DOCSLIB.ORG

Cross-Country Route Assessment for the Great American Rail-Trail

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cross-Country Route Assessment for the Great American Rail-Trail Great American Rail-Trail More Than 3,700 Miles Between Washington, DC., and Washington State Washington, D.C. When Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) was founded in 1986, just a handful of rail-trails dotted the landscape. Today, there are more than 23,000 miles of rail-trails crisscrossing the countryside and another 8,000 miles of rail-trails ready to be built—making the Great American Rail-Trail viable for the first time. Analyses implemented in the past few years of open rail-trails and out-of-service rail corridors show the potential to build a rail-trail that spans from Washington to Washington. Hundreds of conversations with state agencies and local trail managers confirm that this is a realistic pursuit. For more information, visit: Existing Trails This map shows the preferred route of the Great American Rail-Trail, greatamericanrailtrail.org. Trail Gaps including the 130 rail-trails, greenways and other multiuse paths that make Planned Segments the route more than 52% complete. The trail gaps that will connect those Unplanned Segments existing trails are divided into two categories: planned segments, with specific routes that are already identified for completion; and unplanned segments, where potential routes are identified and planning work is ongoing to confirm specific routes. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report, Great American Rail-Trail Route Assessment, was published by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) in May 2019. Study authors: • Kevin Belanger, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy • Leah Gerber, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Suggested citation: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Great American Rail-Trail Route Assessment. Washington, DC: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2019. Other RTC staff and consultants provided expertise and skills necessary to the production of this report: Amy Ahn, Ken Bryan, Sharon Congdon, Andrea Holliday, Brandi Horton, Annie Hunt, Amy Kapp, Joe LaCroix, Kevin Mills, Eric Oberg, Kelly Pack, Derek Strout, Liz Thorstensen and Marianne Wesley Fowler. ABOUT RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY RTC is the nation’s largest trails organization—with a grassroots community more than 1 million strong—dedicated to connecting people and communities by creating a nationwide network of public trails, many from former rail lines. RTC serves as the national voice for the nation’s 34,000+ miles of rail-trails and multiuse trails, and 8,000+ miles of potential trails ready to be built, with the goal of creating more walkable, bikeable communities in America. Connect with RTC at railstotrails.org and @railstotrails on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The Great American Rail-Trail is one of RTC’s nine TrailNation™ projects designed to demonstrate the outcomes that trail networks deliver in every type of community. Learn more about the Great American Rail-Trail at greatamericanrailtrail.org and RTC’s network-building initiative at trailnation.org. greatamericanrailtrail.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 7 ROUTE SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 7 STATE STRATEGY ...................................................................................................................8 PLAN REVIEW ........................................................................................................................8 EXISTING TRAILS...................................................................................................................9 TRAIL GAPS ............................................................................................................................9 STATE-BY-STATE ROUTE ANALYSIS .................................................................. 11 WASHINGTON, D.C. ............................................................................................................13 MARYLAND ...........................................................................................................................19 PENNSYLVANIA ..................................................................................................................23 WEST VIRGINIA ...................................................................................................................28 OHIO ......................................................................................................................................31 INDIANA ...............................................................................................................................45 ILLINOIS ................................................................................................................................52 IOWA...................................................................................................................................... 57 NEBRASKA ........................................................................................................................... 72 WYOMING ........................................................................................................................... 84 MONTANA .............................................................................................................................91 IDAHO ................................................................................................................................. 102 WASHINGTON ................................................................................................................... 105 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 115 APPENDIX A – REVIEWED PLANS ................................................................................. 115 APPENDIX B – CONTACTS ............................................................................................. 126 APPENDIX C – GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................... 133 railstotrails.org greatamericanrailtrail.org GREAT AMERICAN RAIL-TRAIL ROUTE ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE “GREAT AMERICAN” IMPACT Now—and at an even grander scale when complete—the Great THE GREAT AMERICAN RAIL-TRAIL VISION American Rail-Trail will magnify the economic, social and community benefits that trails have delivered to people and places for decades. Imagine pedaling across the entire country on a safe, seamless and scenic For example, a study conducted by RTC in 2014 found that pathway—or walking a local trail that connects you to historic routes from Pennsylvania’s Three Rivers Heritage Trail—a trail along the route of coast to coast. You’re enthralled in the experience of exploring America’s the Great American—generates an estimated $8.3 million annually heritage—its potential, its beauty and bounty, its people and places. as a result of outdoor tourism and local business patronage. As a Consider the intimacy of taking in all the country has to offer from the large-scale, cross-country trail network, the Great American has the most personal vantage point: the trail. potential to generate billions of dollars a year for communities along its route by increasing trail connectivity between places, catalyzing Spanning more than 3,700 miles, the Great American Rail-Trail promises new investment in trailside businesses and commercial opportunities, an all-new American experience. The trail travels through 12 states and and enhancing tourism as well as outdoor recreation, which, according the District of Columbia, connecting trail users and communities from to a report by the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, is currently the Washington to Washington, and possibly someday from the Atlantic to the fastest-growing industry in the country. As new trails and connecting Pacific. As the first cross-country trail of its kind, the “Great American” will corridors are developed, communities along the Great American route be hosted primarily by rail-trails—public paths created from former railroad will also gain safer walking and biking access to the places they want to corridors—as well as other multiuse trails, offering a route across the nation go—like jobs, public transportation and shopping centers—and all who that is completely separated from vehicle traffic. Upon its completion, the enjoy the Great American will have better access to the outdoors as Great American will serve more than 50 million people within 50 miles of the trail intersects with green space within communities and connects its route, as well as the millions from across the country and the world who with public lands along the route. will explore America’s diverse places via the trail. The potential for a trail of this magnitude has been on RTC’s radar THE PREFERRED ROUTE OF THE “GREAT AMERICAN” since the early days of RTC, some three decades ago, when co- founder David Burwell first dreamed of a trail for the nation. It would With RTC’s commitment to complete the Great American Rail-Trail, efforts not be long before this dream would transform into vision, as RTC have focused on working with trail partners and states to confirm a route began to track rail-trail development in the 1980s, and the skeleton across the country that would provide the highest-quality experience for for a cross-country
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 4 DRAFT Bicycle Master Plan
    Chapter 4: Design and Maintenance Guidance Chapter 4 provides recommended guidance on bicycle facility design and maintenance practices. It includes a discussion of the existing standards that guide street design in Bellingham followed by descriptions of bicycle facility types and intersection treatments that are new or uncommon in the City. Detailed design considerations including design guidance for travel lane widths, corner curb radii and wayfinding are presented in Appendix D. Public Works Development Guidelines and Improvement Standards Currently, street design in Bellingham is guided by the Public Works Development Guidelines and Improvements Standards, which were adopted in 2001. The guidelines contain provisions for development and improvement of bicycle facilities, including: standards signs, signals, and markings, roadway facilities, bicycle lanes, and bicycle parking.1 These design guidelines were developed based on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual. For local roadways, WSDOT instructs local jurisdictions to use the latest addition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. It is recommended that the existing guidelines and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities should continue to be used in the development of bicycle facilities. Those documents are not intended to be replaced by the guidance presented here; however, there are instances where additional guidance will be useful in implementing this Plan. This guidance is presented for consideration and possible integration into the Bellingham Public Works Development Guidelines and Improvements Standards. In all cases, the recommendations in this chapter are consistent with current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance and recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • 40Thanniv Ersary
    Spring 2011 • $7 95 FSharing tihe exr periencste of Fastest railways past and present & rsary nive 40th An Things Were Not the Same after May 1, 1971 by George E. Kanary D-Day for Amtrak 5We certainly did not see Turboliners in regular service in Chicago before Amtrak. This train is In mid April, 1971, I was returning from headed for St. Louis in August 1977. —All photos by the author except as noted Seattle, Washington on my favorite train to the Pacific Northwest, the NORTH back into freight service or retire. The what I considered to be an inauspicious COAST LIMITED. For nearly 70 years, friendly stewardess-nurses would find other beginning to the new service. Even the the flagship train of the Northern Pacific employment. The locomotives and cars new name, AMTRAK, was a disappoint - RR, one of the oldest named trains in the would go into the AMTRAK fleet and be ment to me, since I preferred the classier country, had closely followed the route of dispersed country wide, some even winding sounding RAILPAX, which was eliminat - the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, up running on the other side of the river on ed at nearly the last moment. and was definitely the super scenic way to the Milwaukee Road to the Twin Cities. In addition, wasn’t AMTRAK really Seattle and Portland. My first association That was only one example of the serv - being brought into existence to eliminate with the North Coast Limited dated to ices that would be lost with the advent of the passenger train in America? Didn’t 1948, when I took my first long distance AMTRAK on May 1, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Policies, Practices, and Ordinances
    Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Policies, Practices, and Ordinances November 2011 i iv . Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Policies, Practices, and Ordinances November 2011 i The Delaware Valley Regional Planning The symbol in our logo is Commission is dedicated to uniting the adapted from region’s elected officials, planning the official professionals, and the public with a DVRPC seal and is designed as a common vision of making a great region stylized image of the Delaware Valley. even greater. Shaping the way we live, The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the work, and play, DVRPC builds Delaware River. The two adjoining consensus on improving transportation, crescents represent the Commonwealth promoting smart growth, protecting the of Pennsylvania and the State of environment, and enhancing the New Jersey. economy. We serve a diverse region of DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, sources including federal grants from the Montgomery, and Philadelphia in U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey DVRPC is the federally designated departments of transportation, as well Metropolitan Planning Organization for as by DVRPC’s state and local member the Greater Philadelphia Region — governments. The authors, however, are leading the way to a better future. solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Otetnews44 Winter2011
    The OhiO tO EriE trail WinterWinter 20112011 NewsletterNewsletter #44#44 Hoover Scenic Trail Ribbon Cutting New Email and Phone Number (Delaware County) 614-918-3636 It was a momentous October 23rd as the ribbon [email protected] was cut to open the Hoover Scenic Trail in Delaware County. The one-mile trail begins on Plumb Road just west of Old 3C Highway, bridges Plumb Road and continues north on Weise Road. The trail passes through the Hoover nature Preserve on the northwest side of Hoover Reservoir. First riders cross the Hoover Scenic Trail Bridge Camp Chase Trail Update (Franklin County) Work to pave 3.5 miles of The Ohio to Erie Trail from Olmstead Road to Georgesville Road began last fall. Asphalt was then laid. Once the bridge between Olmstead and Alkire roads is placed, the final paving can be completed. Franklin County Metro Parks continues to work on design and engineering of the remaining trail sections. ODOT is funding a portion of the trail from Galloway to Sullivant Avenue. A separate bridge over I-270 will be built, allowing maintenance of traffic Hoover Scenic Trail Ribbon Cutting L-R: Jim Flaherty (Ohio to Erie Trail Board mem- on I-270. Approval to bid on the work is expected ber), Dave Bender, Rita Au, and Jerry Rampelt (OTET Executive Director) sometime in 2011. Page 2 The Ohio to Erie Trail Newly Paved Trail Land had previously tried to purchase the property since 2001. The properties, near Scranton Road, were (Knox County) slated for riverside residential development. The The Heart of Ohio Trail in Knox County had landowners eventually decided to work with the trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register Volume 32 • Number 119
    FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 119 Wednesday, June 21,1967 • Washington, D.C. Pages 8789-8845 Agencies in this issue— Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Agriculture Department Atomic Energy Commission Business and Defense Services Administration Civil Aeronautics Board Consumer and Marketing Service Fédéral Aviation Administration Federal Communications Commission Federal Highway Administration Federal Home Loan Bank Board Federal Maritime Commission Food and Drug Administration Geological Survey Interstate Commerce Commission Land Management Bureau Navy Department Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Administration Detailed list o f Contents appears inside. Subscriptions Now Being Accepted SLIP LAWS 90th Congress, 1st Session 1967 Separate prints of Public Laws, published immediately after enactment, with marginal annotations and legislative history references. Subscription Price: $12.00 per Session Published by Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration Order from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 ¿vONAt.*- r r i i r O M l W SW D E P IC T E D Published daily, Tuesday through Saturday (no publication on Sundays, Mondays, or r r J l E i l r l I l i E l l I ^ I E l f on the day after an official Federal holiday), by the Office of the Federal Register, National $ Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration (mail address Nations Area Code 202 ^ Phone 962-8626 Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 20408), pursuant to the authority contained in the Federal Register Act, approved July 26, 1935 (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C., Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2014 (FY15) Large REAP City Grant Awards
    Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2014 (FY15) Large REAP City Grant Awards Grant Purpose: The City Parks and Open Space account receives 15% of the REAP funds, after initial distributions are made as outlined in Chapter 33, for competitive grants to help cities establish natural areas, encouraging outdoor recreation and resource management. Three categories have been established to assure grants are distributed to all sizes of cities. Projects considered include development of parks, multi-purpose trails (emphasis on connecting existing trails), park shelters, lake or river shoreline restoration, fishing access, and habitat restoration. Summary of Selection Process: As directed by criteria under Chapter 33.40, the selection committee reviewed and scored all applications. Examples of criteria considered include the relationship to relevant regional and statewide programs based on comprehensive plans (i.e. SCORP, County Resource Enhancement Plan, or local, state and federal plans), quality of site for land acquisition projects, environmental benefits, public benefit, and local support. ALL CITY ALLOCATION SUMMARY CATETORY AMOUNT AMOUNT # OF PROJECTS PROJECTS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED SCORED FUNDED SMALL CITIES TOTALS $1,969,030 $611,204 35 10 MEDIUM CITIES TOTALS $2,421,800 $775,610 27 8 LARGE CITIES TOTALS $2,089,900 $1,076,604 13 7 DISTRIBUTION $6,480,730 $2,436,418 75 25 TOTALS LARGE CITY PROJECT ALLOCATIONS 2014 (FY15) REAP City Parks Open Spaces - LARGE CITIES - Population larger than 25,000 Ranked Grant City by Project Name Project Description Amount Grant Award Applicant Score Requested Restoration of a 10.69 acre area of Forest Grove Park. The project consists of forest and savanna restoration including tree trimming and removal; invasive species Forest Grove removal; soil stabilization; planting of a savanna seed Park Phase 1 mix; and farm debris removal.
    [Show full text]
  • Miami Valley Bike Plan Update 2015
    MIAMI VALLEY BIKE PLAN UPDATE 2015 NOVEMBER 2015 Shaping Our Region’s Future Together Established in 1964, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission promotes collaboration among communities, stakeholders, and residents to advance regional priorities. MVRPC is a forum and resource where the Board of Directors identifies priorities and develops public policy and collaborative strategies to improve the quality of life throughout the Miami Valley Region. MVRPC performs various regional planning activities, including air quality, water quality, transportation, land use, research, and GIS. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), MVRPC is responsible for transportation planning in Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties and parts of northern Warren County. MVRPC's areawide water quality planning designation encompasses five (5) counties: Darke, Preble, plus the three MPO counties. DARKE MVRPC Planning Boundary 127 MIAMI Greenville 75 36 Troy Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundary Regional Planning Commission Boundary PREBLE MONTGOMERY 70 40 WPAFB Eaton Dayton 68 42 GREENE 675 Xenia 35 75 127 71 WARREN Bike Plan Update Table of Contents Graphics, Charts, and Tables iii Terms used in this document vii The Six Es of Bike Planning x EXECUtive SUMMARY XI INTRODUCTION 1 2008 Comprehensive Local-Regional Bikeway Plan 1 2015 Bikeways Plan Update 1 Partners in the Bikeways 2 Past 5 Nation’s Largest Paved Trail Network 5 Accomplishments since the 2008 CLRBP 6 Bikeways Network Building 6 Connecting Trails 8 Non-Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Listing of Highway Projects with Federal Funding Obligated For
    Annual Listing of Projects with Federal Funding Obligated for Fiscal Year 2018 Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Two Chatham Center, Suite 500 112 Washington Place, Pittsburgh PA 15219 Phone (412) 391-4490 Fax (412) 391-9160 www.spcregion.org List of Abbreviations and Definitions FAST ACT Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MPMS Multi-modal Project Management System One Map PennDOT Public Mapping Application PennDOT Pennsylvania Departmnet of Transportation SPC Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission TIP Transportation Improvement Program Project Funding Codes ARC Appalachian Regional Commission BOF Bridge - Off System BOO, BON Federal Bridge Funds CAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Wuality FAP Slide Emergency HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program NHPP National Highway Performance Program RRX Surface Transportation - RRX Elimination of Crossing Special Project SFX Special Project - Federal Earmark STP Surface Transportation - Any Area in State STU Surface Transportation - Urban TAP Transportation Alternatives Program Project Phase Abbreviations CON Construction FD Final Design Preliminary PE Engineering Right of ROW Way UTL Utilities 1 Annual Listing of Federally Obligated Highway Projects October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018 Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Annual Listing of Projects with Federal Funding Obligated for Federal Fiscal Year 2018 On December 4th, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) which allocates federal funding for surface transportation programs over fiscal years 2016 through 2020. Per 23 U.S.C. § 134(j)(7)(B) of FAST Act, states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (such as the SPC) must publish annual lists of projects where federal funds were obligated.
    [Show full text]
  • OTETNEWS52 Winter2016
    Cleveland Akron Fredericksburg Massillon Mt Vernon Killbuck Sunbury Danville COLUMBUS Xenia London Loveland The Ohio to Erie Trail Cincinnati Winter 2016 Newsletter #52 Alum Creek Trail Dedicated The final leg of the Alum Creek At the dedication ceremony Trail was dedicated on October 1, Mayor Coleman of Columbus and the Ohio to Erie Trail is now said, “We’re the next big Bike City, open from downtown Columbus USA.” to Delaware County. The City of Columbus through the efforts of Photo of the Ohio To Brad Westall made progress each Erie Trail on the newly opened Alum Creek Trail. year in building the trail. Daris Chosen as New Ohio to Erie Trail Fund Coordinator Lisa Daris The OTETF Board is pleased to in- with non-profit organizations. Her ing Program and is the founder of troduce Lisa Daris of Columbus as accomplishments include serving SLOW MONEY, a non-profit orga- the new part-time Executive Coor- on the Community Advisory Com- nization that focuses on peer-to- dinator. Lisa will handle the day to mittee for the Mid-Ohio Regional peer principle based lending. In day operations of the organization Planning Commission’s transpor- addition she has her own seasonal and report to President Moffitt and tation department. She is also kayaking company, Olentangy Pad- the officers. on the board of FLOW (Friends of dle. She is a graduate of The Ohio She has extensive experience the Lower Olentangy), chairs the State University. in the corporate world as well as Columbus Outdoor Pursuits Boat- www.ohiotoerietrail.org facebook.com/OhiotoErie
    [Show full text]
  • Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team
    Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team Project Leads: Nancy Smith Lea, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Ray Tomalty, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Researchers: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Marvin Macaraig, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Julia Malmo-Laycock, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Report Design: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Cover Photo: Tour de l’ile, Go Bike Montreal Festival, Montreal by Maxime Juneau/APMJ Project Partner: Please cite as: Benni, J., Macaraig, M., Malmo-Laycock, J., Smith Lea, N. & Tomalty, R. (2019). Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada. Toronto: Clean Air Partnership. CONTENTS List of Figures 4 List of Tables 7 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction 12 2. Costs of Bicycle Infrastructure Measures 13 Introduction 14 On-street facilities 16 Intersection & crossing treatments 26 Traffic calming treatments 32 Off-street facilities 39 Accessory & support features 43 3. Costs of Cycling Programs 51 Introduction 52 Training programs 54 Repair & maintenance 58 Events 60 Supports & programs 63 Conclusion 71 References 72 Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Bollard protected cycle track on Bloor Street, Toronto, ON ..................................................... 16 Figure 2: Adjustable concrete barrier protected cycle track on Sherbrook St, Winnipeg, ON ............ 17 Figure 3: Concrete median protected cycle track on Pandora Ave in Victoria, BC ............................ 18 Figure 4: Pandora Avenue Protected Bicycle Lane Facility Map ............................................................ 19 Figure 5: Floating Bus Stop on Pandora Avenue ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 6: Raised pedestrian crossings on Pandora Avenue .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2021 Trail Walker
    MAINTAINING MORE THAN 2,100 MILES OF TRAILS IN NY AND NJ NYNJTC.ORG SUMMER 2021 TRAIL WALKER NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY TRAIL CONFERENCE • CONNECTING PEOPLE WITH NATURE SINCE 1920 Growing Park Visitation Increases Our Commitment to Great Trail Experiences For more than a decade, land SCHNEIDER AND MATT JOHNSON JESSIE spotted lanternfly got their managers and environmental first training this spring. organizations have been de- bating how to solve one of the Finding solutions together biggest threats to the integrity To truly serve the natural areas of our public lands: increasing- of the greater New York met- ly high visitation. In 2020, at ropolitan area, we must work the height of a pandemic that together with the other agen- prompted more people than cies and partners doing the ever to find relaxation and ref- work that continues to sustain uge in nature, the issue seemed open space in this region. The to reach its tipping point. Trail Conference is proud to As literal and figurative be a founding member of the trailblazers in environmental New York Outdoor Recreation conservation for 100 years, Coalition (NYORC). Members the Trail Conference has tak- of the statewide NYORC are en a leadership role in coordi- committed to building a more nating stewardship efforts to equitable outdoors through in- keep up with the challenges of vestment and being an active high use and misuse. There is participant in creating wel- no one answer to solve these coming spaces for historically issues; it is our belief that we marginalized and underrepre- can create better outdoor ex- sented communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Master Plan: 2012
    BICYCLE MASTER PLAN: 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREPARED FOR V VISION STATEMENT VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IX CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 BICYCLING IN MESA 1 THE BENEFITS OF BICYCLING 3 BICYCLE TRIP AND RIDER CHARACTERISTICS 6 BICYCLE USE IN MESA 8 PAST BICYCLE PLANNING EFFORTS 12 REGIONAL PLANNING & COORDINATION EFFORTS 15 WHY MESA NEEDS AN UPDATED BICYCLE PLAN 20 PLAN UPDATE PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM 23 CHAPTER 2 - GOALS & OBJECTIVES 25 PURPOSE OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 25 GOAL ONE 27 GOAL TWO 28 GOAL THREE 29 GOAL FOUR 30 GOAL FIVE 31 i CHAPTER 3 - EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT 33 INTRODUCTION 33 MESARIDES! 34 EDUCATION 35 ENCOURAGEMENT 38 ENFORCEMENT 42 CHAPTER 4 - BICYCLE FACILITIES AND DESIGN OPTIONS 47 INTRODUCTION 47 BASIC ELEMENTS 48 WAYFINDING 52 BICYCLE PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS 53 BICYCLE ACCESSIBILITY 58 CHAPTER 5 - MESA’S BICYCLE NETWORK 61 INTRODUCTION 61 MESA’S NETWORK OF THE FUTURE 65 DEVELOPING A RECOMMENDED FUTURE NETWORK 68 METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY NEEDS 72 ii CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION, EVALUATION, AND FUNDING 101 INTRODUCTION 101 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 103 IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA 104 PROJECT PRIORITY RANKING 105 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM EXPANSION 122 ADDITIONAL STAFF REQUIREMENTS 124 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 125 SUMMARY 130 APPENDIX A - THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN PROCESS 131 PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 131 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS 132 BENEFITS OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM (PIP) 132 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM (PIP) PLAN 133 MESA BICYCLE
    [Show full text]