Tempe Bicycle Boulevards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Tempe Bicycle Boulevards Background In June 2014, the City Council directed staff to pursue development of a bicycle boulevard system in Tempe and placed $100,000 in the Capital Improvements Program budget beginning July 1, 2015. Bicycle boulevards enhance access and comfort for bicyclists, attract new bicycle users and increase ridership. Bike boulevards are off-street pathways and streets with low-motorized traffic volumes and speeds designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bicycle boulevards can have a range of amenities to reflect local conditions and generally use signage, pavement markings, landscape and hardscape, as well as speed and volume management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and promote safe, convenient bicycle use and crossing of busy arterial & collector streets. Bike boulevards connect neighborhoods to major destinations, employment centers and activity centers. As part of the Tempe Transportation Master Plan (www.tempe.gov/transportationplan), which was approved by the Council on Jan. 8, 2015, the overall Tempe bicycle network has been branded as BIKEiT (Bike in Tempe) and the bicycle boulevard system has complimentary logos. Implementation As part of the Transportation Master Plan, and utilizing public feedback a network of bicycle boulevards for Tempe has been developed. The map on the next page details nine bike boulevards city-wide that would be implemented to connect existing facilities, major destinations, neighborhoods and the downtown Tempe and ASU campus. Staff plans to implement the first phases of the work related to the Seat (Knox Road) and Pedal (College Avenue) bike boulevard routes in FY 2015/16. These initial two routes were selected to provide broad coverage of the city (south, central and downtown Tempe) and because they follow existing popular bicycle corridors that will facilitate easier implementation. Bike Boulevard System Map www.tempe.gov/bikeit .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

SHARED LANE MARKINGS (Sharrow) SHOULDER BICYCLE
BICYCLE FACILITIES DEFINITIONS SHARED LANE (wide curb/outside lanes) SHARED LANE MARKINGS (sharrow) A lane of a traveled way that is open to bicycle travel and A pavement marking symbol that indicates an appropriate bicycle vehicular use. positioning in a shared lane. SHOULDER CYCLE TRACK The portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way, for A portion of a right-of-way contiguous with the traveled way, which accommodation of stopped vehicles, emergency use and lateral has been designated by pavement markings and, if used, signs, for support of sub-base, base and surface courses, often used by the exclusive use of bicyclists. Cycle tracks are typically one-way cyclists where paved. (not always), may or may not be raised above the roadway and are separated from the motor vehicle lane by a barrier or buffer such as a rolled curb, cross-hatched paint, planting strip or parked cars. BICYCLE LANE OR BIKE LANE A portion of a roadway which has been designated by pavement markings and, if used, signs, for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. BICYCLE FACILITIES DEFINITIONS SHARED USE PATH BICYCLE PARKING A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic Bicycle racks should be designed so that they: by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of- • Support the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity. way or within an independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may • Accommodate high security U-shaped bike locks. also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers • Accommodate locks securing the frame and one or both wheels and other non-motorized users.
[Show full text]
Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence Of
BICYCLE BOULEVARDS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENCE OF BICYCLE BOULEVARDS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BICYCLE-TO-WORK RATES IN PORTLAND, OREGON by RITHY KHUT A THESIS Presented to the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Community and Regional Planning December 2012 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Rithy Khut Title: Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence of Bicycle Boulevards and Their Influence on Bicycle-to-Work Rates in Portland, Oregon This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Community and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management by: Dr. Marc Schlossberg Chairperson Dr. Grant Jacobsen Member Briana Orr Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research & Innovation/Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded December 2012 ii © 2012 Rithy Khut This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. iii THESIS ABSTRACT Rithy Khut Master of Community and Regional Planning Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management December 2012 Title: Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence of Bicycle Boulevards and Their Influence on Bicycle-to-Work Rates in Portland, Oregon One of the top bicycling cities in the United States, Portland, Oregon has used a mixture of bicycle infrastructure to create a cohesive network for bicyclists. Building on their success, in 2010 Portland set forth on an ambitious path to envision their bicycle network in 2030.
[Show full text]
FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE FEBRUARY 2019 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2019 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. FUNDING NUMBERS Bikeway Selection Guide NA 6. AUTHORS 5b. CONTRACT NUMBER Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren; DTFH61-16-D-00005 Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 REPORT NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Mobycon - North America, Durham, NC 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Tamara Redmon FHWA-SA-18-077 Project Manager, Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: NA https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike 13. ABSTRACT This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade- offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical process- oriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, 52 active transportation, low stress networks 16. PRICE CODE NA 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20.
[Show full text]
Women's Needs and Behaviours in the Paris Region
Towards inclusive mobility: Women’s needs and behaviours in the Paris Region Cosima Malandrino (LGI) Luc Berman (LGI) October, 2020 Table of Content Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction – About TInnGO............................................................................................................... 7 1. Structure of the report ................................................................................................................. 8 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 8 Part I: The Paris Region context ........................................................................................................ 11 1. The region, transport services and stakeholders of gender equality in mobility ....................... 11 2. Women mobility behaviours and challenges in the Paris region .............................................. 19 Focus 1: Changes in mobility behaviours after the lockdown ....................................................... 23 Part II: Women's mobility in the Paris Region: main challenges ................................................... 24 1. Mobility behaviours ................................................................................................................... 24 2. Safety and Security Issues in the Paris Region .......................................................................
[Show full text]
MINI-ROUNDABOUTS Mini-Roundabouts Or Neighborhood Traffic Circles Are an Ideal Treatment for Minor, Uncontrolled Intersections
MINI-ROUNDABOUTS Mini-roundabouts or neighborhood traffic circles are an ideal treatment for minor, uncontrolled intersections. The roundabout configuration lowers speeds without fully stopping traffic. Check out NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide or FHWA’s Roundabout: An Information Guide Design Guide for more details. 4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS COMMON MATERIALS CATEGORIES 1 2 Mini-roundabouts can be created using raised islands 1 SURFACE TREATMENTS: and simple markings. Landscaping elements are an » Striping: Solid white or yellow lines can be used important component of the roundabout and should in conjunction with barrier element to demarcate be explored even for a short-term demonstration. the roundabout space. Other likely uses include crosswalk markings: solid lines to delineate cross- The roundabout should be designed with careful walk space and / or zebra striping. consideration to lane width and turning radius for vehicles. A mini-roundabout on a residential » Pavement Markings: May include shared lane markings to guide bicyclists through the street should provide approximately 15 ft. of 2 clearance from the corner to the widest point on intersection and reinforce rights of use for people the circle. Crosswalks should be used to indicate biking. (Not shown) where pedestrians should cross in advance of the » Colored treatments: Colored pavement or oth- roundabout. Shared lane markings (sharrows) should er specialized surface treatments can be used to be used to guide people on bikes through the further define the roundabout space (not shown). intersections, in conjunction with bicycle wayfinding 2 BARRIER ELEMENTS: Physical barriers (such as route markings if appropriate. delineators or curbing) should be used to create a strong edge that sets the roundabout apart Note: Becase roundabouts allow the slow, but from the roadway.
[Show full text]
Livre Blanc Version Anglaise Couv + Intérieures.Indd
Working toward smart, sustainable, and optimised transport by2030 in Ile-de-France A White Paper by the Forum Métropolitain du Grand Paris mars 2018 Study carried out by: Florence Hanappe (Apur), Sara Helmi (Forum métropolitain du Grand Paris), Lydia Mykolenko (IAU-IdF), Michelle-Angélique Nicol (Apur), Patricia Pelloux (Apur), Dominique Riou (IAU-IdF), Marion Vergeylen (Forum métropolitain du Grand Paris) Publication management Dominique Alba (Apur), Fouad Awada (IAU-IdF), Sylvain Cognet (Forum métropolitain du Grand Paris) Design www.autour-des-mots.fr Printing Imprimerie Hauts de Vilaine Publication Mars 2018 Contents 2 EDITORIAL 7 PART ONE AN ONGOING TRANSFORMATION IN TRAVEL IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE? Factors for diagnosis and forecast 9 1. Overview of travel in the Ile-de-France 19 2. What are the prospects for 2030? 43 PART TWO WORKING TOWARD SMART, SUSTAINABLE, AND OPTIMISED TRANSPORT BY 2030 IN ILE-DE-FRANCE 44 1. Proposals resulting from a citizen consultation: towards a reduction of individual car use in Ile-de-France 51 2. The elected representatives’ proposals of the Forum Métropolitain du Grand Paris for smart, sustainable, and optimised transport by 2030 in Ile-de-France 88 TABLE OF CONTENTS 90 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 92 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS O1 Editorial Joint review of future travel in the Ile-de-France region We have decided to jointly review, in a forward-looking manner, changes in travel patterns across the Ile-de-France region as we are convinced that issues concerning movement are at the heart of the challenges currently affecting metropolitan areas. Away from the political debate, and in cooperation with a group of relevant public and private stakeholders as well as residents, we have brought together over one hundred people to see what they think about travel patterns today as regards the future.
[Show full text]
Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from Cities in the Portland, OR Region
Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region FINAL DRAFT Lynn Weigand, Ph.D. Nathan McNeil, M.U.R.P. Jennifer Dill, Ph.D. June 2013 This report was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, through its Active Living Research program. Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region Lynn Weigand, PhD, Portland State University Nathan McNeil, MURP, Portland State University* Jennifer Dill, PhD, Portland State University *corresponding author: [email protected] Portland State University Center for Urban Studies Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 June 2013 All photos, unless otherwise noted, were taken by the report authors. The authors are grateful to the following peer reviewers for their useful comments, which improved the document: Angie Cradock, ScD, MPE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and Kevin J. Krizek, PhD, University of Colorado Boulder. Any errors or omissions, however, are the responsibility of the authors. CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. i Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Bike Lanes................................................................................................................................ 7 Wayfinding Signs and Pavement Markings .................................................................
[Show full text]
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossings: Lessons Learned
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossings: Lessons Learned Prepared by: Rory Renfro Portland State University Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Field Area Paper June 2007 Acknowledgements Todd Boulanger, City of Vancouver, Washington Basil Christopher, Oregon Department of Transportation Jennifer Dill, Portland State University (first FAP reader) Carley Francis, Washington State Department of Transportation Young Park, TriMet David Roth, City of Eugene, Oregon Jim Strathman, Portland State University (second FAP reader) Steve Yates, City of Portland, Oregon ii Table of Contents Introduction: Why are pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings important?.......... 1 Purpose of this Study……………………………………………………………………. 2 Background Literature................................................................................. 2 Federal Publications……………………………………………………………………... 2 State Publications………………………………………………………………………... 2 Other Publications……………………………………………………………................ 3 Overcrossings Evaluated for this Study……………………………………………. 3 Overcrossing Inventory Process…………………………………………………………. 3 Data Collection Challenges……………………………………………………………... 3 Location Elements……………………………………………………………………….. 4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Destinations and Desired Routes…………………………………... 4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations………………………………………………... 4 Walking and Bicycling Routes………………………………………………………. 7 Using an Overcrossing versus Crossing At-Grade……………………………………... 8 Overcrossings within the Overall Pedestrian/Bicycle Network………………………... 9 Shared Use Paths…………………………………………………………………….
[Show full text]
Chapter 4 TOOLBOX and SAMPLE BIKE BOULEVARD LAYOUT
Chapter 4 TOOLBOX AND SAMPLE BIKE BOULEVARD LAYOUT OVERVIEW This chapter describes a cohesive set of strategies to create a bicycle boulevard, namely to make streets safer and more efficient for bicycle transportation. A variety of measures are included in the toolbox that are compatible with bicycling and with neighborhood traffic management goals. Enough choices are retained in the toolbox so that each neighborhood has flexibility in designing a boulevard that meets the needs and issues of a particular location. Based on the field review and the goals for developing the bike boulevard (see Chapter 1), five general issues that should be addressed during bike boulevard implementation were identified. See Table 4-1. The strategies in the toolbox were chosen because they address one or more of these general issues. Each strategy page in this chapter indicates which general issue is addressed. Table 4-1 GENERAL ISSUES TO ADDRESS DURING BICYCLE BOULEVARD IMPLEMENTATION Issue Abbreviation 1. Create the look and feel of a bicycle boulevard. 1. Look and feel 2. Slow traffic and discourage diversion of traffic to the 2. Traffic Calming bike boulevard when unwarranted STOP signs are removed. Unwarranted STOP signs cause excessive stopping and delay for bicyclists. They also increase noise and air pollution, increase fuel consumption and non-compliance compromises safety for all. They often increase speeds mid-block as well. 3. Address school or pedestrian related safety issues. 3. Ped Safety 4. Help bicyclists cross major streets. 4. Help Crossing 5. Prevent diversion of motor vehicle traffic to the 5. Diversion bicycle boulevard. The strategies are grouped into two categories as to where and how they would be placed on a bicycle boulevard.
[Show full text]
Supplement: Design Guidelines
Greeley Bicycle Master Plan SUPPLEMENT: DESIGN GUIDELINES CHAPTER OUTLINE: Overview The sections that follow serve as an inventory of bicycle design treatments and provide OVERVIEW guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent the tools for creating a bicycle-friendly, safe, accessible community. DESIGN NEEDS OF The guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a landscape BICYCLISTS architect or engineer upon implementation of facility improvements. Some improvements may also require cooperation with the Colorado DOT for specific design solutions. The following SHARED ROADWAYS standards and guidlines are referred to in this guide. BICYCLE BOULEVARDS • The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices SEPARATED BIKEWAYS (MUTCD) is the primary source for guidance on lane striping requirements, signal warrants, and recommended signage and pavement markings. PROTECTED BIKE LANES • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide SEPARATED BIKEWAYS for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, updated in June 2012 provides guidance AT INTERSECTIONS on dimensions, use, and layout of specific bicycle facilities. SIGNALIZATION • The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) 2012 Urban Bikeway Design Guide is the newest publication of nationally recognized bikeway BIKEWAY SIGNING design standards, and offers guidance on the current state of the practice designs. All of the
[Show full text]
Bicycle Facilities Planning
Bicycle Facilities Planning Overview Bicycle facilities range from conventional bike lanes to coordinated way finding systems, all acting to improve the safety and comfort of bicyclists. This module will review different types of facilities available to jurisdictions to improve their bikeway network. They are drawn from international best practices and this module give an overview of when and how they can be used. There are two separate lectures, one focused on types of facilities and the second focused on bike parking only. Learning Objective: Identify the needs of different types of cyclists Compare types of facilities that are available in a bikeway network Judge which types of facilities are appropriate in different environments Suggested Use _x_Professional Development _x_Graduate Level _x_Undergraduate Time Required __Less than 1 hour __ 1 hour __2-3 hours _x_Half-day Workshop __Full-day Workshop Instructions 1. Announce purposes and give brief overview of the day 2. Give lecture 3. Summarize lecture and discussion 4. Assignment 5. Circulate handouts and evaluations Lecture “Bicycle Facilities Planning” 1. Types of Cyclists 2. Purpose for Riding 3. Types of Facilities a. Bike Lanes b. Bicycle Boulevards (Neighborhood Greenways) c. Cycle Tracks d. Intersections e. Signals f. Signing and Marking 4. Discussion “Bicycle Facilities: Parking” 1. Why Parking? 2. Long term vs. short term 3. Types of racks 4. Placement & installation 5. Other facilities 6. International examples 7. Discussion Materials/Handouts Bike Boulevard Design Assignments and Activities 1. Bike Boulevard Audit 2. Code write up for parking types 3. Op/Ed piece for facility type in community Suggested Readings “Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections.” (2010) Jennifer Dill.
[Show full text]
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level
IMPLEMENTING BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-98-105 1998 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION ith the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi- ciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), metropolitan planning organizations W throughout the United States were explicitly required to consider bicyclists in their long-range transportation plans. As a result, many post- ISTEA plans do include ambitious bicycling components intended to increase the levels and safety of bicycle use within the affected communi- ties. In light of these events, the purpose of this document is to provide detailed information on how to implement some of the most useful and popular elements. As a result, the advice contained herein will be most useful for those at the local—typically below the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)—level working to implement the MPO long-range plans. The goal of bicycle planning at the local level is to provide for bicycle travel within the community. The purpose of doing so is to encourage more bicycling and to reduce the number of serious bicycling crashes and injuries. Building bicycle facilities is a key part of the encouragement side of this effort. But such efforts typically mean focusing on small-scale improvements and local environments. Since the typical bicycle trip is less The goal of bicycle planning at the local level is to provide for bicycle travel within the community. The purpose of doing so is to encourage more bicycling. than two miles in length, regional plans tend to overlook issues of most concern to bicyclists.
[Show full text]