES TO REASONS FOR NOT CYCLING (QUESTION 3) I I I I I I I I I I
I Stray dogs I live too far away Don't have a bicycle Don't have one I Neighborhood dangerous Just don't Not important to me I I don't need one Causeway dangerous Don't want a bicycle Don't own one I Don't need it Not at school Do not need one Nowhere to go I No place to keep bike Roads very dangerous Too far Don't need one I Don't own one Don't have Just don't I Too far Distance too great Don't own a bike Live in Dickinson I Health, bad knee Large distance Don't own a bicycle Bad knees I Would be dark Don't have one Don't have a bike I Take baby w/ me I like my truck 32 miles away Have a car I Bike at Parents 40 miles to A&M Afraid/hit Too far I Don't have one Slow traffic Not feasible Roads not safe I Don't have one Bridge not safe Have a car I Too far Have no time I Live far away I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX G. I DETAILS OBSERVED OF OTHERS CROSSING CAUSEWAY (QUESTION S) I I I I I I I I I I
I It was in the way. Every time I drive on the causeway there are pedestrians or cyclists. I Fishermen walk the most, students w/out cars mostly on bike.
I was really scared for the bicyclist.
I !have seen people riding, mostly students but others also. Once in a while I see someone walking. I Students always ride bicycles to school. Frequently see students and a professor biking.
There is bicycle traffic daily as I cross the bridge.
He nearly got killed by traffic. He also slowed down about 10 vehicles. I Students, professors? All ride, none walk bike across. There is one faculty member who rides daily, I also see students regularly. It is dangerous to avoid bikers and traffic.
I A bicycle on the causeway has always created a safety risk for both bicycle and cars. I It was.~ frightening experience. Bridge is too narrow for two-way traffic and a bicycle all at the same time. I This is very dangerous! A few employees & lots of students bicycle across the bridge- see #14. I Cars swerve to avoid. The people walking/riding across the causeway almost caused automobile accidents. I Several people riding their bikes on lane with traffic. What? I They had to hug the rail in fear that a car going over the speed limit might push him over Lots of people ride their bike across. Cars either whiz by them or slow down tremendously + cause a traffic hazard.
I Not enough room for cars + people walking or bicycling. I Everyone speeds by and the bicycler looks worried, as I am when I ride. He almost got hit by a car. I Often time I feel I need to cross over to the oncoming lane so I safely pass the biker. All the time. I Cars had to go around them. There isn't enough room if cars are coming from both directions. I I I
I Need to swerve to avoid hitting them. ,I Mainly residents of Galveston (non-students) fishing off road. Appeared to be a very d~ngerous situation.
Yes, and there is just not enough room to feel safe for car+ bike on the same lane.
I Cars speed, and don't yield for pedestrians. I I had to slow down and swerve to avoid the chump. On the causeway most of the people I have seen on bicycles were either riding against the traffic to see cars or forced the traffic flow to slow down or pass the cyclist
I Cars having to cross lane to pass bicyclist and go in front of oncoming car.
There is not enough room on the road for pedestrians or bicycles.
I Fishermen always walk on it and bike riders always ride on road taking up room. I They were simply riding a bike on the bridge. People do it on a fairly regular basis. I Riding his bike on the causeway in the traffic lanes. Several times bicycles going across not enough room for bikes and 2 lanes of traffic. Need bike lane off road or widen causeway. I They ride on the road causing cars to go around them. The traffic had to slow down considerably and swerve. I Cars are always slowing down to go around bikes. Mostly. cars swerve around them without slowing. Vehicles had to move into the other lane to avoid the biker. I It seems that the vehicles pass extremely close to the pedestrians on the causeway. Drivers do not notice or acknowledge the presence of the pedestrians. In my opinion a bicycle lane should be implemented on the causeway. I I've seen numerous people on bikes cross. Some cars slow down and pass, other don't. They were on the sidewalk. I They were crowded. I was afraid of hitting them as oncoming cars. Every rider seems to struggle a bit. I'm sure the danger lurks of being hit, it does when I ride over it. I Walking and bicycling at night or early morning. It seems dangerous because the car lanes are too small for bicycles.
I Many people ride bicycles on the causeway and it inhibits the traffic. Traffic does not yield to pedestrians or cyclists. Speeding is also a threat.
I I don't think its safe. I Cars have little room to go around the bicycle. I I
I Drivers must swerve to pass walkers and bicycles. My physics lab professor rides his bike daily across the causeway. He may want to fill out a questionnaire. I Many times, bikes are common. Once or twice college students walking, all usually during the day. Many times a vehicle has to slow down because of the threat of hitting the cyclist.
I Difficult to pass bicycle.
I've seen many people walking and riding across, mostly to go fishing.
I Traffic hazards were caused by cars going around bike into other lane. I I can't see other drivers at night. I drive too close to bike riders and can't do anything about it. Cars had no room to pass bicycler. I All nearly became hood ornaments. Fishing and shrimping people ride bikes to and from fishing spots. I I personally have almost hit two bike/pedestrians during foggy condition. Bicycling & walking, many students and professors. It is extremely dangerous. I No clearance for anyone not in a car. For many students there is no car available. Missed him ... Got new glasses ... still missed him. I There is no sidewalk so people have to ride or walk in the street. They are especially hard to see at night.
It is dangerous to pass a bicycle. The cars ahead obstruct vision of oncoming traffic.
I Daily.
There isn't enough room for anyone to be comfortable!
I The causeway is not wide enough for vehicles to pass the bicyclers safely. I· It's extremely dangerous because if the cyclist slips, they'll probably get hit. I've seen students bike across the causeway. I I probably see someone everyday. It is dangerous for both pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers trying to avoid them. I have come very close to hitting a bicyclist many times (at least 10). I I see people walking bikes all the time over there. Causes passing cars to move considerably into other lane. I They are always in the lane of traffic. People driving have a tough time trying to avoid a biker and avoiding oncoming traffic.
I They were way into the road so I had to swerve. I've never seen people walk the bikes - only ride them across. I Not enough room. I I
I· Traffic slows down due to traffic squeezing by.
Many cars pass dangerously close to bikers and walkers.
I I thought the person was going to get by a car.
The person did not seem to enjoy the trip.
I The lanes were too narrow and cars were passing the cycler. A lot of broken glass on the far side of the lane made the cycler move over. I Dr. Bill Haymes rides a bicycle every day. It was night and I thought it was not safe for the cyclist.
I There is no room for bicycles to safely ride with traffic going both ways.
It seems dangerous.
I Numerous employees/students that bicycle daily as this is only means of transportation. It is very dangerous to them as well as car drivers, especially at dawn/dusk. I See cyclers at least once per day. Student & staff I have seen ride bikes. The men who work the causeway I've seen walk on it.
I Ex. Head maritime Academy Ralph Davis hit by truck while biking over causeway. Traffic slows down and the person riding the bike seems to get nervous. Everyone is afraid they might hit the person.
I They were crossing the bridge on bicycles. .I It is a life threatening activity. Long walk in hot weather. I It is dangerous; you cannot see people on bikes. About three times per week I see someone walking or cycling across. I They rode on the edge of the road, watched cars and large trucks pass by very closely. Students and faculty ride both during the day and at night. I They hold to the right. Traffic swerves carefully past them. Both riding and walking. I Perhaps 8-10 cases for three months. Not enough room for safety.
I Hard to see cyclists due to poor lighting. Narrow lanes cause motorists to cross yellow lines.
Vehicles and bicyclist passed very close to each other. Wind gusts from trucks could cause problem.
I Also riding, wearing helmet, mountain bike. I Looked extremely dangerous. I I
I I see a number of people both walking and biking across causeway. They always create a dangerous situation with the traffic also using the causeway. I Very dangerous~ too narrow. She was as close to the shoulder as one can get. I Bikes don't have much room and cars don't slow down for them. Had very little room. I Fishermen walking with their poles.
Road too narrow as driver~ have to partially pull into oncoming lane to avoid cyclist. Hills and curves make it hard to see ifthere is oncoming traffic until too late. Sometimes difficult to see all cyclist till you're nearly upon them for the same reason. I Especially dangerous at night. Bridge poorly lit.
Dangerous riding/walking across 'the causeway because of traffic and no safe place to ride.
I A number of students ride across. I Students and some staff/faculty must commute this way. The traffic is moving fast and close to them. Daily usage by many staff and students. I Student walking with traffic as close to rail as she could. Details? Many people do it. I I was careful not to hit them. Unlighted~ unsafe no room for bikers joggers. I Cyclist stayed on right hand side with flow of traffic. Everyday when I leave or come to the campus I see at least one person on a bike. I It's impossible to ride across, they get off and walk the bikes across the bridge part. Causes traffic to swerve to avoid them.
I They had to walk on the road with cars speeding by.
Slows down traffic and seems really unsafe for the walker and or bicyclist.
I Looked like a good ride. I Hard to get around, not much room for bicycle, people drive fast. Many times. I Very narrow, not enough space to go around them safely if there is oncoming traffic. Looked dangerous to me, no bike lane, tricky passing on bridge and causeway .. I Cyclist almost hit by semi truck. I have had to pull out into opposing traffic lane to avoid cyclist many times. I I I
I Seemed very dangerous, too dangerous, we need a Separate path. Both cyclists and walkers are liable to get hit because there is not enough room for them if cars are coming in the other direction.
I Bicyclists are difficult to see and have trouble staying out of vehicles way.
Two way traffic cannot travel safely without injury to pedestrians.
I Students and teachers ride across. I Traffic must slow down until a safe passing may be made. Motorists usually are very thoughtful of walkers or cyclists but they need a place off the main roadway for safety because of the huge 18 wheelers that travel the causeway.
I Bike have to either.
There is always someone walking or riding a bike whenever I am driving on the bridge.
I Not enough room to. pass without going into other lane. I People including myself must duck and hold to railing when trucks/heavy vehicles pass. I usually see at least one other cyclist when I cross the causeway. I It seems very dangerous during peak traffic hours particularly. Trash and debris make it hard to stay near curb, too narrow. Non-caring attitude drivers, mostly trucks. I Difficulty with traffic. They were in danger, caused traffic to slow down and move into oncoming traffic to pass. I Very dangerous/precarious situation, cars coming both ways. Bicyclist barely had room to avoid being hit. Fog and high winds are main dangers while on causeway with cars. I Several times a week I encounter cyclists and/or pedestrians on the causeway. I see people all the time. I always feel nervous for their safety as cars go so fast.
I Yes I haye seen bicyclists as I cross in my car. Many times I have been concerned for their safety.
Cars had to move into the other lane to avoid bicyclists.
I Students and staff bike to school on a daily basis. I Cars slowing down to move out of the way of bicyclists, ilot enough room. The traffic was forced off to the other lane, this happened many times. I There. is not enough room for a bike and cars going each way. Cars tend to get in the other lane to avoid hitting cyclist. This causes traffic problems. I Sheer hell! Most dangerous thing ever! It's only a matter of time. I see mostly bicycles going across the causeway, not so much pedestrian traffic. I I I
I People get blown around by the wind and the cars and there is no place to retreat from the cars. I had to drive slowly behind them. I couldn't pass because of traffic the other way.
I I see bike riders going across the causeway at all hours of the day. I rarely see anyone walking.
I had to slow to nearly a stop to wait for traffic to pass so I could.
I I see many students and some teachers riding across. Also cars come too close for safety. I Saw a female and child fall on bicycle while on causeway. At least 3 or 4 times a week traffic is slowed down because of motorists trying to pass a bicyclist on the causeway. I I see students and Dr. Haynes riding across the causeway every day. Many times I have seen people walking or biking. I believe it poses a threat to the pedestrian along with the driver. Drivers often going into opposing traffic to miss bike.
I Looked scary, not much room for them, especially at night (no lights). I Dangerous for bicyclers - they have to ride in street. Could use old railway on side of bridge as sidewalk. I have to slide to the oncoming traffic lane to make sure I don't clip a cyclist. I There are always numerous people riding bikes. I see people walking and bicycling across the causeway on a regular basis. I Causes traffic to veer into oncoming lane. Lanes are narrow, dangerous to pass. ·Bicycles are much slower, people do not drive 35 mph they drive 50-60+ mph. I Often people going to and from school. All the cars have to move around this person into the other lane so that this person will not be hit by a car. I It was hard to keep from hitting either the person on the bicycle or the cars going the other way. People riding with the direction of traffic the bicycle riders needed to go in.
I Very dangerous, hard to see them if it is foggy.
It was late at night and very dark, I had to walk up on the ledge to keep from being hit from passing cars and trucks.
I If you are crossing toward school the right side offers no passage space and the left side offers less than three feet of width. I Large trucks suck you into them. Too much traffic going too fast. There's just not enough room. I see at least 3 people per day cross the causeway bike/foot. It is a very unsafe situation for everyone. I Rode to far right side. Cyclist was almost hit as a car passed a recreational vehicle. I A very dangerous situation when oncoming cars pass a cyclist at the same time. I see several bikers going across the bridge almost every time I go across the bridge. The traffic in their lane either has to swerve I into the lane of oncoming traffic or come dangerously close to running into their bicycles. I I
I Many people walk/ride bikes across the causeway. I would too if it wasn't so dangerous. I don't like to pass bikers since they need to ride on the road and there's the possibility of hitting them with a car.
I He almost got hit by 2 cars.
I see people riding their bikes across the bridge several times a week.
I It makes me nervous. There's not enough room for them. I It was hazardous. Going to school I often see a bicyclist riding along the side going/leaving campus. I You have to swerve into the other lane to pass bicyclers. Sidewalk too narrow, move barricade back. I Daily! Very little room for pedestrian to transit safely. I There was not adequate room for two cars and a bicycle on the bridge. Vehicles behind the bicycle swerved into oncoming traffic creating a dangerous situation for the biker and oncoming traffic.
I Cars must cross the center line to ensure the safety of the bicyclist.
Students biking to school.
I Afraid I'll hit them.
It's difficult driving with bicyclers on the bridge because of the narrow road. They ride in the street and it's hard to pass them.
I Not enough room for the bicycler if two cars are on the road. One car must allow the other car to pass then proceed.
Speeding cars and trucks either swing wide and block other lane, or nearly hit person with bike. Once I stopped my car to help I a biker who was on the ground. He had hit the curb trying to avoid a car, no lie. Slowed traffic (made cars go around bikes into opposite lane).
I There is not enough room for them. They slow traffic down.
There isn't enough room when 2 way traffic is present for safe use by runners, walkers and cyclists.
I Yes and they are all a serious hazard to themselves and to cars. I I have seen teachers and friends who have bicycled across the bridge. It was unsafe because of traffic. No shoulder or bike lane, near miss by autos several times. I Did not look like a safe method of transportation. Vehicle traffic did not respect bicycles. There's not enough room for bicycle and car in one lane. Have to drive over to oncoming traffic lane. I The road is too narrow for cars and bicycles to operate safely together. Both staff and students have been seen. Sometimes cars will pass bikes. Visibility is a problem. I I I
I Not enough room for semi trucks/cars and people. Slowed traffic down. Not safe. Causeway too narrow.
I There is no room, cars almost have to stop.
The grate is wide for tires. People drive close to rails.
I I almost hit the poor boy. I I always feel that they must have a death wish. Many people bike across and each time I fear they will get hit by a car. I Cars had to squeeze by the cyclist. Dangerous to bicycles and driver, causes backups. I Traffic has to swerve to miss biker/walker causing a problem when traffic is coming both directions. Looked scary. I was afraid I might hit them with my car. I The cyclist was not a problem. I see people riding their bicycle across the causeway every day. I It is very dangerous for bicyclers and it impedes traffic.
Real hard to pass cyclists.
I Very often people walk or bike across the causeway (almost daily) and traffic must swerve into the opposite lane in order to avoid them. I It is hazardous for both the cyclist and the driver. I know lots of kids that ride to school. I Lanes seemed so narrow, not enough room for the bicyclist to be ensured complete safety. In the way of traffic.
I Real cautious and scared due to traffic.
Cars come very close to the bicyclist, if they were to fall?
I Having been in the situation myself I can relate. When riding a bicycle you only have about a foot on either side of you to use, cars on one side of you and a knee high curb on the other. It's very dangerous. I Slows traffic, could create problem for person riding bike. The bicyclist has to hug the side of the road while cars speed by. It seems nerve racking.
I It was extremely dangerous.
Slowed down traffic onto island and posed a threat to safety of bicycler.
I At least once a day I see someone almost get killed crossing the causeway. I l frequently see bicyclers on the causeway and it is difficult to pass them without putting someone in danger. I I
I Individuals, mainly students, are seen riding on the causeway everyday. Passing vehicles come very close to hitting them.
Bikers and walkers going to/from school.
I All cars and trucks slowed down tremendously and swerved into oncoming traffic to avoid cyclist.
I feel sorry for them because it is pretty dangerous and stressful without any bicycle path.
I People riding across almost being hit by cars. I It is difficult and dangerous when the cars have to pass so close to them. People are always riding across and if there is traffic in my oncoming lane it is very hard to get over far enough for the bicycler to have room.
I Fishing, riding to school.
Traffic usually slows because there is not enough room for everybody.
I Many people ride the causeway daily. I People don't drive at posted limits and the road is narrow. Hard to pass bicyclist safely. Recognize bikers on a daily basis traveling at heavy traffic times. I They kinda swayed and cars had to be extra careful not to hit the biker or other drivers. Common· experience. I I have witnessed many close calls involving cyclists and vehicles. I've seen many people walk and bicycle over the six years I've been at the University. I Looked like the girl was going to get run over by oncoming vehicle, but nothing bad happened- car avoided her. Have seen several people be almost knocked down by careless drivers, almost wrecks due to cars avoiding bikes being in the I wrong lane and drivers have difficulty avoiding pedestrians at night and in inclement weather. There is no room for them and cars have to swerve to get around them. I High speed passing of the cyclist, erratic driving, wide swerves. One guy, a teacher, rides in the middle of the lane and nobody can pass him.
Each time I see a cyclist on the causeway, the car that passes them must go into the opposite lane which is dangerous for all I concerned. I Friends and professors ride. The bicycle caused traffic to slow and a wreckless driver in front of me almost hit the person on the bicycle. I There was not a sufficient amount of room between my car and them, its dangerous. She wore blue, the Germans wore brown. I It looked real dangerous. There isn't enough room. Cars had to give them extra room by crossing center line. I I I
I Very dangerous. It was dark, cyclist was in main drive lane because road was narrow. Had to slam on my brakes when I saw him. It was too close of a call! ! l I They are stupid for doing it. Very dangerous, too narrow. I Riding bike cautiously. . There was not enough room for cyclist and passing cars on causeway which made it unsafe for cyclist. I People ride bikes everyday to school. They try to ride to the extreme side in order to avoid being hit.
I Bikers on a regular basis going to and coming from school.
Traffic must go around the cyclist. This is dangerous and causes traffic.
I Had to ride on alongside the cars because there is no sidewalk. I Cars have to go around the cyclist, often veering into other lane. Cars have to wait behind them if there is oncoming traffic to pass. I Very dangerous, too narrow. A fall or trip would kill someone or put them into traffic. Very dangerous, caused backup of cars. I Dangerous, cars almost get in accidents with other cars and threat to cyclist, a pedestrian was almost hit. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX H.
I OTHER RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AS SPECIFIED (QUESTION 7) I I I I I I I I I I
I Still too dangerous. Actually, not applicable to me but I think the lanes are important.
I The reason why people don't walk on it is because it is very long. It does not matter if you improved the lighting or make another lane. The distance still will be long, but it will help a little. I On-road bike lane would require widening road & bridge. If the speed limit is lowered I would bomb the bridge. I Wider lanes. Enforcing no fishing from road & bridge.
I Off-road walkway, or TAMUG Bus Shuttle.
On road path would only be acceptable if use every way widening to maybe four lanes in my opinion.
I Maybe it would be a good idea on the on and off road bike path. I Not alone. Widen causeway and increase speed limit add off road bike path. I I really don't want to worry about hitting a rider. Only if enforced will this be effective (speed limit). I MQre signs that warn drivers that students are crossing at night. Enforce speed limit. Bike & walk path built adjacent to bridge. Like on railroad tracks which are not utilized. I Enforced maybe (speed limit), on and off-road path lane if possible. It's too far to anywhere. I Raise speed limit, separate bike path, nobody drives 35 mph anyway. Disregard the yes, I would rather drive across the causeway.
I Off-road bike path for bicycle and pedestrian.
Only an additional bike path would address the safety issue for bike.
I Need to get the people off the road.
Hazards greatly enhanced in winter with early sunsets. Speed limit is not enforced at 35 mph as is. Curb not kept free of I debris - hazardous. Lighting would be great. Maybe traffic will cut down and more people can utilize the path. It leave the option open.
I I do not expect to walk or bicycle across the causeway.
Less trash and broken glass on the road.
I Safer way of travel across bridge. I Increase attention to careless drivers. I I
I Lights definitely needed. Anything that would allow enough room for motorists & cyclist.
Convert train-lane to bicycle/walking path!
I On-road bike lane; I doubt that there is enough room. Close the draw bridge. I I drive to work. Better lighting is necessary in the area where the turn is right before you start to travel up the bridge on the Galveston Island side. I have almost been hit and have almost hit people in this area. I Increase speed limit; add off road bike lane! Better enforcement of the current speed limit. Most people drive 40-50 mph over the causeway.
I Lane/path for skatinglrollerblading.
Use train tacks for bike lane.
I Use the already existing old RR track. I Educating motorists about the rights of cyclists and the fact that we are legal vehicles on Texas roads. How do the first three improvements help?
On-road bike lane not useful unless accompanied by a major widening of the causeway. Bicycle paths specified that lead up I to the causeway enabling safe passage through or around some rough neighborhoods and sidewalks in addition to bicycle paths to enable pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the experience. I Reduced speed limit would be ignored. I have no intentions of walking or cycling across the causeway, but better lighting and a bicycle lane would be good improvements. Any of these but the speed limit, its already 35 mph. Speed is not a problem, narrow lanes and no where for I pedestrians and cyclists to travel is. Build bike path on side of causeway. I The speed limit is already 35 mph, if the drivers observed the limit it wouldn't be so bad.
I live in Houston so I don't bike to school, but a bicycle path would help other students that do.
I Don't ride bike because I live SO miles away, but if I lived within a suitable distance I'd ride my bike.
There is a 35 mph speed limit, but it is never enforced. A few times I've driven the speed limit just to see what would happen. Each time I was tailgated by 10-15 cars angry with me for driving so slow. I was honked at and received several I malevolent one finger gestures. Speed limits mean nothing if they are not enforced, and the 35 mph speed limit on the bridge is flagrantly violated all the time everyday. I've never seen a cop there. I Make a lane for bike and pedestrians. Convert the railroad track to a sidewalk.
I Bicycle path on abandoned RR bed.
Any of the above improvements would increase my use.
I An off road bicycle path, where there's a secure barrier between bike and car paths would be necessary because there is no room for error. Nowhere to go if a car might weave into your unprotected bike path. I I I
I There needs to be an off road bike path for the people who do ride a bike. , Off road bike path.
I People won't obey speed limit anyway.
I live too far from campus to cycle there.
I Put in RR track lane, the tracks stop across the bridge anyways. I These do not apply as I live too far away to ever ride a bike. Raise speed limit. I Use railroad bridge. Spee~ should actually be increased. I Just a lane for bicycles and pedestrians. I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I Table 1-1. Responses to the Question "H you are a student, what is your ac:ademic: c:lassific:ation?"
On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total
I Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Freshman 36 30.8 1 6.7 8 4.8 45 15.0 I Sophomore 34 29.1 1 6.7 12 7.1 47 15.7 Junior 30 25.6 4 26.7 50 29.7 84 28.0 Senior 17 14.5 2 13.3 93 55.4 112 37;3 I Graduate Student 0 - 7 46.6 5 3.0 12 4.0 I Total 117 39.0 15 5.0 168 56.0 300 I
Table 1-l. Responses to the Question I "H you are a staff member, how long have you been employed with the Univenity?" On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total
I Response No. No. No. No.
Number of Responses 3 85 9 97 Years of Service I Minimum 0.33 0.08 0.50 0.08 Maximum 1.50 24.00 4.00 24.00 I Average 0.86 6.22 1.74 5.63 I
I Table 1-3. Responses to the Question "What is your age?"
On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total
I Response No. No. No. No.
Number of Responses 116 94 167 377 I Age Minimum 18.0 19.0 18.0 18.0 Maximum 28.0 68.0 49.0 68.0 I Average 20.1 40.3 23.8 26.7 I I I I
I Table 1-4. Responses to the Question "What is your sex?" I On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total Response No. % No. % No. % No. %
Male 67 57.3 55 57.3 82 48.5 204 53.4 I Female so 42.7 41 42.7 87 51.5 178 46.6 I Total ll7 30.6 96 25.1 169 44.3 382 I
I Table 1-5. Responses to the Question "What is the last level of school you have completed?" On-Campus Employees Off-Campus Total I Response No. % No. % No. % No. % Less than High School 1 0.8 0 - 0 - 1 0.3 High School Diploma 107 91.5 22 22.7 126 76.4 255 67.3 I Associate Degree 7 6.0 8 8.2 20 12.1 35 9.2 Baccalaureate Degree 2 1.7 23 23.7 18 10.9 43 11.4 Master's Degree 0 - 19 19.6 0 - 19 5.0 I Doctoral Degree 0 - 22 22.7 0 - 22 5.8 Special Professional 0 - 3 3.1 1 0.6 4 1.1 I Total ll7 30.9 97 25.6 165 43.5 379 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX J.
I ADDmONAL COMMENTS ·BY RESPONDENTS (QUESTION 14) I I I •• I I I I I I
I ----·-··--·------On-Cantpus------·-··--·-·------Increase speed limit. I Not worried about traffic, worried about gust of air from speeding traffic, push you over rail. Use to be arrangements w/Galveston Bus line to come to Pelican Island 2 times per day. What happened to it? Lot of freshmen w/out cars. I What happened to it? Lot of freshmen w/out cars. Cars that leave enough room cause danger to oncoming ears because they must go into the other lane.
Speed limit on causeway too slow. 45 mph speed limit would help traffic move, yet provide safe environment for motor veh., bikes and I peds. Off road bike path would be beneficial, and prevent delay for traffic. I Speed limit too slow. Bike path would be safer for biker/fiShers and for all those cars that have to go around them. Off road bike path is need before someone gets hurt or killed. Reducing the speed limit is not going to make a difference, the current speed I limits is not obeyed. Make this campus more pleasing to the eye. Increase parking lot- especially C-donn, and kill every mosquito in the world. By the way, elevaton need to get up to the 4th floor. I Invest in a TAMUG student shuttle! The safety ofTAMUG students should be the fant and foremost concern. Like to see an off road path that was paved and lit accessible to fiSherman and also properly maintained. If the path was added to the road, I hope there is ample room for vehicles and not be a liUle painted stripe. Bike path is definite need for T AMUG students. .I Feel free to contact me@ (409) 740- 5037. Thank you for sending the survey and I hope my peers take the time to fill out Adam Harris. I think a bike path is a good idea and make it easier for cyclist for the Pelican Island Causeway.
I am the director of the A&M EMS. I would like to see improvements made due to the fact that it is my organization that must respond to I any accidents on PI Bridge.
The university is not serviced by public or school buses. The PI causeway is not safe for walking or bicycling. I People must rely on friends or taxis to get off campus. A safe bicycle path would be a great help. Widening the Causeway, by complete renovation. Four lanes (2 each direction) plus a walkway/bike path on each side. Increase speed limit to 45mph. Too dangerous now to ride a bike across and too small a campus to bring my bike here.
I I refuse to ride across the bridge because of safety reasons. If a lane was installed I would consider it for shopping and recreation purpose.
· I am very swprised that nobody has been hurt riding a bike across. A separate bike lane on the causeway would be greatly appreciated and I beneficial to all. A separate bike lane on the causeway would be greatly appreciated and beneficial to all.
rm very happy this issue is being addressed. Campus safety is important May I also request better lighting in areas coming into and out of I the parking areas. Parking lots are well lit, but the pathways to there are not Sidewalks are too narrow. I rve been pushing for some kind of bike path over the causeway for some time now. Bike is my· only means for trans and choose not to ride many times due to safety reasons over the causeway. Since there are plans to redo the causeway, it should seem viable to install a bike path over the causeway. Preferably off road, people drive crazy. I Lighting should be added to the causeway for everyone's general safety. A bike lane would be an added safety for cyclist On PI no bike is needed. If people need to go to the main island, people hitch a ride. Only people rve seen bike from PI to the Main Island I are locals. T AMUG needs a bike/walk path separate from the road and oncoming traffic. I I I
I ------.;.·------On-Campus------In addition to the bridge improvements, an additional bike path on the bridge must be matched with additional improvements and a safe I means of crossing the bridge. · People do ride bikes over the causeway, therefore I think there should be a bike lane so it will be safer. I I believe a path is need for the safety of peds and cyclist It's good for students to be able to give their input; it makes them feel more part of the university.
Adding an on-road or off-road bike path is the only logical choice in helping students & staff. If this addition is made more people will ride I bikes and prolong the bridge life and help the environment Disadvantage is the cost of adding the lane, but the advantage out weighs the disadvantage.
There is no reason to cross the causeway by bike or walking. Stores to far away and nothing over there. People might as well stay on the I island, or else drive. The causeway is a major hazard to Galveston. I feel scared crossing it on a bike, foot or in a car. All the ideas you suggest w/the exception of reduced speed limit would improve the situation greatly.
I What the hell does sex and education have to do with riding across the PI death bridge.
I do not feel safe riding across the causeway, and I don't feel bicyclers I pass are very safe. Something needs to be done!!
I It is too dangerous and annoying when I have to pass a bicyclist on the causeway.
A bike path off road is very needed for the safety of all who use the PI bridge.
I It's absolutely critical that there be an additional bike path for cyclist since the causeway is very
Narrow and has significant 11Uck traffic. Somebody will certainly be killed if this situation is not addressed.Stve Wilson,SBP TAMUG I 740-4420. You need to pave a separate bike path on the bridge. I rve never done it, but biking/walking across the causeway looks unsafe. I wouldn't do it w/o a bike lane to provide space for bikes alone. I feel a bike path is a good idea. I feel very uncomfortable driving wlbikers also on the road. It is very difficult to avoid a biker & oncoming traffic. Give bikers their own space, make the road safer for everyone. I An off road path would be best so drivers & cyclist won't have to wony about being bit or hitting a cycle. I live on campus and own a car so I only ride for the fun of it. I do know people who depend on a bike for transportation and the bridge is I very dangerous. Lowering the speed limit and adding warning signs will not solve the problem. I feel the addition of an off-road bike path is very much needed on the A&M Campus. Many here are not fortunate enough to own their on car and since T AMUG doesn't have a shuttle service, students need another way to get into town. The current bike lane is too dangerous to I use and I feel if a safer lane is constructed many students including myself would use it Considering the growing campus and facilities on PI expanding/improving the causeway probably would help organizations other than T AMUG as well. I The causeway is dark and unsafe. Day traffic is to the port is heavy with 11Ucks make a dangerous situation. A bike path would be conditions much safer. I An on or off bike path is a very much need improvement Never ride across at night .. not enough light I feel that a bike path would reduce the number of people who have been hit or scared off their bikes. Better lighting on that curve could make driving at night much safer too I Off road trail 10 times better then an on-road trail. Use the old railroad tracks on bridge, they're ok but need rails. Could we fiSh from the bridge? Speed limit should be 4Smph. I could walk/ride to Stop'n Go. I I I
I ------.;·------On-Caulpus------People will cont. to speed and drive carelessly. Need a smooth path for skating/blading. We were told we could be ticketed for blocking 1- traffic on the causeway when we blade across it to the Main Island. There needs to be a lane for biking skating and walking. ~ off-road lane would probably be a lot safer due since some people that use the lane wear dark clothes. It's hard to see at night. I Many students I know that ride to school would greatly appreciate a bike path or a walk path. Also it would make me feel much more comfortable if I didn't have to pass bikers up on the bridge.
I have access to a car, but I have a lot of friends who either live on or off campus who only have a bike to get around. These kids need a I bike path for their safety, especially at night. The addition of a bike-pedestrian lane is a necessity to the students of T AMUG especially considering how secluded we are on Pelican Island I from doctors, grocery stores and jobs. I almost fell off the bridge once, but mostly I don't like the glass and litter. Also the Galveston limo service refuses to go to Pelican Island, but will go all the way to the Seawall which is farther away from their Broadway route, I don't know why. I The causeway is so narrow that I would be afraid to ride a bicycle or walk across it. I love riding my bike and I often fmd it necessary. That causeway is dangerous. I get hit by a car and I'll probably get thrown into the water. I would greatly appreciate a path that I could feel safe.
I A separate bicycle lane or off road lane would make bridge travel safer for both drivers and bikers.
The causeway is a beautiful place to walk or rollerblade especially at sunset. A path for walkers and rollerbladers would make the trip more I enjoyable and easier. The fear of being a nuisance to big trucks is what usually keeps me offthe causeway. Crossing the causeway is currently very dangerous both in the· daytime and at night. There is little room for a bicycle. Cars often pass cyclists with only a foot or two clearance and at of over SO mph. Something should be done before someone is injured or killed.
I Please build the road .. .it is very dangerous, specially with heavy traffic. I It's a good idea to have an on road or off road bicycle lane on the causeway. I I I •• I I I I I
I ················------·-·-----·-··············--·-·····--·-··-----Off-Caanpus---·····-·-··-··------···-·--· A bike lane is a great idea, but it probably won't happen. Actually, I feel safer riding a bike on the causeway than on many of Galveston's I streets. The causeway bridge is very dangerous and is a strong deterrent to those who wish to bike or walk to Pelican Island. I have witnessed 2 near accidents myself. I I think an off road bike path is an excellent idea. I know myself and others would like to ride bikes to seawall and stuff, but no way over that bridge. There is no room for bikers.
Although improvements to the bridge would not increase the number of times I travel by bicycle, this is simply because currently I am I willing to take the risks. I am very·aware ofthe dangers involved and I feel that it is simply a matter of time before I or someone else is seriously injured or killed for a lack of a bicycle lane.
I would love to ride my bike to school, but I will not until the roads are improved. I believe the roadway is very dangerous right now for I bicycles and pedestrians. If an alternative path were created for bicycles and pedestrians I strongly believe it will be greatly used. I think and feel that with all of our staff and students who cycle, it is only fair to accommodate their method of arriving on the island by providing some kind of bicycle path/lane.
I If only one person chooses to ride a bicycle across the bridge, it would be a justifiable expense to fund the construction of a bicycle lane/path on the bridge. Regardless of the speed limit, there is just not enough room for two vehicles (1 each direction) and a bicycle/pedestrian abreast Safety and common sense dictate design to be completed for the worst case· scenario which is at least two vehicles (private) and one I bicycle. With industrial area and park on Pelican Island this becomes a tractor-trailer (semi) an RV and a bicycle. We need more room! If we are really serious about ETR in the Galveston area, a bike path is the only logical step to accomplishing this. We have 2000 environmental students x 10 trips per week x 52 weeks a year = a hell of a lot of reduced I emissions. Living off the island travelling by car is the only option for me but a bicycle lane is a good idea as there is a surprising amount of bicycle traffic on the bridge.
I The causeway is extremely dangerous with poor road conditions, no lighting and no where to go when cars are coming. Unfortunately for most people this is the only source (bicycle) of transportation.
In my opinion an off road bicycle path running where the railroad tracks run at the present time would make bike trips safer for students. It I would also encourage students to ride their bikes instead of their cars and in tum doing something good fQr the environment
An off road bicycle path would allow many students who have bicycles but do not like to ride over the causeway to be able to ride to school I instead of driving, which could save them money on gas and wear and tear on their automobile. A bicycle lane and better lighting are both good ideas. I It would be safer for both the cyclists and the drivers on the causeway. I believe that bike and walking pedestrians should be provided with a safer means of getting over the bridge, or walking and bUting should be prohibited. It is dangerous enough for those driving on the 2 lane narrow bridge without having to dodge pedestrians. I Although I don't ride or walk across the causeway, I would feel better driving because they would be out of the way ifthey had their own lane. I The conversion of the railroad track would solve all bicycle problems on the causeway - just a sidewalk! The causeway is frequently used by cyclists. The curb on the side of the road is only wide enough for pedestrians so cyclists have to ride on the road. I think this is dangerous for the cyclists especially at night and it also slows down traffic. I I am a poor source of info. I drive long distances and don't care to cycle. Making the railroad track that runs next to the road into a bicycle path would greatly improve the situation. I It's about damn time! Although it's too far for me to ride a bicycle to class, some haye no choice. For them it is a dangerous ride. An off road path would make I it a lot safer. I I
I ·-··-·········-····-~·-················-···························-········Off-Cantpus---············--~---·-··-·-···········---···-·······----·-··--············
Without a separate lane it is simply too dangerous to walk or bicycle across that bridge. I would like to ride my bicycle to save money and I help the environment, however the way it is righ~ now, the possibility is too dangerous to even consider. I think a bike lane is an excellent idea and really needs to be done. Bicycling on the causeway as it is now is dangerous to the rider and to car drivers. I Island transit would be an improvement I have attended school here for 6 years and I have yet to understand why Galveston's Island transit system does not make any runs onto Pelican Island.
I'm leaving, so your decision won't directly effect me, but for the sake of the future classes PLEASE build a bike path. It's dangerous and I scary, but also mandatory that we get to class. It would be a smart decision. I drive to school due to distance but I see the potential for fatal accidents if the safety ofthe bike/walk doesn't improve. Not only are they in danger so are the cars as they move over into the other lane when passing the crest of the bridge. For the safety of everyone improvements I are greatly needed. Please build an off road path and allow cyclists to cross the causeway outside of traffic lanes. I When I lived in the dorm 1990-1992, I rode my bike across the bridge at least once daily and always feh in danger. I am surprised that I have never heard of a serious auto/bike accident on the bridge. I have always feh that a bike lane (preferably off road) needed to be on the bridge. I I would consider riding my bike to school again if there was a lane, but I quit riding across the bridge when traffic got heavy and I feh in danger.
I think a bicycle path is in dire need across the causeway. Many people would utilize it due to reduced dangers. I would much rather ride a bicycle to campus, for one reason, parking sometimes can be too much of a hassle. I don't carpool so riding a bicycle is not only good for I the environment but it is a lot more enjoyable. I have been at A&M 5 yeirs, every year someone talks about putting in an off road bicycle path over the old train tracks but nothing has ever been done about it
I think its about time one is put in. I will probably be gone by the time it's installed, but I think it's imperative for the undergraduate I students to be able to utilize a bicycle path.
It does need to be improved. Safety for bikers and walkers is really needed.
I When I lived on the island I rode my bike to school and there is defmitely a potential for accidents. I'm surprise there hasn't been any.
As a driver, whenever I cross the causeway to campus, and there is a bicyclist, there is often a need to curve partially into the other lane, which may cause a potential accident Some additional lighting on route from/along the causeway can also be helpful. Any measure should I be considered for both their safety as well as other motorist
I enjoy bicycling, but do not dare make the trip across the Pelican Island Causeway on a bike. I tried it once and it scared me so I haven't tried it since. I've seen others bicycling across the causeway and had to swerve around them. I feel sorry for those who have no other I transportation other than a bike and have to cross the causeway as is.
If the train tracks are no longer used put a waJk/bike path there.
I There is a great need for a bicycle lane even if it means enlarging the bridge!
I think if an off road bicycle path were made available, it might reduce the number of cars traveling on the causeway because more people I would feel safer riding their bikes. I totally understand the need for additional safety on the bridge for bikers, but the bridge is not the problem.
Biking in town is hazardous to your health and not to mention the section 8 housing projects you have to drive through. Tell the few bikers I to buy a cheap car or move onto campus housing. A bicycle/pedestrian lane needs to be added. I Ahhough I live too far to ride my bike to school, it would be something I'd defmitely do if I lived on the island. The bridge does need a bike path to allow for the safety of those who do ride to and from school. I I I
I ····················-·-·······-·····-·-·········---·················---Off-Cantpus---····-········--·········-···--··········-········--·------·-··---
The truth is that I do not ride a bike to school simply because it is too dangerous. The bridge is very narrow with no shoulders and high I curbs. This combined with 50 mph traffic of cars and trucks is simply too much~ I ride my bike every day and go virtually all over Galveston, but I will not ride to Pelican Island. I might add that the dangers are not just with the actual bridge, but the whole causeway from Harborside I Drive. There needs to be a separate lane for bicyclists and pedestrians. There also needs to be improved lighting at night It would also help if the bridge were only opened on the half-hour. I would enjoy riding my bike to school but I think it is too dangerous right now. I I think the bridge should only be allowed to go up on the half hour. I can't recall how many times the bridge has caused me to be late when I would otherwise have been on time. I A sidewalk is absolutely necessary. I don't see what the problem or hesitation is about, they have been talking about this problem since I arrived at T AMUG in Fall 1993. The solution is already there, why not flX it up for use? Does someone have to die farst or what? I I believe there has to be something for the students who ride their bikes over the causeway. Every time I cross it there is someone on a bike. I worry that I might hit them because they may either fall off or have to cross the road and not see me behind. With a bike path there would not be a threat of injury or loss of life due to a car accident I would like to start riding my bike to I school, but I hate going across the causeway for fear of a car not seeing me and hitting my bike. I would love to be able.to do my part to reduce hannful automobile emissions by riding my bike, but I am not willing to compromise my safety.
I do not use the bridge for walking or bicycling, I think it is crazy. I fllled this out for my fiiends who have to ride bikes because they I cannot afford a car. I wish that you would make a safe lane for them. but to be honest I guess our administration wants someone killed before they spend my money to make a safe path.
I would hope something is done before a death forces change. Just like traffic lights and stop signs are put at a busy intersection that parents I have complained about for years.
Too bad.
I Bikers on the causeway scare me. It is only by the grace of the good Lord that no pedestrians have been slaughtered on that bridge.
Please put a bicycle path in!!! Many people including professors live off campus and have. only a bicycle for transportation. They risk their lives every time they cross the causeway. Is it going to take someone being killed to allow this project to go forward. I certainly hope we I are more farsighted than that.
A bicycle lane would be beneficial to those going to/from A&M campus, I would feel much safer.
I There is just not enough room for a bike rider to cross Pelican Bridge. The only way I would ride my bike is if it was widened or my other means of transportation were gone. But I very much want to ride my bike on nice sunny days. I ride my bike to my class at Galveston College. I A bicycle path is not a necessity for cyclists to reach campus. I feel motorists and cyclists can share the road as it is now and still be safe. I would like to see a special lane (on or off the bridge) for cyclists. I Please give the poor bicyclers somewhere safe to ride, it's the only transportation some students have.
Crossing that damn bridge on a bike is scary, not only from school traffic but those crazy 18 wheelers. And the drawbridge itself is like a I cheese grater if you wreck on it I encourage and support any efforts being made to ensure greater protection and safety to bicyclists.
A bicycle path would definitely increase number of bicyclists due to safety. Would decrease traffic back ups due to people bicycling. Good I luck. An on road bicycle lane would provide a safe and enjoyable ride to campus. Many attributes· less traffic, physical exercise, safety, easier I for those who don't have vehicles. I I
I ------Off-Campus------
An addition onto the bridge for bicyclists would be a convenience to both bicyclists and automobile operators. I An off road bicycle path would allow many more students to go to school on a bike. Personally, I don't feel comfortable riding to school with the present system. I know many other students who feel the sune. Many on cunpus students are stuck on cunpus because they don't like to ride across that bridge. I If there was a safer way to cross the bridge, I as well as others would ride bicycles and/or walk across more frequently because of less hazardous conditions.
I feel that there is a high enough number of students that are dependent on bicycle travel to and from school to warrant the provision of a I bicycle path for their safe travel. An off road path would be the best thing for bicycles. rve signed a petition for the last four years rve been at T AMUG and it would be nice to ride to school more often (weather permitting) and the path would be the safest way to do so. The area on the bridge is there to I make a path and keep the railroad tracks even though those tracks won't be used again in the next SO years and could be taken out The tracks end once off the bridge anyways.
I would ride my bicycle to school every day if I could but because there is not even a shoulder to ride on and 18 wheelers, other large taucks I and many cars cross the causeway I don't feel that it is safe because bicycles have no where to go to get out of vehicular traffic. I rode across the causeway a couple oftimes and cars and taucks pass at such a close distance, it is very frightening and dangerous. I I live off cunpus and recently was in a car accident in which my car was totalled. I live close enough to cunpus that I should be able to ride my bike, but hesitate in fear of my own safety. This not only poses an inconvenience on me, but on my friends as well.. Something needs to be done.
Since health is a big concern for a lot of student who drink and study and spend most of their time sitting. an off road bike/walk pathway I might increase morale and allow the students/faculty/staff to enjoy the beautiful sunny days Galveston has to offer.
If it is at all possible, there should be an off road bike path. The traffic lanes are too narrow for an on road bike path, and the I walkers/cyclists are very close to traffic as is. A bike path off road would ensure the safety for all cyclists. I un surprised that people aren't hit more often with all the traffic. I highly recommend a bike path for Pelican Island Causeway.
I Bicycles are a dangerous hazard, especially around comers.
An offroad path is necessary. It is too dangerous to ride with the large taucks that pass etc. This is a problem for those who only have I bicycles as transportation or those who want to ride. More people are riding and you must take their safety into consideration. I don't know anyone that drives at the posted speed limits. The road is too narrow. If an on road lane were put in, it would do no good unless the road is wider so cars can pass bicyclist safely.
I I would feel safer for myself and other bikers if there were a bicycle lane. I would bike to school more often.
Galveston streets in general are not safe for cyclists.
I It is about time we fmally got a survey on this topic. The bridge as it is right now is dangerous.
I feel an off road bicycle lane would be advantageous to all cyclists who have to cross the bridge on a daily basis. I A designated bicycle path would be safer for those who choose to ride or walk to Pelican Island. Even though the speed limit is only 3S mph, most drivers exceed the speed limit by up to SO or SS mph. Since the causeway is only a two way bridge, passing the cyclist or pedestrian imposes risks for the cyclist because rve seen cars not wait for the oncoming car to pass by and by doing so, the cyclist's pedal hit the concrete wall and fell over. This path will not affect me since I un graduating in May, however, as the University grows, more students I will be riding their bikes and a designated path would be safer for everyone. I don't cross the bridge by bike or foot because I prefer to drive. If I did cross the bridge by either, the fU"St three items in #7 would I encourage me to do so. An off road bike path would solve everyone's problems, the pedestrian/bikers would be protected and drivers would not have to put up with a I reduced speed limit I I
I ------·------Off-Canlpus------I have only attended Texas A&M Galveston since the Fall semester of 1995. I It is very unsafe to cross the causeway on my bike. I feel threatened by cars passing so fast. I would hate for someone to be killed before the school puts in a bike lane.
Additional bicycle traffic across the causeway would require that all safety precautions concerning bicycle riding be greatly promoted, i.e., I rules of the road, wearing a helmet, etc. I greatly encourage bike riding and if I lived closer I would ride a bike when possible. For the students who do ride, I feel that it is essential that either a off road (preferable) or on road bike path be constructed because now it is not only a danger to the bicyclists that use the I causeway, but the motorists that cross over into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting a bicyclist. The causeway in its present state is a disaster waiting to happen as there are a number of students that have no choice but to ride a bike to school. I I think an off road bicycle path would be wonderful. I would feel safer both driving or riding a bicycle. I have wondered why there was no bicycle path on the causeway since my freshman year. I am a seriously involved off road mountainbiker which means that I take a lot of risks on my bike. I think riding over the causeway with cars present is scary as hell. FIX IT! I Pedestrians and bikers really take their life in their hands crossing the causeway. The bottom line is that some people have to get to A&M and this is the only way for them to access the institution. The least that can be done is that more caution/alert signs/signals could be installed. Eventually someone is going to be injured severely, maybe then something is going to be done.
I have ridden my bike across the causeway many times in the past and have regarded it as the most dangerous part of my trip. Cars pass I very close to you and they are normally traveling 35-40 mph. On a bike it is difficuh to travel at the same speeds.
Why can't they make a bicycle path on the south side of the draw bridge where there are now unused train tracks? I and many people I I know would use it very often. If construction is to be done on the causeway and traffic is temponuily reduced to one lane, please do majority of work when school is out of session. Less traffic is one step to cleaner air so go for it and build a bike path.
I I strongly support the placement of a bicycle lane (on or off road) on the Pelican Island bridge. I feel it is extremely dangerous to everyone who crosses the bridge to encounter a cycler/ped. I would defmitely consider cycling to school if these precautions were taken into consideration. It is better for the environment and just gets one exercise.
I On road bicycle lane or off road bicycle path on the causeway is a necessary improvement that I recommend highly. Cyclists/pedestrians are at the moment not safe ... from a personal experience. I I do not believe that bicycles and pedestrians should be allowed on the bridge. I don't think it should be extended for them either because of the lack of number of them.
Utilize the unused railroad bridge as a bike path. Even if the rail was ever needed it would take longer to lay the track on land than it would I to remove any decking placed for pedestrians/bicyclists. Bike path please. I I went walking on the causeway and the cars are just too close: I think that a bike lane or off road path would encourage more people to ride and also be a lot more convenient and safe for those who ride I normally. Somebody will have a major lawsuit on their hands if there isn't a lane constructed for pedlbikers. I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience. I I I I -~~-~~-~------r1
1- I I I I ------Faculty/Staff------
I fear for the bicyclist on the causeway because there is heavy traffic & the lanes are narrow. I am always afraid that I will strike one of I them. I believe more students would ride bicycles if it was safer for them. Thank you for your consideration. I am concerned a student will be killed before action is taken.
I I I Lets clean up this situation before a tragedy occurs and brings us bad publicity. Student life can be better when improvements are made.
I think this is a important issue. I think enforcing the posted speed limit would help.
r 1 They use the regular car lanes, so cars slow down going around them. A few times, people walk along the side curb too! I I used to ride my bicycle to work. occasionally when I was younger. I haven't ridden a bicycle in the last decade. An offroad bicycle path would be wonderful. lt would give me great relief to avoid seeing near misses of automobile accidents. I The bridge is very dangerous for cycling as currently configured. Needs lighting at night for the safety of all traffic. Better lighting on the causeway would be very good for people driving on it Drivers from opposite directions sometimes do not tum their brights off. lI In addition to a bike & ped walkway, something over the railroad tracks on the other side would be helpful. Old railroad needs to be convert to a ped path.
Living in Texas City would make it difficuh for me to ride my bike or walk to work. However; I am concerned for the safety of those who I travel by foot or bike. Renovation may be expensive - but probably rewarding.
Bicycle paths are so important I hope A&M shows Galveston the way and becomes a leader in starting the trend.
I It would be beneficial to follow the examples in North Texas of them "Rails to Trails" program of turning old railroad tracks into bike tracks.
Though it would not make me ride a bicycle to work., better lighting and bike path would be a good idea.
I I I think it's tenibly scary for the bicyclist & myself on windy days to go across the causeway. Wind pushes them around and makes me uncomfortable to pass because the wind could push them in front of me. II I really hope that something for the bicyclist Have bicycled in the past and too many close calls have occurred, now only bicycle when it's necessary. I The lighting would be greatly appreciated. Although I don't ride a bike, I think that a bicycle path across the bridge is an excellent idea and may save a life or lives.
As the campus grows, vehicle traffic will increase and as PI business respond truck and car traffic will increase from that as well. The I danger to ped and cyclist will also increase. Do not use the bridge for recreation purpose, improved lighting and an off-road path would make me feel a lot better about crossing the I bridge. A separate bicycle lane is absolutely needed. Very scary to drive where bikes and cars go together in the bridge.
This is a very dangerous bridge, everytime rve seen someone walking or biking, it makes me very nervous. If there was a safe way I would [J cycle to work. At present you take your life in your own hands crossing the bridge in any other way but with a car.
The old railroad grade should be used for walkway-bike path. i I Speed monitoring of traffic using the causeway particularly at rush hour times (lunch; 4-6pm wkdays). Garbage and broken glass is a significant hazard and weekly curb sweeps would keep this to a minimum.
I I I