HomeMy WebLinkAbout117-93 RESOLUTIONpdit
1
RESOLUTION NO. 117-93
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TRAIL PLAN POLICY AND
FORMATION OF A CITIZENS TRAIL COMMITTEE TO
RESEARCH POSSIBLE SITES AND TYPES OF BICYCLE
TRANS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the Council hereby adopts the trail plan policy as presented. A copy
of the plan is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof
Section 2. The Council hereby authorizes the formation of a citizens trail committee
to research possible sites and types of trails.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of November , 1993.
ATTEST:
By:
or ,e.�
Sherry W Thomas, City Clerk
APPROVED:
BY:
my(444-
red Hanna, Mayor
4
AN INTERCITY BIKEWAY SYSTEM
for the
CITY OF FAYETTVILLE
•
AN INTERCITY BIKEWAY SYSTEM
for the
CITY OF FAYETTVILLE
A FEASIBILITY REPORT
SUMMER 1993
by
KIM J. HESSE
•
Special thanks to
Alen Little, Planning Director
Larry wood and Celia Scott Silkwood
and the Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission
Ken Easton, Trail Coordinator of the AR Dept. of Paths and Tourism
Attila Bality, Outdoor Recreation Planner with the National Parks Service River,
Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
Randy Allen, Street Supenntendent
Kevin Santos, Tracy Paul, Sharon Langley, 7Im Conklin, Willie Newman,
Ben Rakes, and Murphy Hartshorn
and the entire staff of the Fayetteville Planning and Building Inspections Office
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
•
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. NEEDS ANALYSIS 2
III. BENEFITS 3
IV. PLANNING 4
A. "Where should bicycle facilities be placed"?
B. "What types of facilities should be provided"?
1. Bike Routes
2. Bike Lanes
3. Bike Paths
4. Bicycle Parking
C. "How much money should be spent on facilities"?
D. Inventory
V. FUTURE PLANNING 29
VI. CONCEPTUAL PLAN 32
A. Potential locations for bicycle facilities
1. Schools 35
2. Parks and Recreation 36
3. Major Employers and Shopping37
4. Total Master Plan 38
5. Pilot Project 39
VII. APPENDICES 40
•
•
I . INTRODUCTION
•
•
The major objective of this report is to supply the City of Fayetteville with
a feasibility study for an intercity bikeway system This is the ground work from
which future activity can be generated. These activities include the generation of
public awareness and involvement, the development of an informed bikeway
committee, detailed planning, and future cost analysis.
It should be noted that a project of this complexity will take years of
continued planning and funding to complete It must be included in the general
plan for the city as a component of the transportation and recreational systems
requiring continuous monitoring, evaluation and feedback.
As is discussed throughout the report, there are several elements and
different standards which can be incorporated into a bikeway system. These
differences in standards affect the quality of the ride experienced by the bicychsts
as well as the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. As is expected, the
better the quality of bikeway developed, the higher the costs. As the project
unfolds, the quality of the bikeway will be dictated by the public's interest and
involvement, as well as the cooperation of Fayetteville's Public Works Departments
for implementation and future funding.
It must be stressed that for any bikeway system to be successful it must be
planned with pubhc input and developed to the highest possible quality. A portion
of the funds that have been authonzed by the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) are to be allocated for further planning stages in which the
pubhc, as well as representatives from the city development departments are to be
mvolved m the design, implementation and maintenance of the project.
1
II. NEEDS ANALYSIS
There is, without a doubt. the need and public desire for an intercity bikeway
system in Fayettville. Research on the concept began in 1978 with a survey of
bicycle use among the residents of the city. In 1980, a Bicycle Task Force was
formed to discuss the possibilities of a major bicycle transportation way throughout
the city. Since then several interest groups have formed to show support for a
future bikeway. The latest being the Bike Route Advisory Committee which was
formed from the Northwest Arkansas Bicycle Club Many issues have been
discussed and are reported to be of highest concern. Among these issues are:
* Safe transportation for both the commuting and recreational
bicyclists;
* A route that will connect to an utter -county bikeway system;
* Special attention for the safe commute of grade school children;
* Educational programs for safe bicycle riding;
* Greenways connecting public green spaces.
Due to the increased public awareness, funding for the project was included in the
capital improvements plan and a grant application has been made through the
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department for Enhancement funds under
ISTEA (internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).
2
•
•
III. BENEFITS
•
•
Bicycling benefits both society and the individual. Communities that have
successfully implemented bikeways have found that by integrating exercise,
transportation and recreation on a daily basis, participants have enhanced their
lifestyles. Not only can a bikeway improve the life of the bicyclist, but everyone
in the community. An increased use of bicycles will effectively reduce traffic
congestion and parking needs. This along with the obvious reduction in harmful
auto emissions and noise pollution are all considered incentives for other
communities to support long term investments m bicycle facilities.
The benefits of bicycling as a method of transportation are obvious, as are the
benefits of an established bikeway system for use by bicyclists. Benefits include
providing the most direct route for utilitarian use, helping create a pleasurable
experience for the recreational cyclist and incorporating more challenging routes for
competitive rider while maintaining safe access for all.
3
at
IV. PLANNING
A BIKEWAY SYSTEM is composed of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes
all interconnected and spaced closely enough to satisfy the vanous needs of the
bicyclist.
Three pnnciple questions must he addressed and resolved if a bikeway
system is to be successfully achieved in the City of Fayettville. These questions
are: "Where should the bicycle facilities be placed?", "What type of facility should
be provided?", and How much money should be spent on a bicycle facility
development?"
The answers to these questions are not easily determined because they
involve value judgements as well as complex technical considerations. For this
reason it is apparent that further research must be gathered and analyzed by an
informed group of public citizens, recreation professionals. and representatives from
municipal departments before a finalized report can be prepared. However, this
feasibility study will serve as a guide to developing a bikeway system. A system
that will provide bicyclist of Fayettville with a safe and efficient means of
transportation while alleviating conflicts experienced by motorists.
4
•
•
•
•
A. WHERE SHOULD BICYCLE FACILITIES BE PLACED?
The answer to "where" mvestments in bicycle facilities should be directed,
must rest on an investigation into the potential types of uses of the bicycle. Smce
it is clear that the bicycle is bemg utilized for a wide variety of recreational and
purposeful trips, it follows that investment in facilities should reflect these diverse
interests.
In general, bicycle trip purposes can be divided into two broad types,
utilitarian and recreational. For a bicyclist on a utilitarian trip, the primary
objective is reaching a specific destination quickly with few intemiphons The
bicycle is simply the chosen mode of transportation. On the other hand, a bicyclist
on a recreational trip is ndmg for pleasure; the destination is of less importance.
Of course, for the vast majority of trips, these purposes are not absolute or
mutually exclusive. That is, most trips will have some utilitanan and some
recreational purposes. New bicycle facilities, therefore, should be designed to
accommodate the needs of the anticipated mix of bicyclists.
Bicyclists differ widely in their abilities and in their preferences for riding
environments Some bicyclists place high importance on directness and have the
ability to nde safely and confidently m heavy traffic. Other bicyclists place more
importance on the quality of the trip and are willing to go out of their way to ride
on residential streets and paths. Thus, bicycle facilities should be planned and
designed to accommodate a broad range of cyclists, fulfilling the needs of a large
percentage of the public.
5
The following categones of bicycle transportation systems are proven to
have the greatest potential for bicycle use. Many cities that have developed
successful bikeways have used these guidelines to locate where facilities should be
placed. Table A will provide specific examples of these systems.
PENETRATOR SYSTEMS - If the bicycle is to be utilized as a purposeful trip -
making vehicle, it will be necessary to provide facilites leading into concentrations
of high employment or other high use areas such as shopping centers and
universities. Unfortunately, intense motor vehicle traffic in and around these high
activity areas will often preclude safe hicyclmg. Bicycle facilities penetrating into
these areas are bound to be costly or unfeasible in many situations Nevertheless,
where opportunities do occur, expenditures higher than usual might be justified
when high use is anticipated.
INTERNAL SYSTEMS - There are few areas within the metropolitan area where
a well designed bikeway system could result in the bicycle being the primary
means of transportation. This is particularly true on college campuses and in
regional parks. Many major institutions such as the University of Arkansas have
shortages in convenient parking; accommodation of such parking would be costly.
A well designed bikeway system would provide a efficient, low-cost transportation
alternative with low storage area requirements. Potentials for internal bicycle
system exist within the University of Arkansas.
ENVIRONMENTAL LINEAR CORRIDORS - Unfortunately the most expensive
and complex bicycle facility to develop is that of the environmental bikeway
corridor totally separated from motorized transportation. These facilities often
preserve and enhance large portions of a city's natural resources while providing
both leisure and utilitarian bicycling for the community. Since the Fayettville area
experiences such hilly topography, the potential bikeway development along natural
stream hanks should receive specific attention These floodways provide a very
desirable flat gradient that encourage bike use.
6
•
•
NEW LAND DEVELOPMENTS - The most effective bicycle transportation
systems are developed concurrently with the vehicular system. Particularly close
attention to future development of the bikeway system should be undertaken in the
future development areas. Development incentives could be built into local
ordinances to encourage private developers to provide facilities for bicyclists as part
of their residential, commercial and mdustrial developments.
TRANSPORTATION LINEAR CORRIDORS - There is an opportunity to
provide the most direct routes for bicycle facilities along major transportation
corridors such as highways, and major arterial roads. To develop these routes most
efficiently, the bicycle facilities should be incorporated during construction or
reconstruction.
RECREATIONAL LOOPS - Located within the Ozark Mountain range, there are
abundant opportunities for bicyclist to enjoy scenic routes along rural roads
surrounding the City of Fayettville Many recreational routes have been established
and must be accessible from wrthm the city hmrts. To develop a comprehensive
bikeway system, facilities accommodating these rural routes must be incorporated.
7
•
•
HIGH POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES
Penetrator Central Business Districts
Systems Large Employment Centers
Shopping Centers
Schools and Universities
Parks
Internal
Systems
Colleges and Umversiues
Regional Parks
Environmental Stream Valleys
Linear Ridge Lines
Corridors
New Land
Developments
Residential Subdivisions
Large scale P.U.D.s
Transportation & Highway Right of Way
Utility Corridors Utility Right of Way
Recreational
Loops
Enure urbanized area
Rural roads
Table A
8
•
•
B. WHAT TYPE OF FACILITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED?
A BICYCLE FACILITY denotes improvements and provisions made by
public agencies to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking
facilities, bikeways maps, and shared roadways not specifically designated for
bicycle use.
There is a wide range of facility improvements which can be incorporated
into a bikeway system. Improvements can be as simple and inexpensive as placing
signs along an existing street to indicate a bike route or as complex and costly as
providing a bike path, separate from any existing features. The controlling
elements of the design of every bicycle facihty should be its location and the factors
that are present Once the location that will best satisfy the most bicyclists has
been identified, the following facilities can be chosen based on suitability.
9
•
BICYCLE FACILITIES
•
BICYCLE LANE
BICYCLE PATH
Adjacent to Roadway
BICYCLE PATH
Separate from Roadway
1W
PIK*
RM MTC
Ya.
11
li
4
4
•
BICYCLE ROUTES
•
Shared right-of-way located on lightly traveled streets and roadways
designated solely by the standard "Bike Route" sign encouraging bicycle use and
warning motonsts to anticipate cychsts on the street. A route is estabhshed to
provide the bicyclist with a direct and desirable route to a specific destination
WIDTH - Bike routes should be developed on roadways with a width of 28
feet or more, however, in residential streets where vehicular speeds are low and
traffic is unobtrusive, a street width of 25 feet is acceptable. In general, 14 feet
of usable width for each lane is desired. Usable width would normally be from
curb face to lane stripe, or from edge Ime to lane stripe, but adjustments must be
made for drainage grates,parking, and longitudinal ridges between pavement and
gutter sections.
USE - The cost of improvmg an existing street to include a bike route is
minimal; this type of facility may be feasible as a connection between residential
areas and designated bikeways. In areas where a direct route is sought along
existing roads where factors such as street width and necessary on street parking
make other facilities unreasonable, a bike route may be chosen for a short distance
in order to provide continuous bicycle travel. As phases of the bikeway system are
completed, Bike Routes may provide a temporary connection along roads that are
scheduled for future improvements. Until the next phase is completed this will
provide bicyclists with a continuous designated route to their destination. However,
this type of facility is the least desirable and should only be used m low traffic
situations or as a temporary facility.
12
BICYCLE LANES
Spring Street Bike Lane along one way street
•n..r 7 a4.- ,.rv'ti.z. W`-r^may
1'�.. Si . �..� ' +fir
I
Highway 265
Bike Lane
13
BIKE LANES
The bicycle lane is distinguishable
from bicycle routes in that it is intended for
the preferential or exclusive use of
bicyclists. It is developed along the outside
lane adjacent to the curb. The bicycle lane
is delineated by means of pavement
markings or curbs.
Pavement markings are passive in
nature and may be easily crossed by motor
vehicles. They include striping, full width
pavement colorings, or painting, pavement
markers and reflectable raised pavement
marking. They provide the cyclist with
psychological rather then physical
protection. The use of curbs or bumper
blocks provide a more protected separation
however are not recommended as these have
been found to be hazardous to the bicyclist
as well as a maintenance problem.
Bicycle lanes should always be one way facilities and carry traffic in the same direction
as the adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Two-way bicycle lanes on one side of the roadway
are unacceptable because they promote riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic.
Wrong -way riding is a major cause of bicycle accidents and violates traffic laws.
Bicycle lanes on one way streets should be on the right side of the street, except in areas
where a bicycle lane on the left will decrease the number of conflicts, such as bus traffic,
excessive driveways or loading areas.
WIDTH - Under ideal conditions, the minimal bicycle lane width is 4 feet.
However, certain edge conditions dictate additional desirable bicycle lane width. To
examine the width requirements for bike lanes, Figure 2 shows three usual locations for
such facilities m relation to the roadway. Figure 2(a) depicts bicycle lanes on an urban
curbed street where an on -street parking lane is provided The recommended bicycle lane
width is 5 feet allowing the cyclist room to maneuver around opened car doors. Bicycle
lanes should always be placed between the parking lane and the motor vehicle lane.
14
•
•
Bicycle lanes between the curb and the parking lane
can create obstacles for the cyclist from opening car
doors and poor viability at intersections. This
placement also prohibits the cyclist from making left
turns and therefore should not be considered.
Where parking is permitted but not indicated
by a marked lane, as exists throughout most of the
residential areas within the City of Fayettville, a
combination lane for both motor vehicle parking and
bicycle use should be a minimum of 12 feet. Since
many of the streets in Fayettville are designed with
a width of 30 feet or less in residential areas, all on
street parking would have to be terminated.
Figure 2(b) depicts bicycle lanes along the
outer portions of an urban curbed street where
parking is prohibited. Bicycle lanes in this location
should have a minimum width of 5 feet from the
curb face. This extra width is suggested since
bicyclists generally do not nde near a curb because
of possible debris, of hitting a pedal on the curb, of
an uneven longitudinal joint, or of a steeper cross
slope. By providing a five foot lane, the usual 4
foot lane exists between the motorists lane and any
pavement obstructions.
Figure 2(c) depicts bicycle lanes on a
roadway without curb or gutter. Bicycle lanes
should he located between the motor vehicle lanes
and the roadway shoulders.
Bicycle lanes may have a minimum width of 4 feet,
where the shoulder can provide additional
maneuvenng width. A width of 5 feet or greater is
preferable; additional widths are desirable where
substantial truck traffic is present, or where
vehicular speeds exceed 35 mph. This may suggest
that existing shoulders be improved to accommodate
a bicycle lane.
15
•
•
(a) CURBED STREET WITH PARKING
8'-10' 5'
r Parking Bike
Lane
XXXl
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Bike
Lane
(b) CURBED STREET WITHOUT PARKING
8'-10'
r
Parking
4'
15n.)
L1
Imin.)
Bike
Lane
Motor Vehicle Lanea
4
(min•)+iII
51
(min.)
Bike
Lane
(c) STREET OR HIGHWAY WITHOUT CURB OR GUTTER
F Shoulder 4' I 4'
1
Shoulder
(min.) Motor Vehicle Lanes
Bike Bike
Lane Lane
(Not to Seale) (Metr Ie CanveralonM 1 Ft. • 0.3 m.)
Figure 2
16
INTERSECTIONS WITH BICYCLE LANES - Bicycle lanes tend to complicate
both bicycle and motor vehicle turning movements at intersections. Because they
encourage bicyclists to keep right and the motorists to keep left, both operators are
somewhat discouraged from merging in advance of turns. Thus, some bicyclists will
begin left icons from the right bicycle lane and some motorists will begin right turns from
the left of the bicycle lane. Both maneuvers are contrary to established Traffic Laws and
result in conflicts.
At intersections, bicyclists proceeding straight through and motorists turning right '
must cross paths. Striping and signing configurations which encourage these crossings
in advance of the intersection, in a merging fashion, are preferable to those that force the
crossing in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. To a lesser extent, the same is true
for left turning bicyclists; however, in the maneuver, the bicyclist has the option of
making either a vehicular style" left turn (where the bicyclists merges left to the same
lane used by for the motor vehicle left turns) or a "pedestrian style" left turn (where the
bicycle proceeds straight through the intersections, turn left at the far side, then proceeds
across the intersection again on the cross street. See figure 3. '
1
L
L
I
I
I
I
I
17 '
7
Pod. Crossing I
ootlanaloaetrd stns.
Nat Ileopev.ta.d
vtrre . bq right -
hrn - any Is.. Or
damtm tyro 1pre
..let.
e If apace It ava.mis.
l Ottrrvi. a
srUd be dr00psd at
th4 oshit.
Pod. Crossing
TTUP
I !�
I � r
♦♦
.lt apace I.
dv-.sso,
Typos path
of through
Oloyd.t.
It I Nar I
RIGHT -TURN -ONLY LANE PARKING LANE BECOMES
RIGHT -TURN -ONLY LANE
(Not to Scale) (metric Conversion@ I Ft. • 0.3 i.)
P.O. Crossing
I I�
I
� I \
I I �
I I II
tiff
OPTIONAL OPTIONAL DOUBLE
RIGHT -TURN -ONLY LANE
Tygiod oath of
ttrauall bicyclist.
Pod. Craning
Crossing
•w e
Typiooi Oath of
ttrough pcydi.t.
t if aoaoe is
oroo pet. rM
.trip •here
t" sly
RIGHT LANE BECOMES
Figure 3
Bicycle lane approaching right turn only lanes.
EU
J .I
ra
•lV e lli
G
I
r
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
L
I
Il
BICYCLE PATHS
Bicycle paths are the safest yet most costly facility designated exclusively
for bicyclists and physically separated from motor vehicle traffic, where cross flow
by motorists and pedestrians are limited. Bicycle paths serve a variety of purposes.
They may provide commuting bicyclists with a shortcut through a residential
neighborhood (eg. a connection between two cul-de-sac streets), create a scenic ride
for both utilitarian and recreational trips, or supply access between park land along
floodplain and utility easements. Bicycle path provide passage to areas that are
otherwise inaccessible along designated roadways. Sometimes these facilities are
located along major streets that are not utilized for other bikeway facilities due to
existing site conditions.
In general, combining bicycle and
pedestrian right-of-ways is not desirable.
Walkers, joggers, skateboarders, and roller
skaters can, and often do, change their speed
and direction almost instantaneously leaving
bicyclists insufficient time to react to avoid
collision. Similarly, pedestrians often have
difficulty predicting the direction an
oncoming bicyclist will take. However, in
order to efficiently utilize funding, there are
situations where the development of bike
paths can be coordinated with pedestrian
facilities in areas where both are lacking.
Special design considerations must be
addressed in these situations. It will be
necessary to incorporate extra width as well
as provide passive separation with the use of
pavement markings and signage.
WIDTH - The paved width and the
operating width required for a bicycle path
are primary design considerations. Figure 4
depicts a bicycle path on a separated right of
way. Under most conditions, a
recommended all paved width for a two
directional bicycle path is 10 feet. In some
instances, however a minimum of 8 feet can
20
Li
be adequate. This minimum should he used only where the following conditions prevail:
(1) bicycle traffic is expected to be low, even on peak days or peak hours, (2) pedestrian
use of the facility is not expected to be more then usual, (3) the path is designed to
provide safe and frequent passing opportunities, (4) the path will not be subject to
maintenance vehicle loading conditions that would cause pavement edge damage. Under
certain conditions it may be necessary or desirable to increase the width of the path to 12
feet; for example, because of substantial bicycle volume, probable shared use with
joggers and other pedestrians, use by large maintenance vehicles, steep grades, and where
bicyclists are likely to ride two abreast.
BICYCLE PATH CN SEPARATED
RIGHT-OF-WAY
21 (min)
Graded
One -Way' 8Minimum Width
Tero—Way18 Minimum Width
Metric Conversion: I ft.• 0.3m.
(Not to Scale)
f_ 2'4 (min).:"
0'or 6'min width*] 2'(n) IL
Paved Graded
Figure 4
21
1
1
1
i
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
H
I
I
II
Li
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
Li
I
1J
SEPARATION FROM ADJACENT ROADWAY - A wide separation
between a bicycle path and adjacent roadway is desirable to confirm to both the
bicyclist and motorist that the bicycle path functions as an independent passage for
bicycles. When this is not possible and the distance between the edge of the
roadway and the bicycle path is less than 5 feet a suitable physical divider may be
considered. Such dividers serve both to prevent bicyclists from making unwanted
movements between the path and the adjacent roadway and to reinforce the concept
that the path is an independent facility. Where used, the divider should be a
minimum of 4.5 feet to prevent bicyclist from toppling over it, and it should be
designed so that it does not become an obstruction in itself.
INTERSECTIONS : It is preferable that the crossings of a bicycle path and
roadway be at a location away from the influence of intersections with other
roadways. Controlling vehicle movements at such intersections is more easily and
safely accomplished through the application of standard traffic control devices and
traffic laws. However, this would require extra stops along roadways which would
be opposed by many motorists. Where physical constraints prohibit such
independent intersections, or on roadways where extra stops would be a major
inconvenience, the crossings may be at or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing.
Right of way should be assigned and sight distance should be provided so as to
minimize the potential for conflict resulting from unconventional turning
movements. At crossings of high volume, multi -lane arterial roadways where
signals are not warranted, consideration should be given to providing a median
refuge area for bicyclists.
Specifics on the design of Bike Paths are included in the Specifications
section of this report.
22
I
I
BICYCLE PARKING
Bicycle parking facilities is an essential element in an overall effort to '
promote bicycling. People are discouraged from hicycling unless adequate parking
is available. Bicycle parking facilities should he provided at both the origin and
destination of major routes and should offer protection from theft and damage.
The wide variety of bicycle parking devices fall into two categories of user
needs: Commuter or long-term parking, and convenience or short-term parking.
The minimum needs for each differ in their placement.
* Long-term parking - is needed at locations such as employment
centers, bus stops, and multi -family dwellings..
* Short-term parking - is needed at locations such as shopping
centers, libraries, recreation areas, and post offices. '
If bicycle parking is not properly designed and located, bicyclists will use
trees, railings, and other objects. This practice can damage the object and create
an obstruction for pedestrians. Several factors should be considered when planning
and providing bicycle parking facilities.
Location * the facility should be convenient and near
building entrances, or other highly visible
areas which are self policing.
* ensure that bicycles are not where they will
be damaged by motor vehicles
* Facility should not interfere with normal
pedestrian flow.
Design * The facility should accommodate a wide
range of bicycle shapes and sizes.
* design to support both wheels and frame of
hike.
* select a design that is easy to use. If
possible, signs depicting how to operate
should be posted.
* Offer protection from the weather.
See figure 5 for design examples
I
I
23 I
I
I
C. HOW MUCH MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT ON BICYCLE
FACILITY DEVELOPMENT?
There is no question that public interest for a Bikeway System is high and '
will increase as facilities are provided. However, is this enough to justify
expenditures on bicycle transportation? The following are considerations that might
be utilized to support spending.
QUALITY OF LIFE - The many benefits associated to bicycle travel such as
improved health, reduced air pollution, reduced noise, economy of natural
resources, variety of transportation modes, economy of space, and enjoyment of the
environment could be utilized to justify the expenditures on bicycle facilities.
Unfortunately, these consideration are hard to quantify.
EXPENDITURES IN RELATION TO OTHER RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES - A comparison could be made between participant hours of
bicycling versus other participant sports such as golfing, tennis or swimming and
a determination made of levels of public expenditures versus hours of public use.
A probable result would reveal the bicycle facilities are drastically deficient.
INVESTMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TRANSPORTATION BUDGET -
Since bicycling is a practical mode of transportation, any bicycling facilities should
conceivably be included in the transportation planning and development, therefore
sharing in the expenditures.
During the detailed planning stages of the Bikeway System, location and
facility selection will normally involve a cost analysis of alternatives. Funding
availability can limit the alternatives; however, it is important that a lack of funds
not result in a poorly designed and constructed facility. It is usually more
desirable not to construct a bicycle facility than to construct a poorly planned
or designed facility. The decision to implement a bikeway plan should be made
with a conscious, long-term commitment to a proper level of maintenance. If only
a small amount of funds are available, emphasis should be given to low cost
improvements such as bicycle parking, removal of certain barriers, existing
roadway improvements and non construction projects such as mapping.
Sample bikeway construction costs are included in the Specifications section of this
report. '
1
25 ,
L
I
' D. INVENTORY
' Once the general routes for the bikeway system are located and information
about the types of facilities and the costs are gathered, detailing the plan can begin.
During this stage in the design process many constraints will effect the final
'• decisions. A complete analysis of existing conditions will need to be accumulated.
Such as:
* BARRIERS - Physical barriers caused by topographical features, freeways, or
other impediments. The mountainous topography is a major factor for both bicycle
' and pedestrian transportation within the City of Fayettville.
* ACCIDENTS - The prevention of bicycle accidents in problem areas. The
' potential for alleviating and preventing accident problems through the selection of
facilities should be reviewed.
* DIRECTNESS - For utilitarian trips, facilities should connect destination points
along the most direct route.
' * ATTRACTIVENESS - The scenic value is particularly important along a facility
intended to serve recreational bicyclists and should be considered as an
enhancement to the bikeway system.
* SECURITY - The potential for criminal acts against bicyclists, especially along
remote bicycle paths, and the possibility of theft or vandalism at parking locations
' should be considered.
* MAINTENANCE - Maintenance -sensitive design is an important feature. An
'• improperly maintained bikeway will often be shunned by bicyclists in favor of a
parallel roadway.
I
C
I
I
Li
26
1J
I
* PAVEMENT SURFACE QUALITY - Bikeways must he free of humps, holes,
and other surface irregularities if they are to attract and satisfy the needs of the
bicyclists. Utility covers and drainage grates should he at grade and, if possible,
outside the expected area of travel. Approaches to railroad crossings should be
improved as necessary to provide for safe bicycle crossings.
• ON -STREET VEHICULAR PARKING - The turnover and density of on -street
parking can affect bicycle safety (opening car doors and cars leaving angle parking
spaces).
* TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND SPEEDS - For facilities on roadways, traffic
volumes and speeds must be considered along with the roadway width. Commuting
bicyclist frequently use arterial streets because they minimize delay and offer
continuity for trips of several miles. It can be more desirable to improve heavily
traveled, high speed streets then adjacent streets, if adequate width for all vehicles
is available. However, improving parallel streets that have few stops and minimal
conflicts is preferred in order to accommodate a greater variety of bicyclists.
• BRIDGES - Bridges serve an important function by
across barriers. However, some features found in bridge
bicyclists are to be accommodated. The most common
widths that are narrower than the approach roadways,
found on movable spans, low railings or parapets, and 4
joints that can cause bicycle steering difficulties.
providing bicycle access
scan be unsuitable where
of these are curb -to -curb
open grated metal decks
;ertain types of expansion I
* INTERSECTION CONDITIONS - A high proportion of accidents occur at
intersections. Facilities should be selected so as to minimize the number of
crossing. Wherever intersections occur, the facility must be designed with adequate
stopping sight distance.
I
I
I
I
I
27 '
I
As the planning process continues and a comprehensive concept of where
the bikeway system should be located is determined, a detailed analysis and
inventory of existing conditions will be integral in determining which facilities
should be incorporated. Obstructions and impediments on existing roadways along
the route, such as unsafe grates, debris, narrow lanes, driveways, rough pavements,
high-speed or high -volume traffic, curbside parking, bridge surface conditions, and
traffic signals that are not conducive to bicycle travel should be recorded.
I
V. FUTURE PLANNING
Public participation will be essential as we continue the planning process. '
Observations and surveys of active and potential bicyclists will be useful, as will
the views of the non -bicycling public. The Bike Route Advisory Committee along
with groups and individuals experienced in recreational planning will also be good
sources of information, Thus, a wide variety of views should be sought.
The National Parks Service, Southwest Region, can offer assistance through
the River, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. Representatives of this
program feel that the City of Fayettville and its status as a University town creates
favorable conditions for a bikeway system. They may be able to contribute
technical assistance to help establish the groundwork for future planning. They
may be interested in working with public interest groups and collaborating the
efforts of local and state agencies whose involvement will be vital for the success
of the hikeway system.
MASTER PLANNING - Planning for bicycle facilities must be conducted
in conjunction with the comprehensive master plan that strives to fulfill the needs ,
of the public as Fayettville enters the twenty first century. Plans for implementing
bikeway projects must be in harmony with the communities goal for transportation
improvements and be considered as a component of their park system. Local
ordinances should incorporate future bikeway facilities with all proposed j
commercial, industrial and residential development.
EDUCATION - Safety must influence all decisions pertaining to bicycle
facility development. In view of the considerable danger of riding bicycles on
streets with motorized vehicles, a proper educational program must be developed.
It is wise that education be implemented before construction on bikeway facilities
are completed
I
LJ
29 '
LJ
L
r
L
Li
Li
I
I
H
I
I
These are examples of a program designed for the Atlanta Region Bikeway.
1. Expand bicycle education programs in grade schools - From
available American Automobile Association statistics, it is clear that by far
the highest accident rates are exhibited by grade school children. A high
percentage of these accidents were found to be the fault of the bicyclist. To
heighten the ability and understanding of school grade children, rodeos
could be sponsored to instruct children on bicycle safety. These programs
may include a voluntary testing program based on the Bicycle Institute of
American Standards. Such a testing program would include balance,
pedalling, braking, mounting, maneuvering, stopping, turning, and
signalling.
2. Incorporate Bicycle education programs into high school driving
education courses - The principal advantage of this would be the
education of future drivers in the rights of the bicyclist and the elimination
of the need to conduct special programs for bicyclists in this age group.
3. Incorporate special bicycle safety features into driver tests - Since
the potential auto driver must share the right-of-way with cyclists, it is
important that he understands the rights of the bicyclists in relation to the
automobile.
•' 4. institute an educational program to police officers - In view of the
numerous and confusing local ordinances it is likely that local police officers
may not be well informed in regard to bicycle regulations.
' 5. Incorporate bicycling safety suggestions into mass media
programming - Make use of radio, television, and newspapers to inform
t• and remind both cyclists and motorists of the traffic rules. These media are
very effective means of reaching virtually the entire population.
I
L
I
I
' 30
I
I
IMPLEMENTATION - The phasing for construction of the bikeway '
system is an important part of the planning process, and can dictate the momentum
and ultimate success or failure of the entire system. The choice of the components
for the first phase of the bikeway are crucial. The greater the impact and perceived
success of these early stages, the greater the likelihood of continuing and gaining
support for the bikeway system. Moreover, each phase of the network, though
integrated as a whole, must serve an essential function on its own. In the event of
funding being delayed, or even cut off, each completed stage must be exclusively
useful so that its resources will not he wasted. '
EVALUATION AND MONITORING - The monitoring and evaluation
of any long-term project is crucial to the success of that project. Without feedback
and regular evaluation of each phase of the bikeway system, correction of mistakes
and adaptation to changing conditions would not be feasible, and could lead to
discontinued use or misuse of the hikeway.
I
I
I
I
C
H
1
I
31
I
I
VI. A CONCEPTUAL PLAN
1 Providing a concept of how a bikeway system and its many components can
be tailored to accommodate the needs of bicyclists in Fayettville will supply
planners in the future with a basis from which to build a plan.
Areas near bicycle traffic generators should be reviewed to identify existing
'• Th and potential bicycle travel. The city planning department has noted specific
locations that have been identified from public input as priority bicycle traffic
generators. These particular areas presently spawn the greatest amount of utilitarian
and recreational bicycle trips and should receive significant consideration as the
planning process continues.
SCHOOLS - a safe access for children from surrounding neighborhoods
PARKS - the possible connection between all existing park land and open
space.
MAJOR EMPLOYERS INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY - connecting .
the work place with residential areas.
' SHOPPING - providing a linkage to residential and major employment
centers.
RECREATIONAL - noted by the public, involves access to recreational
routes that have gained popularity among avid bikers. Some of these routes
include Hwy 71 south to Devils Den, Hwy 16W to Lake Wedington, Hwy
112 to Bentonville, and Hwy 265 to Hogeye.
Once major bicycle traffic generators are located and a network of logical bicycle
' transportation routes are mapped, the task of inventory will follow. Focus should
be on the factors that most influence the needs of bicyclists and the selection of
facilities. Several existing conditions hinder the location of many direct routes and
effect the selection of preferred facilities.
El
I
I
' 32
U
C
1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1
BARRIERS - The mountains that create the beautiful vistas throughout our
city also create the major obstructions to the average bicyclist. Many of our
residential areas as well as some of the commercial and industrial districts
are developed on, or accessed by, steep slopes that are difficult to travel by
bicycle. 1
NARROW STREETS - In older districts of town, within the center, south,
and southeast portions of the city, several roadways are 25 feet or narrower.
Thus the consideration of adding designated bike lanes should be
eliminated. Development within these areas also lack the set -back controls
that are currently maintained, resulting in little R.O.W. for widening streets
or adding shoulders.
ON STREET PARKING - In a majority of locations, on street parking is
allowed and frequently used. This becomes an obstacle for bicyclists as
well as regular vehicular traffic along the many narrow streets and a hazard
to bicyclists even on the wider streets.
BRIDGES - The presence of several streams result in conflicts with narrow
bridges. The crossing of bridges are the only instance where sidewalks
should he used by bikeway traffic.
ACCESS - Due to the existing topography, there are numerous residential 1
areas that have minimal access. This results in a deviation from the most
preferred routes.
PAVEMENT SURFACE QUALITY. - As is expected, rough street
surfaces, pot holes, off grade utility covers, inappropriate drainage grates
and uneven railroad crossings are present in various locations.
I
I
H
H
33 '
I
' Fayettville does possess many qualities that provide the elements for a successful
bikeway system.
' ATTRACTIVENESS - The beauty of the Ozark Mountain Region
provides a pristine setting for any activity including bicycle
transportation. This amenity is not only present along distant vistas
but also among the residential neighborhoods where the tree lined
streets provide an aesthetic quality to all modes of transportation.
EXISTING OPEN SPACE - The concept of using bike paths to connect
activity nodes where other facilities are impractical is reasonable along the
many utility easements and floodplain areas.
' The analysis of the existing conditions reinforces the concept of using a
combination of facilities to provide a continuous bikeway system. The use of bike
lanes are the most favored facility and should be implemented as the foundation of
the bikeway system while other facilities will be incorporated in locations where
bike lanes are not practical or preferred.
The following maps show the bikeway locations and the type of facilities
suitable for those conditions. Each map graphically indicates the priority bicycle
transportation routes, the destinations and the facilities. It is important to note that
the location of the routes that were selected to serve a utilitarian purpose may also
serve as a connection to, or a section of, recreational routes. The bikeway is a
network and serves the needs of several types of cyclists. Segments along a route
designated to provide young children with access to school may supply passage to
a route that serves the serious recreational rider.
I
C
I
' 34
E E . II
•• 1 ! 1
1 , , I
fill
JW1
YL4Pash liii
Y �f
° R•nrr_
r
I urrriiiiiF�r l -NK -
��FFHM-i •- �'t
�� 1� 111IIIAILItii'11� s
"r.F. Lfl;.. In
1til1 F fl1 1 t1+U
\ ii -1tSU
fe I �`�-''3�fFIacom
a-_
1Iirj
iII��J St1!AE1�*
_ r wEl✓
situ
a
-/
V
• /Irrt r[T•f
•✓-1
t p. /1 -- -
Eb(TEEY°LE - - -. •-'.
V I
1
4St
•
I.
• • 'Ii I A
ii iI_
1 `
a
yr
AIa ft rcrm
Ew e Irk it � id
aiipiei i'i
r •� 1
r f •�IIiR..K�R1
f�
- £ . , n...•. of
g.
1t911th
t
� z
� t j� r, • (
Hers
1
r
4
I]
B 37
1
PILOT PROJECT
BUITERFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
' SCHOOL Jo.0
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
BIKEWAY
LANES
PATH
LROUTES o u ONznS
•.0NIC pp I \
' .L& IlOW D 'pptsa+
II
LN
S
p
I
Pt
R
PAOKC vItt t •
601' CONS!
I
WMEN ROAD BED
PAINT BIKE LANES
�
T[ONAL ROUTE
' ALONG MUD
a ? SAFER BIKE FACR.ITY
} J',1.r
tawr
ACQUIRE EASEMENT
CONSIRUCr PATH
Ut PuItfi eto �d'
SCAM
rT
WMAN • tiw
St
OM , *.
USE EXISTING ROADBED,
RES1RIPE TO INCLUDE BIKE LANES
MCK& m I
I I I , , ,
z
J
II
u(m
VII. APPENDICES
SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Standard bikeway signs
Bike lane markings
Intersection markings
BIKE PATHS
Horizontal Alignment
Grade
Sight distance
BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Excavation, base treatment, and paving
Retaining walls
Drainage
Barriers and Fences
Modification of existing streets
Stripping and pavement markings
Signing
C
STANDARD BIKEWAY SIGNS
and PAVEMENT MARKINGS
BIKE ROUTE SIGN
USE: A nationally approved sign for marking an officially designated
bicycle trail, appropriate both where a bike path is separate from a street or
highway and where the bikeway may be routed on selected streets.
L
I
I
I
I
I
NOTE: Not suggested
as the
only identification for
bike
lanes. Motorists
often believe that these
signs
are to direct bicyclists
only
and that vehicles'
are allowed to enter the
lane.
For this reason a Bike
lane
sign is necessary.
BIKE LANE ONLY
I
H
I
J
I
I
USE: Designed to keep motor vehicles and pedestrians off of bike lanes as '
well as signifying direction to bicyclists. May be used in conjuncture with
hike route sign.
C
41
NOTE: Sign indicating the BEGINNING and END of a Bike lane is
suggested to alert motorists.
SOURCE: Bikeways: Design. Construction Pro
BIKE LANE MARKINGS
Y
NOTE: The bicycle lane designation should be marked with a continuous
bright traffic stripe, five inches wide, of a selected standard color which is
different from the usual motor vehicle roadway stripes so that it may be
readily seen by cyclists and motorists alike. The same color should be used
throughout the bikeway system for uniformity and immediate recognition.
SOURCE: Bicycle Planning_
BIKE XING
BIKE
XING
42
I
USE: A nationally approved sign for placement on a street or highway just in
advance of a point where a officially designated hike trail crosses the street or
highway.
NOTE: Place sign approximately 112 block before the hikeway crosses the road.
See figure
INTERSECTION MARKINGS
0
❑❑coo❑ :
RECOMMENDED
C
I
Li
I
1
II _nJ G BIKEWAY CR.7S�i1.�
5 . 1G• Sn . 5m I
PE GE ST '
CROSSING
WHITE SQUARES I
AC CE DT AB.E C ❑ t
�cI E c_o c_•❑ c c
MIN. 13 LAml 1
MAX. 20 L6ml
USE:
These markings are
to be used as
a supplement to BIKE XING signs
where
cyclists within the
crossing will
have the right-of-way.
NOTE: The illustration shows three German intersection designs where the
bikeway crosses a collector street.
43
I
I
I
BIKE PARKING
Use: Suggested to indicate any locations that provide parking for both short-
term and long-term parking.
SOURCE: Bicycle planning.
WARNING SIGNS
Place warning signs approximately 50 to 65 feet in advance of safety hazard
situations such as drainage grates, rough surfaces, street crossings, narrow
bridge crossing, and other problem situations on bikeways where the
warning is strictly for the cyclist.
SOURCE: Bikeways: Designo aruction_ Provismc,
J
BIKE PATH SPECIFICATIONS
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND SUPERELEVATION : '
The minimum radius negotiable by a bicycle is a function of the
superelevation rate of the bicycle path surface, the coefficient of friction between
the bicycle tires and the bicycle path surface. and the speed of the bicycle. The
minimum design radius of curvature can be derived from the following formula:
R= L
15(e+t)
where:
R = Minimum radius of curvature (ft),
V = Design Speed (mph),
e = Rate of Superelevation,
f = Coefficient of Friction.
For most bicycle paths applications the superelevation rate will vary from
a minimum of 2 percent (the minimum necessary to encourage adequate drainage)
to a maximum of approximately 5 percent (beyond which maneuvering difficulties
by slow bicyclists might be expected). The minimum superelevation rate of 2
percent will be adequate for most conditions and will simplify construction.
The coefficient of friction depends upon speed; surface type, roughness, and '
condition: tire type and condition; and whether the surface is wet or dry. Friction
factors used for design should be selected based upon the point at which centrifugal
force causes the bicyclist to recognize feeling of discomfort and instinctively act to
avoid higher speed. Extrapolating from values used in highway design, design
fiction factors for paved bicycle paths can be assumed to vary from 0.30 at 15 mph
to 0.22 at 30 mph. Although there are no data available for unpaved surfaces, it
is suggested that friction factors be reduced by 50 percent to allow a sufficient
margin of safety. '
I
I
45 '
I
I
H
I
I
Ti
I
Ti
Ti
I
H
Ti
I
I
I
I
C
Based upon a superelevation rate (e) of 2 percent, minimum radii of
curvature can be selected from Table 3.
TABLE 1 Minimum Radii for Paved Bicycle Paths
(e = 2 Percent)
Design Speed -V
(mph)
(1 mph= 1.61m/hr)
Friction
Factor -f f
Minimum Radius - R
(Feet)
(1 ft = 0.3 m)
20
0.27
95
25
0.25
155
30
0.22
250
35
0.19
390
40
0.17
565
Table B
When substandard radius curves must be used on bicycle paths because of
right of way, topographical or other considerations, standard curve warning signs
and supplemental pavement markings should be installed in accordance with the
MUTCD. The negative effects of substandard curves can also be partially offset
by widening the pavement through the curves.
DESIGN SPEED:
The speed that a bicyclist travels is dependent on several factors, including
the type and condition of the bicycle, the purpose of the trip, the condition and
location of the bicycle path, the speed and direction of the wind, and the physical
condition of the bicyclists. Bicycle paths should be designed for a selected speed
that is at least as high as the preferred speed of the faster bicyclists. In general, a
design speed of 20 mph should be used; however,when the grade exceed four
percent, or where prevailing tail winds exist, a design speed of 30 mph is
advisable.
,
E
I
I
On unpaved paths, where bicyclists tend to ride slower, a lower design
speed of 15 mph can he used. Similarly, where the grades or the prevailing winds
dictate, a higher design speed of 25 mph can be used. Since bicycle have a higher
tendency to skid on unpaved surfaces, horizontal curvature design should take into
account lower coefficients of friction.
SIGHT DISTANCE: '
To provide the bicyclist with an opportunity to see and react to the
unexpected, a bicycle path should be designed with adequate stopping sight
distances. The distance required to bring a bicycle to a full controlled stop is a t
function of the bicyclists perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the
bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the tire and the pavement, and the
braking ability of the bicycle.
Figure 6 indicates the minimum stopping sight distance for various speeds
and grades based on a total perception and brake reaction time of 2.5 seconds and.
a coefficient of friction of 0.25 to account for the poor wet weather braking
characteristics of many bicycles. For two-way bicycle paths, the sight distance in
descending direction, that is, where "G" is negative, will control the design.
Figure 7 is used to select the minimum length of vertical curve necessary
to provide minimum stopping sight distance at various speeds on crest vertical
curves. The eye height of the bicyclists is assumed to be 4.5 feet and the object
height is assumed to be zero to recognize that impediments to bicycle travel exist
at pavement level. '
Figure 8 indicates the minimum clearance that should be used to line of
sight obstructions for horizontal curves. The lateral clearance is obtained by Figure
8 with the stopping sight distance from Figure 6 and the proposed horizontal radius
of curvature.
I
I
I
47 '
I
I
El
Bicyclists frequently ride abreast of each other on bicycle paths and, on
narrow bicycle path, bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the middle of the path.
For these reasons, and because of serious consequences of a head on bicycle
accident, lateral clearances on horizontal curves should be calculated based on the
' sum of the stopping sight distances for bicyclists traveling in opposite directions
around the curve. Where this is not possible or feasible, considerations should be
given for widening the path through the curve, installing a yellow center stripe,
installing a curve ahead warning sing, or some combination of these alternatives.
BIKE PATH SURFACE MATERIAL:
There are several types of surface material that can be used for bike paths,
each having their advantages and disadvantages. Unpaved paths are not
recommended due to the susceptibility to erosion damage which would make
bicycle travel unacceptable. The use of loose materials such as wood chips and
gravel is also unadvisable. The texture of these materials make the surface too
rough to be acceptable to bicyclists and the slopes that will be encountered within
Fayettville exceed the slope recommended for these materials.
CONCRETE - An excellent surface for bike facilities, concrete is relatively
easy and quick to install. If properly installed with a good base, concrete is
extremely durable and maintenance free.
' Concrete should be installed to a minimum depth of 4 inches, however, if the path
will be used by maintenance, service or other vehicles it is necessary to provide
more reinforcement and pour the concrete at a thicker depth.
' ASPHALT - This material is highly acceptable for many trail uses including
bike facilities. Like concrete, asphalt provides a hard durable surface and although
it demands more maintenance then concrete, it is slightly less expensive to install.
CRUSHED STONE - Crushed stone such as granite and limestone,
provides a smooth, sturdy bike path surface. The angular shape of the aggregate
tends to compact and interlock better than rounded stone, and combined with finer
• particles of clay and other binding materials, the stability of the product is suitable
• for trails of grade less than 5 percent. Grades greater then 5 percent may cause the
some slumping, and may not be suitable for all bike paths throughout the
IFayettville location.
I
I
1 48
20 -- ____________ I _____ rte
I �
Q
IS
��O F
3 33 4
?� 7 `Ip6 I o33 30
a to II `I1O 3 l' I
I,''
'
l I l ,l
1 1 I\
0 I ,
0 50 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 400
Minlrtvn Stopping Distance - Ft,
y2
5 301f.W `3.fi7 V
Mherel 5 : minimum Sight Olatmce.Ft. Oecend (-0i
V• a Velocity, mph Ascend 1'G1 — — — —
f = Coefficient of Friction ruse 0.25)
C : Crode F•.,Ft. frtse/runt
metric Conversion, I F*. • 0.3 n. - Mon • 1,6 kINhl
Figure 6. Minimum Stopping Sight Distances.
200(4 .,/hp ,2
L : 2S- A When S>L
AS2
L 1,/p2 )Z When S<L
001
Luiw ' 2V
500------ TI �_
—_— - - S = Stowing Sight Distance (ft.)
A • Algebraic Difference in Grade
h1: Eye Height of Bicyclist (4.5 Feet)
h2• Height of Object (0 Feet)
L : Minimum Vertical Curve Length (ft.)
400 -_______-
4-
0
J• C
S
F
300
'-I
5 RF
200----- --. - _ .--
E
E
E
100 --
0' I I '
0 5 10 15 20 25
Algebraic Difference In Grade (A)
Figure 7. Minimum Length of Vertical Curves.
A
-
I
•
.
I
'/I. \�
U.
' • NMeeee••
..
I
rN.rllwwrl.el.r
elr.N.ee
•
I
N••ee•-
Me
e I
YMe�,�J{t
• I■eV
•erN
.e•M'ref.N•Ye•re1•II•.un1'
(ry�/�// Nr IM.w.YLYr/M.A.e�!
• f.� . •�IIM.�'ll___
�yI1 xI.NIN-M MINMNr.S,
..� I.I.II.
Iel• A/Yrer.w
1I 1lel Ne�eN/
loll -V. .f I•ISeINY
i. y • • e0
up--..—.• �MNYM
.rN.
MYM•MNMeNNrI.MN
!_-a.1..manes
M.NI
sees......--su\e�NleN/ee�'a��N•
eIMMeMNe1e
MNeNMe•N•eP
•eeeel.euM'rfNee
e r
e•SSN/Me••Nr,M••Vw
N
•
IeNeMY1.MM.51
__M
N'•Nr.•w.M..�IMI.l.W(w
eMeIeNMIM/eflt
at.__..e!/INN'.Ilar.elJfi
•
N
N.eeeNefrle•r.•ee/.e
ee++r.••lerel.eP.e
Iee•Me:
e
•u__n.Me•.NN1e.I
eel-NIr
,
ras'.er.
N.N
e'e
NN•N'.I
SUS MNMIIee••IIN•rerNIY/eIr/•II•'.f•.•:
eeeri•.\e•
!•e
.eeel
MLNLeHY.ara.r
r.e•_N'.e1•.ee
•eee•e-e1e•eMee....e
.
MeY
NeMMeN
NeNMee•
YMe
1IN•.
Meb/Mr.e
:ere
HleeS
IN.
N•MNe
u
M••Lew.•t.YerN,■IIIr
lei e•dSMI.NlN••!e
IA
d
MI
e_ • I
•a
er
Me..e
e.e'
r
e•r..ee•NNeeN
e•N•MMeMNaP
Ii=M
'��A
fl__
au
Ni,MwMl.iii_rM\M
'
LeY IIjj
��i
eeMeeeeeeYNeeI.MIN"r•Ilr.er.er�r.N.f�Ir/AMu..t.r
YNeeeeeeM.Merle
4u'
WIrMILeSeSII!
IRM.-Ner.K..•
IN1:4•Y
S
NMee
ere4Mbel
e111r
e/ S'pa'.MeeI
A.
A.ee►-_seee
. •
'
eYLeC.
N•••eYYNeeee
U ___•4IYNIN•ear.
N
••
.e I1
pI:e.R...
O���N.i
\rl:er�.•��
sea t•
I•
1
AWW.@
PA",IF
-..
eeeweeNwie�M!•IMI:~a.'is.'
.ar
w�ir�ri
=a�eri:eae�we
n
•.. .. a.
A•d:I:Il•...w.Mvr-.e.C...A
Je_.•e••1[Me•I
M•NMNeeN�.Mlw•.I.rs:a•:..::•>I:-v1.'�
_.r1Cw-..1N.�eNM�eMMe
M••w.•rrI
A,:_ie
.
!.:A.
..C—L.-_f.M•MeYiMNMeNeY
U
:metric Conversion/
e Lo•ercl Clearances
su/e of the stoop
directions around
100 200 300
Slgnt Ol stance is: ' feet
I N. • 0.3 in.:
on horIzontal Wives ehotfd be COIOtiated based On the
tnq sight distances far biCYcIsts travehing In Opposite
the curve. See test for Oodltloncl discussion.
Figure 8.
Minimum Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves
51
set.
In feet.
/Is
J
if curve.
COSTS
The following tables contain cost estimates for the significant components
of bicycling facilities. These estimates come from The Street Division of the
Fayetteville Publics Works Department and reflect variations in labor and material
cost and design treatment. They are intended only to act as a rough guide for
project estimating.
List of tables:
1. Excavation, Treatment, and Paving.
2. Retaining Walls.
3. Drainage.
4. Barriers and Fences
5. Modifications of Existing Streets
6. Striping and Pavement Markings
7. Signing.
52
,W
r
C
L:.
.L�
W
1
C
IC
0C
cc
r
a'Pr'.
f .
r
W)
69
69
69
49
49
69
6R
�'
I
r
F
°
Wr
Liz
Lz
r L
G C O `j C 000
oa
CV N r r 69
4,+ 69 4 yj 49 69
�
N
N
69
y}
bn
H
F)
Ct
I-
U
Cr
y
.
C
—
C
a�
o°Jn
o
C
:r
°
°
E
CC
U
Li
CO
>
F
.�
p
N
a
W
cn
r
r.
L
v I
N
N
y}
iR
_
V
I
F
Cs.—
C
eD
O
Q
L
I
C
C
U
L
.O
.�
,�
i
ea
a
a
E
>
O`
O
U
K
A
. .
DC
U
v,
Cs
.—
..
U
T
.%
L
I
O
•
tC
U
A
I
��
�
boIc
let
O o
8
49
6)
d)
v
07
C
C
2
C
C
a
r
t
s
d
2
U
U
U
°p
a
o
3
co
U V U �. d
S 8 8 g Q g _
_ cC
[•• O I > J', Off' X V1 't It
It
I 4, Q 4, u9 4,
4: s
I E v9 v9 va 4 w
F-- I
z Q. y
4:
I aCi
Y
V. I h_ :d L C .4
Jx, y a o d - ° 3
ILL > '— 00 I-
7 L 1 d
v U y R --
^ CO U
C
- U U N
W W J
C C R v £
C I N U U ? d 6? U ^, v
U 6 v O O O
J J W V V V J C)
U U
9 U y U
O W L '� •J. ,� Vi E of 0 0 C
�S 7, ' (Q� '.O o0 00 Omay/ may/ tea)
v v UI
OO
Ct
a
z
a
It
C
z
F�1
Ct
U
Ii
8
�
Q
O
W)
U
o
U
4)0..
(r
3
3
U
c
s
•
w.4)
Ca
N
w/
Cw
.^
i
.w
_:
°--
Sc
a
00
U
00
0
00
CU
CU
C
m
'vA
cc
Cl)
cJQ
VU
Ca Ca
U U
— Y
CC
0
•U
Ca
d
l
O
Coo
O
U U
ii
88
-t4
a',
U
y
.40.0.
E
E
Z
U
a
VU
�
v
V
00
00
U
r
'a
a
ao��r
ti
0L
U U
I
\
• I
�
I
A
v I
I— I
49
I
Z
� I
t
t
O
U
U
C
AA
Ct
CA
G
C
Cam.
O
v'r
vi
vi
W%
kn
N
N
INO
N
N
49
44
44
4^
4A
N.
I
I
R
I
I
y
c
I
C
Cd
OD
I
Cl,
w
C
C
ed
SC
C
Y
lE
y
O
G
its
aq
y
C•1
G
A
y
y
Ca
7
C
C
O
fn
O
-
CE
•—
it
U
cc
4
It
Y
O
R
U
G
-
U
00
,C
O
CS
OC
G
I
7
I
PT
l
REFERENCES
Temple R. Jarrell, BIKEWAYS DESIGN - CONSTRUCTION - PROGRAMS,
A Publication of the National Recreation and Park Association, 1974
Mike Hudson, BICYCLE PLANNING, The Architectual Press, 1982
' Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering. BIKEWAY PLANNING
CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES, State of California, 1972
1
Barton - Aschman Associates Inc., THE BICYCLE A PLAN AND PROGRAM
FOR ITS USE AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION AND RECREATION, 1974
'• Barton - Aschman Associates Inc., THE BICYCLE A PLAN AND PROGRAM FOR ITS
USE AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTA77ONAND RECREATIOMTECHNICAL
APPENDIX, 1974
' American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, GUIDE
FOR BICYCLE ROUTES. 1974
' American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, GUIDE for
the DEVELOPMENT of BICYCLE FACILITIES, 1991
' Richard W. Mayer, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL TECNICAL
INFORMATION SERIES, Volume I, No. 1, American Society of Landscape
Architects, 1978
' Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners,
Proceedings of the Seminar on BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLANNING AND
DESIGN, American Society of Engineers, 1974
I
H