DOCSLIB.ORG

The City of Portland Bicycle Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Making Bicycling an Integral Part of Daily Life in Portland Bicycle Master Plan City of Portland Office of Transportation BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Making Bicycling an Integral Part of Daily Life in Portland Bicycle Master Plan City of Portland Office of Transportation 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 730 Portland, OR 97204 Adopted May 1, 1996 Updated July 1, 1998 Resolution No. 35515 City of Portland, Earl Blumenauer, Commissioner Office of Transportation Felicia Trader, Director Bureau of Traffic Goran Sparrman, Director Management Rob Burchfield, Principal Engineer Project Staff Mia Birk, Bicycle Program Coordinator Todd Burkholder, Program Assistant Roger Geller, Bicycle Program Specialist Doug McCollum, Senior Traffic Engineer Barbara Plummer, Assistant Bicycle Program Specialist Jeff Smith, Bicycle Program Specialist Jamie Throckmorton, Senior Planner Monique Wahba, Associate Planner Lewis Wardrip, Senior Traffic Engineer Bicycle Master Plan Lois Achenbach (Reclaiming Our Streets Implementation Team, Steering Committee Hollywood Development Corporation) Bob Akers (40 Mile Loop Land Trust) Bill Barber (Metro) Rick Browning (Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee) Rex Burkholder (Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Oregon Bicycle Advisory Committee) Sharon Fekety (Portland Wheelmen Touring Club, Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee) Karen Frost-Mecey (Bicycle Transportation Alliance) Peter F. Fry, AICP Elizabeth Humphrey (Tri-Met) Keith Liden (Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee) Lidwien Rahman (Oregon Department of Transportation) Barbara Sochaka and Preston Beck (Port of Portland) Eric Stachon Additional Assistance Graham Clark Mary Edin Linda Ginenthal Dan Hansen Barbara Head Dan Layden Carl Rilling Geoff Sanders Niki Todd Foreword BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Bicycle Master Plan The Bicycle Master Plan was created over a two and a half year period by Process Bicycle Program staff with input from over 2,000 residents. The process of creating this Plan was guided by the Bicycle Master Plan Steering Committee, consisting of Bicycle Advisory Committee members; other bicycle, business, and neighborhood activists; and technical advisors from the Oregon Department of Transportation, Metro, Tri-Met, the Port of Portland, and other city bureaus. Public input has been vigorously solicited throughout the process of preparing this Plan. In the Spring of 1994 the Bicycle Program held an initial series of 12 public workshops attended by over 500 people. Additionally, the Bicycle Program gave over 35 presentations to interested groups and conducted the Bicycle Facility Preference Survey. The public input received was compiled into a report, “Bicycle Master Plan Phase One Report,” (June 1994), and used as the basis for the Bicycle Master Plan Preliminary Discussion Draft (March 1995). Next, to gain public input on the Preliminary Discussion Draft, the Bicycle Program held a series of nine public forums, met with interested groups, and received comments in person and via phone, mail, fax, and E-mail. Mailings announcing the opportunity to comment were sent to over 10,000 individuals and all the city’s neighborhood and business associations. Public forums were also announced in the Oregonian, Willamette Week, over the Internet, through local colleges and universities, through flyer postings, and numerous neighbor- hood and interest group newsletters. Staff and the Steering Committee reviewed all comments and incorporated most of them. In all, more than 1000 people contributed to the Draft Bicycle Master Plan (August 1995). Over 500 copies of the Draft Master Plan were distributed to interested par- ties, who were given another opportunity to comment. Four open houses were held, again advertised by mass mailings, and print and electronic media. The Steering Committee and staff reviewed and incorporated this final round of public comments. i BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Foreword Bicycle Master Plan If you have any questions, comments, or ideas while reviewing this Plan, please Process contact: City of Portland Bicycle Program (continued) 1120 SW 5th Ave., Room 730 Portland, OR 97204 PHONE: 823-7082 FAX: 823-7576 E-MAIL: [email protected] This project is partially funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. TGM grants rely on federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and Oregon Lottery funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon. II Table of Contents BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Foreword . i Executive Summary . 1 SECTION I Introduction . 9 Portland’s Bicycle Program History . 11 THE EARLY YEARS . 11 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS . 11 DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS . 11 OTHER PROJECTS . 12 BICYCLE PARKING . 12 MAINTENANCE . 12 EVENTS AND EDUCATION . 12 Bicycle Master Plan . 13 SECTION II Policies and Objectives . 15 Introduction. 15 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Bicycle Policy and Objectives. 16 Benchmarks . 16 Other Comprehensive Plan Bicycle-Related Policies and Objectives . 17 Relationship to Other Plans . 19 Central City Transportation Management Plan . 19 Portland Transportation System Plan . 19 Metro Regional Bicycle Plan and Regional Transportation Plan . 19 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan . 19 Arterial Streets Classifications and Policies . 19 Community and Neighborhood Plans . 20 Land-Use Ordinances and Zoning Codes. 20 iii BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Table of Contents SECTION III Recommended Bikeway Network. 21 Introduction. 21 Bikeway Classification Descriptions. 22 Other Definitions . 25 Current State of the Portland Bikeway Network . 25 Oregon Department of Transportation Highways . 26 Willamette River Bridges . 26 Central City Bikeways . 27 Safe Bicycle Passage on All Streets . 28 Bikeway Network Development . 28 BICYCLE LANES . 29 BICYCLE BOULEVARDS . 29 OFF-STREET PATHS . 29 SIGNED CONNECTIONS. 29 ARTERIAL STREETS CLASSIFICATION AND POLICY . 30 Maintenance . 30 Railroad Crossings . 31 Traffic Signal Operations . 32 Objectives and Action Items . 32 Objective 6.12A . 33 Objective 6.12B . 35 Objective 6.12C . 35 SECTION IV End-of-Trip Facilities. 43 Introduction. 43 End-of-Trip Facilities Definitions . 44 The Current State of End of Trip Facilities in Portland. 45 Bicycle Parking . 45 CENTRAL CITY AREA BICYCLE PARKING . 45 OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY AREA BICYCLE PARKING . 46 BICYCLE PARKING AT PRIMARY, MIDDLE AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS . 47 BICYCLE PARKING AT OTHER INSTITUTIONS . 47 BICYCLE PARKING AND THE TRANSIT SYSTEM . 48 BICYCLE PARKING AT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS . 48 BICYCLE PARKING AT SPECIAL EVENTS AND RECREATIONAL DESTINATIONS. 48 Showers and Changing Facilities for Commuting Cyclists . 49 Objectives and Action Items . 49 Objective 6.12D . 50 Objective 6.12E . 54 iv BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Table of Contents SECTION V Bicycles and Transit. 59 Introduction. 59 Improving the Bicycle-Transit Link. 59 Current State of Bicycles and Transit . 60 Bicycling to Transit . 60 Bicycle Parking at Transit . 60 Bicycles on Transit. 61 Encouragement and Education Efforts for Bicycles and Transit. 61 Objectives and Action Items . 63 Objective 6.12F . 63 SECTION VI Education and Encouragement . 65 Introduction. 65 Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Crash Information . 66 Consistent Messages to Teach . ..
Recommended publications
  • 2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel

    2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel

    Figure 2-1: Many low-volume resi- YES dential streets need only the most basic improve- ments to make them more ridable. 2. Basic Roadway Improvements The street system provides the basic network for bicycle travel. Other ele- ments (e.g., bike lanes and paths) supplement this system. To make most streets work for bicyclists, basic improvements may be needed. Such things as safe railroad crossings, traffic signals that work for bicyclists, and street networks that connect benefit bicyclists and make more bicycle trips possible and likely. 2.1 Roadway types While the most basic improvements are appropriate for all categories of street, some improvements are most appropriate for certain categories. In a typical community, streets types range from quiet residential streets, to minor collector streets, to major arterials, and highways or expressways. Figure 2-2: Long blocks and a lack 2.1.1 Residential streets of connectivity On quiet residential streets with little traffic and slow speeds (fig. 2-1), make trips longer bicyclists and motorists can generally co-exist with little difficulty. Such and discourage streets seldom need bike lanes. Only the most basic improvements may bicycling for pur- poseful trips. be required, for instance: • bicycle-safe drainage grates • proper sight distance at intersections • smooth pavement and proper maintenance One additional factor that may need attention is connectivity. Providing bicycle linkages between residential streets and nearby commercial areas or adjacent neighborhoods can significantly improve bicycling conditions. In many communi- 2-1 Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook ties, newer parts of town tend to have dis- Figure 2-3: Bicycle- continuous street networks that require bicy- pedestrian connec- clists, pedestrians, and motorists to travel a tions like that long distance to get to a nearby destination shown can provide (fig.
  • Chapter 4 DRAFT Bicycle Master Plan

    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.
  • Recreation Collaborative Recommendations Report

    Recreation Collaborative Recommendations Report

    Collaborative Community Recommendations for Oregon State University College Forests Recreation Planning Authors & Research Team Elspeth Gustavson, College Forests Graduate Research Assistant Ryan Brown, College Forests Recreation Manager Christine Olsen, College of Forestry Research Associate and Instructor College Forests Recreation Collaborative Recreation Planning Recommendations Project Contributors Mark Needham, College of Forestry Associate Professor and Gene D. Knudson Chair in Forestry Education College Forests Recreation Collaborative – Daniel Coyle - Mountain Biker & Team Dirt Member Dale Draeger - Equestrian & Equi-Nuts and Oregon Equestrian Trails Member Sam Dussel - Hiker, Mountain Biker & OSU Recreation Resource Management Student Glenn Fisher - Hunter, Hiker & Forest Recreation Advisory Committee Member Phil Hays - Hiker & Forest Recreation Advisory Member, Benton County Natural Areas and Parks Committee Chair, and Corvallis City Parks Advisory Committee Member Trey Jackson - Mountain Biker & Forest Recreation Advisory Committee, and Team Dirt Member Jason Killian - Mountain Biker, Hunter, Runner & Corvallis Mountain Rescue Unit Member Clem LaCava - Runner & Forest Recreation Advisory Committee Member Gabriel Merrell - OSU Office of Equity and Inclusion Senior Accessibility Associate and Deputy ADA Coordinator Joshua Norris - Hiker, Mountain Biker, Runner & OSU Adventure Leadership Institute Director Randy Rasmussen - Hiker, Equestrian & Forest Recreation Advisory Committee, American Hiking Society, and Backcountry Horsemen of America Member Ken Ward – Runner & Forest Recreation Advisory Committee Member Kay Yates - Dog walker & Forest Recreation Advisory Committee Member 2 | P a g e August 27, 2014 College Forests Recreation Collaborative Recreation Planning Recommendations Executive Summary Recreation visitors of the Oregon State University College Forests (College Forests) participated in a collaborative planning effort to draft this document of recommendations for the future of the recreation program.
  • Marquam Hill Design Guidelines

    Marquam Hill Design Guidelines

    Marquam Hill Design Guidelines August 20, 2003 Bureau of Planning City of Portland, Oregon Originally Adopted July 10, 2002 Ordinance No. 176742 Readopted August 14, 2003 Ordinance No. 177796 Acknowledgements The Bureau of Planning is committed to providing equal access to information and hearings. If you need special accommodation, please call 503-823-7700 (TTY 503-823-6868). Portland City Council Portland Bureau of Planning Vera Katz, Mayor Vera Katz, Mayor, Commissioner-in-Charge Jim Francesconi, Commissioner Gil Kelley, Planning Director Randy Leonard, Commissioner Cary Pinard, Principal Planner Dan Saltzman, Commissioner Erik Sten, Commissioner Project Staff Portland Design Commission Susan Hartnett, Project Manager Christopher Kopca, Chair Troy Doss, City Planner Mark Raggett, City Planner Michael McCulloch, AIA, Vice-Chair Phil Goff, City Planner Brigid Flanigan Lloyd Lindley, ASLA Image Credits Nancy Merryman, AIA Phil Goff Loren Waxman Troy Doss Linda Wisner Mark Raggett Acknowledgements Marquam Hill Plan Community and Technical Advisory Group Debbie Murdock, Portland State University Larry Beck, Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill resident/No Tram Robert Neuberger, Homestead resident to OHSU John Perry, Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill resident Sean Brennan (alternate) Lynn Peterson, Tri-Met Glenn Bridger, Southwest Neighborhoods Incorporated Tony Mendoza (alternate) Don Baack (alternate) Young Park (alternate) Marty Slapikas (alternate) Pam Philpot, Veterans Affairs Medical Center Rob Burchfield, Portland Office of Transportation Carol
  • International Registration Designating India Trade Marks Journal No: 1817 , 02/10/2017 Class 1

    International Registration Designating India Trade Marks Journal No: 1817 , 02/10/2017 Class 1

    International Registration designating India Trade Marks Journal No: 1817 , 02/10/2017 Class 1 3251555 26/08/2015 [International Registration No. : 1274405] Hanwha Fine Chemical Co., Ltd 46-47 Yeosu-Sandan 2-ro, Yeosu-Si Jeonnam Republic of Korea Proposed to be Used IR DIVISION Toluene; polyurethanes; industrial chemicals for use in the manufacture of polyurethane; TDI (toluene diisocyanate); TDA (toluenediamine); toluene derivatives; isocyanate based compounds; polyol; organic isocyanide; hydrocarbon; carbon monoxide; organic amines; chemicals used in industry and unprocessed artificial resins; unprocessed artificial resins as raw materials in the form of powders, liquids or pastes. 6485 Trade Marks Journal No: 1817 , 02/10/2017 Class 1 Priority claimed from 09/04/2015; Application No. : 86592203 ;United States of America 3255588 09/10/2015 [International Registration No. : 1275819] Life Technologies Corporation 5791 Van Allen Way Carlsbad CA 92008 United States of America Proposed to be Used IR DIVISION Reagents, enzymes, nucleotides for scientific or research use. 6486 Trade Marks Journal No: 1817 , 02/10/2017 Class 1 Priority claimed from 06/05/2015; Application No. : 679744 ;Switzerland 3261595 29/10/2015 [International Registration No. : 1276965] Clariant AG Rothausstrasse 61 CH-4132 Muttenz Switzerland Proposed to be Used IR DIVISION Chemical products for the food and beverage industries. 6487 Trade Marks Journal No: 1817 , 02/10/2017 Class 1 Priority claimed from 03/01/2017; Application No. : 016219611 ;European Union 3630735 30/06/2017 [International Registration No. : 1364314] MATSEN Chemie AG Hamburger Str. 178 22083 Hamburg Germany Proposed to be Used IR DIVISION Nanoparticles; nanoparticles of silicon dioxide; colloidal silica; nanoparticles, nanoparticles of silicon dioxide or colloidal silica in aqueous solutions; nanoparticles, nanoparticles of silicon or colloidal silica in aqueous solutions with an addition of less than 5 percent of a non-aqueous liquid, in particular glycol, chlorine and/or biocide.
  • SHARED LANE MARKINGS (Sharrow) SHOULDER BICYCLE

    SHARED LANE MARKINGS (Sharrow) SHOULDER BICYCLE

    BICYCLE FACILITIES DEFINITIONS SHARED LANE (wide curb/outside lanes) SHARED LANE MARKINGS (sharrow) A lane of a traveled way that is open to bicycle travel and A pavement marking symbol that indicates an appropriate bicycle vehicular use. positioning in a shared lane. SHOULDER CYCLE TRACK The portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way, for A portion of a right-of-way contiguous with the traveled way, which accommodation of stopped vehicles, emergency use and lateral has been designated by pavement markings and, if used, signs, for support of sub-base, base and surface courses, often used by the exclusive use of bicyclists. Cycle tracks are typically one-way cyclists where paved. (not always), may or may not be raised above the roadway and are separated from the motor vehicle lane by a barrier or buffer such as a rolled curb, cross-hatched paint, planting strip or parked cars. BICYCLE LANE OR BIKE LANE A portion of a roadway which has been designated by pavement markings and, if used, signs, for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. BICYCLE FACILITIES DEFINITIONS SHARED USE PATH BICYCLE PARKING A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic Bicycle racks should be designed so that they: by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of- • Support the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity. way or within an independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may • Accommodate high security U-shaped bike locks. also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers • Accommodate locks securing the frame and one or both wheels and other non-motorized users.
  • Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic

    Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic

    Literature Review Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic July 2018 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA-SA-18-030 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Literature Review: Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic 2018 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bill Schultheiss, Rebecca Sanders, Belinda Judelman, and Jesse Boudart (TDG); REPORT NO. Lauren Blackburn (VHB); Kristen Brookshire, Krista Nordback, and Libby Thomas (HSRC); Dick Van Veen and Mary Embry (MobyCON). 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Toole Design Group, LLC VHB 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300 DTFH61-16-D-00005 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Vienna, VA 22182 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE FHWA 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Tamara Redmon.
  • Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E

    Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E

    39 19. K. Y. Kung. A New Method in Correlation Study of vision of Pavements. Proc., 3rd International Con­ Pavement Deflection and Cracking. Proc., 2nd In­ ference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, ternational Conference on Structural Design of 1972, pp. 1188-1205. Asphalt Pavements, 1967, pp. 1037-1046. 20. P. H. Leger and P. Autret. The Use of Deflection Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pavement Condi­ Measurements for the Structural Design and Super- tion Evaluation. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements With Tied Shoulders or Widened Lanes Bert E. Colley, Claire G. Ball, and Pichet Arriyavat, Portland Cement Association Field and laboratory pavements were instrumented and load tested to reducing pavement performance, Because of this prob­ evaluate the effect of widened lanes, concrete shoulders, and slab thick­ lem, several states have installed costly longitudinal ness on measured strains and deflectfons. Eight slabs were tested in the and transverse drainage systems. Thus, concrete field and two in the laboratory. Pavement slabs were 203, 229, or 254 shoulders and widened lanes have the potential for curing mm (8, 9, or 10 in) thick. Other major design variables included the width of lane widening, the presence or absence of dowels or of a con­ many drainage problems as well as providing additional crete shoulder, joint spacing, and the type of shoulder joint construc­ slab strength. tion. Generally, there was good agreement between measured strains and Many design features contribute to pavement life. values calculated by using Westergaard's theoretical equations. Concrete The effect of some of these features can be evaluated shoulders were effective in reducing the magnitude of measured strains analytically.
  • Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence Of

    Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence Of

    BICYCLE BOULEVARDS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENCE OF BICYCLE BOULEVARDS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BICYCLE-TO-WORK RATES IN PORTLAND, OREGON by RITHY KHUT A THESIS Presented to the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Community and Regional Planning December 2012 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Rithy Khut Title: Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence of Bicycle Boulevards and Their Influence on Bicycle-to-Work Rates in Portland, Oregon This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Community and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management by: Dr. Marc Schlossberg Chairperson Dr. Grant Jacobsen Member Briana Orr Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research & Innovation/Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded December 2012 ii © 2012 Rithy Khut This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. iii THESIS ABSTRACT Rithy Khut Master of Community and Regional Planning Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management December 2012 Title: Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence of Bicycle Boulevards and Their Influence on Bicycle-to-Work Rates in Portland, Oregon One of the top bicycling cities in the United States, Portland, Oregon has used a mixture of bicycle infrastructure to create a cohesive network for bicyclists. Building on their success, in 2010 Portland set forth on an ambitious path to envision their bicycle network in 2030.
  • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

    FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

    BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE FEBRUARY 2019 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2019 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. FUNDING NUMBERS Bikeway Selection Guide NA 6. AUTHORS 5b. CONTRACT NUMBER Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren; DTFH61-16-D-00005 Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 REPORT NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Mobycon - North America, Durham, NC 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Tamara Redmon FHWA-SA-18-077 Project Manager, Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: NA https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike 13. ABSTRACT This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade- offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical process- oriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, 52 active transportation, low stress networks 16. PRICE CODE NA 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20.
  • Marquam Hill Connection

    Marquam Hill Connection

    DECISION BRIEFING BOOK Marquam Hill Connection Version 1: August 30, 2017 What is the Southwest Corridor Decision Overview Light Rail Project? The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project includes a new connection to The project is a proposed 12-mile link the light rail line with the jobs and services at the medical facilities MAX line connecting downtown located on Marquam Hill, including Oregon Health & Science University Portland to Tigard and Tualatin. (OHSU), the Veterans Affairs (VA) Portland Health Care System and the After several years of early planning, Portland Shriners Hospital for Children. Metro models project that over the project is now undergoing 10,000 daily trips (including both directions) would use this connection environmental review. in 2035, including trips connecting to and from light rail, local buses and the Lair Hill neighborhood. Walking time along the proposed What is the purpose of the connection, which would link Barbur Boulevard with OHSU’s Kohler decision briefing books? Pavilion, is estimated to be about six minutes. Several project decisions remain, including options for alignments, stations, maintenance facilities and station access improvements. Through fall 2017, individual decision briefing books will be released to inform conversations about the key considerations for each major decision. Because the environmental impact analysis is ongoing, briefing books will be updated as new information becomes available. When will the decisions be made? The steering committee is anticipated to narrow down the remaining options to a “Preferred Alternative” in early 2018. Four connection options are under consideration, which include Further outreach, design and combinations of tunnels, elevators and bridges.
  • Bicycle Master Plan: 2012

    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