Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBike Boulevard Plan - May 22, 2012 Ma y 222O1 City of Ithaca Common Council resolution fr—J31 Ptc€n to prioritize non-automobile modes of mobility. WHEREAS all persons, regardless of the modes they employ for mobility, are ultimately pedestrians, and WHEREAS the public realm should offer access to all persons regardless of their physical or economic ability to own and operate a motor vehicle, and WHEREAS accommodating large numbers of private motor vehicles on public streets reduces equitable access for ALL persons by creating infrastructure conditions that reduce the efficiency and safety of all other modes of travel, including compromising the quality and continuity of the pedestrian realm, creating unsafe conditions for bicyclists, impeding transit vehicles, and absorbing a dis-proportionate amount of infrastructure funds, and WHEREAS traffic and automobile congestion negatively impact safety and quality of life in most city neighborhoods, and WHEREAS the city can no longer absorb the costs of accommodating the automobile within its borders and may soon be faced with reducing the maintenance and extent of road infrastructure, and WHEREAS car dependency is a significant contributor to obesity and other health issues which place an un-necessary economic burden on local government in the form of health care costs and public health services, and WHEREAS the accommodation and presence of large numbers of private vehicles diminishes the aesthetic and auditory quality of public spaces, so as to negatively impact the visitor experience in a city highly dependent on tourism and the first impressions of the parents of potential students, and WHEREAS the City's climate commitments and County's Comprehensive Plan call for a reduction in GHG emissions, and private vehicle exhaust is a significant contributor to such emissions, and WHEREAS systematically encouraging walking, biking and transit, while simultaneously reducing private automobile use within the City, will limit or reverse all of the aforementioned negative impacts, be it RESOLVED that, with respect to all decisions regarding planning, land-use, development, zoning, public works, infrastructure and facilities, the City of Ithaca prioritizes the needs of pedestrians first, those of bicyclists second, those of the transit system third, those of local freight fourth, and those of private passenger vehicles last. And be it further RESOLVED that if current city regulations, including law enforcement policies, infrastructure plans and the like, contradict these priorities, Common Council, in collaboration with all City Departments, will change such regulations so they reflect these priorities, and that enforcement of such conflicting regulations will be relaxed until such time as the new regulations are put in place. NOT APPROVED DRAFT INFORMATION OILY City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan Prepared by: City of Ithaca Engineering Office May 22, 2012 Introduction In recent years, the City of Ithaca has made a concerted effort to improve conditions for bicycle users; new bike lanes have been painted, new multi-use trails have been built, and many new bike racks have been installed. However, little progress has been made in creating a City-wide network of on-street bicycling facilities suitable for new riders, families, and others who prefer routes with lower motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds that conveniently connect to key Ithaca destinations. To provide for these users, the Engineering Office, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, and volunteers have been researching the feasibility of creating a "Bicycle Boulevard" network in Ithaca. Cities such as Portland, OR, Berkeley, CA, Tucson, AZ, Minneapolis, MN, and Madison, WI have successfully created such networks. Bike Boulevards are not bike lanes; rather, they are low-traffic and/or traffic- calmed routes where bicyclists and motorists share the travel lanes and where bicycle travel is generally prioritized and encouraged over motor vehicle travel. Network designs differ from city to city but , they all share similar attributes such as: - Traffic calming - Signs and pavement markings E <« > - Convenient routes - Prioritize bicycle use Figure 1:Image of a bicycle boulevard in San Luis Obispo,CA Goals The primary goal of this initiative is to increase the level of bicycle use within the City of Ithaca, particularly in "The Flats" area. Though some people currently do travel via bicycle in Ithaca, bicycles are not utilized to the level they could be. Improving bicycling facilities will encourage existing bicyclists to ride more often and will encourage those hesitant of bicycling to give it a try. To achieve the goal of increasing bicycle use, two factors are addressed: 1. Safety — First and foremost, a reasonably safe bicycling environment is necessary. Bicycle users face two key hazards: Colliding with a fixed object or 2 falling (occur most often, but generally result in little injury), and collisions with motor vehicles (which seldom occur, but can result in severe injury). Even if certain streets pose little risk to inexperienced cyclists or young riders, increasing the perception of safety or further reducing the possibility of negative interactions would be important increase ridership. To maximize safety (and the perception of safety), routes with lower motor vehicle speeds and volumes have been selected, and, where speeds and/or volumes may be too high, traffic calming measures could be used. 2. Convenience — Bicyclists (like motorists and pedestrians) benefit from easy-to- follow, direct routes that make good connections to popular destinations. Clear and informative way-finding signage will guide bicycle users to and along the Bike Blvd. routes, and will connect them to key destinations as well as to other bicycling facilities, such as bike lanes and the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Convenience will also be improved by formally allowing two-way bicycle travel on a 3-block section along Cascadilla Creek that currently only allows for one-way traffic, and by re-orienting four stop signs to decrease delays for bicyclists. A secondary, related goal is to install traffic calming devices to reduce the negative impacts of motor vehicles on residents and pedestrians, as well as bicyclists. These traffic calming measures will coordinate with, and increase the effectiveness of, existing traffic calming devices throughout the City. Over the past decade various traffic calming devices have been installed in the City, and numerous citizen requests have been made for traffic calming in additional locations. Traffic calming adds to the overall quality of life in neighborhoods and makes the streets more livable and more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Overview of Plan The recommended Bike Blvd. network is composed of two primary north/south routes (Tioga St. & Park/Corn/Plain St.) and a few low-traffic/traffic-calmed connectors in the Northside Neighborhood area and in the South-of-the-Creek Neighborhood area. 3 The network is located in "the flats" area of Ithaca; the hilly areas were not deemed suitable for Bike Blvd. treatments (due in part to the steep grades and in part because of the traffic characteristics of the streets). The map on page 5 illustrates the locations of the recommended routes. This implementation plan can be broken down into two basic components: physical infrastructure elements, and non-infrastructure actions. See pages 6 to 11 for more detailed descriptions of individual measures. Infrastructure elements: 1. Way-finding signs and pavement markings 2. Speed limit lowered to 25mph 3. Traffic calming measures (namely speed humps/tables) 4. Revised stop sign orientations 5. Conversion of the 100 block of Lake Av. and the 100 block of S. Cascadilla Av. to allow two-way bicycle travel Non-infrastructure actions: 1. Collaborate with the general public, emergency service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure appropriate initial Bike Blvd. designs. 2. Work with City decision-makers to secure policy support and a funding mechanism for initial construction and ongoing maintenance of the Bike Blvd. system. 3. Provide limited initial and ongoing general information to the public about Bike Blvds. and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists on them. 4. The Engineering Office to make connections with organizations (such as Way2Go and RIBs), events (such as bike rodeos), and City departments (such as IPD) to facilitate education and encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike Blvd. network. 4 , -s, DRAFT _.., Bike Boulevard Route Map Proposed Bike Boulevard/Neighborhood Greenways City of Ithaca,NY 7 : £ v e-- k .�.>, 5„ R ... i ,yiFarnier'sMarket ,l z: ., ,,, ..,,5.4::.,.,zA...„ , ,.,,' Scia banter t y.-•,,,i,k; r "�` r, " + - ass '2, 4 4 t e 1 i z 1 r ' T Y 0 I- - . I n 1 T .. _..._ Y Ps s f ' .x £y 2::';'! Common!'----: 0 l t! • '* z '4 , 3 t. 0 I x wm `4 ba.« �" i _. k F 9,. $ T 7 _±-k,,,,K 5■ Z �' { r R. ., .«'a«, «.««.««.« ;.,° ' Proposed Routes 7 - ., ' § ' Proposes elks Lanes p 4 . - ', ? Bike BQ Aevar0 «mfixt�, ... , £a a!Alternate Route ? All rata r, as ;. ....__. 4 Perks 3 Miters/0y art 6 .00 s Schoe]*' 0IHA r 1 s , .67 .Y¢¢£:.' N G 850 1300 Feel NY Sl. Pe Central GR880 oanxn A 1 t I 1 1 x M.p eves:40mp. Carey Dycaf P ed 8Y4U 0*88:•2007 GSM Dara Scum:Car I theta Depe10 rt tPutri hpika 2008 1.8.000 _�` Map Prepared b'.0$ r9Va5,City n em 4'?OCIAO r.20£t 5 Description of Measures—Infrastructure elements 1. Way-finding signs and pavement markings — Though `the s� flats' area of Ithaca is relatively small, the roadway network can be confusing for bicyclists to navigate, particularly for I,, ;= ' those new to Ithaca, because of the diversions caused by one- way streets, the diagonal block layout in the Northside r' °� � Neighborhood, and the dense tree canopy that can hinder one's sense of direction. Additionally, those familiar with * using motor vehicles may not be aware of the lower-traffic -- ," ,. ' uT. Figure 2 routes that are quite suitable for bicycle use. Way-finding signs are intended to serve two purposes: to identify the = ' ; locations of the Bike Blvd. routes and to identify key = destinations proximate to the routes. The design of the way-finding signs should be . consistent with the ones detailed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), such as the design used ' in Portland, OR (see Figure 2); however, some communities Figure 3 use other sign designs (see Figure 3). It is estimated that approximately 70 large way-finding signs will be needed at a cost of around $20,000. Small Bike Blvd. tags are proposed E R for installation on street signs along the routes (similar to the a arrangement shown in Figure 4). Figure 4 Most communities that have Bike Blvd. networks install painted bicycle and/or text markings onto the roadways to highlight the presence of the route (the design shown to the °r right (Figure 5) is used in San Luis Obispo, CA). In Ithaca, such pavement markings will prove difficult to keep in a good state of repair due to snow plow use and because the City of thr a/ T—Nroce) Ithaca currently does not have equipment to paint such markings, so contractors would likely need to be hired routinely. To keep costs down, it is recommended that Figure 5 6 pavement markings be limited (at least initially) to a small number (-60) of high-priority locations and rely mostly on the way-finding signs to identify the routes. If this approach is found to be insufficient in practice, then the City can pursue an expanded installation of pavement markings as necessary. The design of the symbol is recommended to be a standard-sized bicycle icon with the text "BLVD" placed above, similar to the one shown in Figure 5 (see appendix A). Alternately, or in addition to the painted markings, concrete icons/markers could be placed in the streets along the Bike Blvd. routes; similar to the red concrete dot in the Albany/Court St. intersection. Though more expensive initially, long- lasting concrete may be less expensive overall than regularly re-painting symbols. Initially, approximately 60 pavement markings are proposed at a total cost of —$19,000. The markings are estimated to have an average useful life of 4-6 years. 2. Speed limit lowered to 25mph — Though municipalities in New York cannot have area-wide speed limits less than 30mph, municipalities can post speed limits as low as 25mph along designated streets'. It is recommended that the speed limits along each of the routes be lowered to 25mph for the following reasons: - To improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians — Statistically, if a person is hit by a vehicle travelling 40mph, death will result in about 80% of cases, at 30mph, there is about a 40% likelihood that the person will be killed, and at 20mph, pedestrians will die in about 5% of collisions2. Therefore, even though a 5mph change seems small, in this range (30mph to 25mph) the safety improvement could be quite substantial. The reduced speed will also decrease stopping distances necessary for motor vehicles (about 150' rather than about 200'3), which will reduce the likelihood of collisions in the first place. 1 § 1643 of the NYS Vehicle&Traffic Law states that,"... No such speed limit applicable throughout such city or village or within designated areas ... shall be established at less than thirty miles per hour.No such speed limit applicable on or along designated highways within such city or village shall be established at less than twenty five miles per hour..." 2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999.Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries.Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809012.html 3 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.Washington,DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO),2004. 7 - To improved comfort for bicyclists —The speed of the motor vehicles would be 5- 10mph greater than bicycling speeds rather than 10-15mph over bicycling speeds which will encourage motorists to pass bicyclists at a more comfortable speed. - To increase awareness of Bike Blvd. routes — the 25mph signs (in addition to the way-finding signs and pavement markings) will alert road users to the fact that special conditions exist along these routes. The cost to install new 25mph signs along the Bike Blvd. routes (24 signs) is expected to cost around $6,000. (There is only one 30mph sign located along the planned Bike Blvd. route; which would need to be removed). 3. Traffic calming measures — Along most of the recommended Bike Blvd. network the motor vehicle speeds and volumes are currently low enough to be considered conducive to a safe and comfortable bicycling environment for the targeted demographic of children 11 years old and up, and families bicycling with children ages 8 and up. In other locations, higher traffic speeds and/or volumes demand some level of traffic calming to pull the speeds and/or volumes back to levels that are more supportive of bicycling. The types of situations that are most applicable for traffic calming include intersections with busier streets (such as where Plain St. crosses Clinton St.) and locations along a Bike Blvd. route (such as the 500 and 800 blocks of Tioga St.). In regard to the extent of the traffic calming measures being considered, it is recommended that minimal measures be installed initially (primarily to keep costs manageable but also to avoid changing traffic patterns too much, which might concern some residents) and then observe conditions to see if additional interventions are necessary after the Bike Blvd. network is completed and people have had some time to adjust to the new conditions. Below are listed the recommended initial measures. - Install a series of speed humps/tables along the Bike Blvd. routes. Higher priority locations for these devices are: • 500 & 800 blocks Tioga St. (est. cost: $4,000-$12,000) • 200 block Madison St. (est. cost: $2,000-$6,000) • 100 block Cleveland Av. (est. cost: $2,000-$6,000) 8 • 400 block Willow Av. (est. cost: $2,000-$6,000) Other locations may be considered as well based on traffic speeds, volumes, and citizen requests. - Install a small island or curb bump-out on the north side of the Tioga/Court intersection to prevent northbound motor vehicle traffic, but not bicycling traffic, upon which to install Bike Blvd. """° signs (similar to the one shown in Figure 6). The traffic volume in this section of - ��� � - :K n.. ' yAyx _ Figure 6:The above image shows an Tioga St. is around 2,500 vehicles per example of a traffic-diverting island/bump- out and signage used to prevent motorists(but day, which is near the upper threshold of not bicyclists)from entering the street. what can be considered appropriate for a Bike Blvd. (est. cost: $5,000-$10,000) - Install medians (similar to the ones shown in Figure 7) or curb bump-outs on Clinton St. at the Plain St. intersection so that pedestrians and bicyclists can more safely cross Clinton Street. Clinton St. can be time-consuming to cross at this location because it can often take some time to find a suitable gap in traffic in which to cross both lanes at the same '104 time. (est. cost: $5,000-$10,000) (Note: ', 4 a more detailed analysis is required at this intersection to determine whether a a - .. I traffic signal or all-way stop is warranted; which may be more Figure 7:This image shows a crosswalk with a pedestrian refuge median similar to the appropriate than traffic calming measure proposed for the Plain/Clinton measures.) intersection(look for more applicable image). - Install a large center median at the end of Wood St. at the Meadow St. intersection. This median would slow motorists making a turn from Meadow St. onto Wood St. and would be a convenient location for Bike Blvd. signage. (est. cost: $10,000-$15,000) 9 - Install a small center median at the end of Plain St. at the Elmira Rd. intersection. This median would slow turning motorists and would be a convenient location for Bike Blvd. signage. (est. cost: $5,000-$10,000) - Similar to the Tioga/Court intersection above, install an island/curb bump-out at Seneca/Corn (northbound) and Green/Corn (southbound) to prevent northbound traffic north of Seneca and to prevent southbound traffic south of Green. This measure will reduce cut-thru traffic along Corn St. to levels more conducive to bicycling. (est. cost: $10,000-$20,000) (Note: some additional traffic calming along Plain St. may be warranted to mitigate traffic diverted from Corn St.) 4. Revised stop sign orientations — Bike Blvd. networks generally re-orient stop signs to reduce bicycling delays where feasible and appropriate. In Ithaca there are four such intersections that make sense to re-orient the stop signs: Lewis/Auburn/Adams, Lewis/Utica (4-way stop to 2-way stop), Madison/First, and Madison/Second. It is not anticipated that these changes would increase motor vehicle volumes or speeds. (est. cost: negligible) 5. Conversion of the 100 block of Lake Av. and the 100 block of S. Cascadilla Av. to allow two-way bicycle travel — These blocks are currently designated as one-way, presumably for the purpose of limiting cut-thru motor vehicle traffic. However, these streets carry very low levels of traffic (-45 ADT, 85th percentile speeds —15 mph) and would make a good two-way bicycling route. In fact, observations by staff indicate that bicyclists are currently traveling in both directions along these segments and no significant problems have arisen from such use Therefore, it is recommended that these streets continue to be signed to prohibit motor vehicle access inm Figure 8:This image shows the the southeast direction, but new signs be added to allow signs used on a street in legal bicycle access (see Figure 8). The recommended Massachusetts motor r vehicles icles and one-way for motor vehicles and two- way to achieve this condition is to make the street way travel for bicyclists. segments two-way, but to prohibit entry by motorists at the intersections of Lake/Monroe, 10 Cascadilla/Cayuga, and Cascadilla/Sears. It is recommended that the north side of Cascadilla Ave. remain one-way for all traffic. Along the south side of the street it is recommended that a 10mph advisory speed limit be established (such an advisory speed is already posted along the north side of the street). Description of Measures—Non-infrastructure elements The Engineering Office plans to engage in the following types of non- infrastructure activities: 1. Collaborate with the general public, emergency service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal initial Bike Blvd. designs. 2. Work with City decision-makers to secure policy support and a funding mechanism for initial construction and for ongoing maintenance of the Bike Blvd. system. 3. Provide limited initial and ongoing general information to the public about Bike Blvds. and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists when traveling along them. 4. The Engineering Office to make connections with organizations (such as Way2Go and RIBs), events (such as bike rodeos), and City departments (such as IPD) to support education and encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike Blvd. network. Other, related items It is recommended that standard bike lanes be installed in the 200 & 300 blocks of N. Tioga St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to The Commons. Due to the more significant traffic volumes in this location, it has been deemed not suitable for Bike Blvd.-type treatments. The installation of these bike lanes will necessitate the removal of about 13 on-street parking spaces. Two bike lane designs are feasible; one design would remove on-street parking from the east side of the street, a second design would `chicane' the travel lanes so that some on-street parking could be retained on each side of the street. With the chicane design, on-street parking could remain in front of the County Court House and in front of Town Hall/Post Office. (est. cost: $2,000-$6,000) 11 Additionally, it is recommended that standard bike lanes be installed in the 200, 300 & 400 blocks of Third St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to the Farmers Market (which will have a minimal impact to on-street parking; though it will require changing the DMV's driver test parking location). As with the Tioga St. location, this segment carries too great a volume of vehicles to be appropriate for a Bike Blvd. treatment. (est. cost: $2,400-$7,200) Along both of the street segments mentioned above, it is recommended that the speed limit be reduced to 25mph and that way-finding signage is included. Average annual bike lane maintenance costs are estimated to be around$4,000. Cost Estimates—initial and ongoing costs It is estimated that the construction of the entire initial Bike Blvd. network will likely cost at least $90,000 and might cost up to around $250,000 or more depending on the actual costs, the extent/quality of the measures built, whether any unanticipated complications arise, and whether the work will be performed by City crews or by private contractors. In addition to the initial costs, there will be ongoing maintenance costs — primarily, repainting worn pavement markings. The ongoing costs will depend in large part on what types of measures are initially installed. It is estimated that annual average costs will be in the mid-hundreds of dollars to a few thousand dollars. 12 Appendix A — Recommended Bicycle Boulevard pavement marking design (not drawn to scale). The marking design to be either 4' wide and 17' tall on narrower streets and 6' wide and 26' tall on standard width streets. B 11\1 [) 72" or 108" • 64" or 96" • 72" or 108" • 48" or 72" 13 From:Andrejs Ozolins <aozolins @ithaca.edu> Date: May 30, 2012 12:11:53 PM To: bpac<bpac @icycle.orq> Subject: [BPAC] some bike issues and questions Some months ago I took a ride around the city and accumulated a list of questions/suggestions/issues. The narrative is posted at htt.:/lbikeithaca,or./?.- 750, but let me quickly list my points. They seem like BPAC matters to me, but you'll judge, of course. 1. Going east on Malone from Wegmans, intending to bike across to S Titus--this seems like a useful move by bike to avoid going down Meadow St. At the traffic light on Meadow, it would seem better if the right lane were for going straight as well as turning right. Otherwise, a bike has to get into the extremely heavily trafficked left lane, which is currently indicated as Left turn or Straight. Since virtually zero of the traffic goes across to Titus,this change wouldn't seem controversial. 2. I'm heading toward Spencer Rd as an obvious, safe route to Buttermilk SP. I go south on Plain, then left on Park to the traffic circle. However, the entrance to that block of Park St is signed "Dead End." Since that approach to the traffic circle gives cyclists an especially calm approach from which they can enter traffic thoughtfully, I'd ask that"Except bicycles" be added to the dead end sign, perhaps also designating that as a bike route. 3. The intersection of Stone Quarry and Spencer should provide some guidance for bikes, special caution to motorists re bikes, or other means to diminish potential conflict. I think it can be safe with appropriate treatment. 4.The triangle that blocks Spencer has a cut for bicycles inbound, but outbound bikes are led into a very confusing situation. I'm not sure what would be a solution, but there needs to be some way that cars coming around the curve from S Meadow don't collide with bikes trying to figure out how to go around the triangle or cross to the cut. 5. At the end of Spencer, a path connects the road to the parking lot of Buttermilk Falls SP.That path, last I was there, was severely damaged by some kind of construction. At best, that path is rough at the beginning and a bit hard to spot; in fact, it's ambiguous which of two entrances is intended to be the real one. I don't know what entity owns that property or is responsible for the path, but I'd hope overtures could be made to improve the city end of it and mark it so it can be clearly seen from the end of Spencer Rd. This route to a major state park seems to me so valuable to people in the city, especially kids, that we should make every possible effort to make it safe, attractive, and clear. I had a few more observations on that ride. I think there should probably be a place to collect observations so that BPAC could sift through them, address ones within their purview, forward the rest to appropriate agencies, etc.There are many things about our biking environment that don't require major construction projects but would greatly improve the cycling climate. Andrejs From:Andrejs Ozolins<aozolinsPithaca.edu> Date: May 30, 2012 12:33:53 PM To: bpac <bpac@ cycle.orq> Subject: [BPAC] Railroad crossings , , , and I just opened the Journal and see a piece on the railroad company doing maintenance on the tracks through Ithaca. Is there any opportunity to get the crossings smoothed out somewhat? I've seen countless crossings that are smooth, yet Ithaca goes on for years putting up with the violent bumpiness at Buffalo, Seneca and State. It's highly relevant to cycling since a cyclist has to be really careful to not be thrown off by normal track crossings and these add the hazards of huge gaps in adjacent paving. Both cyclists and cars, moreover, are hunting for the smoothest crossing, adding more potential conflict. Andrejs 1,11 -0R, t;avti)it Map Legend '''', 1 • • a BikeLanes/Striped Shoulders T \ Y is 77 j Bike Lane or Hybrid Lane t ` , _\ r e• a� Uphill Bikeway • A ` '' ''r \I �t Shared Roadway s 1 0/ b s 11 \ = Pay 7;, ^•-: .. 3 ;a S One-way Streets-Bicycle Excepted S 1 `� ,g.;.•,4-_1,,'....:_z , r t P �� Multi-Use Trail {1 �� _. • (Existing and Proposed) i w � 'fir^ T { * Bikeson-Buses Transfer Station : f (nTaJ." Central Business District fA"!•Black Diamond . 4 t� 7 •• Bikeway in Neighboring Jurisdiction / „^r :'.,'\ ALAN I. RC 1 fl1ERTtsalaD 00E ��1 1TATL lIARINC I.INR MM R'AM1• ; j •\�� _ a `, Y. NcwR1ARwLI ,' �..L .�1�_ r _�R`�, •. i .. �t/� couRSa � l <It \ 1 F uwn RuT y CASSIA= Yf _` • jii `\ `. r-•.4 x,}!9 •,rA4.co,. . n4'ESTO, • r~SIC ! .6184,:1 ,ry.. \ rAiTis E UN IX/4E7 i ut EAr1. —, • t.41�• ! i s 1 � ' r� ''''' i y a 1. I 4 '''111 y ? y?fl= . poi a•Irxms sr w w r •w • , j m '.1 vA t -..ice T � ,i . TOWER ROAD 1 CORYELL • $` I''-/ © .�, " W a r'YII1:RST 1 1 ' 4112,! tit.4 I' s' �1 i ii• 7 . _1 cos+:T a, , ' i lire• 1<• • 4 / ::' ,.Yi a+ ..,,,,, 1SENECA$ X 1(■r�,_ < I m,, ' - AM a.'ETATR ET. a t „'S0�'. 1�''��1 R64.■ 4-- 7 4u. -•� .r N I o _tom w4., wrcv MEHL , 4 CLINTON ST\•� 6 3 ��, d IFS 1 ,�; ■ ``'�■©, r cow",""T 4' .Rest Hill !: ;Is )1 t. L----:me 4 i / 4. R«natloaWq iiI 1:400 ST Yy •• Rlu°oa'nRaT ,•+T' .t •($0,01 " •; South Hill rnswERCUlounlcr - •� ��Recreation Way i /. %�Flood rail v Dike Trail ` „.Y* R♦/• OLLIG N 1 g • collsos aEUIIIAali 500 2000 OFT 1000 3000 5000FT Phase One Bikeway Route Network