Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/12/1995

Home

Feb. 8, ! 98~ BIKEWAYS render a logical "beginning" ~d "ending". Due to limited funds the opportunity may or may not present itself to complete a desired link at a later date. 1. Determine appropriate standard a. No build - The no-build option would be used when: - the present road design and traffic volume render an acceptable sendce level ("good" or "fair" rank) - the service area is comparatively Limited (al- though the section under study may rank "poor" or "un. satisfactory") - an acceptable parallel road or off-road bikeway is available to the majority of the same destinations as the section under study. b. Minimal level · An investment of this nature would provide either better communication to travelers through the signing of an acceptable route or through the placement of special informational signs to cyclists; or through the construction of a bituminous shoulder of relative ddmension to the inplace aggregate shoulder (not less than 4' unless under extenuating circumstances), The minimal level of effort generally should be avoided if it renders less than a f~r rating unless qeometrics and financ- ing of the project prohibit such a desig-a. Generally speak- lng projects constructed at minimal level render a travel corridor of greater perceived safety -- this design should be the exception to the standard whereby the objective is a fair rating. c. Moderate level - The moderate level' standard would render a "fair" rating without major alteration to the existing road' qeometrics/drainage structure, etc. This standard is the norm, whereby the achievement of a "fair" raring would produce a travel corridor acceptable to the average cyclist's skills and needs, Motorized traffic along roads rated fair mix well with non-motorized traffic through the implementation of this standard. d. Major level - Often rimes projects involving the entire roadway (i.e., new road construcQon, overlay pro- jects, etc.) should take into account the travel n~ds of cychsts. The review process is the same as presented pre- viously (i.e., road analysis, parallel suitable routes, service areas) yet the problem of retrofitting a provision for bikeways is not present. As with all transportation invest. ments, a thorough investigation must be conducted to determine how to best serve the traveling public with available funds. ordinated operation. Therefore, the designer and admmi$. trator responsible for the project should require input from all affected parties at an early sta~ of project development to avoid last minute decision-making. 3. Evaluate the probability of implementing adjacent improvements. The probal:dlity of implementing the ira. provements on the rest of the major bikeway segment should then be evaluated, A rough estimate of the cost to accomplish these improvements should be made. Then considering the severity of the deficiencies compared to the need for improvements on other roads (and off-road I:dkeways) and considering the probable long-range funding capabLlity, a decision should be made on whether or not these desirable improvements are likely to be accomplished in the foreseeable future. C. MINOR ROUTE EVALUATION A minor route is a road or off-road bikeway that serves as a tributary to the major bikeway route. The ser- vice area is significant at a local level, and serves to support the principal travel corridor. M/nor routes function as collectors from cities, parks, commercial/residential areas to the major bikeway system. Normally minor routes are existent "good" or "fair" roads, however if these rbutes are rated "poor" or "unsatisfactory", the desi~ should not exceed' the present or proposed standards of the major bikeway route design (or desired design). Because there are several combinations of conditions that will be encountered when evaluating proposed pro- jects, it is important for the designer to get the "big pic- ture'' of the proposed proiect area and surrounding vicinity to provide design continuity (an acceptable ]eve] of stan- dards at a minimum cost). (1) Ideally the standards used should produce a uniformly consistent "rating" level while minimizing the variance in design so as to not confuse motorists or cyclists. Anticipation and predictability of the design of a travel corrridor often times can minimize the potential for acci. dents. (2) All crossings of public roadways should be done at intersections at specially marked areas. This is a par- ticular concern when designing off-road bikeways because of the lack of driver reaction time to an unexpected cyclist maneuver. ml l I I I: I l l I I I I I I 2. Evaluate the probability of implementing the pro- posed project. The probabihty of implementing the project should be studded in conjunction with those agencies and local units of government directly impacted. Construction schedules should be flexible, yet provide enough guidance to the implementing agency to provide for a well-co- ! m