DOCSLIB.ORG

The BIKE HAYS Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE BIKE HAYS MasTER PLAN CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: Context and Opportunities ................................................ 9 Chapter 2: The Bikeway Network: Principles and Structure ......... 17 Chapter 3: Infrastructure Design Concepts ........................................ 29 Chapter 4: Implementation ...................................................................... 53 THE Chapter 5: Support Systems ..................................................................... 73 BIKE HAYS MasTER PLAN MAPS 1. Destinations .................................................................................................11 2. Street Contexts ...........................................................................................13 3. Network Opportunities ...........................................................................15 4. BikeHays System by Phase .....................................................................26 5. BikeHays System by Infrastructure Type ...........................................27 6. Initial System Sequencing ......................................................................57 THE BIKE HAYS MASTER PLAN 4 INTRODUCTION he City of Hays is ideally positioned to make Why a Bikeway Plan? Goals of this Master Plan this wonder vehicle an important part of its transportation picture. The city is compact, People in Hays have a strong interest in health and so most trips are relatively short. It has a net- active transportation. In 2007, the city developed a workT of wide, relatively quiet streets that connect plan for trails with many good ideas that with unlim- parks, schools, and activity centers. Hays has a vital ited funds would give the city a great pathway net- downtown, distinctive park and recreation resources, work. However, trails are very expensive, often cost- historic and cultural attractions with appeal to both ing as much as $300,000 per mile. The proposed visitors and residents, fine neighborhoods, a boule- system, while excellent, was simply unaffordable to vard system, and a great university campus. Its flat the city. Furthermore, the new federal transportation topography makes bicycling in Hays both a pleasure bill – MAP-21 – has significantly reduced funding for and highly accessible to most people. transportation alternatives, and the State of Kansas is one of only two states to opt out of the Recreational Bicycles and Hays are made for each other, and cy- Trails Program (RTP), electing to reprogram its share cling can play an important role in the city’s transpor- of funds for roads. tation system. This plan is dedicated to encourag- ing Hays’ citizens to use this healthy, low-impact, and This plan takes a different direction, based on devel- pleasurable form of transportation as part of their oping an affordable network of bicycle facilities. This daily routines. Bicycling in Hays can be a useful and concept makes maximum use of the city’s largest in- convenient form of transportation for many purposes frastructure investment: its street system. It uses trails that are part of daily life: work, school, visiting friends, and exclusive pathways to fill gaps in the system. parks and recreation, shopping, and many others. But Trails remain a major part of an ultimate system, but it is profoundly satisfying to reach our destinations the immediate need is to get people into the habit of under our own power and to experience the city and using bicycles for routine trips. its people in new and more personal ways. A BikeHays bicycle infrastructure system, then, is We know that bicycling for transportation does not guided by the following goals: meet everyone’s needs and that most trips in Hays INTRODUCTION will continue to be made by car. But people should Goal One: Increase the number of people who use have choices, including the option to feel safe and the bicycle for transportation as well as recreation. comfortable using the healthy, sustainable, and so- A measurement of the success of this plan will be sig- cially satisfying means of mobility that the bicycle of- nificantly increasing the percentage of trips for a va- fers. riety of purposes. Goal Two: Improve bicycle access to key commu- nity destinations. A bicycle transportation system should get people comfortably and safely to where 5 THE BIKE HAYS MASTER PLAN they want to go. Bicycles are used most often for rec- eryone from kids to seniors makes all of us health- reational trips, and these trips to parks, ball games, ier, and reduces overweight and obesity rates and and recreation centers are important contributors to improves wellness and lowers overall health care overall travel in the city. Therefore, the system serves costs. all of the city’s parks, and links them into a unified green network. But it also serves important commu- Goal Four: Increase safety on the road for motor- nity destinations and sources of travel, such as the ists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Improved safety is a FHSU campus, Downtown, and other retail centers. critical goal for any transportation improvement, and good infrastructure can reduce crashes and increase Goal Three: Use bicycling as part of an effort make comfort for all users of Hays’ transportation network. Hays more sustainable at three levels: global, com- munity, and individual. Trips made by bicycle pro- The Measures of Success: Guiding Criteria for mote community sustainability in three ways: an Effective Bicycle Transportation Network • Global sustainability. Bicycle transportation re- The design of any bicycle transportation system duces fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emis- should be guided by criteria that can be used to eval- sions, helping the city reduce its impact on the uate individual components and the effectiveness of global environment. The Hays system is especially the entire network. The Netherlands’ Centre for Re- suited to short trips, for which cars are both least search and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traf- efficient and most polluting. A bikeable Hays will fic Engineering (C.R.O.W.), one of the world’s leading not save the planet. But as a great sage said about authorities in the design of bicycle-friendly infrastruc- 2,000 years ago, “It’s not your job to finish the task, ture, has developed especially useful requirements to but you are not free to walk away from it.” help determine the design of bicycle systems. Draw- ing on C.R.O.W.’s work in its excellent design manual, • Community sustainability. A good and heavily Sign Up for the Bike, an urban bicycle network should used bicycle transportation system can help re- generally fulfill six basic requirements: duce the cost of government by marginally reduc- ing the need for more expensive projects. Also, on • Integrity (or, in C.R.O.W.’s term, Coherence): Hays’ a social level, bicycling enhances the quality of civ- bikeway network at all points in its evolution ic life, helping us interact with each other as peo- forms a coherent system that links starting points ple. Places that lead in bicycle transportation also with destinations. The network is understandable tend to attract people because of their community to its users and fulfills a responsibility to convey quality. them continuously on their paths. • Individual sustainability. Incorporating physical • Directness: The bikeway network should offer activity into the normal routine of daily life for ev- cyclists as direct a route as possible, with mini- 6 INTRODUCTION mum detours or misdirections. tions, existing facilities, and opportunities. • Safety: The bikeway network should maximize Chapter Two: The Bikeway Network: Principles and the safety of using the bicycle for transportation, Structure. This chapter establishes overall principles minimize or improve hazardous conditions and that guide the proposed network. It presents a com- barriers, and in the process improve safety for pe- plete conceptual system of on-street bikeways, paths, destrians and motorists. and multi-use trails. • Comfort: Most bicyclists should view the net- Chapter Three: Facility Design Guidelines. This work as being within their capabilities and not im- chapter presents the vocabulary of facilities and posing unusual mental or physical stress. As the street adaptations proposed for the Hays network, system grow, more types of users will find that it based on the city’s specific street characteristics and meets their needs comfortably. environmental features. It concludes by applying the infrastructure types to the conceptual bikeway net- • Experience: The bicycle network should offer its work and its various routes. users a pleasant and positive experience that capi- talizes on the city’s built and natural environments. Chapter Four: Implementation. This section estab- lishes criteria that determine the sequence of devel- • Feasibility: The bicycle network should provide opment and proposes an initial network, based on a high ratio of benefits to costs and should be serving all parts of town and early feasibility. viewed as a wise investment of resources. It is ca- pable of being developed in phases and growing Chapter Five: Support Programs. The League of over time. American Bicyclists describes five E“ ’s” as components of a bicycle-friendly community (BFC) program and These criteria and the system design principles that judges BFC applications accordingly. These program logically follow from them are discussed in detail in categories are Engineering,
Recommended publications
  • Bicycle Master Plan

    Bicycle Master Plan

    Bicycle Master Plan OCTOBER 2014 This Environmental Benefit Project is undertaken in connection with the settlement of the enforcement action taken by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation related to Article 19 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS Thank you to all those who submitted responses to the online survey. Your valuable input informed many of the recommendations and design solutions in this plan. STEERING COMMITTEE: Lisa Krieger, Assistant Vice President, Finance and Management, Vice President’s Office Sarah Reid, Facilities Planner, Facilities Planning Wende Mix, Associate Professor, Geography and Planning Jill Powell, Senior Assistant to the Vice President, Finance and Management, Vice President’s Office Michael Bonfante, Facilities Project Manager, Facilities Planning Timothy Ecklund, AVP Housing and Auxiliary Enterprises, Housing and Auxiliary Services Jerod Dahlgren, Public Relations Director, College Relations Office David Miller, Director, Environmental Health and Safety Terry Harding, Director, Campus Services and Facilities SUNY Buffalo State Parking and Transportation Committee John Bleech, Environmental Programs Coordinator CONSULTANT TEAM: Jeff Olson, RA, Principal in Charge, Alta Planning + Design Phil Goff, Project Manager, Alta Planning + Design Sam Piper, Planner/Designer, Alta Planning + Design Mark Mistretta, RLA, Project Support, Wendel Companies Justin Booth, Project Support, GObike Buffalo This Environmental Benefit Project is undertaken in connection
  • Exploring Changes to Cycle Infrastructure to Improve the Experience of Cycling for Families

    Exploring Changes to Cycle Infrastructure to Improve the Experience of Cycling for Families

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UWE Bristol Research Repository Exploring changes to cycle infrastructure to improve the experience of cycling for families Dr William Clayton1 Dr Charles Musselwhite Centre for transport and Society Centre for Innovative Ageing Faculty of Environment and Technology School of Human and Health Sciences University of the West of England Swansea University Bristol, UK Swansea, UK BS16 1QY SA2 8PP Tel: +44 (0)1792 518696 Tel: +44 (0) 117 32 82316 Web: www.drcharliemuss.com Email: [email protected] Twitter: @charliemuss Website: www.uwe.ac.uk/et/research/cts Email: [email protected] KEYWORDS: Cycling, infrastructure, motivation, families, behaviour change. Abstract: Positive changes to the immediate cycling environment can improve the cycling experience through increasing levels of safety, but little is known about how the intrinsic benefits of cycling might be enhanced beyond this. This paper presents research which has studied the potential benefits of changing the infrastructure within a cycle network – here the National Cycle Network (NCN) in the United Kingdom (UK) – to enhance the intrinsic rewards of cycling. The rationale in this approach is that this could be a motivating factor in encouraging greater use of the cycle network, and consequently help in promoting cycling and active travel more generally amongst family groups. The project involved in-depth research with 64 participants, which included family interviews, self-documented family cycle rides, and school focus groups. The findings suggest that improvements to the cycling environment can help maintain ongoing motivation for experienced cycling families by enhancing novel aspects of a routine journey, creating enjoyable activities and facilitating other incidental experiences along the course of a route, and improving the kinaesthetic experience of cycling.
  • Intersections

    Intersections

    Design Concept for a CycleTrack On the East Side of Herndon Parkway for 2,000 Feet South of the Washington & Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park Trail Final Report Revised July 14, 2017 September 20, 2016 Prepared by: Table of Contents Introduction 3 Intersections 4 Relevant Case Studies 5 Cycle Track Approach to Intersection 8 Near-Term Recommendation: Bend-Out 8 Long-Term Recommendation: Protected Intersection 9 Intersection Crossing 10 Signal Phasing 11 Bus Stops 12 Relevant Case Studies 12 Near-Term and Future Lower-Ridership Bus Stop Recommendation: Bus Passengers Cross the Cycle Track 14 Long-Term Recommendation for High-Ridership Bus Stops: Bus Stop on an Island 14 Access Roads and Private Driveways 15 Relevant Case Studies 15 Near-Term and Future Lower-Volume Access Road/Private Driveway 17 Long-Term Recommendation for Higher Volume Assess Roads/Private Driveways: Recessed Crossing 18 Additional Considerations 19 Transitions to Adjoining Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 19 Stormwater Management 19 Summary of Recommended Improvements 20 Prepared by: others address long-term conditions that will likely Introduction result from increased development in the Herndon Transit-Oriented Core, opening of the Herndon An improved bicycle facility has been proposed Metrorail Station, and restructuring of the Herndon along Herndon Parkway in the Herndon Metrorail Parkway and Spring Street intersection. Stations Access Management Study (2014) and the Transportation chapter of the Town of Herndon’s The recommendations for the proposed cycle track 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2008). The Fairfax are organized as follows: County Bicycle Master Plan (2014) and Urban Design and Architectural Guidelines for the Herndon • Intersections Transit-Oriented Core (2014) defined this potential Relevant Case Studies improvement as a cycle track, separated from Approaching an intersection pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
  • A Review of the Evidence on Cycle Track Safety Paul Schimek, Ph.D

    A Review of the Evidence on Cycle Track Safety Paul Schimek, Ph.D

    A Review of the Evidence on Cycle Track Safety Paul Schimek, Ph.D. October 11, 2014 This memo reviews the evidence on cycle track safety. As used by bicycling advocates in North America in recent years, the terms “cycle track” or “protected bike lane” refer to a segregated path for bicyclists adjacent to an urban roadway with a curb or raised object between the bicycle path and the portion of the road used by vehicular traffic and, in some cases, also between the portion used by pedestrians. Scandinavia, Germany, and the Netherlands have the most experience with urban bicycle paths adjacent to roads, the best data, and the most comprehensive studies. In addition to a review of the best of these studies, the memo includes a review of all of the studies of cycle tracks in North America that have been conducted in the past five years. The Netherlands A 1988 Dutch study analyzed 5,763 injury crashes recorded by police between 1973 and 1977 in 14 municipalities of more than 50,000 people.1 The share of cyclists and moped users from road traffic counts was compared to the share of cyclist and moped user injuries in police reports, according to location (intersection or road segment) and according to facility type (bike lane, cycle track, or mixed traffic). The traffic counts were multiplied by road length for the segments and by the number of intersections for the intersections. For bicyclists using bicycle paths, there was a 24% reduction in risk along segments, but a 32% increase in risk in intersections, compared to bicyclists in mixed traffic (with no separate bicycle facilities).
  • Traffic-Light Intersections

    Traffic-Light Intersections

    Give Cycling a Push Infrastructure Implementation Fact Sheet INFRASTRUCTURE/ INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS TRAFFIC-LIGHT INTERSECTIONS Overview Traffic-light intersections are inherently dangerous for cyclists. However, they are indispensable when cyclists cross heavy traffic flows. Cycle-friendly design must make cyclists clearly visible, allow short and easy maneuvers and reduce waiting time, such as a right-turn bypass or an advanced stop-line. On main cycle links, separate cycle traffic light and cycle-friendly light regulation can privilege cycle flows over motorized traffic. Background and Objectives Function Intersections are equipped with a traffic control system when they need to handle large flows of motorized traffic on the busiest urban roads, often with multiple lanes. A cycle-friendly design can greatly improve safety, speed and comfort, by increasing visibility, facilitating maneuvers and reducing waiting time. Scope Traffic-light intersections are always a second-best solution for cyclists, in terms of safety. Actually, traffic light intersections with four branches are very dangerous and should be avoided in general. Dutch guidance states that roundabouts are significantly safer than traffic lights for four- branch intersections of 10,000 to 20,000 pcu/day. In practice, traffic lights are used when an intersection needs to handle large flows of motorized traffic speedily. They can handle up to 30,000 pcu/day, more than is possible with a roundabout. These will typically include at least one very busy distributor road with multiple traffic lanes (50 km/h in the built-up area, higher outside the built-up area). Often, these busy roads are also of great interest as cycle links.
  • Building a Bicycle Friendly Neighborhood a Guide for Community Leaders

    Building a Bicycle Friendly Neighborhood a Guide for Community Leaders

    Building A Bicycle Friendly Neighborhood A Guide for Community Leaders Washington Area Bicyclist Association Building a Bicycle Friendly Neighborhood • Page 1 Washington Area Bicyclist Association © 2013 Suggested Citation: Building a Bicycle Friendly Neighborhood: A Guide for Community Leaders. (2013). Washington Area Bicyclist Association. Washington, D.C. The Washington Area Bicyclist Association is a nonprofit advocacy and education organization representing the metropolitan Washington area bicycling community. Reproduction of information in this guide for non-profit use is encouraged. Please use with attribution. Table of Contents Introduction and How to Use This Guide .....................................................Page 3 How Biking Projects Happen .......................................................................Page 4 Benefits of Biking .........................................................................................Page 7 The Importance of Bike Infrastructure to Get People Biking .................. Page 12 Building Community Support .................................................................... Page 20 Conclusion ...................................................................................................Page 27 Endnotes ..................................................................................................... Page 28 Appendix A: Sources Cited ......................................................................... Page 29 Appendix B: Survey Results .....................................................................
  • 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

    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 .................................................................
  • Chapter 6. Bicycling Infrastructure for Mass Cycling: a Transatlantic Comparison

    Chapter 6. Bicycling Infrastructure for Mass Cycling: a Transatlantic Comparison

    Chapter 6. Bicycling Infrastructure for Mass Cycling: A Transatlantic Comparison Peter G. Furth Introduction For the bicycle to be useful for transportation, bicyclists need adequate route infrastructure – roads and paths on which to get places. In the 1890’s, when bicycling first became popular, bicyclists’ chief need was better paved roads. In the present era, however, it is not poor pavement but fast and heavy motor traffic that restricts cyclists’ ability to get places safely (Jacobsen 2009), as discussed in chapter 7. European and American policy has strongly diverged on how to address this challenge. In many European countries including the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, cyclists’ need for separation from fast, heavy traffic is considered a fundamental principle of road safety. This has led to systematic traffic calming on local streets and, along busier streets, the provision of a vast network of “cycle tracks” – bicycle paths that are physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. Cycle tracks (see Figures 6.1-6.3) may be at street level, separated from moving traffic by a raised median, a parking lane, or candlestick bollards; at sidewalk level, separated from the sidewalk by vertical elements (e.g., light poles), hardscape, a change in pavement or a painted line; or at an intermediate level, a curb step above the street, but also s small curb step below the sidewalk. [Figure 6.1 here] [Figure 6.2 here] [Figure 6.3 goes here] The success of this combination of traffic calming and cycle tracks has been well documented; for example, chapter 2 shows that the percentage of trips taken by bicycle, while less than one percent in the U.S., exceeds 10 percent in several European countries, reaching 27% in the Netherlands, while at the same time their bicycling fatality rate (fatalities per 1,000,000 km of bicycling) is several times less than in the U.S.
  • Pop-Up Placemaking Tool Kit Projects That Inspire Change — and Improve Communities for People of All Ages

    Pop-Up Placemaking Tool Kit Projects That Inspire Change — and Improve Communities for People of All Ages

    The Pop-Up Placemaking Tool Kit Projects that inspire change — and improve communities for people of all ages PROTECTED BIKE LANES OUTDOOR SEATING PUBLIC ART ... AND MORE! POP-UP SHOPS AARP is the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age. With nearly 38 million members, plus offices in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP strengthens Websites: AARP.org and AARP.org/Livable communities and advocates for what matters most to families, with a focus Email: [email protected] on health security, financial stability and personal fulfillment. The AARP Facebook: /AARPLivableCommunities Livable Communities initiative works nationwide to support the efforts of Twitter: @AARPLivable neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and rural areas to be livable for Free Newsletter: AARP.org/LivableSubscribe people of all ages. The initiative’s programs include the AARP Network of AARP Age-Friendly States and Communities, the AARP Community Challenge 601 E Street NW “quick-action” grant program and educational publications, including this one Washington, D.C. 20049 and others available at AARP.org/LivableLibrary. Team Better Block is a consulting firm that has pioneered new models for planning and designing public spaces, streets and other community assets. With more than 200 projects in the United States and internationally, Team Better Block works in communities of all sizes and demographics to build the momentum for
  • Cycle Tracks CYCLE TRACKS

    Cycle Tracks CYCLE TRACKS

    Bicycle & Pedestrian Cycle Tracks CYCLE TRACKS Description Protected bike lanes, also known as cycle tracks, combine the user experience of a separated path with the access and visibility of an on-street facility. Cycle tracks are most often implemented in urban contexts, are physically separated from motor traffic, and distinct from the sidewalk.1 The image at right shows a one-way protected cycle track, but they can also be designed with raised profiles above the street level or as two- way facilities. Though various designs have been spreading through Europe since the 1960s, protected bike lanes are relatively new in the United States.2 Though they typically cost more than traditional bike lanes, protected bike lanes have been shown to have lower vehicle-bicycle crash rates compared with other roadways in the United Cost: 3 States, and a recent nationwide study showed Time: Moderate an increase in ridership between 21 percent and Impact: Local 171 percent within one year.4 Who: City/State Some designs integrate vehicle parking as a Hurdles: Roadway Design buffer and provide space for doors to open without danger of hitting a bicyclist, as depicted below. Since cycle tracks may increase the space dedicated for bicyclists in a roadway right-of- way, they are most often developed in urban areas to maximize the person throughput of a street while reducing crashes. Target Market Protected bicycle lanes can be effective anywhere there are potential roadway conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, and are particularly helpful on roadways
  • Bicycle Facilities Planning

    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.
  • Don't Give up at the Intersection

    Don't Give up at the Intersection

    Don’t Give Up at the Intersection Designing All Ages and Abilities Bicycle Crossings May 2019 NACTO Executive Board Working Group NACTO Project Team Janette Sadik-Khan Cara Seiderman Corinne Kisner Principal, Bloomberg Community Development Executive Director Associates Department, Cambridge, MA NACTO Chair Kate Fillin-Yeh Ted Wright Director of Strategy Seleta Reynolds New York City Department of General Manager, Los Angeles Transportation Nicole Payne Department of Transportation Program Manager, Cities for Cycling NACTO President Carl Sundstrom, P.E. New York City Department of Matthew Roe Robin Hutcheson Transportation Technical Lead Director of Public Works, City of Aaron Villere Minneapolis Peter Koonce, P.E. Senior Program Associate NACTO Vice President Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland, OR Celine Schmidt Robert Spillar Design Associate Director of Transportation, City Mike Sallaberry, P.E. San Francisco Municipal of Austin Majed Abdulsamad Transportation Agency NACTO Treasurer Program Associate Michael Carroll Peter Bennett Deputy Managing Director, San José Department of Office of Transportation and Transportation, CA Technical Review Infrastructure Systems, City of Dylan Passmore, P.Eng. Philadelphia Joe Gilpin City of Vancouver, BC NACTO Secretary Alta Planning & Design David Rawsthorne, P.Eng. Joseph E. Barr Vignesh Swaminathan, P.E. City of Vancouver, BC Director, Traffic, Parking Crossroad Lab & Transportation, City of Dongho Chang, P.E. Cambridge Seattle Department of NACTO Affiliate Member Transportation Acknowledgments Representative This document was funded by a grant from the The John S. and James L. Advisory Committee Knight Foundation. NACTO Cities for Cycling Special thanks to Robert Boler from Committee representatives Austin, TX for providing the inspiration for the title of this document.