DOCSLIB.ORG

A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hickory Was Held In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hickory Was Held In December 15, 2020 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hickory was held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building on Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 5:45 p.m., with the following members present: Hank Guess Tony Wood Charlotte Williams Aldermen David Zagaroli Danny Seaver Jill Patton* A quorum was present. *Alderwoman Patton attended simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. Also present were: City Manager Warren Wood, Assistant City Manager Rodney Miller, Assistant City Manager Rick Beasley, Transportation Planning Manager John Marshall, Community Development Manager Karen Dickerson, Public Works Director Steve Miller, Public Utilities Director Shawn Pennell, Executive Assistant Manager Yaidee Fox, City Attorney John Crone, Deputy City Clerk Crystal B. Mundy, and City Clerk Debbie D. Miller Representatives from Alta present: Mr. John Cock. Ms. Heather Seagle attended simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. I. Mayor Guess called the meeting to order. All Council members were present except for Alderman Williams. Alderwoman Patton attended simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. II. Presentation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan – Presented by Alta Transportation Planning Manager John Marshall thanked Council for coming in early to hear the presentation and consider the bicycle and pedestrian plan. He advised Council actually approved the contract for this plan approximately one year ago. Staff started the process last fall. They started talking with Alta last November. They had their first kickoff meeting in January of this year, before everything kind of went south. He recognized a couple people. Attending simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom was Lindsay Stockman, from Live Well Catawba and the County Health Department. He mentioned her because Live Well Catawba contributed $25,000 to prime the plan to get it started. He recognized some people that served on the committee, Community Development Manager Karen Dickerson, Aaron Kohrs with Greenway, and Public Works Director Steve Miller. Mayor Guess interrupted Mr. Marshall and advised Alderwoman Patton was attending simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. Mr. Marshall introduced two of the developers of the plan from Alta Planning and Design. Present was Mr. John Cock. Ms. Heather Seagle was attending simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. He asked Mr. Cock to the podium to being the presentation. Mr. John Cock presented a PowerPoint presentation. He commended the City for the implementation that was already started out on the road. The City had a lot of great projects underway. He commended Council for this project that also had funding from Live Well Catawba as well as the City. They don't see many projects that have that kind of cooperation. They started at the beginning of 2020 effectively. They were lucky enough to be able to have their first steering committee and first public meeting in person, back when they could do in person meetings. The Mayor came to their meeting at the Ridgeview Center. They did surveys and public outreach and were able to do a lot of things in person at the beginning of the process. Luckily, they got that in before the pandemic hit. They had been meeting with the committee and staff virtually since then, but they also met with the Friends of Hickory as part of their early work. He advised he would present the results of the planning process and what they heard from the public. They were at the end of the process and Council would have a plan they could use with DOT (Department of Transportation) to ensure that the City could get their participation in funding some of these projects going forward on NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation) roadways. He referred to the PowerPoint and advised big themes in terms of vision, connectivity, equity and access for all, increasing safety, increasing health and livability. Again, Live Well Catawba was a partner in this. Supporting active and accessible new development and making sure that the Hickory Urban Bike Loop was part of the priority. They had great public participation, both in person in public meetings as well as online. They had a map where they got input from people. He advised a little over half of the people or the respondents said they were comfortable walking in Hickory, but about that same number of people said they were not comfortable bicycling in Hickory. That left lots of people, even on the walking side, who would like things to be better. When they asked about the top priorities for types of investments, the kinds of things that the City was doing now, bike facilities, paved paths and greenways was the number one thing, followed by sidewalks and safer crossings. In terms of destinations, people want to get to shopping, but they also want to get to the City’s parks and to other neighborhoods in town in terms of top destinations. He turned the presentation over to Ms. Heather Seagle. Ms. Heather Seagle presented via Zoom. She advised she worked with Alta Planning. Building off of their public input in the early part of the project they developed network recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle facilities starting by looking at the existing sidewalk network and the multiple paths and bikeways that are located in town. They examined the roadways and the gaps. They took the public input on key destinations and key corridors that people wanted to travel and built off of the existing sidewalk network to develop a pedestrian network recommendation. She referred to the PowerPoint and pointed out the identified key sidewalk gaps that could be built up over time, as well as multi-use paths along some busier corridors. In developing the different facilities in this network of recommendations they were looking at the street context, the speed limit, the right of 1 December 15, 2020 way, whether or not there were already existing facilities, including sidewalks or bike lanes and trying to make the most contextually relevant facility recommendation throughout the City. In addition to the pedestrian network map in the report, Council would also find a bike network recommendation map that again builds off the existing facilities. She referred to the PowerPoint and pointed out some short segments of existing bike lanes on 5th Street NE and there were quite a number of multi-use path projects. They built off of that, again, looking at the street context throughout the City, speed limits, right away, curb presence and tried to make a contextually appropriate bike facility recommendation throughout the City. Whereas in the pedestrian network, you have sidewalks and multi-use paths, those multi-use paths also served as bike facilities. They also recommended bike lanes, standard bike lanes on certain streets, advisory shoulders, buffered or separated bike lanes more in the City’s downtown city center streets on more urban context. There were recommendations for paved shoulders in the more rural stretches in the outskirts of the City. They made recommendations for short bicycle pedestrian connectors connecting some small dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs to enhance the existing network bike recommendations. There were descriptions of all these facility types in the report, which they shared with Council. They also spent some time really honing in on the Hickory Urban Bike Loop, which was a concept developed by the Friends of Hickory Group and the Bicycle Advocacy Advisory Committee within that group. This loop had been identified by that group the main corridors that bicyclists like to travel on that get them to all four corners of the City. They recommended the best facility type for creating, dedicated bike facilities all around that loop and connecting the whole City. Ms. Seagle discussed highlights of some upcoming NCDOT projects (North Carolina Department of Transportation). She referred to the PowerPoint and pointed out the corridors that are already on the calendar for projects and improvements in the coming years. Given NCDOT’s new Complete Streets Policy, where they will fund a complete streets facility including bike ways and pedestrian facilities. This plan had identified appropriate bicycle pedestrian facilities on these streets, so when these projects are completed by NCDOT these are the facilities that they will implement on those corridors. She asked Mr. John Marshall to share more details on some of these projects. Transportation Planning Manager John Marshall discussed a few of these projects and how important this plan was moving these DOT projects forward with the City. As everybody knows 321 was going to be widened. The City was going to take over the north bound bridge. The City was building a trail from the bridge all the way up to MDI in conjunction with DOT. Also, 127 going into Alexander County was going to have a multi-use trail going over the new bridge that they build over the Catawba River. We are going to have two multi-use trails crossing the Catawba River in the future. He advised 127 in Mountain View; they were also planning a multi-use path along that when they widen it. Startown Road, when they get to that point, they were looking at trying to connect all the development that was going to happen along Startown Road with some kind of trail system. He advised 29th / McDonald Parkway would have some type of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on that as well. Springs Road and 127 were a little further out, but they would also consider that at the time as well. As Ms. Seagle said, once the complete streets policy was adopted by DOT there had always been a cost share if they put in sidewalk, or if they put in multi-use trail, or bike lanes with DOT.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel
    Figure 2-1: Many low-volume resi- YES dential streets need only the most basic improve- ments to make them more ridable. 2. Basic Roadway Improvements The street system provides the basic network for bicycle travel. Other ele- ments (e.g., bike lanes and paths) supplement this system. To make most streets work for bicyclists, basic improvements may be needed. Such things as safe railroad crossings, traffic signals that work for bicyclists, and street networks that connect benefit bicyclists and make more bicycle trips possible and likely. 2.1 Roadway types While the most basic improvements are appropriate for all categories of street, some improvements are most appropriate for certain categories. In a typical community, streets types range from quiet residential streets, to minor collector streets, to major arterials, and highways or expressways. Figure 2-2: Long blocks and a lack 2.1.1 Residential streets of connectivity On quiet residential streets with little traffic and slow speeds (fig. 2-1), make trips longer bicyclists and motorists can generally co-exist with little difficulty. Such and discourage streets seldom need bike lanes. Only the most basic improvements may bicycling for pur- poseful trips. be required, for instance: • bicycle-safe drainage grates • proper sight distance at intersections • smooth pavement and proper maintenance One additional factor that may need attention is connectivity. Providing bicycle linkages between residential streets and nearby commercial areas or adjacent neighborhoods can significantly improve bicycling conditions. In many communi- 2-1 Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook ties, newer parts of town tend to have dis- Figure 2-3: Bicycle- continuous street networks that require bicy- pedestrian connec- clists, pedestrians, and motorists to travel a tions like that long distance to get to a nearby destination shown can provide (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic
    Literature Review Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic July 2018 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA-SA-18-030 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Literature Review: Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic 2018 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bill Schultheiss, Rebecca Sanders, Belinda Judelman, and Jesse Boudart (TDG); REPORT NO. Lauren Blackburn (VHB); Kristen Brookshire, Krista Nordback, and Libby Thomas (HSRC); Dick Van Veen and Mary Embry (MobyCON). 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Toole Design Group, LLC VHB 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300 DTFH61-16-D-00005 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Vienna, VA 22182 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE FHWA 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Tamara Redmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E
    39 19. K. Y. Kung. A New Method in Correlation Study of vision of Pavements. Proc., 3rd International Con­ Pavement Deflection and Cracking. Proc., 2nd In­ ference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, ternational Conference on Structural Design of 1972, pp. 1188-1205. Asphalt Pavements, 1967, pp. 1037-1046. 20. P. H. Leger and P. Autret. The Use of Deflection Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pavement Condi­ Measurements for the Structural Design and Super- tion Evaluation. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements With Tied Shoulders or Widened Lanes Bert E. Colley, Claire G. Ball, and Pichet Arriyavat, Portland Cement Association Field and laboratory pavements were instrumented and load tested to reducing pavement performance, Because of this prob­ evaluate the effect of widened lanes, concrete shoulders, and slab thick­ lem, several states have installed costly longitudinal ness on measured strains and deflectfons. Eight slabs were tested in the and transverse drainage systems. Thus, concrete field and two in the laboratory. Pavement slabs were 203, 229, or 254 shoulders and widened lanes have the potential for curing mm (8, 9, or 10 in) thick. Other major design variables included the width of lane widening, the presence or absence of dowels or of a con­ many drainage problems as well as providing additional crete shoulder, joint spacing, and the type of shoulder joint construc­ slab strength. tion. Generally, there was good agreement between measured strains and Many design features contribute to pavement life. values calculated by using Westergaard's theoretical equations. Concrete The effect of some of these features can be evaluated shoulders were effective in reducing the magnitude of measured strains analytically.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog
    Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog Created by Institute for Transportation Research and Education Bicycle and Pedestrian Program For North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation January 21, 2016 JANUARY 2016 PBIN DATA CATALOG PBIN Data Catalog Each dataset provides a consistent set of attribute fields on existing bicycle, pedestrian, and shared-use path data for use in asset management as well as proposed data for use in planning and project development by PGI awarded communities. Where applicable, fields or attributes marked with an asterisk (*) are required data for NCDOT Planning Grant Initiative (PGI) communities to collect and/or update as a condition of award. PGI communities should consider including additional fields or attributes from the Data Catalog when inventorying focus areas or corridors, as identified through the plan development process. The data catalog is broken up into three sections: 1. BICYCLE ASSETS The Bike_Fac_Linear feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as bike lanes, bike routes, bicycle boulevards, and paved shoulders. It also includes information on surface condition, facility width, slope, and rumble strips. The Bike_Fac_Point feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as bike parking, crossing improvement, bike boxes, bike share kiosks, and bike detection loops. It also includes information on bicycle-oriented signage and hazardous grates. It also includes information on surface condition, facility width, slope, and rumble strips. The Ped_Fac_Linear feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as sidewalks and other types of footpaths. It includes information on material, facility width, buffer, buffer width and slope.
    [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]
  • Appendix a Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines
    Riverton Active Transportation Master Plan Appendix A Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines 2015 PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design 8 Broadway Salt Lake City, UT 84111 DRAFT Appendix A: Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Design Needs of Pedestrians ....................................................................................................................................................4 Design Needs of Bicyclists ..........................................................................................................................................................6 Bicycle Facility Selection Guidelines .......................................................................................................................................9 Facility Classification ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Facility Continua ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Bicycle Facility Contextual Guidance ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Shared Roadways ..........................................................................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Lane Design
    Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines CHAPTER 3: BICYCLE LANE DESIGN 3.1 General Notes Bicycle lanes have been shown to increase the comfort level of bicyclists. Various studies have found that bicycle lanes have some distinct advantages over paved shoulders and wide outside lanes as they: Provide exclusive space for the bicyclist; Reduce wrong way bicycle riding; Encourage increased bicycle use; Increase motorist awareness of bicyclists; Encourage bicyclist to ride further away from parked vehicles; Reduce motorist lane changes when passing bicyclists; Provide visual guidance to cyclist navigating Figure 3.1: Bicycle Lane intersections (Hunter et al, 2005). Bicycle lanes have also been shown to have some of the following potentially negative operational characteristics: Require additional enforcement to prevent motorists from parking or stopping in the bicycle lane Create an impression that bicyclist must always operate in the bicycle lane (even if there is debris or an obstruction present) Can place bicyclist within the path of an opening parked vehicle door Designated bicycle lanes shall be considered if any one of the following criteria is met: It will be a minimum length of one-half (0.5) Figure 3.2 - Shared Road; Low Volume, Low Speed mile; Bicycle lanes are included in the local Master Plan; Existing or proposed adjacent land use will support bicycling (residential, commercial, educational, recreational, transit); or The bicycle lane would serve to connect other bicycle facilities, including shared use paths and bicycle routes. Bicycle lanes are usually not necessary for roadways with very low operating speeds (20 mph or less). In these locations, lane sharing between bicyclists and motor vehicles occurs naturally as there is little difference in speeds between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Lane Design
    On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Presentation by: Nick Jackson Bill Schultheiss, P.E. September 04, 2012 On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION ON TWITTER ÂToole Design Group is live tweeting this webinar Â@tooledesign Â#AASHTO #BikeGuide On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign WEBINAR #3: ON ROAD FACILITIES PART 1: BIKE LANES AND INTERSECTIONS Today’s Webinar  Significant Updates & New Content for bicycle lane design  Purpose & Benefits  Marking and Sign Basics  Intersections/Turns  Retrofitting On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign FUTURE WEBINARS  August 10: Overview  October 9: Shared Use Paths  August 22: Planning Chapter  General design principles  September 4: On-Road  Pathway geometry Bikeways Part I  October 23: Shared Use Paths  Bike Lanes (including Intersections)  Intersection Design  September 18: On-Road  Mid-block crossings Bikeways Part II  November 6: Bikeway  Shared lanes Maintenance and Operation  Bicycle boulevards & signing  Signals On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign DISCOUNT FOR WEBINAR PARTICIPANTS http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/pbic/ AASHTO_Promo_Flyer.pdf Link will be emailed to webinar attendees On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign SOME BACKGROUND ÂWhat is AASHTO?  Mission: “provides technical services to support states in their efforts to efficiently and safely move people and goods” ÂSome history  Last Guide – 1999, largely written in 96-98  Survey to update Guide - 2004 ÂStandards vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Other On-Road Bicycle Facilities and Considerations
    Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines CHAPTER 4: OTHER ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Shared Roadways In Maryland, shared roadways include all roadways EXCEPT the following: - Roadways with posted speed limits greater than 50 mph and no available shoulder for bicycle use (bicycle access is prohibited by Maryland law) - Controlled access freeways (except where specifically allowed such as sections of US 29 in Howard and Montgomery Counties). Many local roadways in Maryland with low traffic volumes (<1,000 ADT) and/or low speeds (<20mph) generally do not need special bicycle provisions (such as bicycle lanes) in order to be compatible for bicycle use. These roadways operate well in their current condition for shared use. However, state-maintained roadways in suburban and urban areas of Maryland typically carry higher volumes of motor W11-1 vehicle traffic and are therefore less compatible to bicycling unless paved shoulders or bicycle lanes are provided. 4.2 Share the Road Warning Signage SHARE THE ROAD warning signs can be used to alert motorists of the presence of bicyclists in locations where conflicts between motorists and bicyclists are W16-2 frequent, and where there are no immediate opportunities to provide additional space for bicyclists. Figure 4.1 The following are examples of where SHARE THE ROAD signs may be used: - where bicycling conditions are poor (i.e. locations with high volumes of traffic, operating speeds greater than 35 mph, no shoulder space, or poor pavement condition along roadway edge); - areas of roadway with poor sight distance; - transitions to shared travel lanes at the end of shoulders or bicycle lanes; - where an obstacle prevents bicyclists from continuing on an otherwise rideable shoulder.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines
    Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines ESO INN TA D M E N P O I A T R A T T M R E O N P T S OF TRAN Minnesota Department of Transportation June 1996 JUNE 17, 1996 BIKEWAYS MANUAL summary CHAPTER SUMMARY CHAPTER TITLE 1 INTRODUCTION 2 DESIGN FACTORS AND MAINTENANCE 3 THE BICYCLE NETWORK PLANNING PROCESS 4 ON-ROAD DESIGNS 5 PATHS 6 BRIDGES AND GRADE SEPARATIONS 7 TRAFFIC CONTROLS 8 BICYCLE PARKING JUNE 17, 1996 BIKEWAYS MANUAL contents (1) Chapter One INTRODUCTION 1-1.0 PURPOSE 1-2.0 POLICY AND GOALS 1-3.0 SCOPE 1-4.0 DEFINITIONS 1-5.0 THE TYPICAL BICYCLE, RIDER, AND DIMENSIONS 1-6.0 OPERATING SPACE 1-7.0 THE DESIGN BICYCLE 1-8.0 DESIGN APPROACH Chapter Two DESIGN FACTORS AND MAINTENANCE 2-1.0 GENERAL 2-2.0 SURFACE QUALITY AND UTILITY WORK 2-3.0 VEGETATION CONTROL Chapter Three THE BICYCLE NETWORK PLANNING PROCESS 3-1.0 GENERAL 3-2.0 DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY BICYCLE NETWORK PLAN 3-2.01 Establish Performance Criteria for the Bicycle Network 3-2.02 Inventory Existing System 3-2.03 Identify Bicycle Travel Corridors 3-2.04 Evaluate and Select Specific Route Alternatives 3-2.05 Design Treatments 3-2.05.01 Select Appropriate Facility Options 3-2.05.02 Factors Used to Determine Grade Separations (Tunnels and Bridges) 3-2.06 Evaluate the Finished Network Plan Using the Established Performance Criteria 3-2.07 Bicycle Parking and Security Chapter Four ON-ROAD DESIGNS 4-1.0 GENERAL 4-2.0 TYPES OF FACILITIES 4-2.01 Bicycle Lanes 4-2.02 Bicycles, Buses and Combination Bus/Bike Lanes contents (2) BIKEWAYS MANUAL JUNE 17, 1996 4-2.03
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 :: Bicycle Facility Recommendations
    chapter 5 :: bicycle facilityrecommendations chapter 5::bicycle THE 2010 HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS MASTER PLAN 5 - 1 TTypesypes ooff BBicycleicycle FFacilitiesacilities traffi c calming devices, shared lane markings, and crossing improvements at high traffi c crossings. Motorized vehicle traffi c SSharedhared LLaneane BBicycleicycle LLaneane Bicycle facilities include the infrastructure on which bicyclists still has access to the residences or businesses, but traffi c control travel. There are several types of bicycle facilities that could be devices are used to control vehicle traffi c speeds and access offered in Cedar Park on appropriate streets, and other types that while supporting thru bicycle traffi c. exist but may not be appropriate for Cedar Park. Each bicycle Bikeway - This is a road or path way that is specifi cally designated facility type is described below. for the exclusive use of bicycles. It does not necessarily have to be Bicycle Lanes - Bicycle lanes are an on-street right-of-way within the roadway. assigned to bicyclists and are designated by a lane stripe, Protected Bike Lane - This is a bike lane that is separated from pavement markings, and signage. Striped bicycle lanes are motorized vehicle traffi c by a row of parked cars, a curb, or some intended to promote an orderly fl ow of traffi c by establishing BBikewayikeway other physical separation. specifi c areas reserved for bicyclists. Typically, the solid stripe of the bicycle lane is either dropped or dashed prior to and Bicycle/Bus/Taxi Shared Lane - A travel lane that is restricted to through intersections, to allow for both cyclists and motorist turning the use of bicycles, buses, and/or taxis.
    [Show full text]