Ottawa County Non-Motorized

CORRADINO FINAL

OTTAWA COUNTY NON-MOTORIZED

Submitted to: County of Ottawa Planning and Grants Department

Submitted by: THE CORRADINO GROUP PREIN & NEWHOF

April 2002 Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO Foreword

The Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study involved collaboration among local units of government, the general public, and representatives of the bicycling community. The purpose of the plan is to assist local governments in Ottawa County in developing, collaborating on, expanding, and interconnecting a countywide non-motorized pathway system.

Special thanks are due the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners, West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, Ottawa County Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, local units of government, and the active participation of Ottawa County citizens who have attended meetings and provided input for this study.

Page F Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO Table of Contents

Executive Summary S-1

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Facility Types 2 1.2 Additional Information 4

2. Existing Conditions 5 2.1 History of Ottawa County’s Non-Motorized Pathways 5 2.2 New Projects 6 2.3 Greenways and Their Place in the Non-Motorized Pathway System 8 2.4 Existing and Planned Pathways 9

3. Conceptual Pathways 13 3.1 Points of Interest 13 3.2 Planning Considerations 13 3.2.1 Non-Motorized Pathway Types 13 3.2.2 Pathway Location 15 3.2.3 Staging Areas 15 3.2.4 Rail and Utility Corridors 15 3.2.5 Connections to Lake Michigan and Major Parks 16 3.2.6 Grand Valley State University 17 3.2.7 Highways and Barriers 17 3.2.8 Items to Consider When Designing a Pathway 18 3.2.9 Signage 19 3.3 Conceptual Pathway Network 20 3.3.1 West 22 3.3.2 South 22 3.3.3 Central 22 3.3.4 North 23 3.3.5 Major Connecting Segments 23 3.4 Cost and Pathway Prioritization 23

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO Table of Contents (continued)

4. Economic Benefits 29 4.1 Personal Satisfaction, Health, and Recreation 29 4.2 Revenues from Tourism 31 4.3 Economic Effects in Ottawa County 31 4.3.1 Tourism 31 4.3.2 Non-Tourism 32 4.3.3 Reasonableness of Estimates 32 4.4 Conclusions 33

5. Implementation Strategy 34 5.1 Organization and Getting Started 34 5.2 Construction, Signage and Maintenance 35 5.2.1 Construction 35 5.2.2 Signage 36 5.2.3 Maintenance 37 5.3 Funding 40 5.3.1 Local Units of Government 40 5.3.2 Federal, State and Private Funding Sources 41 5.3.3 County Millage 42 5.4 Recommendations 43

Appendix A - Frequently Asked Questions Appendix B - Pathway Inventory Appendix C - Information on Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

2665\finalreport

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Five-Year Roadway Improvement Plan 7 Figure 2-2 Existing Non-Motorized Pathways 10 Figure 2-3 Planned Non-Motorized Pathways and Pathways Under Consideration 11

Figure 3-1 Points of Interest 14 Figure 3-2 Conceptual Non-Motorized Pathways 21 Figure 3-3 Non-Motorized Pathway System 24 Figure 3-4 Regional Non-Motorized Pathways 25

List of Tables

Table 3-1 Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study - Conceptual Pathway Summary 26 Table 3-2 Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study - Conceptual Pathway System by Local Unit of Government 27

Table 4-1 Forecast of Annual User Days 32

Table 5-1 Recommended Maintenance 37 Table 5-2 Asphalt Resurfacing Costs 39 Table 5-3 Potential Countywide Non-motorized Pathway Millage Analysis 42

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO Executive Summary

Ottawa County is growing fast. From 1990, the county’s population grew from 187,000 to 238,000, making it the fourth fastest-growing county in the state in terms of population. Much of the development is suburban expansion of the Grand Rapids area. An important asset in any community is recreational opportunities, including bicycle and walking paths. Recreational opportunities are equally important in Ottawa County because of tourism, which generates nearly $80 million annually. As the county expands and there is increased pressure to improve roads to carry more traffic, and as residences and businesses develop in rural areas, the ability to develop safe bicycle and walking paths will be constrained. The Ottawa County Non- Motorized Pathways Plan has been developed to provide a vision for a countywide non-motorized pathway system that will benefit residents, tourists, and the businesses in this community.

If this non-motorized pathway system was in place, Ottawa County would have one of the most sophisticated non-motorized pathway networks in the state. This Local units of government in Ottawa County have system, combined with Lake Michigan, developed bike lanes and separated pathways in can make Ottawa County a “destination communities such as Grand Haven (above), Spring Lake Coopersville Allendale Hudsonville location.”

The goal of the Ottawa County Non- Motorized Pathways Study is to provide information that will assist local units of government to develop an interconnected non-motorized transportation network throughout the county. This network will be accessed and used by children on bicycles, recreational and family-oriented users, walkers and joggers, rollerbladers, and more serious touring and competitive cyclists. People will use the network for work and recreation. The network will support people wanting to commute to work and help reduce dependence on and use of the automobile. Ultimately, this As people move outside the towns and cities, the shoulders of county roads become recreational vision can help realize an enhanced pathways. Many of the road shoulders are not paved quality of life for residents of Ottawa and are not suitable for bicycling County and visitors to the county. 1

Page S Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Non-motorized pathways (also commonly referred to as bikepaths, trails, and rail-trails) generally refer to a physical facility such as a separated path that can be used by pedestrians, cyclists, joggers, and rollerbladers; widened road shoulders for use by cyclists; and, greenway trails along natural features such as rivers.

CORRADINO Currently, separated pathways along roadways are the most common types of non- motorized pathways in Ottawa County. These can be found in Holland, Grand Haven, Spring Lake, Coopersville, Allendale, Georgetown Township, and Hudsonville. The Musketawa Rail-Trail in the northern part of the county is a rail trail that was developed in the late 1990s by the State of Michigan along an abandoned railroad line. There are also signed bike lanes, which can be found in Grand Haven and a limited number of paved road shoulders.

A key reason for conducting this study is the strong support expressed by the public for bicycle and non-motorized trails in surveys conducted by the Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission. In a 1999 County Resident Survey conducted by Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission, “paths for biking and rollerblading” were identified as one of the most desirable of a range of recreational resources and opportunities trailing only picnicking and beaches and “tied” with nature centers and programs and hiking. At a general level, the demand for these facilities can be assessed by observing high levels of use on existing trails and summer events in the county focusing on bicycling, rollerblading, and other trail activities. Meeting the demand for expansion and development of new trails must address three particular user groups:

Those persons who use the trails as functional linkages between two points Those persons who use the trails for fitness, health and general enjoyment reasons Those persons who may use the trails as a recreation destination

Each user group has its own needs, but the non-motorized pathway concept can support the demands and needs of the people in all three groups. In addition, the development of an enhanced non- motorized network can increase the county’s attractiveness for tourism and provide additional opportunities for tourists already coming to the area for its beaches and parks.

Improving development of non- motorized pathways in Ottawa County will best be accomplished by a cooperative effort involving all levels of The Musketawa Rail-Trail in northeastern Ottawa County government. Most trails in existence was developed by the Michigan Department of Natural today have been initiated by local units Resources and is maintained by Ottawa County of government and funded primarily by local millages. Ottawa County can provide support to the local units of government by providing leadership, expertise, and coordination in the development and expansion of the non-motorized pathway network.

Page S Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

The conceptual non-motorized pathway system identified in this report (Figure S- 1) focuses primarily on development of regional linkages in Ottawa County that

CORRADINO connect the existing pathways. The conceptual network includes paved road shoulders and off-street pathways, representing 178 miles of new facilities. Paved road shoulders identified as part of the network will be a minimum four-foot width consistent with nationally accepted standards while separated pathways are recommended to be from eight- to 14- feet wide, depending on anticipated usage. The widened paved road Bicycling in Ottawa County provides opportunities for shoulders identified in the plan should be recreation and exercise for residents and tourists. considered for signing and striping as bike lanes.

The Conceptual Network Tables S-1 and S-2 present the conceptual pathway system. Table S-1 presents the conceptual improvements suggested for each area of the county as well as the cost and priority as defined in this plan. Table S-2 separates the new pathways by local unit of government.

The total construction cost for the Ottawa County non-motorized pathway network is approximately $23 million. Engineering costs, including contingency, are typically 15 to 20 percent over and above the total project construction cost. Right-of-way acquisition can range from 0 percent to 10 percent over and above the total project construction cost.

As noted above, Table S-1 identifies a prioritization for each conceptual pathway. This prioritization was based on:

Connections to activity centers Scenic/recreational opportunities Provides linkage to a gap in the network Capacity Cost/ease of implementation

The intent of prioritizing each conceptual pathway is to identify those paths whose completion would provide immediate community benefits. A local unit of government can certainly elevate a “long-range” priority project in its jurisdiction to a higher priority. 3

Page S

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Table S-1

CORRADINO Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study Conceptual Pathway Summary

2 Pathway Description Length (miles)Construction Cost1 Priority Lakeshore Avenue Paved Shoulder 19.05 $1,042,500 Mid-range Riley Street Paved Shoulder 11.5 $1,150,000 Long-range Chicago Drive Paved Shoulder 7.75 $ 775,000 Mid-range Macatawa River Greenway/ 18.5 $2,930,400 Short-range Byron Road Connector Stanton/Taylor/Bauer 18.75 $2,970,000 Short-range Separated Pathway 96th Avenue Separated Pathway 15 $2,376,000 Mid-range Grand River Greenway 26.3 $4,165,920 Short-range Luce Street Separated Pathway 5 $ 792,000 Mid-range Leonard/Cleveland Street East-West 14.75 $2,336,400 Mid-range Separated Pathway Leonard Street Paved Shoulder 25.35 $2,535,000 Short-range Segment 1- Grand Haven Trail Linkage 0.4 $ 63,360 Short-range Segment 2 - Mercury Drive Connector 1.6 $ 253,440 Mid-range Segment 3 - Olive Shore 1 $ 100,000 Long-range Avenue Paved Shoulder Segment 4 - Greenly Street 0.5 $ 79,200 Mid-range Separated Pathway Segment 5 - Angling Road/ 3.5 $ 554,400 Long-range Barry Street Connector Separated Pathway Segment 6 - Lake Michigan Drive 2 $ 200,000 Short-range Paved Shoulder Segment 7 - 120th Avenue 1 $ 158,400 Long-range Connector Segment 8 - Musketawa Rail-Trail Connector 1.75 $ 277,200 Short-range Segment 9 - Tyler Street Connector 0.25 $ 25,000 Mid-range Paved Shoulder Segment 10 - 32nd Street 2 $ 200,000 Mid-range Paved Shoulder Segment 11 - Port Sheldon Street/ 2 $ 316,800 Mid-range 28th Avenue Separated Pathway TOTAL 177.95 $23,301,020

1 Engineering and contingency costs typically range from 15 percent to 20 percent over and above construction costs. Right-of-way acquisition can range from 0 percent to 10 percent over and above total construction costs. 2 Short-range projects would be programmed and/or built in the first five years of the plan; mid-range projects in years 5-10; and long-range projects in 10+ years. Source: The Corradino Group

Page S Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Table S-2 Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study Conceptual Pathway System By Local Unit of Government

CORRADINO Length of Pathway (miles) 4-Foot Paved Multi-Use Unit of Government Shoulder Separated Construction Cost2 Chester Township $ - Ferrysburg $ - Spring Lake Village 1.6 $ 160,000 Spring Lake Township 2.5 $ 250,000 Crockery Township 7 $ 700,000 Crockery Township 8 $ 1,267,200 Polkton Township 7 $ 700,000 Polkton Township 3.5 $ 554,400 Coopersville 0.75 $ 118,800 Wright Township 5 $ 792,000 City of Grand Haven 2 $ 316,800 Grand Haven Charter Township 9 $ 375,000 Robinson Township 12.8 $ 2,027,520 Allendale Township 11.5 $ 1,821,600 Tallmadge Township 7.25 $ 725,000 Tallmadge Township 5.25 $ 831,600 Port Sheldon Township 7.75 $ 437,500 Port Sheldon Township 4 $ 633,600 Olive Township 6 $ 950,400 Blendon Township 12.5 $ 1,980,000 Georgetown Township 1 $ 100,000 Georgetown Township 15 $ 2,376,000 City of Hudsonville 2 $ 200,000 City of Hudsonville 0.25 $ 39,600 Jamestown Township 5 $ 792,000 Jamestown Township 0.75 $ 75,000 Subtotal 45.85 91.55 $18,224,020

MACC1 Park Township 8.8 $ 880,000 Holland Charter Township 5.5 $ 871,200 Holland Charter Township 6 $ 600,000 City of Holland 1 $ 158,400 City of Zeeland 0.25 $ 25,000 Zeeland Charter Township 8 $ 800,000 Zeeland Charter Township 11 $ 1,742,400

Subtotal 23.05 17.5 $5,077,000

TOTAL 68.9 109.05 $23,301,020 1 The Macatawa Area Coordinating Council (MACC) is conducting its own non-motorized pathways study. The information presented in this report is intended only to provide a vision for the entire county. 2 Engineering and contingency costs typically range from 15 percent to 20 percent over and above construction costs. Right-of-way acquisition can range from 0 percent to 10 percent over and above total construction costs.

Source: The Corradino Group 6

Page S Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Implementation The goal of this plan is to provide an interconnected non-motorized network in Ottawa County. Coordinating the efforts of local units of government will be key. A countywide CORRADINO committee such as “Friends of Ottawa County Bikepaths” or a more formal entity such as an authority are options. A funding base that can be used by local units of government to build and maintain regional pathways and leverage additional grant funds should be identified. One option would be a countywide millage with funds appropriated to building and maintaining the regional network.

Economic Benefit The economic effects of a comprehensive non-motorized pathway system will principally be associated with expenditures by residents and tourists connected to their use of the system. And, while, admittedly, the data available upon which to measure these economic effects are limited, indications are that the trail/pathway system that currently exists in Ottawa County, is generating $1.7 to $6.8 million per year in direct, indirect and induced economic effects. Today, the amount of economic stimulus of tourists’ use of the current trail system is considered quite limited. However, if the system as now proposed is completed, the additional annual economic effect associated with it could range from $2 million to $4 million per year (direct, indirect and induced effects). The latter could stimulate 20 to 40 net new jobs in the economy. And, while the tax revenues generated locally from these tourist- related activities are unknown, it is clear that generating $2 million to $4 million per year in new economic activity over the life of the trailway system (10 years before major rebuilding) would be a boost that allows the trailway system to be recognized as not only a quality-of-life enhancer but an economically viable public works project.

Recommendations of the Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study The following initial recommendations have been developed to support the realization of the Non-Motorized Pathways Plan.

Page S Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

The transit systems in Holland and Grand Haven should be encouraged to explore acquisition of bike racks for their buses. Grants should be sought on the basis of the non-motorized network to have congestion-mitigation and air quality benefits. As the non-motorized network is developed and marketed, its applicability as a commuter

CORRADINO system as well as a recreational system should be emphasized. All local, county and state projects, particularly those on roads identified in this plan as having four-foot paved shoulders, should be reviewed for the possibility of including non-motorized considerations. It is important that as the non-motorized network is developed, the following issues are addressed: • Connecting the urbanized areas in the western part of the county with the urbanized areas in the east, including Grand Valley State University; • Developing where possible in natural commuter corridors (for example, along Chicago Drive from Hudsonville to the Holland/Zealand area). • Working to make Ottawa County a showplace for bicycle and pedestrian activity. Minimum design standards should be established. These include: • Paved shoulders should be a minimum of four feet in width if they are designated as pathways in the conceptual plan. Those shoulders identified as pathways in the plan should be considered for signing and striping as bike lanes. • Separated pathways should be designed to range from 8 to 12 or even14 feet in width depending on the project use, available right-of-way, and the design of connecting trails. Staging areas should be identified as the non-motorized system is developed. Formal staging areas would be developed at major trailheads on the major separated pathways. Along the separated pathways, particularly destination facilities such as the Musketawa Trail, there should be restrooms and drinking water every three to five miles, parking and information every five to ten miles, signage from the roadway network to the staging areas, and telephone, covered shelters, benches and other amenities where desirable. Signage for the non-motorized pathway system should be consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Guidance for bicycle operation on roadways and shared use paths. In addition, it is important that signage directing people to major destination trails be placed on major entry points into Ottawa County. Maintenance activities will typically be the responsibility of the local unit of government. As the countywide multi-jurisdictional network expands, it will be important to develop a coordinated approach to maintaining, repaving and replacement of the pathway network. This would be a good focal point for the “Friends” organization in the near-term. Local units of government should be encouraged to consider development of separated pathways and/or paved shoulders as opposed to sidewalks in ordinances regarding new development in suburban areas. Sidewalks would be appropriate for areas that are primarily residential but non-motorized pathways would be better suited for commercial and retail areas.

Page S Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO 1. Introduction

Ottawa County is a great place to live, work, and recreate. There are beaches, excellent rural scenery, and many beautiful park areas. Across the United States, communities are realizing how development of non-motorized facilities can benefit the area’s environment, economy, public health, and recreational environment. Importantly, non-motorized facilities provide places where people and families can have fun! In Ottawa County, several local units of government (cities, townships, villages) have developed bicycle/pedestrian facilities, effectively creating a non-motorized pathway system in their respective areas.

This plan presents a vision on how this “non-motorized pathway network” in Ottawa County can be enhanced. The report was developed through the Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study conducted by the Ottawa County Planning Commission and the Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission with assistance from The Corradino Group and Prein & Newhof, a national transportation planning consulting firm.

The goal of the plan is to provide information that will assist local units of government develop non-motorized pathways. Through implementation, the existing facilities will be interconnected providing a countywide non-motorized pathway system. This network will be accessed and used by recreational cyclists, walkers and joggers, rollerbladers, and more serious touring and competitive cyclists. Family members will use the network for recreation. The network will also support people wanting to commute to work and help reduce dependence on and use of the automobile. Implementation of the plan will contribute to improved air quality and the health of residents of Ottawa County. Ultimately, this plan can enhance the quality of life for residents of Ottawa County and visitors to the county.

The public has expressed strong support for bicycle and non-motorized trails in surveys conducted by Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission. In a 1999 County Resident Survey, “paths for biking and rollerblading” were identified as one of the most desirable of a range of recreational resources and opportunities behind only picnicking and beaches and “tied” with nature centers and programs and hiking. At a general level, the demand for these facilities can be assessed by observing existing trails and summer events in the county focusing on bicycling, rollerblading, and other trail activities. Meeting the demand for expansion and development of new trails must address three particular user groups:

Those who use the trails as functional linkages between two points Those who use the trails for fitness, health, general enjoyment Those who may use the trails as a recreation destination

In addition, the development of an enhanced non-motorized network can increase the county’s attractiveness to tourism and provide additional opportunities for tourists coming to the area for its beaches and parks.

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Trail development in Ottawa County can best be accomplished by a cooperative effort involving all levels of government. Most trails in

CORRADINO existence today have been initiated by local units of government and funded primarily by local millages. Ottawa County can provide support to the local units of government by providing leadership, expertise, and Wide Curb Lane coordination in the planning and expansion of the non-motorized pathway network.

1.1 Facility Types Non-motorized pathways generally refer to any physical facility such as a wide paved pathway that can be used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, and rollerbladers; widened road shoulders for use by cyclists; and, Bicycle Lane trails along natural features such as rivers. They are commonly referred to as bikepaths, bike routes, rail- trails, and other names. Although non-motorized pathways are typically designed for cyclists, they almost always are also used by pedestrians, joggers, and rollerbladers. There are several different types of non-motorized pathways:

Bike routes Typical Separated Bicycle Path Wide curb lanes Bike lanes Paved shoulders Separated pathways

It is important to note that the cyclists often use the existing roadway system with no improvements to facilitate bicycle travel. A primary emphasis of non-motorized planning nationally is to create a safe and interconnected network.

Bike routes are roadways with no bicycle-oriented design features that have been signed as part of a bike route. These are typically roads that are suitable for use by cyclists (i.e., have low traffic volumes, suitable widths) and/or provide continuity to other bicycle facilities. 2

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Wide curb lanes are traffic lanes that are typically much wider than 12 feet. A lane width of 14 feet is considered a minimum for allowing bicyclists and motorists to share the roadway without being forced to navigate out of the travel CORRADINO lane to pass the bicyclist.

Bicycle lanes are defined as a portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, or pavement markings for the preferential use of bicyclists. The minimum width of a bike lane is four feet. Bicycle lanes are generally found in more urban areas where significant bicycle demand is desired or expected, but they can also be beneficial in rural areas by providing system continuity and a sense of security for the cyclist.

Paved road shoulders are a common and inexpensive way to accommodate bicyclists within the existing transportation system. They are often used on higher volume roads or on rural roads and streets. They can be signed and striped as bicycle lanes or left unstriped.

Separated pathways, also called multi-use pathways, or bicycle paths, are physically separated from the roadway Paved road shoulders can provide network. These facilities are considered multi-use pathways a place where cyclists can use the and are used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, and rollerbladers. roadway.

The existing non-motorized system in Ottawa County comprises separated multi-use pathways and sidewalks. The only true regional pathway that offers connectivity to the existing network is the Lakeshore Avenue bikepath.

There are difficulties with the existing system. Because most of the bikepaths have been developed in urban or suburban areas along existing roads with residential development, there are numerous driveway intersections. While these facilities are good for walkers, joggers and less experienced cyclists, discussions with experienced cyclists indicate they prefer to ride on the road.

The other major problem with the existing system is the lack of connectivity. With the exception of the Lakeshore Avenue bikepath, it is not possible to go from one urban area to another in Ottawa County without using the road system.

These situations are being addressed in Michigan and across the United States. Beginning with the Intermodal Transportation Surface Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in the early 1990s and continuing with the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), there has been tremendous interest and investment in non-motorized facilities. Federal spending on bicycle facilities exceeded $260 million in 1999, up from less than $10 million in 1990. The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and many other federal, state, and local units of government have updated or proposed plans and guidelines to enhance non-motorized opportunities. 3

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

1.2 Additional Information Several appendices are included to provide supplemental information. Appendix A offers CORRADINO answers to “Frequently Asked Questions” and has a list of links to Web sites for bicycling/pedestrian activity. Appendix B is a table that presents information for the existing, planned and under consideration, and conceptual pathways identified in this plan. Appendix C provides general information regarding bicycle/pedestrian planning and design.

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO 2. Existing Conditions

Ottawa County’s existing non-motorized pathway network currently includes separated pathways located in the Holland-Zeeland area and the Grand Haven area (including Grand Haven Charter Township and Spring Lake Township). The Lakeshore Avenue separated pathway is a regional facility linking Grand Haven and Holland. The other prominent facility in the region is the Musketawa Rail-Trail in northeastern Ottawa County. This destination trail facility was developed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and is operated by the Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission. There are also pathways (both paved shoulders and separated pathways) in Georgetown Township, Allendale, and Coopersville.

2.1 History of Ottawa County’s Non-Motorized Pathways Developed in Ottawa County over the past 35 years, these pathways are an extensive network of bikepaths located primarily in the western portion of the county. All of the bikepaths have been local government initiatives with the exception of the Musketawa Rail- Trail located in the northeast portion of the county which was developed as a state/county partnership.

Growth of the county’s pathway system began in Park and Holland Townships in the mid- 1970s with construction of a bikepath along Ottawa Beach Road leading to Holland State Park. Other paths soon followed linking elementary schools and other community attractions. Township millages were the primary source of funds for bikepath construction.

Bikepath in Grand Haven Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

The popular Lakeshore Avenue bikepath began in Park Township in the late 1980s. Port Sheldon Township then extended the bikepath north along Lakeshore Avenue to

CORRADINO the Grand Haven Township line. Several years passed while Grand Haven Township explored various funding sources to extend the pathway north to Grand Haven. In the meantime, Ottawa County funded a short segment of trail to link to the entrance to Kirk The Mercury Drive Bikepath in Grand Haven Township Park, located on the south edge of Grand Haven Township. Ultimately Grand Haven Township voters approved a millage to fund bikepath development. This allowed the Lakeshore Avenue bikepath to be extended and also allowed development of other key segments including the scenic pathway along Mercury Drive and the Grand River.

In recent years Grand Haven Township has expanded its pathway system to other community attractions and businesses. The attractive route around Spring Lake was a motivating factor for Spring Lake Township, the Village of Spring Lake and the City of Ferrysburg to develop extensive bikepath facilities. The very scenic 15-mile route around Spring Lake, begun in the late-1980s by Spring Lake Township, was completed in 2000 when Fruitport Township in Muskegon County constructed the final connecting segment. Further bikepath construction followed with Spring Lake Township building additional paths leading to schools, subdivisions and other community attractions.

2.2 New Projects There are several non-motorized pathway projects being built. These include the connector across the U.S. 31 Bridge in Grand Haven and the Riley Street underpass serving the Zeeland Schools. The U.S. 31 Bridge connection links existing non- motorized pathways in Ferrysburg and Spring Lake with the pathway network in Grand Haven. The Riley Street underpass in Zeeland will provide a linkage between Zeeland High School and its athletic complex.

Spring Lake Township The Michigan Department of Transportation is also planning a non-motorized connection across the Grand River as part of the proposed U.S. 31 bypass. This project would start at North Cedar Drive in Robinson Township and cross to Cypress Street on the north in Crockery Township. This facility is proposed to be a separated pathway with barriers provided between pedestrians and motorists.

Roadway construction and reconstruction is an ongoing process. The Ottawa County Road Commission has in its plan (Figure 2-1) a number of projects that include paving the shoulder of the road. As part of this non-motorized plan, it is recommended that all paved road

shoulders be a 6

Page

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

minimum of four feet in width on roads that are designated in this plan as part of the non- motorized network. It is recommended that all local, county and state projects, particularly those on roads identified in this plan as having four-feet paved shoulders, be reviewed for the possibility of including non-motorized considerations.

CORRADINO 2.3 Greenways and Their Place in the Non-Motorized Pathway System Ottawa County has natural greenway corridors such as the Grand River in the north central portion of the county and the Macatawa River in the south. Pigeon River, a smaller tributary in the west-central portion of the county, has also been identified as a candidate for future greenway development. These greenway corridors represent excellent opportunities to provide connections in the existing network and create unique recreational assets in their own right.

“Greenways” often take the following form:

A linear open space established along either a natural corridor, such as a riverfront, stream valley, or ridgeline, or overland along a railroad right-of-way converted to recreational use, a canal, a scenic road, or other route Any natural or landscaped course for pedestrian or bicycle passage An open-space connector linking parks, natural reserves, cultural features, or historic sites with each other and with populated areas

There are hundreds of greenway More than 170 miles of trails are incorporated in the greenway projects underway across the United system in Indianapolis. States. Their popularity stems from the growing awareness that preserving linear corridors serves the interests of protecting both natural habitat and providing opportunities for public recreation. Corridors of protected natural lands allow wildlife and plant life to migrate through the linear space to meet habitat needs. Trail-related recreation activities such as biking, rollerblading, running, and hiking are ideally suited to greenway corridors and have been growing in popularity in recent years. A good example of how greenways can “interconnect” a wide variety of uses and places is Indianapolis. There, the Indianapolis/Marion County Parks Department has created more than 170 miles of greenway and rail-trail non-motorized pathways that offer outstanding recreational, aesthetic and commuting opportunities. A good cyclist can access the greenway system in downtown Indianapolis and travel 20+ miles to Carmel, one of the northern suburbs, as fast as a car during periods of heavy traffic congestion. 9

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Greenways have been proven to attract and retain tourists and expand tourism revenues in many communities. Trail users spend money in places such as hotels, restaurants, retail stores, campgrounds, bicycle shops, bed-and-breakfast guest houses, gas stations, and ice

CORRADINO cream stands. A case in point is the Tallahassee-St. Marks Trail in Florida where approximately 170,000 people visit every year, and the average user spends more than $11 a day (1992 National Park Service Study). Another example is the Northern Central Rail-Trail in rural Maryland which supports 264 jobs statewide and produces in excess of $3.38 million in annual revenues. Greenways are also economic assets that increase the real estate value of adjacent properties.

Ottawa County’s greenway initiatives focus on key river corridors because these areas contain a concentration of the county’s high quality natural features and offer the potential to preserve large areas of natural lands in a linked system. It is important to note that the scope of the greenway projects is very large so it will be necessary to involve many different entities to be successful. Potential partners include private landowners, state and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit groups such as the Land Conservancy of West Michigan, the Audubon Society, and others. It should be noted that the Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission greenways program includes non-motorized pathways in its greenway development process.

2.4 Existing and Planned Pathways Figure 2-2 presents the “Existing Non-Motorized Pathway System” in Ottawa County. Figure 2-3 presents “Planned Pathways and Pathways Under Consideration.” Detailed information on all the pathways is presented in Appendix B.

The predominant existing facility type is the off-road bicycle path. These have been developed primarily in Holland Township, Grand Haven, Grand Haven Charter Township, and Spring Lake Township. There are also facilities in Park Township, Port Sheldon Township, and Spring Lake Village. The most prominent facilities are the pathway along Lakeshore Avenue that connects the City of Grand Haven with the Holland area and the Musketawa Rail-Trail.

As shown in Figure 2-3 there are several planned (i.e., funded or part of a five-year plan) pathway projects in the county. Hudsonville and Allendale Townships have a significant number of proposed pathways. 10

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO

Separated bicycle paths such as those in Spring Lake Township, Grand Haven and Holland-Zeeland are the most common non-motorized facilities that have been built in Ottawa County 11

Page

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

When considering the existing and non-motorized network in Ottawa County, the opportunities for improvement include:

Connecting the developed networks in

CORRADINO the western part of the county with the developed areas in the east, including Grand Valley State University. Taking advantage of natural commuter corridors to allow people to commute to work. Using the natural resources of the county to develop a superior recreational opportunity by linking park areas and taking advantage of scenic views. Working with Kent and Muskegan Counties to link all the regions bicycle facilities and exploring opportunities with Allegan County. Developing a coordinated strategy to attract tourists and related economic benefits to the county to use the non- motorized network.

As part of the development of the Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Plan, a series of public meetings were held. These open meetings, held in Coopersville, Hudsonville, and at Grand Haven High School, attracted residents of the county and representatives of the bicycling community. Public meetings were held to generate interest and involvement in the study. Many of the recommended Their input was instrumental in developing routes in this plan resulted from these meetings. the conceptual plan, which is presented next.

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO 3. Conceptual Pathways

This section identifies conceptual non-motorized pathways to be developed in Ottawa County. These conceptual pathways are intended to connect Ottawa County’s existing and planned pathways, as well as those under consideration.

3.1 Points of Interest Lake Michigan is the major attraction/point of interest in Ottawa County attracting thousands of recreational visits from tourists and residents. In addition, Figure 3- 1 identifies parks, campgrounds, schools, mountain biking areas, and National Register Historic Sites. The points of interest are largely concentrated in the southwestern, northwestern, and central/east portions of the county. Linkages will provide unique recreational opportunities for residents and tourists alike. In addition to the locations identified above, there are linked corridors that give Ottawa County tremendous appeal as a recreational destination. These would certainly include the Grand River and Separated pathways provide safe, Macatawa River greenways. These are natural secure opportunities for recreative attractions to people visiting the Holland and Grand cycling and other activities. Haven areas.

3.2 Planning Considerations 3.2.1 Non-Motorized Pathway Types The primary design concepts identified in this plan are separated pathways and paved road shoulders. This is because the primary needs in the county are regional connectivity. While separated pathways are Many of the road shoulders in rural Ottawa County are very desirable, they are also very expensive. Widened paved road shoulders, as part of the county’s annual road program, are viewed as a relatively inexpensive way to enhance regional cycling opportunities. These would be developed along existing roads, greenways, utility corridors, and new rights-of-way 13

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

as available. Paved shoulders on county roads would be considered for signage as bike lanes when heavy use or automobile traffic is expected.

Figure 3-1

CORRADINO Points of Interest 14

Page

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

It is recommended that paved shoulders be developed to a minimum of four feet in width. Separated pathways would be designed to range from eight to 12 or even 14 feet depending on the projected use, available right-of-way, and the design of connecting trails.

CORRADINO These design standards are recommended based on standards suggested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and several other states, such as Florida. Generally, the minimum standards are four feet for paved shoulders and ten feet for separated paths.

3.2.2 Pathway Location The recommendations for pathway location in the conceptual network are flexible and sensitive to priorities of local units of government. Also, because the plan will be implemented over a period of 10 to 15 years, development will inevitably affect the location of a pathway as conceptually defined in this plan.

3.2.3 Staging Areas An important component of using and enjoying non-motorized pathways is the availability of staging areas, where people can park and begin their trip. Maps and signage, water, phones, and restrooms can be found here. In Ottawa County, there are currently formal and informal staging areas. The “formal” areas are two locations on the Musketawa Rail-Trail, one just north of Garfield in Wright Township and the other just north of Sehler Street in Chester Township. These staging areas include paved parking, covered signs and maps, but do not have water.

There are existing locations such as parking lots for commercial facilities, churches and schools that can readily be used as staging Staging areas can include areas for parking, areas to access a non-motorized pathway. On restrooms, picnic areas, and information signs. regional pathways, particularly separated pathways along scenic corridors or greenways, it would be beneficial for there to be staging areas every three to five miles. These areas should, at a minimum, have access to restrooms and drinking water and may be equipped with tables, benches, secure parking facilities, waste receptacles, and trail literature. At major rest areas (or pathway termini), restrooms, telephones, covered shelters, and other amenities should be considered.

3.2.4 Rail and Utility Corridors Abandoned rail corridors and active utility corridors both offer opportunities for recreational trail development. Almost 40 percent of all rail-trails do double-duty as corridors for utilities. In some cases the utility “buys into” a rail-trail and uses the right-of-way to run its utilities underground. For example, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources granted the 15

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

communications company U.S. Telecom a 10-foot wide easement in an abandoned railroad corridor between Milwaukee and Madison. In exchange, U.S. Telecom paved a trail along the corridor—a $600,000 project. By sharing the route, U.S. Telecom was able to add 60 miles to

CORRADINO its fiber optic network and Wisconsin gained the Glacial Drumlin multi-use recreational trail. In other situations, a utility company donates a corridor to a community to gain reduced operating and maintenance costs as the trail is maintained by a local unit of government.

Abandoned rail corridors offer opportunities for linear, off road development of recreational pathways that are used by thousands for a variety of recreational activities. Good examples of rail-trails in Michigan are the Pere-Marquette Trail, the Hart-Montague Rail-Trail and the TART Rail-Trail in Traverse City. Ottawa County’s Musketawa Rail-Trail began in 1991 as a cooperative venture among Ottawa County, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Muskegon County. Approximately 10 miles of the trail is in Ottawa County and the county maintains that portion. Road crossings, signages and bridges are important Ottawa County has two principal active freight rail lines, both operated by CSX — one along the U.S. 31 corridor and one along Chicago Drive. It is unlikely either of these will be abandoned in the near future. There is also a rail- line from Coopersville through Marne and into north Grand Rapids. It is currently owned by the Coopersville & Marne Railway Company. There are no other rail corridors that have not already been split into private ownership in Ottawa County, so it is unlikely that a rail-trail pathway can be The Monon Rail-Trail in Indianapolis is a key element of the developed in the immediate future. regional pathway system

Consumers Power (CP) has a network of utility corridors in Ottawa County. CP has agreements with local units of government (e.g., Ada Township east of Grand Rapids), where they are allowed to construct, improve and maintain a recreational trail on CP property. As the non-motorized pathway system is implemented, a dialogue with CP should be established to identify additional non-motorized opportunities that can enhance the non- motorized network.

3.2.5 Connections to Lake Michigan and Major Parks A countywide non-motorized pathway system in Ottawa County should provide access to the major parks, Lake Michigan, and the urbanized and rural areas of the community. Parks such as Holland State Park and Grand Haven State Park are two of Michigan’s most popular destinations with heavy use and traffic congestion in the summer. A non-motorized network 16

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

serving these facilities would allow more people to enjoy the parks with less automobile traffic. Likewise, while there is currently access for non-motorized traffic along the lakeshore, there is virtually no east-west non-motorized access. People living in the eastern sections of the county must drive to enjoy the parks.

CORRADINO 3.2.6 Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State University is in Allendale, 12 miles west of downtown Grand Rapids. There are 18,000 registered students, with about half living on or near campus. The streets on campus are designed with wide shoulders to allow for bicycling and there are paths for bicycling and walking throughout. Although a paved shoulder is currently being built as part of the M-45 reconstruction project, there are no regional, separated non-motorized pathways. A pathway as part of a greenway project along the Grand River would be a natural linkage for the University.

3.2.7 Highways and Barriers U.S. 31 is a north-south, four-lane divided arterial highway that carries thousands of cars each day at high speeds. Any trail crossing U.S. 31 must address safety. Discussions with the Michigan Department of Transportation indicate that signals, striping, or an overpass are all options that could be considered for crossings on state highways and that MDOT would work with local units of government to identify the best solutions in each situation. Another major roadway is Strategically placed maps and signs State Road 21, or Chicago Drive. It can help people “get around.” has been identified by cyclists as a prime non-motorized commuting facility because it offers a direct connection from Hudsonville and Georgetown Township into the Holland-Zeeland area. A proposed project that will include a non- motorized connection is the U.S. 31 Bypass east of Grand Haven. As this proposal moves forward, it will be important to establish connections from the bridge crossing the Grand River to other trails in the area.

Road crossings, are key considerations of the pathway system 17

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

3.2.8 Items to Consider When Designing Pathway The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publishes guidelines for non-motorized facilities1. These are used across the nation as the CORRADINO basic standards for bicycle facilities. Any new project should consider minimum AASHTO as well as appropriate MDOT and local design guidelines.

Signage can provide information, rules, and give a theme to the non-motorized system.

Many of the pathways on Ottawa County were built with eight-foot widths. In some areas, this is all the room that is available. For the non-motorized plan it is recommended that separate pathways be from 8 feet to 14 feet, depending on the projected usage and local preferences. The facilities identified as widened paved road shoulders should be a minimum four feet in width. They should be considered for signing and striping as bike lanes.

The purpose of bicycle lanes is to indicate, by providing a defined space on the roadway, to both motorists and bicyclists that bicyclists are allowed on the road. Signed and striped bicycle lanes are the preferred bikeway design choice for principal arterials, minor arterials, and collectors with high volumes of traffic. In rural areas, unsigned widened paved shoulders are acceptable. In Ottawa County, the Ottawa County Road Commission generally is adding three-foot paved shoulders to roads as they are resurfaced. Only a few of these have been designated as widened paved shoulders in this plan. These few should be considered to be signed and striped as bike facilities to provide a better environment for cyclists, enhance the interconnections of the non-motorized network, and potentially benefit motorists. More information on this issue is presented in Appendix C.

1 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, 1999 (www.aashto.org). 18

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Bicycle lanes provide benefits to motorists that may well outweigh those to bicyclists themselves. A 1995 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study found that bicycle lanes reduce motor

CORRADINO vehicle crashes by nearly 50 percent. A related study found that bicycle lanes provide $5 in safety benefits to drivers for every $1 in costs.

3.2.9 Signage Signage increases safety and comfort on separated pathways, as well as widened shoulders. Signs may assist in the navigation of a trail or trail system, warn of approaching roadway crossings, regulate trail use, or interpret natural features. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by FHWA provides guidelines for signage. Signage on the Indy Greenway in Indianapolis. There are five basic types of signs.

Directional signs give street names, trail names, direction arrows, mileage to points of interest, and other navigational information. Cautionary signs warn of upcoming roadway crossings, steep grades, blind curves, and other potential trail hazards. Regulatory signs tell the “rules of the trail” by prohibiting certain uses or controlling direction of travel. Interpretive signs offer educational information on the trail environment. Objective signs provide information about the actual trail conditions, including surface, trail width, obstacle height, etc. These signs allow users to make more informed decisions about which trails best meet their needs and abilities. For example, a wheelchair user may be able to travel over very steep grades provided the trail is at least 36 inches wide.

The inclusion of signage in a non-motorized pathway project must be planned from the outset. The following guidelines relate to the general placement and design of trail signage:

Signs should be placed at a consistent distance from the trail edge, three feet, six inches is preferred. Lettering less than two inches in height is not recommended for directional signs for readability. Text should be avoided on regulatory or cautionary signs, wherever possible. Multiple signs may be mounted on the same post, but the primary message should be in the top position on the post. Generally, signs are placed about five feet high.

Signage can also be used as a thematic marketing device for a network of trails. In Indianapolis, Indy Greenways has created a 170-mile network of off-road paths including a rail-trail, a trail along a river greenway, a gravel trail along a canal towpath, and urban trails. These are broken into five distinct pathways, each with its own logo and map. In Missoula, Mont., a simple sign – Missoula Bike System – is used to mark trail facilities. 19

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Signage for separated pathways and road shoulders provides security for the cyclist and also increases the connectivity of the non-motorized transportation system. Adding or improving road

CORRADINO shoulders, particularly in rural areas, is often the best way to accommodate bicycle travel. As roadways are built or repaved, the shoulders can be paved (or an additional foot of pavement added) at significantly less expense than developing a separated pathway. A key component of the conceptual non-motorized pathways plan for Ottawa County is the construction of wider paved road shoulders on designated facilities.

As noted earlier, striping and signing these roads with the widened shoulders as bicycle lanes would provide continuity to the Ottawa County system. Rural paved road shoulders are not always marked as bike lanes because they are not used as an urban bike lane. Nevertheless, there are advantages to signing and striping these facilities. These are as follows:

Reminds motorists to stay alert for bicyclists Creates a true system of support for the bicyclists Provides system continuity

Several states, including Florida, Oregon, California, and Wisconsin, have adopted design standards for the development of bicycle lanes and road shoulders. In Florida, for example, designated bike lanes must be marked with signs and pavement markings in accordance with the State’s Roadway Traffic and Design Standards. The standards call for the regular travel lane to be separated from the bicycle lane by a six- to eight-inch solid lane line. Pavement markings are used within the lane to designate the bike lane. The diamond shape Preferential Lane Symbol is used as required by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The recommended spacing for these symbols is immediately after intersections and major 3.3 Conceptual Pathway Network driveways and at a maximum The proposed “Conceptual Non-Motorized Pathways” for Ottawa spacing of 600 feet (182 meters) on urban sections County is shown in Figure 3-2.

The conceptual non-motorized pathway system focuses primarily on development of regional linkages in Ottawa County. The network includes paved road shoulders and off-street pathways. It should be noted that while pathways have been identified throughout Ottawa County, the MACC, whose representatives include Park, Holland, and Zeeland Townships and the cities of Holland and Zeeland, is conducting its own non-motorized pathways study. The results of that study are not complete as of the date of this publication and therefore are not available for inclusion.

Each of the individual projects identified in this plan will be analyzed in greater detail as the non-motorized network is developed. At that time, issues regarding pathway type, width, and 20

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

signage/markings would be refined. The following discussion summarizes the conceptual improvements. CORRADINO 21

Page

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

3.3.1 West A four-foot widened road shoulder is suggested along Lakeshore Avenue paralleling the existing bike path. The existing Lakeshore Avenue non-motorized pathway is CORRADINO popular and used by cyclists, joggers, walkers, and rollerbladers. This level of use, combined with the fact that it intersects with numerous driveways, makes it less attractive to competitive, commuter, and touring cyclists. The widened road shoulder would provide opportunities for these cyclists to use Lakeshore Avenue. A paved shoulder connection to Lake Michigan is proposed at Croswell Street via Olive Shore Avenue.

3.3.2 South A four-foot paved shoulder is identified along Riley Street in Park, Holland, and Zeeland townships. This shoulder would connect Lakeshore Avenue with Chicago Drive. A four-foot paved shoulder would be constructed along Chicago Drive from Main Street in Zeeland to the Hudsonville city limits. This trail, which would also connect to the Riley Street paved shoulder, would provide bicycle connections between Hudsonville and the Holland-Zeeland area. A separated pathway is identified from a point just west of U.S. 31 in Holland to follow the Macatawa River as part of a proposed greenway east to Adams Street where it would then follow 84th Avenue north to Byron Road, east on Byron to 48th Avenue, 48th Avenue to Riley Street, and east on Riley Street to 32nd Avenue, where it would connect to an existing separated pathway. Further east, this conceptual pathway would follow Angling Road northeast to Jackson Street and then north on 8th Avenue to Barry Street where it would be constructed east to the Kent County line.

3.3.3 Central A separated pathway is identified to provide an east-west linkage in central Ottawa County. The trail would begin on Croswell Street at Lakeshore Avenue, travel east on Croswell to U.S. 31, travel north on 146th to Stanton and along Stanton Street to 96th Avenue, where it would be built south to Taylor Street and then follow Taylor east to 56th Street. There it would be built south to Bauer Road and then east until it connected to an existing widened paved shoulder in Georgetown Township. This trail would provide linkage to the county park and mountain biking area at 124th Avenue and the Ottawa County Government Center at 120th Avenue. A separated pathway would be built along 96th Avenue from Riley Street in Zeeland north to Lake Michigan Drive, where it would be built west to 104th Avenue and then travel north to a non-motorized pathway proposed to be built along the Grand River. A separated pathway (Grand River Greenway) is identified from 144th Avenue in Grand Haven Township to travel generally eastward following Green Street and Cedar Street and then along an alignment paralleling the Grand River to Kent County. This greenway would offer scenic vistas, provide linkages to parks and mountain biking areas, and connections to several other regional trails. 23

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

A separated non-motorized pathway would be built from the Grand River Greenway at Lake Michigan Drive along Luce Street east to Kent County. This greenway trail would offer scenic vistas, provide linkages to parks and mountain biking areas, and connections to several other regional trails.

CORRADINO 3.3.4 North A widened paved road shoulder is identified along Leonard Street linking Grand Haven with Kent County. A separated pathway providing connections across northern Ottawa County would be built beginning at Leonard Street and 144th Avenue. It would travel east along Leonard to 112th Avenue, where it would be constructed north to Cleveland Street. It would follow Cleveland to 88th Avenue and then go north to travel east again along an abandoned rail corridor to the City of Coopersville, where it would connect into Coopersville’s trail system. East of Coopersville, a separated pathway would be built along Cleveland Street to the Musketawa Trail.

3.3.5 Major Connecting Segments A separated pathway is shown in Grand Haven to link the existing trail network with Ferrysburg and Spring Lake Township. The conceptual path will hook into a planned path proposed to cross the Grand River. A four-foot widened paved road shoulder would connect Lakeshore Avenue with Margaret Avenue on Lake Michigan, thus providing a linkage between the trail system and Lake Michigan. A non-motorized pathway is proposed for Grand Haven from Mercury Drive west to U.S. 31. A separate pathway would be constructed from the southern terminus of the Musketawa Rail-Trail to the Kent County line.

In Figure 3-3, the conceptual pathways are shown with the existing, planned, and proposed pathways. Also shown are utility easements, which may be available for future development.

Figure 3-4 presents the regional non-motorized pathway network bringing in those counties adjacent to Ottawa. The implementation of the Ottawa County conceptual pathways will provide connections to Kent County north and south of Grand Rapids.

3.4 Cost and Pathway Prioritization The consideration of costs for developing the non-motorized pathway system in Ottawa County must include construction, engineering, and sometimes property acquisition. In the Macatawa Area Coordination Council (MACC) jurisdiction within the county, most easements for pathway development have been donated by the owners or acquired for a nominal fee. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present the costs for the construction of the non-motorized pathway system in Ottawa County based on current construction costs and 2002 dollars. Table 3-1 is organized by section as defined above while Table 3-2 presents the cost by local unit of government.

Page

Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Table 3-1 Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study Conceptual Pathway Summary

CORRADINO 2 Pathway Description Length (miles)Construction Cost1 Priority Lakeshore Avenue Paved Shoulder 19.05 $1,042,500 Mid-range Riley Street Paved Shoulder 11.5 $1,150,000 Long-range Chicago Drive Paved Shoulder 7.75 $ 775,000 Mid-range Macatawa River Greenway/ 18.5 $2,930,400 Short-range Byron Road Connector Stanton/Taylor/Bauer 18.75 $2,970,000 Short-range Separated Pathway 96th Avenue Separated Pathway 15 $2,376,000 Mid-range Grand River Greenway 26.3 $4,165,920 Short-range Luce Street Separated Pathway 5 $ 792,000 Mid-range Leonard/Cleveland Street East-West 14.75 $2,336,400 Mid-range Separated Pathway Leonard Street Paved Shoulder 25.35 $2,535,000 Short-range Segment 1- Grand Haven Trail Linkage 0.4 $ 63,360 Short-range Segment 2 - Mercury Drive Connector 1.6 $ 253,440 Mid-range Segment 3 - Olive Shore 1 $ 100,000 Long-range Avenue Paved Shoulder Segment 4 - Greenly Street 0.5 $ 79,200 Mid-range Separated Pathway Segment 5 - Angling Road/ 3.5 $ 554,400 Long-range Barry Street Connector Separated Pathway Segment 6 - Lake Michigan Drive 2 $ 200,000 Short-range Paved Shoulder Segment 7 - 120th Avenue 1 $ 158,400 Long-range Connector Segment 8 - Musketawa Rail-Trail Connector 1.75 $ 277,200 Short-range Segment 9 - Tyler Street Connector 0.25 $ 25,000 Mid-range Paved Shoulder Segment 10 - 32nd Street 2 $ 200,000 Mid-range Paved Shoulder Segment 11 - Port Sheldon Street/ 2 $ 316,800 Mid-range 28th Avenue Separated Pathway TOTAL 177.95 $23,301,020

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Table 3-2 Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study Conceptual Pathway System By Local Unit of Government

Subtotal 23.05 17.5 $5,077,000

Source: The Corradino Group 28

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Unit costs for construction were based on developing four-foot wide paved shoulders and ten-foot wide separated pathways. Asphalt construction was assumed. Property acquisition was not included. The estimated cost of one mile of ten-foot wide non-motorized pathway is $164,000. The estimated cost to construct a widened pave road shoulder is based on paving

CORRADINO one foot of shoulder at $12,500 per mile or $25,000 for both sides of the road. The costs for paved shoulders reflect the existing status of the road on which it was programmed (i.e., if it had or was planned to have a paved shoulder of specific width, the cost for improvement was based on the extra width necessary to achieve the four-foot minimum standard.)

The total construction cost for the non-motorized pathway network is approximately $23 million. Engineering costs, including contingency are typically 15 to 20 percent over and above total construction costs. Right-of-way acquisition can range from zero percent to 10 percent over and above construction costs.

Table 3-1 also identifies the proposed priority (i.e., short-range, mid-range or long-range) for each conceptual pathway based on an evaluation conducted by the consultant that reflects:

Connections to activity centers Scenic/recreational opportunities Linking to gaps in the non-motorized network Multi-use capacity Cost/ease of implementation

These priorities do not preclude a local unit of government elevating a “mid- or long-range” priority project in its jurisdiction to a higher priority.

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO 4. Economic Benefits

The Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway plan calls for spending more than $20 million over 15 years to develop a connected bicycle/pedestrian pathway system in the County. The funds could come from grants, state and federal programs, such as the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, and local private and public sources.

Several studies have attempted to identify the benefits that accompany development of a non-motorized pathway system. The benefits can generally be grouped into the following categories:

Personal satisfaction, health, and recreation Increased revenues from tourism Increased business activity and employment

But, the information available to determine these benefits is very limited. Nevertheless, two recent studies are cited here. One was completed by Michigan State University. It focused on the Pere Marquette Rail-Trail in the Midland, Mich., region.1 It provides a view of the benefits that individuals, communities, and businesses receive from residents and tourists using a rail-trail as transportation, and for exercise and recreation. The second study cited in this review is Bicycle Tourism in Maine: Economic Impacts and Marketing.2 It focuses on estimating the total economic impact of bicycle tourism in the state of Maine and developing marketing recommendations to increase bicycle tourism.

In Ottawa County, there is direct evidence of the benefits a popular non-motorized pathway can bring. The owners of Fenian’s Irish Pub in Conklin cite Muskatawa Rail-Trail as being “absolutely wonderful” and very good for their business.

4.1 Personal Satisfaction, Health, and Recreation One of the tasks in the Pere Marquette study focused on businesses and residents located adjacent to or near the trail to understand the knowledge, involvement and use of the rail-trail by people with relatively easy access to it. It also assessed business owner/operator and resident perceptions about the rail-trail’s influence on quality-of-life issues. To do so, surveys were conducted of adjacent business owners/operators and residents on the portion of the trail in Midland County. Some of the study’s results are examined here to establish a reference point for assessing benefits for Ottawa County residents.

1 A Case Study Measuring Economic and Community Benefits of Michigan’s Pere Marquette Rail-Trail, Research Conducted by Christine Vogt, Ph.D., Charles Nelson, Ph.D., Joel Lynch, Ph.D., the Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. (www.prr.msu.edu/trails/pere_marquette_rail), 2002. 2 Bicycle Tourism in Maine: Economic Impacts and Marketing, Final Report, prepared for the Office of Passenger Transportation, Maine Department of Transportation, prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, April 2001. 29

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

The Pere Marquette Rail-Trail of Midland County, Mich., extends 22 miles from the City of Midland to Coleman. The trail was developed from 1992 to 1995 as a paved, non-motorized facility to serve a variety of uses, such as walking/running, bicycling, and in-line skating. In 2001, the paved portion of the trail was extended an additional six miles through adjoining

CORRADINO Isabella County to the east side of Clare.

In April 2000, all nearby businesses and adjacent residents of the trail in Midland County were mailed a survey. A follow-up postcard mailing was sent to encourage participation. Eventually, responses were received from 86 of 142 business owners/operators and 157 of 277 residential landowners. Quoting from the study:

“Businesses viewed the influence of the rail-trail as very positive for both the community and the County as a whole. Businesses were more neutral about the influence of the trail on their neighborhoods and employees. Overall, residents rated the trail less positively than businesses. Residents thought the trail had the most positive influence on the County, followed by the community. Many residents indicated the rail-trail has had little effect on the quality of their neighborhoods. The majority of businesses and residents believed the trail made no difference in the value of their property and the speed at which it would sell. However, more than a quarter (28%) of the residents felt the rail-trail would reduce selling time. Eighty percent of businesses and 70 percent of residents felt the rail-trail was a better situation than the abandoned railroad right-of-way. Only 2 percent of businesses and 12 percent of residents felt the rail-trail was worse use of the land.3 ”

The Executive Summary of the Pere Marquette Rail-Trail Study indicated that, on the whole, the trail is well liked and used throughout the year by County residents. In fact, two-thirds of Midland County residents had used the trail in the past 12 months. Approximately half of these visit the trail once a month or more frequently and the other half use the trail a few times per year. The most common activities in which users engage are walking, biking and roller-blading. A key finding of the PMRT study was that while support for the rail-trail was low during the planning and design stages, it is high today. In general, residents indicate the rail-trail has positively influenced their lives and community.

The existing non-motorized pathway system in Ottawa County is comprised primarily of separated bike paths in urban areas and the Lakeshore Avenue and Muskatawa regional trails. As with similar trails in other locations, these are used extensively by families and residents for recreation and exercise. Based on the Pere Marquette study, the following is an estimate of the use the system could generate annually.

As can be seen, non-tourist users are expected to spend 1,142,600 user days on the Ottawa County trail system. This is the use that can be expected today! On the other hand, 285,650 tourist user days are expected annually when it is completely connected as this Non- Motorized Plan indicates. Each of these figures includes walkers, runners, roller-bladers and bicyclists.

3 Research Report Executive Summaries, A Case Study Measuring Economic and Community Benefits of Michigan’s Pere Marquette Rail-Trail, 2002 (see Footnote 1 for detail) 30

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

4.2 Revenues from Tourism The non-motorized pathway network in Ottawa County currently offers benefits to residents, and there is the opportunity for a complete network to provide a tourism boost for the County. CORRADINO Tourists spent nearly $80 million in the County in 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available by the Michigan State University Tourism Resource Center). Although information is not available on breakdown by purpose of the expenditure, it is likely that much of the tourism dollar is spent during the summer on activities associated with Lake Michigan. This is evidenced by a review of lodging tax collections for the County which peak in July and August.4

The State of Maine has a climate and natural features similar to many parts of Michigan. About $5.4 billion is spent on tourism in Maine annually while a similar amount ($5.1 billion in 1996) is spent on tourism in Michigan. In 2001, a study was prepared documenting Bicycle Tourism in Maine: Economic Impacts and Marketing.5 It includes data that indicate: total spending per bicyclist on a Maine bike tour ranged from $10 to $50 for a one-day trip to more than $600 per person for trips over seven days. The average direct impact per “biker day” for cyclists who stayed overnight is estimated at about $60, attributable to spending on food, lodging, transportation, and other services and fees. Overnight travel represented five percent of the total biker-days. For single-day trips (i.e., without overnight stays and representing 95% of all biker-days), the study provided data by which it can be estimated that the average direct impact per biker day was close to $15. So, on a weighted average basis, the direct effect per biker day is about $17 (.05($60) + .95($15) » $17).

The Maine study also addressed the indirect/induced, or “multiplier,” effects of bicycle tourism that result from the direct expenditures being “turned over” in the economy. A sophisticated economic model known as RIMS-11 was used. The results indicate the multiplier of direct impacts to determine indirect/induced effects is 0.85 for each of the overnight-stay biker days and single biker days. So, the total economic effect per biker-day is approximately $30 ($17 + (.85)($17) » $30 per biker day). It is also noteworthy that the Maine study demonstrated that for every $100,000 of bicycle tourism economic effects, two jobs are created in the economy.

4.3 Economic Effects in Ottawa County 4.3.1 Tourism With the economic data per tourist biker-day available from the Maine study, plus the forecast of the amount of trail use in Ottawa County by tourists as well as residents, an estimate of economic activity can be gauged. The optimum forecast could assume all tourism use of the trails is by bicyclists. However, that isn’t reasonable. So, a range of 25 to 50 percent of the total “tourism trail use” is established based upon judgment. This range equates with a total economic effect due to tourism of from $2 million ($30 per day x 285,650 biker-days per year x .25 » $2 million per year) to $4 million per year ($30 per day x 285,650 biker-days per year x .50 » $4 million per year). This is considered a “net new” economic effect associated with completing the plan included in this document.

4 Michigan State University Tourism Resource Center (www.tourismcenter.msu.edu) 5 See Footnote 2 31

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

4.3.2 Non-Tourism The economic impact of non-tourism also needs to be measured. But, there are no data available on the dollars of economic stimulus generated by local residents who jog, walk,

CORRADINO roller-blade or bicycle in a community just due to the trail/pathway system. The consultant has estimated, based upon judgment, this would be as little as five percent to as much as 20 percent of the touring bicyclists’ economic effects per user-day. This then equates with an annual economic impact of $1.7 million ($30 per day x 5% x 1,142,600 user-days » $1.7 million per year) to $6.8 million ($30 per day x 20% x 1,142,600 user-days » $6.8 million per year).

4.3.3 Reasonableness of Estimates Non-Tourism To gauge the reasonableness of these two estimates, consider first that the non-tourist trail use is associated with: 1) “avid” joggers/bicyclists; and, 2) “casual” walkers/runners/bicyclists. The data presented on Table 4-1 indicate these groups in Ottawa County number 2,695 and 24,250, respectively. Assuming that the avid joggers/bicyclists spend an average of $400 per year on gear, etc., then their direct expenditure would be about $1.1 million per year (2,695 joggers/bicyclists x $400 per year » $1.1 million).

Table 4-1 Forecast of Annual User Daysa Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway System (All Users)

Annual Local Calculation of Number of Users Factor User Days (rounded) 50% of households use trails two times per year 26,948 x 2 53,900 25% of households use trails two times per month 13,474 x 24 323,400 10% of households use trails one time per month 5,389 x 12 64,700 10% households use trails one time per week 5,389 x 52 280,200 5% of households use trails daily (assume three times per week) 2,695 x 3 x 52 420,400 Subtotal: Local Use 1,142,600 Tourism Use (Multiplier = 25%)a 1,142,569 x .25 285,650 aBased on countywide survey in Midland County, Mich., for the Pere Marquette Rail Trail Study.

Next, assuming each “casual” walker/jogger/bicyclist spends $100 per year on gear, etc., the result would be an additional direct effect of $2.4 million (24,250 users x $100 per year » $2.4 million). In total then, the direct expenditures by the residents of the area could be approximated at $3.5 million annually ($1.1 million + $2.4 million). Adding the induced/indirect effects (an 85% add-on) would bring this total annual economic activity of residents to $6.5 million. This compares to the high end of the range established earlier (i.e., $6.8 million), based upon assumptions derived from a combination of the Pere Marquette and Maine studies. 32

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

To further assess the reasonableness of these data, representative stores in the Ottawa County bicycle and athletic shoe industry (one store for each category) were interviewed. They indicated annual sales/rentals of bicycle-related equipment and sales of

CORRADINO walking/running gear by specialty and mass merchant stores in the County to be $20 million. If five percent of that annual direct expenditure (i.e., $1 million) were associated with the trail system, that would represent the low end of the range derived earlier from the Maine and Pere Marquette studies. The high end of the range ($6.8 million reduced to $3.7 million when accounting for only direct expenditures) would mean that about 35 percent of the total sales of bicycle/walking/running expenditures in the County is associated with the trail system. Again, this range of up to 35 percent is not considered to be unreasonable. So, it is possible to conclude that from $2 million to about $7 million per year is currently being experienced as a ripplewave in the economy associated with the residents’ use of the existing trailway system.

Tourism The 285,650 trail-user days identified earlier is considered “new” activity because by having a fully-connected and comprehensive system, the County would be much more attractive to the tourists. It was estimated earlier that this would generate economic activity from $2 million to $4 million per year, which could support 20 to 40 net new jobs in the community. This represents a 2.5 to five percent increase in the County’s current $80 million annual tourism economic activity, if the trail system were completed and available for use today. This estimate, again, is not considered unreasonable.

4.4 Conclusion The economic effects of a comprehensive non-motorized pathway system will principally be associated with expenditures by residents and tourists connected to their use of the system. And, while, admittedly, the data available upon which to measure these economic effects are limited, indications are that the trail/pathway system that currently exists in Ottawa County, is generating $1.7 to $6.8 million per year in direct, indirect and induced economic effects. Today, the amount of economic stimulus of tourists’ use of the current trail system is considered quite limited. However, if the system as now proposed is completed, the additional annual economic effect associated with it could range from $2 million to $4 million per year (direct, indirect and induced effects). The latter could stimulate 20 to 40 net new jobs in the economy. And, while the tax revenues generated locally from these tourist- related activities are unknown, it is clear that generating $2 million to $4 million per year in new economic activity over the life of the trailway system (10 years before major rebuilding) would be a boost that allows the trailway system to be recognized as not only a quality-of-life enhancer but an economically viable public works project.

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

CORRADINO 5. Implementation Strategy

Key issues in the development of a functional, multi-jurisdictional network will be organization, getting started, construction, signage, and maintenance. The following sections discuss each of these areas. Lastly, an implementation strategy is proposed.

5.1 Organization and Getting Started The conceptual pathway system identified in this report illustrates pathways that pass through multiple local units of government. For the pathway system to develop in an orderly fashion, there will need to be a unified coordination. Coordination could be facilitated through:

A countywide committee and/or An independent authority established to work with local units to develop the network

“Getting Started” can be daunting! The needs are overwhelming, resources are scarce, and there is no one entity responsible. Every community is faced with the questions “Where do I start?” and “How do I get going?”

A “Friends” organization is one way the plan could be implemented. This organization would work with local units to get projects built. Ideally, this committee would be formed in 2002 and focus on establishing a funding base and a priority project(s).

The “Friends” organization will begin as an advisory group through a collaboration with the Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission and Ottawa County Planning and Grants. The organization should meet on a quarterly basis and could include representatives of the following:

Bicycling community Bicycle/athletic stores Government leaders Ottawa County Road Commission Chamber of Commerce/Convention and Visitors Bureau Interested private citizens Local public transit system representatives

The objectives of this organization will be to help promote the non-motorized pathway plan, build consensus for implementation, identify funding and grant opportunities (which could be applied for by local units of government), and eventually become its own organization. In the second year of its existence, the potential of incorporating the “Friends” organization as a non-profit entity so that it can apply for and receive funding should be considered. This organization would optimally have the ability to work with and support local units of 34

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

government throughout the county to achieve the goals set out in the Ottawa County Non- Motorized Pathway Plan. The funding base for the non-motorized plan could be used to leverage foundations, grants, state and federal funding. The Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission has an

CORRADINO open space program that is currently funded through a property tax millage. In addition, there are township and city millages in several communities that have been established to develop non-motorized pathways. A special millage appears to be a possible course to follow (refer to Section 5.3). This new millage would be used to create and maintain the regional non-motorized pathway network. It would be dedicated to both existing and new regional facilities.

An important element in getting started will be establishing a process for property acquisition. Many of the pathways built in the County have been constructed on donated right-of-way. However, it can be expected that for some projects a strategy for property acquisition will be needed.

5.2 Construction, Signage and Maintenance The jurisdictions responsible for operation, maintenance, and policing of bicycle facilities should be established prior to construction. In Ottawa County, these will be either the Ottawa County Road Commission officials or the local unit of government.

5.2.1 Construction The conceptual projects identified in the non-motorized network are widened paved road shoulders and separated pathways. The design of these facilities would be developed in consideration of AASHTO, MDOT and local standards.

The following issues must be considered prior to construction. These are usually handled by the local unit’s engineer or a consulting engineer.

1. Permits that may be necessary:

Ottawa County Road Commission (for work in right-of-way) Ottawa County Drain Commission Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Permit (for work on or near inland lakes and streams, flood plains, etc) MDOT Permit (for work in State right of way)

2. Drainage – Upon completion of the project, surface water must drain the same or better than prior to the project. Storm sewer or culverts are required in most separated pathway and paved shoulder projects in Ottawa County.

3. Subbase Construction – Some areas may require large amounts of fill to bring a separated pathway to the desired grade. In sandy areas, this is no issue, but in clay one must be sure that water does not become trapped in the subbase. Soil borings are often necessary to determine the subsurface conditions.

4. In many cases, especially for projects requiring State and Federal money, construction drawings must be certified by a licensed professional engineer. Also 35

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

many of the required permits require an engineer’s certification. During construction, it is important that an inspector provide inspections during construction. 5. The construction effort must be coordinated with all local utilities. In many project, there are conflicts where a utility pole or pedestal needs to be relocated or the design

CORRADINO location of the pathway changed.

The design and construction of a paved shoulder will very closely match the design of the existing road. Typically, a paved shoulder on a typical road is between two- and six-feet wide and up to eight-inches thick. Eight inches of asphalt are placed in two separate four- inch thick courses (layers) with a bond coat between them. A typical paved shoulder cross section can consist of a top course of Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) 4B bituminous mixture, a base course of MDOT 13A bituminous mixture on top of a 12-inch thick gravel base.

The typical separated non-motorized pathway described in this study is ten feet wide and 2½ inches thick. The 2½ inches of asphalt are placed in two separate courses (layers) with a bond coat between them. The cross section consists of a 1¼-inch thick top course of MDOT 36A bituminous mixture and a 1¼-inch thick base course of MDOT 13A bituminous mixture on top of a six-inch thick compacted gravel base.

5.2.2 Signage Signage for the regional non-motorized pathway network should be considered with the design standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices1 (MUTCD). Chapter 9 of the MUTCD provides guidance for signs, pavement markings, and traffic signals specifically related to bicycle operation on both roadways and share-use paths. Consideration should be given to the fact that signs on some facilities will also be viewed and used by pedestrians and/or motorists.

In addition, signage for information and pathway themes may be included. These signs can provide guidance to points of interest, major generators, and staging areas as well as “rules of the pathway.”

This plan identifies several widened paved road shoulder projects. These facilities should be considered for signing as bikeways. Paved shoulders should not be marked as bikeways unless they meet the AASHTO width guidelines. It is important to recognize that widened paved shoulders do not need to be signed to be used by and be beneficial to cyclists. However, recent studies indicate that both cyclists and motorists are more comfortable and confident on roads with striped lanes. The AASHTO Guide describes signed shared roadways (bike routes on an active traveled road) as “those that have been identified as preferred bike routes” and provides the following reasons:

Continuing between bicycle lanes, trails, or other facilities Marking a common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor Directing cyclists to low volume roads or those with a paved shoulder Directing cyclists to particular destinations

The widened paved road shoulders identified in this plan are important to connecting the existing non-motorized pathway resources in Ottawa County. Striping and signing the

1 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition with Incorporated Revision No. 1 Changes, December 28, 2001, U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration, “http://muted.fhwa.dot.gov. 36

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

widened paved shoulders identified in this plan along with existing and planned regional facilities (such as M-45) will enhance system connectivity and be attractive to touring cyclists and commuters.

CORRADINO 5.2.3 Maintenance The maintenance of the non-motorized pathway network includes the various activities involved in keeping the paths in a safe, usable condition. This includes numerous efforts ranging from mowing and brush removal, to replacement of damaged signs or benches, to reconstruction of the trail. Lifetime trail maintenance will place ongoing costs on the operating agency. This should be considered during the trail planning and funding process.

Maintenance and Cleaning of Paved Road Shoulders Paved road shoulders identified in this report will be wide shoulders that allow cyclists greater latitude in using the roadway. It is anticipated that they will be rebuilt on a schedule similar to the roadways. The Ottawa County Road Commission should institute a schedule of regular sweeping and inspection to ensure that the shoulders are functional for bicyclist use.

Maintenance and Cleaning of Separated Pathways In most cases in Ottawa County, the local unit of government in which a non-motorized pathway is located will have primary responsibility for its operation and maintenance. Local private and non-profit groups may cooperate in maintaining the quality of the overall system.

Non-motorized pathways differ greatly in their maintenance requirements. Table 5-1 outlines general guidelines for maintenance activities and the frequency at which they should be performed.

Table 5-1 Recommended Maintenance

Frequency Maintenance Performed By Tree/Brush clearing and mowing Sweeping Map/signage updates Trash removal/litter clean up Local units, As Needed Replace/repair trail support amenities Volunteers (parking lots, benches, restrooms, etc.) Repair flood damage: silt clean up, culvert clean out, etc. Patching/minor regarding/concrete panel replacement Snow grooming Snow plowing Seasonal Planting/pruning/beautification Local units Culvert clean out Installation/removal of seasonal signange Surface evaluation to determine need for Yearly patching/regarding Local units Evaluate support services to determine need for repair/ replacement 37

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Repaint or repair trash receptacles, benches, signs, and Local units, 5-year other trail amenities, if necessary Volunteers Sealcoat asphalt trails 10-year Resurface/regrade/restripe trail Local units

CORRADINO 20-year Replace/reconstruct trail Local units Source: Iowa Trails 2000, Iowa Department of Transportation. Asphalt pathways and shoulders can be expected to withstand most conditions. They are susceptible, however, to freeze/thaw cycles and particular care should be taken to fix holes and cracks. Left without repair, holes and cracks in asphalt pavement get larger, eventually causing safety hazards. During the yearly evaluation, preferably in spring, special attention should be given to marking and repairing breaks in the surface.

Maintenance costs will vary greatly depending on the type of pathway, available resources, and geographic location of the trail. These costs, however, must be considered during the trail planning process, to ensure that trail owners can pay for the ongoing maintenance of the trails they develop.

Routine maintenance includes all the general activities — such as brush clearing, trash collection, and sweeping — that may take place on a regular basis throughout a season Minor repairs refer to activities that can be expected every five years or so, such as amenity replacement, trail sealcoating, repainting, or restriping Major reconstruction refers to significant expenditures involving resurfacing or reconstruction. These activities are the most costly trail maintenance activities and should be planned for in advance

Activities that should be considered routine maintenance include:

Yearly facility evaluation to determine the need for minor repairs Tree/brush clearing Mowing Map/signage updates Trash removal/litter clean up Repair flood damage: silt clean up, culvert clean out, etc. Patching, minor regrading, or concrete panel replacement Snow grooming and/or plowing for winter-use trails Planting, pruning, and general beautification Installation and removal of seasonal signage

The yearly cost for routine maintenance depends on the capabilities of the trail owner and the amount of volunteer labor used. In general, yearly routine maintenance costs can be estimated at $1,500 per mile.2 This figure assumes a single season trail, and may increase if a trail is groomed or plowed for winter use.

The need for minor repairs should be determined by a yearly facility evaluation (see routine maintenance above). Minor repairs may include the following activities:

2 Iowa Trails 2000, State of Iowa Department of Transportation, 2000. 38

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Replacement, repair, or repainting of trail support amenities, such as restrooms, signage, benches, trash receptacles, or hitching posts Replacement of a portion of the trail Restriping of trails CORRADINO Sealcoating of asphalt trails

The cost for replacement, repair, or repainting of trail amenities is based on the initial cost of those amenities. Trail operators should maintain records of the general costs of trail amenities as a means of estimating future repair and replacement costs. If custom elements, such as lighting, decorative railings, or benches, are used in trail design, the trail owner should consider ordering extra elements at the time of construction and storing them for future use, thereby defraying the cost of single-runs later.

Replacement of a portion of a trail may be necessary if severe flooding, continual erosion, or weak soils cause paving failure. Sealcoating of asphalt trails should take place approximately every five years. This will increase the longevity of the trail and provide a quality riding surface. When performed, sealcoating will cost approximately $5,800 per mile for a 10-foot multi-use trail. A periodic cost such as this should be included in the local unit’s Capital Improvement Program, in order to ensure that adequate funding is available.

There are essentially two activities that are considered to be major reconstructions:

Resurfacing of asphalt pathways Complete replacement, regrading, and resurfacing of all pathways

Asphalt trails will need to be resurfaced approximately every 10 years. Resurfacing typically involves placing an overlay on an existing asphalt surface to erase cracks and bumps. It is not a perfect solution, as weak underlying soils or tree root penetration will eventually affect this top layer, but it does offer a lower cost means of extending a trail’s life. Table 5-2 offers some typical costs for asphalt resurfacing.

Table 5-2 Asphalt Resurfacing Costs1

Trail Type 1-inch overly 2-inch overlay

6-foot pedestrian trail $7,920 per mile $15,840 per mile

10-foot multi-use trail $13,200 per mile $26,400 per mile 1 The cost for one-inch overlay is $2.25/square yard and for two-inch overlay is $4.50/ square yard.

Source: Iowa Trails 2000, Iowa Department of Transportation

Complete replacement of a trail involves removing the existing facility, regrading the trail base, and resurfacing the facility. This kind of comprehensive maintenance will be necessary approximately every 20 years, regardless of pathway type. Pathway costs for reconstructions are the same (in year 2000 dollars) as the cost of a new trail plus the cost of demolishing the existing trail. Cost estimates used to develop the conceptual costs presented 39

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

in Chapter 3 give a general overview of replacement costs. As with any major trail project, however, a detailed cost estimate should be performed during the project planning stages. The best guide for estimating the replacement cost of a trail is to consider the original construction cost.

CORRADINO A major cost such as pathway replacement should be considered well in advance. It may be more difficult to secure state or federal grants for reconstruction. Therefore, the local unit of government responsible for the pathway should consider the eventual cost of replacement and work to “budget” for that significant maintenance activity.

It is important to note that the per-mile costs listed above may vary drastically, depending on the trail’s location and the construction schedule. Trail cost estimates throughout the project should always be reviewed by a qualified engineer or other design professional. It is not unusual for actual trail costs to exceed initial estimates.

The following items are commonly found in non-motorized pathway projects. Because of their variability of type and, therefore, cost, specific unit cost numbers are not included.

Boardwalks Fencing, either for safety or ornamental reasons (or both) Walls Special drainage considerations, such as fabrics and soil supplements in wet areas Interpretive facilities Associated parks, trailheads, or other amenities besides basic access points and rest areas Other custom design elements, such as bridges, walls, signage, pavement markings, bollards, benches, trash cans, or bicycle racks

5.3 Funding Most of the existing pathways developed in Ottawa County were built using local funding from property tax millages. In general, funding to implement the Non-Motorized Pathways Plan can be expected to come from:

Local units of government, through millage or general fund State and federal grant programs Private individuals, families, corporations, foundations, which can be used to leverage public funds

5.3.1 Local Units of Government Local units of government in Ottawa County that have constructed non-motorized pathways have generally used a dedicated bikepath millage. These include local units of government in the Holland-Zeeland area and Grand Haven and Spring Lake Township. The Musketawa Trail, an abandoned rail line, was purchased and developed by the state through MDOT. The Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission currently manages the section that runs from Marne to Ravenna.

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

5.3.2 Federal, State, and Private Funding Sources Primary Funding Sources

CORRADINO The TEA-21 Enhancements Program is the largest source of non-motorized pathway funding in Michigan. In TEA-21, a transportation enhancement involves a number of activities including “provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists,” “provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists,” and “preservation of abandoned railway corridors” including the conversion and use of the corridor for pedestrian or bicycle trails. Currently, there is about $20 million awarded annually to enhancement projects on a competitive basis throughout Michigan. About 20 percent of all proposals are funded.

Annual Available Funds: $20 million (FY 2002) Contact: Mike Eberlien, MDOT Enhancement Program Manager, 517-335-3040 Funding Cycle: Applications taken in April and October Appropriate Eligible Projects: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, pedestrian and bicycle safety and education programs, and acquisition of scenic or historic easements.

The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) is available to both the Department of Natural Resources and local units of government for the acquisition of land for outdoor recreation and natural resource protection and for the development of appropriate facilities to provide for outdoor recreation opportunities. The MNRTF is supported by revenues from the development of state-owned oil, gas, and other natural resources.

Annual Available Funds: Between $12 million and $25 million (FY 2002) Contact: Jim Wood, Grants Administration Division, 517-335-4050 Funding Cycle: Applications due April 1 Appropriate Eligible Projects: Acquisition or development of trailways that contribute to an overall state trail system.

Grants. Grants are available from a number of foundations and organizations. Local Funding. Funding for local systems in Ottawa County has generally come from local millages. Local land trusts, other special interest groups, service clubs and interested individuals could be encouraged to donate time, money and materials.

Other Potential Funding Sources The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) may be appropriate for Ottawa County. CMAQ provides funds for eligible urbanized areas (those that are considered non-attainment for air pollution standards). The National Recreational Trails Fund monies may be used for trail projects. Of the funds allocated to a state, 30 percent must be used for non-motorized trail uses, and 40 percent for diverse trail uses (any combination). At least 30 percent of the funds must be used for motorized recreation, 30 percent for non-motorized recreation and 40 percent is discretionary for diversified/mixed use. The National Highway System (NHS) funds may be used to construct bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways on land adjacent to any highway on the National Highway System. 41

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists are eligible under the various categories of the Federal Lands Highway Program in conjunction with roads, highways and parkways. Priority for funding projects is determined by the appropriate federal agency or Tribal government.

CORRADINO National Scenic Byways Program funds may be used for construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along scenic byways. Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants are available to support projects including bicycle-related services, designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from employment. Federal Transit Program Urbanized Area formula Grants, Capitalized Investment Grants and Loans, and Formula Program for Other Urbanized Area transit funds can be used for improving bicycle and pedestrian access to transit facilities and vehicles. River and Trails Conservation Assistance Program. This program, administered by the National Park Service, provides planning and organizational assistance for community projects that promote nature-based recreation and conservation projects, including trails. Resource Conservation and Development Funds. This program, administered by the U.S. National Resources and Conservation Service, provides 50 percent matching funds for recreation projects, including parks and land acquisition. The funding is available to state and local government and non-profit organizations. Other Federal Programs. There are several other federal grants encouraging urban redevelopment, community non-profit groups and economic development that can be used for trails. These include Community Development Block Grants, the Entitlement Program and Small Cities Program. Franchise Fees. Franchise fees have been used in other states to help build non- motorized pathways. These occur when companies pay a fee for use of right-of-way. These may be appropriate in Ottawa County.

5.3.3 County Millage A new countywide millage could provide funds for development and maintenance of an interconnected regional network of non-motorized pathways in Ottawa County. It could also be used as matching funds to leverage monies from the state, federal and private programs listed above. Currently, in 2001 dollars, one mil in Ottawa County generates $6,677,000. Table 5-3 presents conceptually how much money could be raised through various levels of a millage and how long it might take to build the conceptual non-motorized pathway network. The table assumes that portions of the funds raised by a millage could be used to leverage an additional 30 percent in public and private funds.

Table 5-3 Potential Countywide Non-motorized Pathway Millage Analysis Estimated Funds Estimated T Countywide Annually Estimated Grant Funds Total Amount Dedicated Amount Required (years) to on-motorized 1 mil- Leveraged Non-motorized to Maintenance Amount Available for Conceptual Plan Complete Millage $6,677,000 (Assume 30%)* Funds Available (Assume 15%) for Construction ($25 million) Conceptual 0.1 $667,700 $200,310 $868,010 $130,202 $737,809 $25,000,000 34 0.25 $1,669,250 $500,775 $2,170,025 $325,504 $1,844,521 $25,000,000 14 0.5 $3,338,500 $1,001,550 $4,340,050 $651,008 $3,689,043 $25,000,000 7 0.75 $5,007,750 $1,502,325 $6,510,075 $976,511 $5,533,564 $25,000,000 5 1 $6,677,000 $2,003,100 $8,680,100 $1,302,015 $7,378,085 $25,000,000 3 *There are many competitive public and private programs with a range of matching grant requirements. The 30% assumption of new funds that could be generated is an estimate. 42

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Source: The Corradino Group 5.4 Recommendations The following initial recommendations have been developed to support the realization of the CORRADINO Non-Motorized Pathways Plan.

An organizational mechanism should be formed. This should be developed as a “Friends” group to work with local government. Coordination with bicycle store owners, bicycle and jogging clubs, tourist organizations, etc. should be facilitated to generate support for the plan. A countywide non-motorized millage should be considered to create a funding base that can be used to build, maintain, and replace regional pathways and also to leverage government grants and funds from foundations. The non-motorized plan being developed by the Macatawa Area Coordination Council (MACC) for the Holland-Zeeland area should be incorporated into the County plan. The Ottawa County Road Commission and County Transportation Planner should be encouraged to add paved shoulders on all new construction in the county. The Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Plan and the existing and future network should be considered as an integral element of the county transportation network. The transit systems in Holland and Grand Haven should be encouraged to explore acquisition of bike racks for their buses. Grants should be sought on the basis of the non-motorized network to have congestion-mitigation and air quality benefits. As the non-motorized network is developed and marketed, its applicability as a commuter system as well as a recreational system should be emphasized. All local, county and state projects, particularly those on roads identified in this plan as having four-foot paved shoulders, should be reviewed for the possibility of including non-motorized considerations. It is important that as the non-motorized network is developed, the following issues are addressed: • Connecting the urbanized areas in the western part of the county with the urbanized areas in the east, including Grand Valley State University; • Developing where possible in natural commuter corridors (for example, along Chicago Drive from Hudsonville to the Holland/Zealand area). • Working to make Ottawa County a showplace for bicycle and pedestrian activity. Minimum design standards should be established. These include: • Paved shoulders should be a minimum of four feet in width if they are designated as pathways in the conceptual plan. Those shoulders identified as pathways in the plan should be considered for signing and striping as bike lanes. • Separated pathways should be designed to range from 8 to 12 or even 14 feet in width depending on the project use, available right-of-way, and the design of connecting trails. Staging areas should be identified as the non-motorized system is developed. Formal staging areas would be developed at major trailheads on the major separated pathways. Along the separated pathways, particularly destination facilities such as the Musketawa Trail, there should be restrooms and drinking water every three to five miles, parking and information every five to ten miles, signage from the roadway network to the staging areas, and telephone, covered shelters, benches and other amenities where desirable. 43

Page Final Report—Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathways Study

Signage for the non-motorized pathway system should be consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Guidance for bicycle operation on roadways and shared use paths. In addition, it is important that signage directing people to major destination trails be placed on major entry points into Ottawa County. CORRADINO Maintenance activities will typically be the responsibility of the local unit of government. As the countywide multi-jurisdictional network expands, it will be important to develop a coordinated approach to maintaining, repaving and replacement of the pathway network. This would be a good focal point for the “Friends” organization in the near-term. Local units of government should be encouraged to consider development of separated pathways and/or paved shoulders as opposed to sidewalks in ordinances regarding new development in suburban areas. Sidewalks would be appropriate for areas that are primarily residential but non-motorized pathways would be better suited for commercial and retail areas.

Page

Appendix A

Frequently Asked Questions

This section addresses common questions about recreational pathways. In Ottawa County, local units of government are primarily responsible for development of pathways in their jurisdictions. The Ottawa County Road Commission is responsible for roadway projects, including paved shoulders.

What is a non-motorized pathway? A non-motorized pathway is a road-separated path suitable for use by joggers, rollerbladers, walkers, and cyclists or a designated section of a roadway that has been designed or striped for bicycle use. Non-motorized pathways can include sidewalks, greenway trails, bicycle trails, bicycle lanes, and widened paved road shoulders.

Is a non-motorized pathway different from a bicycle path? A bike path is one type of non-motorized pathway. Widened paved road shoulders, bike lanes with pavement markings, and rail-trail are also non-motorized pathways.

What is a widened paved shoulder? A widened paved shoulder is a paved road shoulder that is wider than normal (typically three feet). The American Association of State and Highway Officials recommends a minimum of four feet.

What is a bike lane? A bike lane is a designated lane on a street, separated from the main road by a painted white line, that generally has diamond symbols marking it as a bike lane. These are commonly found in urban and suburban areas.

Who uses the non-motorized pathways? Pathways are used by a wide range of people, including walkers, joggers, rollerbladers, and cyclists.

Who builds the non-motorized pathways? In Ottawa County, most of the pathways have been built by local units of government (i.e., townships, cities, villages. The State of Michigan built the Musketawa Trail in northeastern Ottawa County.

How much does a non-motorized pathway cost to build? As a rule, a separated pathway will cost about $164,000 per mile for a ten-foot pathway and about $100,000 per mile for a four-foot paved shoulder. These costs are based on costs associated with development of similar facilities in Ottawa County and are in current (2001) dollars.

A-1 Where does the money come from to build and maintain a non-motorized pathway? In Ottawa County, most of the non-motorized pathways have been built with local funds generated by property tax millages. In some areas of the states, trails have been funded by foundations or private citizens. There are several state programs that have funds available for non-motorized pathways.

Who is responsible for maintenance of a non-motorized pathway? The Ottawa County Road Commission would be responsible for paved road shoulders on county roads. Local units of government are responsible for maintenance of separated pathways which are within their jurisdiction.

Where can I get more information on the Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway System? - Ottawa County Planning and Grants - 616.738.4852 - Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission - 616.738.4810

Where can I get more information on non-motorized pathways bicycle/pedestrian topics? Michigan Department of Transportation, Biking in Michigan “On-Road Bike Path Maps and Information” (www.mdot.state.mi.us/planning/mibike/onroad.htm)

League of Michigan Bicyclists (www.lmb.org)

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (www.dnr.state.mi.us)

Michigan Mountain Biking Association (www.mmba.org/index2.htm)

North Country Trail (www.northcountrytrail.org)

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (www.railtrails.org)

League of American Bicyclists (www.bikeleague.org/educenter/friendly.htm)

bicyclinginfo.org “bicycle information center” (www.bicyclinginfo.org)

walkinginfo.org “pedestrian information center” (www.walkinginfo.org)

Trails from Rails “Pathways to Adventure and Discovery” (www.trailsfromrails.com)

l:\projects\2665\wp\reports\final report\appa.doc

A-2

Appendix B

Pathway Inventory

Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study Existing Non-Motorized Pathways

Chester Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status Chester Twp CH1 Musketawa Trail Wilson St. to Squires Rd. R T/C GW Asphalt 3.1 12 State of Ottawa Co. Existing Michigan Parks

City of Ferrysburg

City of F1 North Shore Drive City Limits to 174th Ave. MJ R/G Paved Asphalt 2.5 4 Ferrysburg City Existing

Ferrysburg Shoulder

City of F2 Third Street 174th Ave. to Pine Street L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 8 Ferrysburg City Existing

Ferrysburg

City of F3 174th Avenue Dogwood Dr. to Third St. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Ferrysburg City Existing

Ferrysburg

City of F4 West Spring M-104 to City Limits R T Multi-use Asphalt 1.75 8 Ferrysburg City Existing Ferrysburg Lake Road

Village of Spring Lake

Village of SLV1 Abandoned Twp. Limits to Fruitport Rd. R T Multi-use Asphalt 1.75 8 Village of Village Existing

Spring Lake RR Grade Spr. Lake

Village of SLV2 Lake Avenue M-104 to Lloyd's Bayou R T Multi-use Concrete 0.5 5 Village of Village Existing Spring Lake Spr. Lake

Spring Lake Township

Spr. Lake Twp SL2 West Spring Twp. Limits to Hemlock St. R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 1.75 8 Spr. Lake Township Existing

Lake Road Twp

Spr. Lake Twp SL3 Fruitport Road County Line to Cleveland R T/C Paved Asphalt 2.8 8 Ottawa County Existing

Shoulder County

Spr. Lake Twp SL5 Leonard Street Lloyd's Bayou to 144th L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.25 8 Spr. Lake Township Existing

Twp

Spr. Lake Twp SL6 State Road Fruitport Rd. to 148th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.1 8 Spr. Lake Township Existing

Twp

Spr. Lake Twp SL7 Cleveland Street Fruitport Rd. to 144th Ave. R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 1.6 8 Spr. Lake Township Existing

Twp

Spr. Lake Twp SL8 148th Avenue State Rd. to Cleveland St. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.8 8 Spr. Lake Township Existing

Twp

Spr. Lake Twp SL9 152nd Avenue M-104 to Leonard L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.2 8 Spr. Lake Township Existing

Twp

Spr. Lake Twp SL12 174th Avenue Van Wagoner to Wilson L R/G Paved Asphalt 1.5 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Shoulder

Crockery Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Crockery Twp CR1 112th Avenue Cleveland to Wilson L R/G Paved Asphalt 3 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Shoulder

Polkton Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Polkton Twp PO1 68th Avenue Grand River to I-96 L R/G Paved Asphalt 3 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Shoulder

L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist City of Coopersville

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of C1 Randall Street 68th Avenue to East Street L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 1.5 5 City of City Existing

Coopersville Coopersville

City of C2 East Street Randall Street to L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 1 5 City of City Existing

Coopersville Cleveland Street Coopersville

City of C3 Main Street East Street to 64th Ave. L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.9 5 City of City Existing

Coopersville Coopersville

City of C4 Eastmanville Street Randall Street to L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.3 5 City of City Existing

Coopersville Main Street Coopersville

City of C5 Ottawa/Center Main Street to L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.6 5 City of City Existing Coopersville Streets 900' south of Cleveland Coopersville

Wright Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Wright Twp W1 Musketawa Trail Wilson St. to Garfield R T/C GW Asphalt 7.6 12 State Of Ottawa Co. Existing Michigan Parks

L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist City of Grand Haven

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status 1 City of GH1 North Shore Drive City Limits to North Pier MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.0 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH2 Harbor Drive Lake Ave. to Third Street L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.75 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH3 Third Street Harbor Dr. to Harbor Island L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH4 Harbor Island Path Third Street West L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH5 Columbus Street Harbor Dr. to Beacon Blvd. L R/G Paved Asphalt 0.75 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Shoulder Haven 1 City of GH6 Franklin Street Harbor Dr. to Beacon Blvd. L R/G Paved Asphalt 0.75 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Shoulder Haven 1 City of GH7 Lake Avenue Harbor Drive to Woodlawn L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.6 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH8 Woodlawn Avenue Lake Ave. to Sheldon L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH9 Grand Avenue Harbor Dr. to Sheldon L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 1.2 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH10 Sheldon Road Robbins Rd. to Pennoyer L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 1.0 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH11 Fifth Street Pennoyer to Franklin L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.25 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH12 Robbins Road Sheldon Rd. to Beacon L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.4 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH13 Beacon Boulevard Robbins Rd. to Franklin L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 1.2 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH14 Grant Street Beacon Blvd. to Ferry St. L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.25 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH15 Ferry Street Grant St. to Waverly Ave. L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.2 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH16 Waverly Avenue Ferry St. to Friant St. L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.9 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH17 Mercury Drive Friant St. to Moreland MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.2 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH18 Beechtree Street Hayes St. to Waverly MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.75 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH19 Robbins Road Beechtree St. to Moreland L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH20 Comstock Road Beechtree to City Limit L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH21 Harbor Drive Lake Ave. to Grand Ave. L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.5 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH24 Kooiman Street South of Taylor L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 NIA Grand City Existing

Grand Haven Haven 1 City of GH25 Gidley Street Friant to Moreland MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 NIA Grand City Existing Grand Haven Haven

1 No Information Available

L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist Grand Haven Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Gr. Haven Twp GHT1 Mercury Drive City Limits to 144th MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 3.3 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT2 Comstock Street 172nd to Mercury Drive L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.25 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT3 Hayes Street Lakeshore to 168th L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.8 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT4 Groesbeck Street 152nd to Mercury Drive L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.4 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT5 Ferris Street Lakeshore to 152nd L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.75 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT6 Lakeshore Drive Robbins to Fillmore R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 7 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT7 172nd Avenue Robbins to Hayes L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT8 168th Avenue Robbins to Ferris L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.5 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT9 160th Avenue Mercury to Comstock L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.7 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT10 152nd Avenue Groesbeck to Ferris L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.3 8 Grand Haven Township Existing

Twp.

Gr. Haven Twp GHT11 Lake Michigan Drive US 31 to 144th Ave. MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 2 5 MDOT OCRC Existing

Shoulder

Gr. Haven Twp GHT12 168th Avenue Ferris to Robbins L R/G Paved Asphalt 2.5 3 OCRC OCRC Existing

Shoulder

Gr. Haven Twp GHT13 Robbins Road Mercury Dr. to City L R/G Paved Asphalt 0.8 3 OCRC OCRC Existing

of Grand Haven Shoulder

Gr. Haven Twp GHT14 Comstock Street Mercury Dr. to 168th Ave. L R/G Paved Asphalt 1.8 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Shoulder

Robinson Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Robinson Twp R1 Lake Michigan 144th Ave. to 96th Ave. MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 6 5 MDOT OCRC Existing Drive Shoulder

Allendale Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Allendale Twp A1 Henry Street 68th Ave. to 64th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.0 5 Allendale Township Existing

Twp.

Allendale Twp A2 68th Avenue Lake Michigan Drive to L R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.7 5 Allendale Township Existing

Sevey Drain Twp.

Allendale Twp A3 64th Avenue Lake Michigan Drive to L R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.7 5 Allendale Township Existing

Sevey Drain Twp.

Allendale Twp A30 Lake Michigan 96th Ave. to 52nd Ave. MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 5.5 5 MDOT OCRC Existing

Drive Shoulder

Allendale Twp A31 Lake Michigan 52nd Ave. to Grand River MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 1.75 8 MDOT OCRC Existing

Drive Shoulder

Allendale Twp A33 68th Avenue Lake Michigan Drive to L R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.25 5 Allendale Township Existing

Scott Street Twp.

Allendale Twp A34 68th Avenue Lake Michigan Drive to L R/G Paved Asphalt 3 3 OCRC OCRC Existing

Grand River Shoulder

Allendale Twp A35 48th Avenue Pierce Street to M-45 L R/G Paved Asphalt 1 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Shoulder

L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist Tallmadge Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Tallmadge Twp T5 Lake Michigan Grand River to Kenowa MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 4.5 8 MDOT OCRC Existing Drive Shoulder

Port Sheldon Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Port Sheldon PS1 Lakeshore Drive Fillmore to New Holland R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 6.75 8 Pt. Sheldon Township Existing

Township

Port Sheldon PS2 Butternut Drive Lakeshore Dr. to MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 3.4 8 Pt. Sheldon Township Existing Township New Holland St. Twp

OliveTownship (NONE)

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Olive Twp

Blendon Township (NONE)

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status Blendon Twp

Georgetown Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Georgetown G1 Fillmore Street 36th Ave. to Bauer Rd. R T Paved Asphalt 4 6 1 OCRC OCRC Existing

Twp. Shoulder

Georgetown G2 Bauer Road W. of 28th Ave. to 24th Ave. R T Paved Asphalt 1.0 6 OCRC OCRC Existing

Twp. 20th Ave. to Meadowbrook Shoulder

Georgetown G3 28th Avenue Bauer Road to Port L R/G Paved Asphalt 2.5 6 OCRC OCRC Existing

Twp. Sheldon Road Shoulder

Georgetown G4 Port Sheldon Road Cottonwood to L R/G Paved Asphalt 1.25 6 OCRC OCRC Existing

Twp. 8th Avenue Shoulder

Georgetown G5 24th Avenue Bauer to Filmore R T Paved Asphalt 1 6 OCRC OCRC Existing

Twp. Shoulder

Georgetown G11 48th Avenue Pierce to Bauer L R/G Paved Asphalt 2.5 3 OCRC OCRC Existing

Twp. Shoulder

Georgetown G12 Port Sheldon Road 40th to 48th Avenue L R/G Paved Asphalt 1 3 OCRC OCRC Existing

Twp. Shoulder

Georgetown G13 Port Sheldon Road 8th Ave. to Tyler R T Paved Asphalt 1.3 6 OCRC OCRC Existing Twp. Shoulder

City of Hudsonville

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of HU1 Balsam Street Oak St. to Rush Creek L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.7 8 Hudsonville City Existing

Hudsonville

City of HU2 Highland Drive Sunnyslope to L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.3 8 Hudsonville City Existing

Hudsonville New Holland Street

City of HU3 32nd Avenue Highland to I-196 L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.1 8 Hudsonville City Existing

Hudsonville

City of HU6 Barry Street Clearview to 24th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.6 8 Hudsonville City Existing

Hudsonville

City of HU8 Chicago Drive 36th Avenue to L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.1 8 Hudsonville City Existing Hudsonville Cherry Avenue

Park Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Park Twp P1 Ransom Street 168th to Estate Drive L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P2 Quincy Street Lakeshore to Butternut MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.75 8 Park Twp Township Existing L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist Park Twp P3 Riley Street Lakeshore to 144th MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 3.5 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P4 James Street Lakeshore to 144th MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 3.5 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P5 Lakewood Lakeshore to 144th MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 3.5 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Boulevard

Park Twp P6 Perry Street Lakeshore to 160th L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.5 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P7 Ottawa Beach Road State Park to 152nd R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 3.2 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P8 Ottawa Beach Road 152nd to 144th R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 1.2 8 Park Twp OCRC Existing

Park Twp P9 Post Avenue 160th to 152nd L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P10 South Shore Drive Ottogan to Old Orchard MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.7 6 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P11 Ottogan Street S. Shore Dr. to MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.2 6 Park Twp Township Existing

Old Orchard St.

Park Twp P12 Lakeshore Drive New Holland to 168th R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 5.3 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P13 168th Avenue New Holland to O. B. Road MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 5 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P14 160th Avenue Lakewood to Post L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P15 152nd Avenue Quincy to Post L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 3.5 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P16 Butternut Drive New Holland to 144th MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.6 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P17 144th Avenue Butternut to N. Shore Dr. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 3 8*** Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P18 First Avenue S. Shore Dr. to Ottogan L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.1 6 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P21 Lake Street 168th to O.B. Road L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 8 Park Twp Township Existing

Park Twp P22 Ottawa Beach 160th to State Park MJ T Paved Asphalt 2.2 6 OCRC OCRC Existing Road Shoulder

L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist Holland Charter Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Holland Charter H1 Quincy Street 144th to 136th MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H2 Riley Street 144th to 96th MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 6 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H3 Felch Street Beeline to 120th L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H4 Felch Street 104th to 100th L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H5 James Street 144th to 104th MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H6 Lakewood 144th to Aniline MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township Boulevard

Holland Charter H7 Lakewood Aniline to 120th MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 2.5 6 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township Boulevard

Holland Charter H8 Chicago Drive 112th to Zeeland City Limit L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.4 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H9 Douglas Avenue 144th to River Avenue MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 1.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H10 North Shore Drive 144th to Lake L R/G Paved Asphalt 0.15 6 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township Shoulder

Holland Charter H11 Howard Avenue Lake to River L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.4 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H12 Perry Street 106th to 96th L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.25 6 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H13 8th Street Chicago Drive to Waverly L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.6 6 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H14 16th Street CSX RR to US31 L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H15 144th Avenue Quincy to Riley L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H16 142nd Avenue Quincy to Riley L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H17 140th Avenue Quincy to Deer Cove L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H18 Aniline Avenue James to Howard L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.1 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H19 Beech Avenue James to Douglas L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 6 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H20 Butternut Drive Riley to Black River MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.25 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H21 136th Avenue Quincy to Butternut L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.25 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H22 132nd Avenue Riley to James L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township

Holland Charter H23 Beeline Road Riley to Lakewood L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H24 Hoover Boulevard 16th St. to 8th St. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing

Township

Holland Charter H25 120th Avenue Riley to 8th Street L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township Holland Charter H26 112th Avenue Riley to James L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township Holland Charter H27 106th Avenue Paw Paw to Perry L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township Holland Charter H28 104th Avenue Helder Park to H. Miller L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 3.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township Holland Charter H29 100th Avenue Riley to Felch L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township Holland Charter H30 96th Avenue Perry to Woodbridge L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Holland Twp Township Existing Township Holland Charter H31 Beeline Road Felch to Lakewood L R/G Paved Asphalt 1 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Township Shoulder

City of Holland

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of HC1 River Avenue River Ave. Bridge to MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.4 6 City of City Existing

Holland Pine Avenue Holland

City of HC2 River Avenue Pine Ave. to 8th Street MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.5 6 City of City Existing L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist Holland Holland

City of HC3 River Avenue 8th Street to 19th Street MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.7 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC4 Michigan Avenue 19th Street to MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.8 6 City of City Existing

Holland 32nd Street Holland

City of HC5 16th Street River Ave. to Van Raalte MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.5 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC6 24th Street Country Club Road to MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 2.4 6 City of City Existing

Holland State Street Holland

City of HC7 River Avenue 8th Street to 19th Street MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.7 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC8 State Street 19th St. to 32nd Street MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.8 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC9 South Shore Drive 17th Street to MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.8 6 City of City Existing

Holland Old Orchard Road Holland

City of HC10 Myrtle Avenue South Shore to 32nd St. MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC11 Lugers Road South Shore to 32nd St. MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC12 Graafschap Road South Shore to 32nd St. MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.75 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC13 32nd Street Michigan Avenue to MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.5 6 City of City Existing

Holland Old Orchard Road Holland

City of HC14 Van Raalte Street 16th St. to 17th St. MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.1 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC15 17th Street Van Raalte to South Shore MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.5 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC16 32nd Street State Street to Waverly MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 1 6 City of City Existing

Holland Holland

City of HC17 32nd Street Waverly to Morningside MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.75 6 City of City Existing Holland Holland

City of Zeeland

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of ZC1 State Street Perry to Roosevelt MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.5 5 City of City Existing

Zeeland Zeeland

City of ZC2 Fairview Road Riley to Washington MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.6 8 City of City Existing

Zeeland Zeeland

City of ZC3 Fairview Road Central to BL196 MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.25 5 City of City Existing

Zeeland Zeeland

City of ZC4 Paw Paw Drive Bridge to Main Street MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.1 8 City of City Existing

Zeeland Zeeland

City of ZC5 Main Street West City Limit to MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.25 5 City of City Existing

Zeeland Franklin Zeeland

City of ZC6 Franklin Street Washington to Main St. MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.1 5 City of City Existing

Zeeland Zeeland

City of ZC7 Washington Street Franklin to Centennial MJ R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.9 5 City of City Existing

Zeeland Zeeland

City of ZC8 Centennial Avenue Washington to Riley MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.9 8 City of City Existing

Zeeland Zeeland

City of ZC9 Washington Street Centennial to 88th Ave. MJ R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.7 8 City of City Existing Zeeland Zeeland

L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist Zeeland Charter Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Zeeland Z1 Riley Street 96th to Logan Lane MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 1.1 8 Zeeland Twp Township Existing

Charter Twp

Zeeland Z2 Perry Street 96th to 92nd L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Zeeland Twp Township Existing

Charter Twp

Zeeland Z3 92nd Avenue M-21 to Perry L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Zeeland Twp Township Existing

Charter Twp

Zeeland Z4 88th Avenue Quincy to Riley L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Zeeland Twp Township Existing

Charter Twp

Zeeland Z5 88th Avenue Adams to Chicago Drive L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.7 8 Zeeland Twp Township Existing

Charter Twp

Zeeland Z6 96th Avenue Ottagan to BL-196 L R/G Paved Asphalt 2.5 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Charter Twp Shoulder

Jamestown Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Jamestown J19 Byron Road Kenowa to 40th L R/G Paved Asphalt 5 3 OCRC OCRC Existing Township Shoulder

L:Projects/2665/wp/reports/final report/AppendB-exist Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study Planned and Under Consideration Non-Motorized Pathways

Chester Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Chester Twp. CH2 Chester Park Within Park L R/G GW Asphalt 0.5 8 Chester Township Planned

Township

Chester Twp. CH3 Village of Conklin Musketawa Trail to L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Chester Township Proposed

Chester Park Township

City of Ferrysburg

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of F5 M-104 US 31 Drawbridge to MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 10 City of City Planned

Ferrysburg M-104 Bridge Ferrysburg

City of F7 Connector Path M-104 to Wm. Ferry Park MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt/ 0.1 10 City of City Planned

Ferrysburg Boardwalk Ferrysburg

City of F8 Ridge Street Pine St. to 174th L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.5 8 City of City Proposed

Ferrysburg

City of F9 174th Avenue Dogwood to City Limit L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 City of City Proposed

Ferrysburg Ferrysburg

City of F10 Dogwood Drive Mohawk to City Limit L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.25 8 City of City Proposed

Ferrysburg Ferrysburg

City of F11 Van Wagoner Road 174th to 168th L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 City of City Proposed

Ferrysburg Ferrysburg

Spring Lake Village

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Village of SLV3 Savidge Street Grand Harbor Resort to MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt/ 0.3 10 Village of Village Proposed

Spring Lake Village Limits Concrete Spring Lake

Spring Lake Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

1 1 Spr. Lake Twp SL11 148th Avenue M-104 to Leonard L T/C Multi-use NIA 1 NIA Spr. Lake Township Proposed

Township

1 1 Spr. Lake Twp. SL13 Hickory Street Palm Drive to 180th Avenue L R/G Multi-use NIA 0.5 NIA Spr. Lake Township Proposed

Township

1 1 Spr. Lake Twp. SL14 Van Wagoner 174th Avenue to L R/G Multi-use NIA 0.5 NIA Spr. Lake Township Proposed

Road 168th Avenue Township

1 1 Spr. Lake Twp. SL15 148th Avenue County Line to State Road L R/G Multi-use NIA 2 NIA Spr. Lake Township Proposed

Township

1 1 Spr. Lake Twp. SL16 Kelly Street Fruitport Road to L R/G Multi-use NIA 1 NIA Spr. Lake Township Proposed

148th Avenue Township

Crockery Township (NONE)

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Crockery Twp

1 No Information Available

L:\projects\2665\AppendB-planned Polkton Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Polkton Twp PO2 56th Avenue Cleveland to Wilson L R/G Paved Asphalt 3 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Shoulder

City of Coopersville

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of C6 Center Street 900 feet south of Cleveland L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 0.2 5 City of City Planned

Coopersville to Cleveland Coopersville 2002

City of C7 Cleveland Street Ridgefield to Eagle Ridge L R/G Sidewalk Concrete 1.4 5 to 10 City of City Planned

Coopersville Coopersville 2002

City of C8 Coopersville/ East City Limit to R T/C Multi-use Asphalt 2.9 5 to 10 City of City Proposed

Marne RR West City Limit

Coopersville Coopersville

Wright Township (NONE)

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Wright Twp.

City of Grand Haven

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

1 City of GH22 Harbor Island Path Third Street East L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 NIA Grand City Proposed

Grand Haven Haven

1 City of GH23 Beacon Boulevard Drawbridge to Jackson St. MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 0.75 NIA Grand City Proposed

Grand Haven Haven

Grand Haven Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Grand Haven GHT15 Lakeshore Drive Robbins to Hayes R T Paved Asphalt 1 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Twp. Shoulder

Grand Haven GHT16 Lakeshore Drive Hayes to Filmore R T Paved Asphalt 6 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Shoulder

Twp.

Grand Haven GHT17 Mercury Drive 144th to City of R T Paved Asphalt 3.2 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Twp. Grand Haven Shoulder

Robinson Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Robinson Twp. R2 120th Avenue Filmore to M-45 L R/G Paved Asphalt 2 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

L:\projects\2665\AppendB-planned Allendale Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Allendale Twp A4 WB Lake Mich. Valley View to 96th Ave. MJ T/C Multi-use Concrete 3 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Drive Twp.

Allendale Twp A5 EB Lake Mich. 96th Ave. to Valley View MJ T/C Multi-use Concrete 3 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Drive Twp.

Allendale Twp A6 NB 68th Avenue Fillmore to Grand River MJ T/C Multi-use Concrete 4.75 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A7 SB 68th Avenue Grand River to Fillmore MJ T/C Multi-use Concrete 4.75 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

1 Allendale Twp A8 Lincoln Street Trail 96th Ave. to 76th Ave. L R/G GW NIA 3 8 Ottawa County Proposed

County

1 Allendale Twp A9 Grand River Trail A8 to Pierce L T/C GW NIA 14 8 Ottawa County Proposed

County

Allendale Twp A10 Alger Street 64th Ave. to 56th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.0 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A11 Lincoln Street 68th Ave. to 60th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.0 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A12 76th Street Lincoln to Warner L R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.5 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A13 WB Warner Street 68th Ave. to 76th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.0 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A14 EB Warner Street West of 68th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.3 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A15 74th Avenue Warner St. to Lake L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.5 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Michigan Drive Twp.

Allendale Twp A16 60th Avenue Northerly dead end to L R/G Multi-use Concrete 4.0 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Alger Street Twp.

Allendale Twp A17 64th Avenue Little Bass Creek to A24 L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.1 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A18 56th Avenue Rich St. to Alger St. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 2.25 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A19 52nd Avenue Lake Michigan Drive L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.0 8 Allendale Township Proposed

to Pierce St. Twp.

Allendale Twp A20 Rich Street 56th Ave. to 48th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1.0 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A21 Campus Drive 56th Ave. to 48th Ave. L R/G GW Concrete 1.0 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Trail Twp.

Allendale Twp A22 Pierce Street 56th Ave. to 52nd Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 0.5 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

L:\projects\2665\AppendB-planned Allendale Township

Allendale Twp A23 Ottawa Creek Trail Lake Michigan Drive to L R/G GW Concrete 1.75 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Grand River Twp.

Allendale Twp A24 Little Bass Creek 68th Ave. to 64th Ave. L R/G GW Concrete 0.5 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Trail Twp.

Allendale Twp A26 EB Lake Michigan Valley View to 40th Ave. MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 3.5 5 Allendale Township Planned

Drive Twp.

Allendale Twp A27 WB Lake Michigan 40th Ave. to Valley View MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 3.5 5 Allendale Township Planned

Drive Twp.

Allendale Twp A28 EB Lake Michigan 40th Ave. to Grand River MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 0.5 10 Ottawa County Planned

Drive Shoulder County

Allendale Twp A29 WB Lake Michigan Grand River to 40th Ave. MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 0.5 10 Ottawa County Planned

Drive Shoulder County

Allendale Twp A32 48th Avenue Rich St. to Campus Drive L R/G Multi-use Concrete 1 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A33 Pierce Street 68th Ave. to 52nd Ave. L R/G Multi-use Concrete 2 8 Allendale Township Proposed

Twp.

Allendale Twp A36 96th Avenue Filmore to M-45 L R/G Paved Asphalt 2 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Shoulder

Tallmadge Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Tallmadge Twp. T2 Leonard Street 48th Ave. to Kenowa MJ T/C Multi-use Asphalt 7 Proposed

TallmadgeTwp. T3 EB Lake Mich. Grand River to 14th Ave. MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 2.75 10 Ottawa County Planned

Drive Shoulder County

TallmadgeTwp. T4 WB Lake Mich. 14th Ave. to Grand River MJ T/C Paved Asphalt 2.75 10 Ottawa County Planned Drive Shoulder County

Port Sheldon Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Port Sheldon PS3 Lakeshore Drive Butternut to Croswell R T Paved Asphalt 1.5 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Township Shoulder

Port Sheldon PS4 Butternut Drive New Holland to Lakeshore MJ T Paved Asphalt 3.6 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Township Shoulder

Port Sheldon PS5 Lakeshore Drive Croswell to Filmore R T Paved Asphalt 2 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Township Shoulder

OliveTownship

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Olive Twp O1 Port Sheldon US-31 to 96th Avenue L R/G Paved Asphalt 5 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Shoulder

Olive Twp O2 120th Avenue Port Sheldon to Filmore L R/G Paved Asphalt 4 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Shoulder

Blendon Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Blendon Twp B1 Port Sheldon 48th Ave. to 96th Ave. L R/G Paved Asphalt 6 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Road Shoulder

Blendon Twp B2 96th Avenue New Holland to Fillmore L R/G Paved Asphalt 6 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Shoulder

Georgetown Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Georgetown G7 44th Street Kenowa to 14th Avenue L R/G Multiuse Asphalt 2 8 Georgetown Township Proposed

L:\projects\2665\AppendB-plannedTwp. Township Georgetown G8 Cross Country Port Sheldon Road to L R/G Multiuse Asphalt 5 8 Georgetown Township Proposed

Twp. Trail Grand River Township

Georgetown G9 28th Avenue Filmore Street to L R/G Multiuse Asphalt 0.5 8 OCRC OCRC Proposed

Twp. Grand River

Georgetown G10 Summerset Drive Summerset Drive to L R/G Multiuse Asphalt 1.3 8 Georgetown Township Proposed

Twp. County Line Township

Georgetown G14 Port Sheldon & 8th Avenue to 44th Street L R/G Paved Asphalt 1.1 6 OCRC OCRC Planned

Twp. 16th Street Shoulder

Georgetown G15 Fillmore Street 48th Ave. to 36th Ave. L R/G Paved Asphalt 1.5 6 OCRC OCRC Planned

Twp. Shoulder

Georgetown G16 12th Avenue Port Sheldon Road to L R/G Paved Asphalt 0.5 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Twp. Chicago Drive Shoulder

Georgetown G17 48th Avenue Port Sheldon Road to L R/G Paved Asphalt 2.5 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Twp. Bauer Road Shoulder

City of Hudsonville

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

1 Hudsonville HU4 Highland Drive New Holland to L R/G Multi-use NIA 0.25 8 Hudsonville City Proposed

Sunnyslope

1 Hudsonville HU5 Highland Drive New Holland to L R/G Multi-use NIA 2 8 Hudsonville City Proposed

Balsam Street

1 Hudsonville HU7 32nd Street I-196 to South City Limit MJ R/G Multi-use NIA 0.6 8 Hudsonville City Planned

1 Hudsonville HU9 40th Avenue New Holland to Glen L R/G Multi-use NIA 0.5 8 Hudsonville City Planned

View Court

1 Hudsonville HU10 Rush/Buttermilk Elm Street to Balsam L R/G Multi-use NIA 0.9 8 Hudsonville City Planned

Creeks

1 Hudsonville HU11 Chicago Drive Cherry Avenue to L R/G Multi-use NIA 0.7 8 Hudsonville City Proposed

32nd Avenue

1 Hudsonville HU12 Chicago Drive 40th Avenue to L R/G Multi-use NIA 0.6 8 Hudsonville City Proposed

36th Avenue

Park Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Park Twp. P23 Butternut Drive 144th to New Holland MJ T Paved Asphalt 2.7 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Shoulder

Park Twp. P24 South Shore Drive Old Orchard to West End L R/G Paved Asphalt 2.2 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

of South Shore Drive Shoulder

Holland Charter Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Holland H32 120th Avenue Riley to New Holland L R/G Paved Asphalt 2 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Charter Twp. Shoulder

L:\projects\2665\AppendB-planned City of Holland (NONE)

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of

Holland

City of Zeeland (NONE)

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

City of

Zeeland

Zeeland Charter Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Zeeland Charter Z7 96th Avenue New Holland to Felch L R/G Paved Asphalt 2.5 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Township Shoulder

Zeeland Charter Z8 Byron Road I-196 to 48th Avenue L R/G Paved Asphalt 4 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Township Shoulder

L:\projects\2665\AppendB-planned Jamestown Township Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Status

Jamestown J1 Riley Street 24th Avenue to Hudsonville L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.4 10 Jamestown Township Planned

Township Middle School Township

Jamestown J2 Riley Street 24th Ave. to 16th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.9 8 Jamestown Township Planned

Township Township

Jamestown J3 Greenly Street 32nd Avenue, 1/2 Mile L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.5 8 Jamestown Township Planned

Township East Township

Jamestown J4 24th Avenue Riley to Quincy L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.9 8 Jamestown Township Planned

Township Township

Jamestown J5 Quincy Street 32nd Ave. to 22nd Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1.2 8 Jamestown Township Planned

Township Township

Jamestown J6 22nd Avenue Quincy to Jackson L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Planned

Township Township

Jamestown J7 32nd Avenue Greenly Street to L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.7 8 Jamestown Township Planned

Township Township Line (N) Township

Jamestown J8 32nd Avenue Greenly to Perry L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2.5 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J9 Byron Road 32nd Ave. to 16th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J10 16th Avenue Byron Rd. to Quincy L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 2 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J11 24th Avenue Byron Rd. to Riley L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J12 Greenly Street 24th Ave. to 16th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J13 Quincy Street 22nd Ave. to 16th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 0.8 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J14 Quincy Street 32nd Ave. to 40th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J15 40th Avenue Quincy to Riley L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J16 Greenly Street 40th Ave. to 48th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J17 48th Avenue Greenly to Ransom L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J18 Ransom Street 48th Ave. to 40th Ave. L R/G Multi-use Asphalt 1 8 Jamestown Township Proposed

Township Township

Jamestown J19 Byron Road 48th Ave. to 40th Ave. L R/G Paved Asphalt 1 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Township Shoulder

Jamestown J20 32nd Avenue Quincy to Byron Road L R/G Paved Asphalt 2 3 OCRC OCRC Planned

Township Shoulder

L:\projects\2665\AppendB-planned Ottawa County Non-Motorized Pathway Study Conceptual Non-Motorized Pathways

Chester Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

City of Ferrysburg

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Spring Lake Village

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Village of SLV4 N. Grand Riv. US-31 to Leonard Street R T Paved Asphalt 1.6 4 OCRC OCRC $ 160,000.00

Spring Lake Paved Shoulder Bridge over Lloyd's Bayou Shoulder

Spring Lake Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Spr. Lake Twp SL13 N. Grand River Leonard Street from Lloyd's R T Paved Asphalt 2.5 4 OCRC OCRC $ 250,000.00

Paved Shoulder Bayou to 144th Avenue Shoulder

Crockery Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Crockery Twp CR2 North Grand 144th Avenue to R T Multi- Asphalt 7 10 Crockery Township $ 1,108,800.00

River Trail 96th Avenue Use Township

Crockery Twp. CR3 N. Grand River 144th Avenue to R T Paved Asphalt 7 4 OCRC OCRC $ 700,000.00

Paved Shoulder 96th Avenue Shoulder

Crockery Twp. C 120th Avenue Leonard Street R T Multi- Asphalt 1 10 Crockery Township $ 158,400.00

to Garfield Street Use Township

Polkton Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Polkton Township PO4 N. Grand River 96th Avenue to R T Paved Asphalt 7 4 OCRC OCRC $ 700,000.00

Paved Shoulder East Township Limit Shoulder

PO5 Coopersville/ Coopersville to 88th Ave. R T Multi- Asphalt 3.5 10 Polkton Township $ 554,400.00

Marne Railway South to Leonard Street Use Township

City of Coopersville

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

City of Coopersville Cleveland Street 56th Ave. to 48th Ave. R T Multi- Asphalt 0.75 10 City City $ 118,800.00

Use

2665\wp\reports\matrices\AppendB-concept Wright Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Wright Twp. W2 Cleveland Street Coopersville City Limits R T Multi- Asphalt 3.5 10 Wright Township $ 554,400.00

to Muskatawa Trail Use Township

W3 Musketawa 8th Avenue to Hayes St. R T Multi- Asphalt 1.5 12 State of Ottawa County $ 237,600.00

Trail Use Michigan

City of Grand Haven

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

City of GH26 Jackson Street Third Street to R T Multi- Asphalt 0.4 10 City of City $ 63,360.00

Grand Haven US-31 Use Grand Haven

Mercury Drive Mercury Drive to R T Multi- Asphalt 1.6 10 City of City $ 253,440.00

US-31 Use Grand Haven

Grand Haven Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Grand Haven GHT18 Lakeshore Drive Fillmore Street to R T Paved Asphalt 7 4 OCRC OCRC $ 175,000.00

Twp. Robbins Road Shoulder

Grand Haven GHT Lake Michigan Lakeshore Drive R T Paved Asphalt 2 4 OCRC OCRC $ 200,000.00

Township Drive to US-31 Shoulder

Robinson Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Robinson Twp. R3 South Grand 144th Avenue to R T Multi- Asphalt 7.8 10 Robinson Township $ 1,235,520.00

River Trail 96th Avenue Use Township

Robinson Twp. R4 104th Avenue Cedar Drive to R T Multi- Asphalt 4 10 Robinson Township $ 633,600.00

Lake Michigan Drive Use Township

Robinson Twp. R5 Lake Michigan 104th Avenue to R T Multi- Asphalt 1 10 Robinson Township $ 158,400.00

Drive 96th Avenue Use Township

Allendale Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Allendale Township A37 South Grand West Township Line to R T Multi- Asphalt 9.5 10 Allendale Township $ 1,504,800.00

River Trail Pierce Street, extended Use Township

A38 96th Avenue Lake Michigan Drive to R T Multi- Asphalt 2 10 Allendale Township $ 316,800.00

Fillmore Street Use Township

2665\wp\reports\matrices\AppendB-concept Tallmadge Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Tallmadge Twp.

T7 N. Grand River West Township Line to R T Paved Asphalt 7.25 4 OCRC OCRC $ 725,000.00

Paved Shoulder Kenowa Avenue Shoulder

T8 Musketawa Hayes Street to R T Multi- Asphalt 0.25 12 State of Ottawa $ 39,600.00

Trail Kenowa Avenue Use Michigan County

T9 Luce Street Lake Michigan Drive to R T Multi- Asphalt 5 10 Tallmadge Township $ 792,000.00

Kenowa Avenue Use Township

Port Sheldon Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Port Sheldon PS6 Lakeshore Dr. Fillmore Street to R T Paved Asphalt 6.75 4 OCRC OCRC $ 337,500.00

Township Paved Shoulder New Holland Street Shoulder

PS7 Stanton St., 146th Lake Michigan to R T Multi- Asphalt 4 10 Port Sheldon Township $ 633,600.00

and Croswell 144th Avenue Use Township

PS9 Croswell/Olive Lakeshore Drive to R T Paved Asphalt 1 4 OCRC OCRC $ 100,000.00

Shore Avenue Pt. Sheldon Twp Hall Park Shoulder

OliveTownship

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Olive Twp O3 Stanton Street 144th Avenue to R T Multi- Asphalt 6 10 Olive Township $ 950,400.00

96th Avenue Use Township

Blendon Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Blendon Twp B3 Taylor, 56th and 96th Avenue to R T Multi- Asphalt 6.5 10 Blendon Township $ 1,029,600.00

Bauer 48th Avenue Use Township

Blendon Twp B 96th Avenue Fillmore Street to R T Multi- Asphalt 6 10 Blendon Township $ 950,400.00

New Holland Street Use Township

Georgetown Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Georgetown G18 South Grand Pierce Street (extended) to R T Multi- Asphalt 9 10 Georgetown Township $ 1,425,600.00

Twp. River Trail East County Line Use Township

Georgetown G19 Port Sheldon/ 44th Street to Hudsonville R T Multi- Asphalt 1.75 10 Georgetown Township $ 277,200.00

Twp. 28th Avenue City Limits Use Township

Georgetown G20 Bauer Road 48th Avenue to east R T Multi- Asphalt 2.25 10 Georgetown Township $ 356,400.00

Twp. Use Township

Georgetown G22 Tyler Street Port Sheldon Road to R T Paved Asphalt 0.25 4 OCRC OCRC $ 25,000.00

Twp. Kenowa Avenue Shoulder

Georgetown G23 Barry, 8th, and Angling Road to R T Multi- Asphalt 2 10 Georgetown Township $ 316,800.00

Twp. Jackson Street Kenowa Avenue Use Township

Georgetown G24 Chicago Drive 40th Avenue to R T Paved Asphalt 0.75 4 OCRC OCRC $ 75,000.00

Twp. New Holland Street Shoulder

City of Hudsonville

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

2665\wp\reports\matrices\AppendB-concept Hudsonville HU13 Balsam Street North City Limit to R T Multi- Asphalt 0.25 10 City of City $ 39,600.00

Rush Creek Use Hudsonville

Hudsonville HU14 32nd Street Chicago Drive to R T Paved Asphalt 2 4 City of City $ 200,000.00

Highland Drive Shoulder Hudsonville

Park Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Park Twp. P25 Lakeshore Drive New Holland Street R T Paved Asphalt 5.3 4 OCRC OCRC $ 530,000.00

Shoulder

Paved Shoulder to 168th Avenue

Park Twp. P26 Riley Street Lakeshore Drive to R T Paved Asphalt 3.5 4 OCRC OCRC $ 350,000.00

Paved Shoulder 144th Avenue Shoulder

Holland Charter Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Holland H33 Macatawa River CSX Railroad to R T Multi- Asphalt 2.5 10 Holland Township $ 396,000.00

Charter Twp. Greenway 112th Avenue Use Charter Twp.

Holland H34 Macatawa River East Holland City Limit R T Multi- Asphalt 3 10 Holland Township $ 475,200.00

Charter Twp. Greenway to 96th Avenue Use Charter Twp.

Holland H35 Riley Street 144th Avenue to R T Paved Asphalt 6 4 OCRC OCRC $ 600,000.00

Charter Twp. Paved Shoulder 96th Avenue Shoulder

City of Holland

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimatd

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

City of HC18 Macatawa River Windmill Island to CSX R T Multi- Asphalt 0.5 10 City of City $ 79,200.00

Holland Greenway Railroad Tracks Use Holland

City of HC19 Macatawa River 112th Avenue to East R T Multi- Asphalt 0.5 10 City of City $ 79,200.00

Holland Greenway City Limits Use Holland

City of Zeeland

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

City of ZC10 Main Street Fairbanks to R T Paved Asphalt 0.25 4 City of City $ 25,000.00

Zeeland Chicago Drive Shoulder Zeeland

2665\wp\reports\matrices\AppendB-concept Zeeland Charter Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Zeeland Charter Z9 Chicago Drive 48th Avenue to R T Paved Asphalt 6 4 OCRC OCRC $ 600,000.00

Township Byron Road Shoulder

Zeeland Charter Z10 Macatawa River 96th Avenue to R T Multi- Asphalt 5 10 Zeeland Township $ 792,000.00

Township Greenway Byron Road Use Charter Twp.

Zeeland Charter Z11 Byron Road Macatawa River to R T Multi- Asphalt 4 10 Zeeland Township $ 633,600.00

Township 48th Avenue Use Charter Twp.

Zeeland Charter Z12 96th Avenue New Holland to Riley Street R T Multi- Asphalt 2 10 Zeeland Township $ 316,800.00

Township Use Charter Twp.

Zeeland Charter Z13 Riley Street 96th Avenue to R T Paved Asphalt 2 4 OCRC OCRC $ 200,000.00

Township Paved Shoulder Chicago Drive Shoulder

Jamestown Township

Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Length Width Estimated

Jurisdiction Name Location Limits Function Usage Type Construction (Miles) (Feet) Ownership Maintenance Cost

Jamestown J21 48th Avenue Byron Road to R T Multi- Asphalt 1 10 Jamestown Township $ 158,400.00

Township Riley Street Use Township

Jamestown J22 Riley Street 48th Avenue to R T Multi- Asphalt 2 10 Jamestown Township $ 316,800.00

Township 32nd Avenue Use Township

Jamestown J23 Greenly Street 24th Avenue, 1/2 R T Multi- Asphalt 0.5 10 Jamestown Township $ 79,200.00

Township Mile to West Use Township

Jamestown J24 Angling Road Quincy Street R T Multi- Asphalt 1.5 10 Jamestown Township $ 237,600.00

Township to Jackson Street Use Township

Jamestown J25 Chicago Drive New Holland Street R T Paved Asphalt 0.75 4 OCRC OCRC $ 75,000.00

Township to 48th Avenue Shoulder

2665\wp\reports\matrices\AppendB-concept

Appendix C

Information on Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

Appendix C Information on Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

The information in this section was drawn from two websites that focus on bicycle and pedestrian issues: www.bicyclinginfo.org and www.walkinginfo.org. It is presented here for reference.

1. Bicycling Information

Bicyclists can be found on almost every type of roadway, from rural interstates to local streets, and the majority of these roads have no special facilities designated for bicycling. Nonetheless, they are a critical part of the bicycling infrastructure and need to be maintained and operated so that bicyclists can use them safely and comfortably. Drainage grates, railroad tracks, potholes, utility covers, gravel, wet leaves, pavement joints and many other surface irregularities have a profound impact on bicyclists and can quickly cause a fall and serious injury.

In Basic Improvements for Bicyclists (www.bikeplan.com), author John Williams has updated Improving Local Conditions for Bicycling, a useful summary of some of the strategies for implementing simple, low-cost improvements to overcome hazards such as these, regardless of the type of roadway.

2. Signs and Markings

Wherever you travel in the United States, and whatever mode of travel you choose, you are guided by and are expected to abide by a common set of roadway signs and markings. Stop signs all look alike. Lane markings follow a consistent pattern. Signals operate in the same way. Some signs are regulatory or mandatory, while others are advisory. Certain signs warn you of conditions that may affect your journey. Each type of sign or marking has a common shape and color depending on its function. All of this helps to ensure that traffic flows safely and efficiently whether you are driving on the New Jersey Turnpike or walking across a local residential road.

When you ride a bicycle, you are typically required to follow the same set of signs and markings as you would if you were driving a car, but there are some signs and markings that relate specifically to bicycling. Signs denoting bike lanes or the intersection of a shared use path with a roadway may have specific instructions or significance for bicyclists.

All of the roadway signs, markings, and signals you encounter as you travel across the country are governed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a detailed manual that is managed by the Federal Highway Administration.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

The MUTCD "contains all national design, application, and placement standards for traffic control devices. The purpose of these devices, which includes signs, signals, and pavement markings, is to promote highway safety, efficiency, and uniformity so that traffic can move efficiently on the Nation's streets and highways."

The Federal Highway Administration has an extensive web site on the MUTCD that includes answers to many commonly asked questions about the Manual, including one that confirms its

C-1 status: "all traffic control devices nationwide must conform to the MUTCD. There are no exceptions." http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

In addition to the national MUTCD, many States supplement the national manual with additional optional signs and markings. As an example, the Oregon DOT has a chapter in it's bicycle plan detailing which signs and markings should be used in conjunction with bicycle facilities. www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/ bikewalk/planimag/II8a.htm

What is in the MUTCD Related to Bicycling?

The current edition of the MUTCD was written in 1988 and has a short section (Part 9) devoted to signs, signals and marking for bicycle facilities, which is now quite out of date. Part 9 is currently being re-written, along with most other sections, and major changes are being proposed.

On June 24, 1999, FHWA issued a Notice of Proposed Amendment covering Part 9 and the agency has developed a presentation showing some of the most important changes they have proposed.

These include:

• replacing the diamond lane symbol with a simple "bike lane" sign to depict a lane that is set aside exclusively for bicycle use

• allowing the use of flourescent yellow-green warning signs as well as the traditional yellow warning signs

• allowing the use of a "Share the Road" plaque under the "bicycle warning sign"

• making the use of a white line to separate trail users an option rather than a requirement

• requiring the review of signal timing to ensure bicyclists can clear intersections safely

The Notice of Proposed Amendment, together with the various responses to the notice, are available on the USDOT Docket Management website http://dms.dot.gov/search/ where you should enter "4720" in the "search" field.

Extensive comments on the FHWA's NPA have been provided by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, an independent group that provides advice and input to FHWA on proposed changes to the manual. A bicycle technical subcommittee developed a revised Part 9 that was adopted by the NCTUCD and forwarded to FHWA. Subcommittee member Richard Moeur has published a side-by-side comparison of the FHWA and NCUTCD's proposed changes at http://members.aol.com/rcmoeur/part9.html and while there is no guarantee that these comments will be adopted in part or in full, they do have the general support of the bicycling community.

Details of the process by which the new edition becomes effective can be found on the FHWA's MUTCD web site. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

C-2

New Signs and Markings

Inevitably, people and agencies are constantly coming up with new ideas and needs for signs and markings that are not currently covered in the MUTCD, or even the proposed changes that are under consideration. For example, the use of colored pavement markings for bicycle lanes is not addressed by the Manual or proposed changes but many local traffic agencies are interested in implementing such facilities. FHWA does have a mechanism for sanctioning experiments with new signs and markings that must be adhered to if a change to the MUTCD is eventually going to be approved.

Colored Bike Lanes

Colored bike lanes have been a feature of bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands (red), Denmark (blue), France (green) and many other countries for many years. In the United Kingdom, both red and green pigments are used to delineate bike lanes and bike boxes (see below). However, in this country their use has been limited to a few experiments in just a handful of locations. The most extensive trial took place in Portland, Ore., where a number of critical intersections had blue bike lanes marked through them and the results were carefully monitored.

One of the issues to be determined before colored bike lanes are accepted int the MUTCD will be the choice of color. Blue, probably the most visible of the colors, is often associated with facilities for people with disabilities while green and red are less visible, especially in the rain or at dusk.

Advanced Stop Lines or Bike Boxes

Once again, a common feature of bicycle networks in other countries, bike boxes or advanced stop lines are only just being experimented with in the United States. The box enables bicyclists to get to the front of traffic at signalized intersections so that they may better clear the intersection and make left turns than they might otherwise be able. They also have the added benefit of distancing motorists from crosswalks, thus providing a more pleasant crossing place for pedestrians.

The challenge with this feature, especially while it remains uncommon, will be finding ways to clarify exactly how motorists and bicyclists should operate when using this facility through a careful mix of signs and markings.

Denver Arrow

The city of Denver has pioneered the use of a special symbol that denotes where a bicyclist should ride (usually in conjunction with a wider outside lane of 14 or 15 feet) without delineating a striped bike lane. Other cities have copied the marking, but it is still too early for consideration in the MUTCD.

Bicycle Signal Heads

Similarly, the city of Davis, Calif., has pioneered the use of bicycle signal heads - although these are quite common in most European countries - at signalized intersections with bicycle only

C-3 phases and movements. This type of signal head has yet to be approved for inclusion in the national MUTCD, although the state of California has approved its use.

3. Shared Use Paths

In the last decade of the 20th Century, shared use paths (often called trails or bike paths) for bicyclists and walkers sprang up in communities cross the nation. There are more than 11,000 miles of paths on former railroad corridors and thousands more alongside canals, rivers, and highways and running through parks and recreation areas.

Shared use paths provide many valuable benefits including transportation links, recreation areas, habitat corridors, economic development attractors and outdoor fitness centers. They may range in length from a mile or two in a downtown, to a regional commuter route of 15 miles or more, right up to a cross-state or interstate path covering hundreds of miles, and the level of use on a trial may vary from a few thousand people a year to several million per year.

Regardless of the location, purpose, level of use, or mix of users, there are certain design elements that are important for the successful and safe operation of a shared use pathway. Applying these design criteria need not create a sterile, overbuilt "mini-highway", and there is still plenty of scope for applying engineering judgement and common sense solutions to issues that arise in the development of a shared use path. There is also a wealth of information available on trail design to help identify solutions and approaches to problems.

Important Principles of Shared Use Path Planning and Design

1. Shared use paths are an addition, and complimentary, to the roadway network: they are not a substitute for providing access to streets and highways. In the past, some communities have treated the development of a shared use path as the only thing they needed to do to "provide for bicyclists" and give them somewhere to ride. However, even the most extensive trail network cannot provide access to all the origins and destinations in a community, and trail users have to be able to get to and from the trail on the regular street network.

The 1999 edition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities specifically notes that, "shared use paths should not be used to preclude on-road bicycle facilities but rather to supplement a system of on-road bike lanes, wide outside lanes, paved shoulders and bike routes."

2. Shared use paths function best when they are in their own right of way. Paths along former railroad corridors or canals work well because they are likely to have fewer intersections with roadways, and may even be completely grade separated from crossing roadways (i.e. they cross roadways on railroad trestles or other bridges/structures). By contrast, paths that have frequent intersections with roadways and/or driveways usually require path users to stop or yield at every crossing and every crossing creates potential conflicts with turning traffic.

The Idaho Department of Transportation bicycle and pedestrian planning manual provides a "suggested analysis of separated multi-use pathways" that recommends against installing a multi-use path when there are more than 8 crossings per mile, suggesting an on-street facility be provided instead. The guidance also recommends proceeding with extreme caution and perhaps switching to on street bicycle lanes when there are between 5 and 8

C-4 crossings per mile, and with one to four crossings per mile the manual encourages the designer to use special care to treat potential conflicts.

National and state design manuals strongly caution against developing shared use paths immediately adjacent to highways and to designating sidewalks as shared use facilities for a number of reasons. Indeed, the 1999 edition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities recommends against such facilities in at least three separate places, and provides a list of nine reasons why. A similar list is included in almost all state design manuals, for example the New Jersey DOT's Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways. The list includes:

(a) They require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against motor vehicle traffic, contrary to normal Rules of the Road. (b) When the bicycle path ends, bicyclists going against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street. Likewise, bicyclists approaching a bicycle path often travel on the wrong side of the street in getting to the path. Wrong-way travel by bicyclists is a major cause of bicycle/automobile accidents and should be discouraged at every opportunity. (c) At intersections, motorists entering or crossing the roadway often will not notice bicyclists coming from their right, as they are not expecting contra-flow vehicles. Even bicyclists coming from the left often go unnoticed, especially when sight distances are poor. (d) When constructed in narrow roadway right of way, the shoulder is often sacrificed, thereby decreasing safety for motorists and bicyclists using the roadway. (e) Many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the bicycle path because they have found the roadway to be safer, more convenient, or better maintained. Bicyclists using the roadway are often subjected to harassment by motorists who feel that in all cases bicyclists should be on the path instead. (f) Bicyclists using the bicycle path generally are required to stop or yield at all cross streets and driveways, while bicyclists using the roadway usually have priority over cross traffic, because they have the same right of way as motorists. (g) Stopped cross street motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting side streets or drive-ways may block the path crossing. (h) Because of the closeness of motor vehicles to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers are often necessary to keep motor vehicles out of bicycle paths and bicyclists out of traffic lanes. These barriers can represent an obstruction to bicycles and motorists, can complicate maintenance of the facility, and can cause other problems as well. (i) Cyclists using the path against the flow of traffic often cannot see the signs posted for traffic using the roadway without stopping and turning around.

For the above reasons, bicycle lanes, or shared roadways should generally be used to accommodate bicycle traffic along highway corridors rather than providing a bicycle path immediately adjacent to the highway.

There may, however, be some circumstances where a shared use path adjacent to a highway does make sense. Examples include: i) where there are infrequent crossings, such as a alongside an interstate or across a long bridge ii) where the crossings can be grade separated, for example where the trail is built in conjunction with a major highway project

C-5 iii) where the section of adjacent path or sidewalk is relatively short and provides a critical connection between two paths, and the sidewalk has few driveways and intersections.

When two-ways paths are located adjacent to a roadway, the AASHTO Guide recommends wide separation between the two to demonstrate to motorists and path users that the path is an independent facility. When separation of more than five feet cannot be achieved, a physical barrier at least 42 inches high between the path and the roadway is recommended.

3. Shared use paths are used by a wide variety of users traveling in both directions. Design manuals from the 1970s and 1980s suggested that paths could be designed for the exclusive use of bicycles, and further that those paths might be used in just one direction. The reality of paths of almost any size is that they are used by a wide variety of users including pedestrians, joggers, in-line skaters, fitness walkers, people with dogs or strollers, and people travel in both directions regardless of any traffic control devices that try to say otherwise.

Consequently, design manuals now acknowledge that paths are "shared use" facilities and that they must be designed to accommodate bi-directional mixed use. The most obvious example of this is that the AASHTO Guide now recommends a minimum trail width of 10 feet (up from 8 feet) and encourages the use of 12 feet or more where heavy or mixed uses are expected.

4. Shared use paths need to be connected to the transportation system. Trails do not exist in a vaccuum; users need to be able to get to and from the facility on the regular street network and the transition between the two should be safe, obvious and convenient. Similarly, connections between the trail access points and local transit service can encourage trail use and boost bus ridership.

Strategies for achieving this connection include:

• signing access to the trail from the roadway network • signing the trail at cross streets and vice versa, so that trail users know where they are and motorists recognize that they are crossing a trail • providing on-street facilities such as striped bike lanes on streets approaching the trail • locating bus stops close to trail access points (but not so close that a stopped bus would obscure the trail or block the trail crossing!)

5. Intersections between shared use paths and roadways are the greatest challenge. Great care has to be taken in managing the operation of trail/roadway intersections to ensure safety, convenience and comfort are balanced. Trail users don't want to have to stop every few hundred yards at every driveway and intersection, especially where crossing traffic volumes are very small. Nor do designers want to set up dangerous conflicts between motor vehicle traffic and trail users by providing inadequate information and traffic control at intersections. More information on intersection design is provided in the "detailed designs" section.

6. Shared use paths should be designed based on the same engineering principles that are applied to highways. This doesn't mean that trails should always be mini-highways that flatten everything in their path - but it does mean that principles such as providing adequate sight distances and stopping distances cannot be ignored just because these are "trails".

C-6 4. Paved shoulders

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities notes that in rural areas "adding or improving paved shoulders often can be the best way to accommodate bicyclists" – and they have the additional attraction of providing a variety of benefits to motorists and other road users as well. (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/whyhave.htm)

Critical Dimensions

• Less than 4 feet (1.2m): any additional width of paved shoulder is better than none at all, but below 4 feet a shoulder should not be designated or marked as a bicycle facility.

• 4 feet (1.2m): minimum width to accommodate bicycle travel measurement must be of useable width and should NOT include the gutter pan or any area treated with rumble strips

• 5 feet (1.5m) or more: minimum width recommended from the face of a guardrail, curb or other barrier

Widths should be increased with higher bicycle usage, motor vehicle speeds above 50mi/hr, higher percentage of truck and bus traffic. Further guidance on the appropriate width of shoulders to accommodate bicyclists on roadways in these situations can be found in FHWA's Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists.

Critical Issues and Frequently Asked Questions

When should a shoulder be designated as a bikeway?

Paved shoulders, whether they are designated and signed as bikeways or not, provide a great place for people to ride. Most states do not designate or mark their paved shoulders as bikeways, but some do, such as Oregon. Paved shoulders should not be designated or marked as bikeways unless they meet the width guidelines shown above (4 feet or 5 feet from a barrier or railing) and have rideable width free from obstructions or treatments such as rumble strips (see below). Oregon usually designates shoulder bikeways if they are a minimum of six feet wide, while Florida sets five feet as their minimum.

Designating a shoulder as a bikeway may also be useful to provide guidance to cyclists following a particular route (e.g. between two trails, or other popular destinations for bicyclists). The advice on signed shared roadways should be followed.

Can rumble strips be used as part of a paved shoulder project?

There's no question that rumble strips are effective in alerting sleepy or inattentive drivers and that their use has positive safety benefits. However, it's equally true that none of the current designs for rumble strips can be considered "bicycle safe" and that the use of rumble strips can render a shoulder unusable for bicycling. The AASHTO bicycle guide recommends that rumble strips not be used on routes used by bicyclists unless a minimum of four feet of rideable surface remains for the bicyclist (five feet from a curb or guardrail). Other policies that have balanced the needs of motorists and bicyclists include:

C-7 • using rumble strips exclusively on limited access or controlled access facilities

• using a textured white fog line (Oregon) rather than rumble strips

• leaving gaps (12 feet in every 60 feet) between the rumbles to allow bicyclists to cross them if necessary

For more information on rumble strips visit:

FHWA's resource site at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_rumble.library.htm

A bicycle user group's perspective at http://bicyclecolo.org/site/page.cfm?PageID=49

Places to See:

Wisconsin DOT has a policy of providing a three foot paved shoulder on all highways with an average daily traffic in excess of 1,000 vehicles, and this is widened to five feet if a moderate number of bicyclists regularly use the road. See page 38 of the WisDOT State Bicycle Plan. http://www.dot.state.wi.us/dtim/pdf/bikeplan.pdf

5. Wide Outside Lanes

In urban areas, paved shoulders are not normally provided on major roads. A wider outside (or curbside) lane allows a motorist to safely pass a cyclist while remaining in the same lane and this can be a significant benefit and improvement for cyclists, especially more experienced riders. A wider outside lane also helps trucks, buses, and vehicles turning onto the major road from a driveway or wide street.

Critical Dimensions

14 feet (4.2m): recommended width for wide outside lane width must be useable and measurement should be from the edge line or joint of the gutter pan to the lane line

15 feet: (4.5m) preferred where extra space required for maneuvering (e.g. on steep grades) or to keep clear of on-street parking or other obstacles.

Continuous stretches of lane 15 feet or wider may encourage the undesirable operation of two motor vehicles in one lane. Where this much width is available, consideration should be given to striping bike lanes or shoulders.

Critical Issues and Frequently Asked Questions

Is a wide outside lane safer/better than striping a bicycle lane?

The simple answer is that there have been too few studies to answer this question definitively, but the studies that have been done suggest that while there may be no direct affect on safety, both bicyclists AND motorists are more comfortable and confident on roads with striped bike lanes. In An Evaluation of Shared-use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles, by David Harkey and Richard Stewart, the authors updated studies from the 1970s investigating the

C-8 interaction of motorists and bicyclists in different roadway conditions and came to the following conclusions:

• motorists are less likely to encroach on the adjacent lane when they are passing a bicyclist on facilities with pave shoulders or bicycle lanes

• motorists have less variation in their lane placement when they are passing a bicyclist on a paved shoulder or bicycle lane facility

• bicyclists are more likely to ride further from the edge of the roadway in a bicycle lane or on a paved shoulder than they do in a wide curb lane (providing a greater margin of safety to avoid obstacles and making them more visible)

Two studies of "levels of service" for bicyclists also provide useful insight into answering this question.

In Real Time Human Perceptions: Towards a Bicycle Level of Service, by Landis, Vattikuti, and Brannick, the authors have developed a level of service model for bicyclists that incorporates cyclists' perceptions and feelings of comfort and safety. In studying the impact of striping a bike lane or a paved shoulder the authors fund that increasing the width of a travel lane to 16 feet increased the level of service to the bicyclist by 13 percent. By striping a four foot bike lane on the same roadway, the level of service increased by 31 percent.

Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Final Report, by Harkey, Reinfurt, Knuiman, Stewart, and Sorton. The Bicycle Compatibility Index incorporates the geometric and operational variables considered by adult bicyclists to be important in terms of their comfort level when riding on the streets with motor vehicles. The authors note that the variable with the largest effect on the index is the presence or absence of a bicycle lane or paved shoulder that is at least 0.9m wide. Striping a bike lane reduced bicyclist stress levels by almost one unit on a five unit scale.

Can I provide a wider outside lane by reducing the width of other travel or turning lanes?

The simple answer to this one is, "yes." The AASHTO Guide says "restriping to provide wide curb lanes may also be considered on some multi-lane facilities by making the remaining travel lanes and left turn lanes narrower." The guide does caution you, however, to do this only after careful consideration of traffic characteristics and other factors. So, for example, a relatively low volume road with two 12 foot travel lanes (in one direction) could be restriped with a 13/11 foot or 14/10 foot pattern without adding anything to the width of the roadway.

Places to See:

Some states and communities have decided that wide outside lanes are the primary way in which they will accommodate bicyclists. These include Dallas, Texas and North Carolina.

6. Signed Shared Roadways

The AASHTO Guide describes signed shared roadways (bike routes) as "those that have been identified by signing as preferred bike routes" and goes on to describe the reasons why routes might be so designated:

C-9

• continuity between bicycle lanes, trails or other bicycle facilities

• marking a common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor

• directing cyclists to low volume roads or those with a paved shoulder

• directing cyclists to particular destinations (e.g. park, school or commercial district)

In addition, designation indicates that there are particular advantages to using the route rather than an alternative. Signed shared roadways generally do not succeed in diverting cyclists away from routes that are more direct, faster, and more convenient even though they may be on quieter streets. Indeed, the Oregon DOT bicycle manual graphically shows how such efforts can actually create greater danger and inconvenience for bicyclists by requiring them to cross major roads just to use a designated bicycle route. ODOT goes on to say:

"Directional signs are useful where it is recommended that bicyclists follow a routing that differs from the routing recommended for motorists. This may be for reasons of safety, convenience, or because bicyclists are banned from a section of roadway (the routing must have obvious advantages over other routes).

"ODOT recommends against the use of BIKE ROUTE signs and arrows along city streets with no indication to cyclists as to where they are being directed. Cyclists will usually ignore these signs if they send them out of direction."

The AASHTO Guide recommends considering a number of factors before signing a route

• the route provides through and direct travel

• the route connects discontinuous segments of shared use paths or bike lanes

• bicyclists are given greater priority on the signed route than on the alternate route

• street parking has been removed or limited to provide more width

• a smooth surface has been provided

• regular street sweeping and maintenance is assured

• wider curb lanes are provided compare to parallel roads

• shoulders are at least four feet wide

In all cases, shared use roadway signing should include information on distance, direction and destination, and should not end at a barrier such as a major intersection or narrow bridge.

Critical Issues

Q. How often should I sign a shared signed roadway?

C-10 A. The AASHTO Guide recommends signing a shared signed roadway every 1/4 mile (500m) and at every turn (both to mark the turn and to confirm that the rider has made the correct turn).

Places to See:

New York State DOT City of Denver

7. Bike Lanes

Bike lanes are defined as "a portion of the roadway which has been designated by striping , signing and pavement marking for the preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists". Bicycle lanes make the movements of both motorists and bicyclists more predictable and as with other bicycle facilities there are advantages to all road users in striping them on the roadway. www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/whyhave.htm

Bicycle-friendly cities such as Madison, Eugene, Davis, Gainesville, and Palo Alto have developed extensive bike lane networks since the 1970s and more recently large cities such as Tucson, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Portland and Seattle have begun to stripe bike lanes on their arterial and collector streets as a way of encouraging bicycle use.

In general, bicycle lanes should always be:

• one-way, carrying bicyclists in the same direction as the adjacent travel lane

• on the right side of the roadway

• located between the parking lane (if there is one) and the travel lane

Critical Dimensions

Bicycle lane width

4 feet (1.2m): minimum width of bike lane on roadways with no curb and gutter 5 feet (1.5m): minimum width of bike lane when adjacent to parking, from the face of the curb or guardrail 11 feet (3.3m): shared bike lane and parking area, no curb face 12 feet (3.6m): shared bike lane and parking area with a curb face

Bicycle lane stripe width

6-inch (150mm): solid white line separating bike lane from motor vehicle lane (maybe raised to 8-inches (200mm) for emphasis 4-inch (100mm): optional solid white line separating the bike lane from parking spaces

C-11 Q. How can I fit bike lanes onto a 44ft wide urban road? A. The City of Chicago, among others, is successfully striping 44ft roadways with two seven foot parking lanes, two five foot bike lanes and two ten foot travel lanes. Q. My city engineer says he can't reduce travel lanes below the AASHTO recommended width of 12 feet. Is that true? A. No. In fact, the new AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities says "another important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists where insufficient space exists for comfortable riding on existing streets. This may be accomplished by reducing the width of vehicular lanes or prohibiting parking...". The Oregon Department of Transportation bicycle plan has an extensive section on restriping existing streets to incorporate bike lanes. www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/restripn.htm Q. I am not sure a white paint line is enough. Can I use raised pavement markers or some kind of barrier or curb to separate the bike lane from motor vehicles? A. Studies have shown that a simple white line is actually quite effective in channelizing both motorists and bicyclists and that both feel more comfortable with the line in place. Raised pavement markers can cause a cyclist to lose control and fall; barriers and curbs also prevent bicyclists from avoiding obstacles (or even passing another cyclist) and making a left turn, and make maintenance much more challenging (and unlikely).

l:\projects\2665\wp\reports\final report\appc.doc

C-12