Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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