HomeMy WebLinkAbout030861 ORD - 05/24/2016 Ordinance amending MobilityCC, a transportation element of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Corpus Christi, by adopting the
Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO)
Strategic Plan for Active Mobility, Phase 1: Bicycle Mobility Plan;
providing for severance; providing for a repealer clause; and
providing for publication.
WHEREAS, in 2013 the City adopted MobilityCC that consolidated existing
transportation related plans into a single transportation planning framework. MobilityCC
serves as the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and allows a
process for design, operation and maintenance of existing and proposed transportation
infrastructure;
WHEREAS, existing plans that were incorporated and modified by MobilityCC
include HikeBikeCC (City's Trails Master Plan for Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities) and Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) 2005
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (City's On-Street Bicycle Facilities Master Plan);
WHEREAS, an image of the CCMPO 2005 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (City's
On-Street Bicycle Facilities Master Plan) is embedded in the Urban Transportation Plan
map and shall be removed upon adoption of the Strategic Plan for Active Mobility,
Phase 1: Bicycle Mobility Plan ("the Plan");
WHEREAS, HikeBikeCC contains prescriptions for trails and/or bikeways that
conflict with the bicycle infrastructure types outlined in the Plan;
WHEREAS,the City Traffic Engineer recommended approval of the adoption of
the Plan to the City Transportation Advisory Commission (CTAC) and at its monthly
meeting on February 22, 2016, CTAC recommended approval of the Plan to City
Council. The City's Park and Recreation Advisory Committee also passed a resolution
of support to adopt the Plan on March 9, 2016;
WHEREAS, with proper notice to the public, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on Wednesday, March 23, 2016, during which all interested persons
were allowed to appear and be heard, regarding amending MobilityCC by adopting the
Plan. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Plan without adopting
the Matrix of Best Practices contained within the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these amendments would best
serve the public health, necessity, and convenience, and the general welfare of the City
of Corpus Christi and its citizens;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI, TEXAS
Ordinance-Bicycle Mobility Plan F Page 1 of 3
30S0
INDEXED
SECTION 1. MobilityCC, a transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Corpus Christi, Texas (the "Comprehensive Plan"), is amended by adopting and
incorporating the Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Strategic
Plan for Active Mobility, Phase 1: Bicycle Mobility Plan (the "Plan"), without adopting the
Matrix of Best Practices contained within the Plan and amending the Urban
Transportation Plan Map by deleting the Corpus Christi Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
graphic. The Plan is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit "A" and incorporated into this
ordinance by reference as if fully set out in its entirety.
SECTION 2. To the extent the amendments made by this ordinance represent a
deviation from the Comprehensive Plan and MobilityCC, the Comprehensive Plan and
MobilityCC are amended to conform to the amendment made by this ordinance.
SECTION 3. The Comprehensive Plan and MobilityCC, as amended from time to time
and except as changed by this ordinance, remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. Any ordinance or part of any ordinance in conflict with this ordinance is
expressly repealed by this ordinance.
SECTION 5. The City Council intends that every section, paragraph, subdivision,
clause, phrase, word, or provision of this ordinance be given full force and effect for its
purpose. Therefore, if any section, paragraph, clause, phrase, word, or provision of this
ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction, that judgment shall not affect any other section, paragraph, subdivision,
clause, phrase, word, or provision of this ordinance.
SECTION 6. Publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of Corpus
Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
Ordinance-Bicycle Mobility Plan F Page 2 of 3
The foreg9inordinance wa ad for the first time and passed to its second reading on
this the l� -day of3.(, 20 j `,-by the following vote:
Nelda Martinez Brian Rosas0A
Rudy Garza . o Lucy Rubio t 41)
Michael Hunter 11111 / Mark Scott 1 e/
Chad Magill it 1 Carolyn Vaughn (Pa Atk
_(-4
Colleen McIntyre
The foregoing ordihance was read for the second timy and passed finally on
�
this the -9,L-111c14y of 1\ i_aL C 1 , 20 i _j by the following vote:
i
Nelda Martinez k . Brian Rosas 41.,!
.4 , if/Rudy Garza . Lucy Rubio
Michael Hunter 1 4.‘'_
,�; Mark Scott 1_41./,
Chad Magill , 1 Carolyn Vaughn i ! /Al
ti ; I
Colleen McIntyre
PASSED AND APPROVED this the `thy of 417(1/1 , 20 .
ATTEST:
Rt.__ -1-4,,,,,,,
Rebecca Huerta Nelda Ma z
City Secretary Mayor
EFFE TlVE DATE
5 30
Drinan --_. : 'i••. . 'Ian Page 3 of 3
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ACTIVE 00BILITY
PHASE 1: BICYCLE ,I\DBILITY PLAN
Mobility CC
CORPUS CHRISTI
BLANK PAGE, INTENDED FOR PRINTING PURPOSES ONLY
EXHIBIT A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PLAN INTENT AND OVERVIEW 2
VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4
METHODS. 6
Network Development 7
Stakeholder Engagement 9
BICYCLE MOBILITY NETWORK PRESCRIPTION 12'
Network Overview 13
Network Details 14-46
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS 48
Bicycle Boulevard 50 -
Buffered Bike Lane 51
Multi -Use Sidepath, One Side 52 B!
Off -Road Multi -Use Trail 53 •
One -Way Cycle Track, Both Sides 55 •
Specialized Treatment: Highway Bicycle Route Connection 59
Specialized Treatment: Super Sharrow 60
Specialized Treatment: Recapture Parking / Narrow Street 61
Specialized Treatment: Road Diet 62
Specialized Treatment: Bicycle Route Street Crossing 63
..liG. hiQt.ite.AdARted.At
CASE STUDIES 73
Bike Share 74
Accommodating Bikes on Transit 75
Bike Repair Tool Kiosk 76
School District Representation in Transportation Planning 76
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) 77
Bike Friendly Business Accreditation Program 77
Reducing Car Trips To Schools 78
Employer -driven Incentive Programs 78
Safe Routes To Schools Coalition/Task Force,79 Neighborhood Funding
Pedestrian Improvements 79
Special Maintenance Agreements 79
Wayfinding/Bicycle Maps 80
Cyclovia 80
Safe Passage Enforcement 81
Bicycle Diversion Program 81
Reduce Off-street Parking Requirements 82
Bicycle Counts 82
SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE 83
Bike Share Programs 84
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains 87
Local Improvement Districts 87
Special Maintenance Agreements 88
Cyclovia 88
Safe Passage Citation Fee Structure 88
Rules and Codes for Safe Cycling 88
Bike Safety Classes in Lieu of Fines 90
Standard Contracting Language for Construction Zones 90
Bicycle Counts 90
Performance Measures 91
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement Database A-1
Appendix B: Steering Committee Invitees A-1
Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Survey and Data Summary A-2
Appendix D: Presentation Locations A-6
Appendix E: Community Events Attended A-6
Appendix F: Poster and Flyer Locations and Sample A-7
Appendix G: Interview Protocol and List of Interviewees A-8
Appendix H: Targeted Vetting of Preliminary Bicycle Mobility Network A-9
Appendix I: Sample Resolution in Support of Implementation of the Bicycle
Mobility Plan A-9
Appendix J: Drive Kind Ride Kind Program Guide A-11
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance A-12
Appendix L: Priority Sport Routes for Road Bikes A-18
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 - Bicycle Mobility Network Summary 2
Table 2- Primary Destinations Used to Identify Hubs of Community Activity 7
Table 3 -Supplemental Data Used to Identify Hubs of Community Activity 7
Table 4- Stakeholder Bicycle Route Used to Validate the Bicycle Mobility Network8
Table 5 - Primary Data Collected for All Bicycle Mobility Network Segments 8
Table 6 - Secondary Data Collected for All Bicycle Mobility Network Segments 8
Table 7 - Summary of Community Engagement.., 10
Table 8 - Supplemental Specialized Treatments 47
Table 9 - Financial Models for Bike Share Programs 85
Figure 1 - Heat Map of Project Area Depicting Hubs of Community Activity 7
Figure 2 - Bicycle Infrastructure Categories as Function of Traffic
Volumes and Speeds 9
Figure 3 - Preliminary Proposed Bike Share Station Locations 86
EXHIBIT A
k 4 u
',A JINNI„ ',,,...,:itt..: !
,iy
At
f
ri i4 ' ! ',.. ''
1 F t 3
4 j
, v 1
1 r
{
Q
%.10.* ';','-''' -lb'-
ti
p., u�
If- !.� /\
w
i '
e
, 1
N
43 t
o
m
a ` •
Q
r I 0
m
• i
_ w
Nb
INTRODUCTION
The personal automobile is no longer the ultimate symbol of personal freedom in modern communities.
The percentage of vehicles sold nationwide to people under 35—Millennials—has been falling steadily
since early in the 21st century, and data suggest that most aging Baby Boomers would prefer to leave
suburbia and the two -car garage behind in favor of a more unencumbered existence. These trends are
not lost on leaders in the industrial and technical marketplaces, who carefully evaluate the availability of
community amenities, such as transit and bicycle networks, before setting up shop in a new location
where they hope to attract and retain the best and brightest. Yet planning for and investing in
transportation options in Corpus Christi is about much more than retaining our creative class or
inspiring Winter Texans to invest in permanent roots.
Our transportation network is the vascular system of our community, delivering people and goods to
destinations and literally shaping our community in the process. The way in which we move around our
community is the single biggest determinant of our quality of life. Our transportation choices impact
our daily schedules, our free time, our wallets, even our waistlines. When a community transportation
system is designed principally around personal automobiles, the streets, neighborhoods, and shopping
areas that we build tend to be scaled for cars rather than people, and thus, without meaning to, we build
communities that make active mobility—walking and bicycling—the more difficult alternatives. Case in
point: less than one percent of children aged 7-15 now ride a bicycle to school, a decrease of more than
60% since the 1970s according to the Surface Transportation Policy Project. On the other hand, the
experience of communities in the US and beyond shows that strategic investment—the right
infrastructure in the right places—in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure naturally induces
development that is denser and more resource efficient (think main street vs. strip mall), translating into
a higher return on infrastructure investments and more tax revenue per unit of developed land.
Transportation is the second largest expense for most households, often accounting for 25% of total
income in auto -dependent communities according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Across
the nation, obesity rates have doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and over 20% of our nation's health care
costs are attributable to obesity according to the Campaign to End Obesity. Likewise, mobile sources of
air pollutants—cars and trucks—have pushed many communities into non -attainment with federal
standards at a significant cost in real dollars and public health.
Tools to evaluate the quality of life in our communities, such as the Livability Index produced by the
American Association of Retired Professionals (AARP) Public Policy Institute, include a variety of
measurable metrics related to housing, neighborhoods, public health, environmental quality, and social
equity—all of which are influenced by the community's transportation system. As such, investing in
mobility options is one of the most direct ways to enhance quality of life in a community, but such
investments must be strategic in order to yield optimal returns in the form of community benefit.
In response to the need for a strategic plan to guide such investments, the Corpus Christi Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) has undertaken a Strategic Plan for Active Mobility for the urbanized
portions of Nueces and San Patricio counties, of which this Bicycle Mobility Plan is Phase I. The MPO
receives federal funding to help coordinate and fund transportation projects in the urbanized areas of
Nueces and San Patricio counties and has funding dedicated to non -vehicular transportation
alternatives. Ultimately, it will be up to the municipalities within the MPO area—Corpus Christi,
Portland, and Gregory— and to their partners to construct the infrastructure prescribed in this Bicycle
Mobility Plan.
Of the hundreds of individuals that our team interviewed or surveyed, the number of
respondents—over 70%—who said that they agreed strongly with the vision of a Coastal Bend where
walking and biking are integral to the community culture and represent viable, safe mobility and
recreation options exceeds the number who said they ride a bike at least once per week by a factor of
three! In other words, even non -riders recognize the benefits to our community of infrastructure to
support an active lifestyle. Likewise, over 70% of respondents also told us that they don't feel safe from
vehicles on existing bike facilities. The unmet demand for safe, high quality cycling infrastructure in
our community is clear.
EXHIBITA
1
2
PLAN INTENT AND OVERVIEW
The MPO's Bicycle Mobility Plan is intended to foster cycling as a meaningful transportation alternative
for riders of diverse abilities. This plan was created to alleviate uncertainty about where investments in
bicycle infrastructure should be made and how that infrastructure should be designed and maintained.
The bicycle mobility network prescribed in this plan was developed with the bike -dependent commuter
and casual recreational rider—not the high-speed sport cyclist—in mind.
The planning team took a blank slate approach to developing the bicycle mobility network prescribed in
this plan, which is designed to enhance access to essential goods and services for all residents of our
community. As detailed in the Methods Section (page 6), the team used state-of-the-art mapping
software to identify existing and future centers of community activity and to define key connections
between them.
On average, most individual residences in the urbanized area of Nueces and San Patricio counties are
within a two- to five-minute bike ride (on a neighborhood street) from some segment of the new bike
mobility network, and the network delivers riders within'''/ mile (about a five-minute walk) of:
• 89% (158 of 178) of early education and daycare centers, grade schools (public and
private) and higher education campuses
• 85% (122 of 143) of parks over two acres in size
• 83% (1088 of 1319) of transit stops and stations
• 82% (541 of 657) of low income housing units (Section 8 or Housing Tax Credit properties)
• 80% (104 of 130) of groceries, meat and fish markets, bakeries, and corner markets
• 77% (186 of 242) of pools, senior centers, recreation centers, movie theaters, community
pools, fitness centers, museums and hotels
On the basis of feedback gathered from the community through interviews, focus groups, and on-line
tools, the planning team prioritized a low -stress rider experience and maximal separation between
cyclists and cars by using off-road trail segments on stormwater easements wherever possible. Where
the bike mobility network corresponds to the street network, the planning team prioritized
neighborhood streets with low traffic volumes and speeds. Where the network falls on busier roads,
the Plan prescribes alternatives to the standard on -street bike lane, such as separated multi -use
sidepath or protected cycle tracks (see Infrastructure Illustrations, page 48) outside of the vehicular
travel lanes.
The installation of even the most robust, dedicated bicycle infrastructure, which is often separated from
the vehicular travel lane to afford the highest level of safety, can represent a meaningful cost savings as
compared to maintaining the existing condition of many of our streets. Asphalt pavement designed to
support vehicles is much more expensive to build and maintain than hardscape designed only to
support bicycles. Where installation of bike infrastructure adjacent to the sidewalk (behind the curb)
allows us to eliminate on -street bike lanes and thus narrow roadway width without reducing the
number or width of travel lanes, the cost of constructing and maintaining the roadway goes down by
significantly more than the cost of building the bike infrastructure. In this way, many of the more capital
intensive elements of the prescribed bicycle network can be constructed opportunistically over time
and will ultimately help to reduce the overall cost of maintaining our streets.
This Bicycle Mobility Plan comprises two major components. Section One, the Network Prescription,
details just over 290 miles of network connections:
TABLE 1: Bicycle Mobility Network Summary
Infrastructure Type
Low Cost/High Impact/Rapid Implementation•
"No major capital investment required other than paint and signage
Network
Miles
Percent
of Network
Bicycle Boulevard
64
22
Buffered Bike Lane
7
2
Strategic Capital Investments
Multi -use Sidepaths
8
3
1 -way Cycle Tracks
145
50
Off-road Multi -use Trails
(on stormwater and old railroad easements)
66
23
290
Installation of the right infrastructure in the right places is critical to catalyzing the change necessary for
walking and biking to become endemic to our community culture, but we also have other means of
promotingactive mobility options.
Subsequent sections of this plan include: Matrix of Best Practices (page 66), Case Studies (page 73), and
Special Topics Narratives (page 83) related to education and encouragement programs, supporting
infrastructure, code reform and enforcement, and program evaluation.
EXHIBIT A
VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
` ` • The metropolitan area of the Coastal Bend is a place where walking and
I C I on
biking are integral to the community culture and represent viable, safe
J • mobility and recreation options for residents and visitors of diverse abilities.
GOAL
Develop a cohesive, strategic
network of bicycle facilities that
accommodates a diversity of
riders
O
GOAL
Increase the percentage of trips
of all types that are made
by bicycle
4
•
Objectives Objectives
Provide bicycle facilities that Provide access for residents
are appropriate to street in project area to the bike
classification, traffic volume, mobility network within two
and desired level of safety miles of their homes
and service
Increase the proportion of
Enhance connectivity transit riders who access
between community transit by bike
activity centers
Increase the proportion of
Minimize uncertainty about students arriving to
bicycle infrastructure design school by bike
and cost by establishing
standards (by reference) for
the design, construction,
and maintenance of
bicycle facilities
GOAL
Promote health and wellness
through bicycling
•
Objectives
Increase the proportion of
community members who
indicate that they ride a
bicycle at least once
per week
EXHIBIT A
GOAL
Enhance safety for bicyclists
O
•
Objectives
Decrease the total number
of interactions between
bikes and cars
Increase fixed/permanent
messaging (signage) about
safe bicycling within the
project area
Increase the perception of
rider safety among the public
3
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Decision makers in the jurisdictions within the MPO boundary—the cities of Corpus Christi, Portland,
and Gregory, Nueces and San Patricio counties, the Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority
(RTA) and the Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District (TxDOT-CRP)—must be
commended for their commitment to protecting and enhancing the vibrancy of our region by
promoting active mobility options. The highest elected officials and their appointees in each of these
jurisdictions, as members of the MPO's Transportation Policy and Technical Advisory Committees,
demonstrated great leadership in their resounding support of MPO staff during this planning process.
Staff in multiple departments in each municipality followed suit, providing detailed guidance and
feedback during the network development and facility selection phases and working to incorporate the
planning team's recommendations into the design of on-going roadway projects.
The RTA and the City of Corpus Christi deserve special recognition for their financial contributions,
which supported specialized consultant teams who provided critical technical assistance to MPO staff.
Olivarri and Associates went to great lengths to engage the full spectrum of stakeholders in the planning
process, and HDR Engineering displayed tremendous flexibility in working as a unified team with MPO
technical staff to complete the bicycle network development and infrastructure selection portions of
this work.
The members of the project Steering Committee, each of whom represents an entity that is well
positioned to help implement this plan, displayed compelling commitment to this endeavor through
their participation in quarterly meetings. This group provided invaluable feedback about the planning
process, helping to ensure that the outputs of this work will be put into practice by their respective
organizations. These Steering Committee members also served as conduits for information about the
bicycle mobility plan to their respective organizations, effectively expanding the web of stakeholders
who were invested in this process.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must be
acknowledged for their leadership in investing in transportation alternatives. Continued commitment
to active mobility at the federal level is one important part of getting more pedestrian and cycling
infrastructure on the ground in our community.
Above all else, the planning team wishes to recognize and thank the residents of the Coastal Bend for
their clear vision and voice. Individuals from all walks and corners of our community took the time to
share their priorities and perspectives, all of which were essential to creating a plan that will help meet
the fundamental need in our community for expanded mobility options.
EXHIBITA
, ..
. ----... .
-. ... „,..„..„...,.
..... ...,,.,„
''.• '' - „ • ,.',.'''‘. ', ''' '''''.:4:3 .,...„
..; /
.• / - .., ,',...,,.. ,,11,-
,
tooliiimit
pJ
' . '1: '' .1.;.;-.:i4"'' fl ' '.. •::.-i.., ,, - . it
, ,r... .?;', , • ' --. 4 ,'" .f."
4 : '• .0004-A.4!'"
.
., .. .......... ... . .. ..., ... , ..... , •• ,
400004000101001100t ..
. .4: . . .
,;•
• ot
. . - ........, •
•,.
, Ar
. ‘.. .,..„,....,.:„ • i
, <
le
.3 ./3 •
43 .......
3.. . •. ..
.''' '''',.,3.,....• ..3 3 ' . ' ' '': . 3,33, ' CIO
• '3 .6.3
,•3 ) I
..
.3:3 • i
IA X
.,,. :...4. *
"-,-tioe.••• .:
*...,,
- , 4•... .
-,...--
-...... ._., .-...0..e•
. ..
,,.
1/1001.
,. _.
-. • . .,
.
.•.,•• , ....., , ,
,;.
,.., ..• .,
..
.
,.,„„
•:.
. ...t.,
. .. ,, , •
.,
. •,.!
6
METHODS
The bicycle mobility network prescribed in this Plan is intended to foster cycling as a meaningful
transportation alternative for riders of diverse abilities and to enhance access to essential goods and
services for all residents of our community. Thus, as detailed in this section, the planning team
undertook a two-part analysis to identify existing and future centers of community activity and to
define key connections between them. Once this network had been defined, the planning team
undertook a separate two-part analysis to determine exactly what type of infrastructure should be
installed on each segment of the network to uphold the level of safety that the community seeks.
EXHIBITA
Network Development
Community Hotspot Analysis
The planning team used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map the location of primary
destinations—those places that shape our daily travel—in the project area:
TABLE 2: Primary Destinations Used to Identify Hubs of Community Activity
Primary Destinations
Description
Schools
Early childhood education and daycare centers, elementary/middle/high
schools (public and private), higher education campuses
low Income Housing
Section 8 or Housing Tax Credit properties
Transit
Bus stops, Bike Boardings and Transit stations
Food Markets
Grocery stores; bakeries; meat, fish, and produce markets; corner
store markets
Recreation and Tourism
Hotels, fitness centers, senior centers, community centers, pools,
movie theaters, museums
Parks
Larger than 2 acres
Civic Institutions
City Hall, post offices, public libraries, municipal courts, court houses
The team also considered other supplemental data about how residents currently move around the
community:
TABLE 3: Supplemental Data Used to Identify Hubs of Community Activity
Supplemental Data
Description
Travel Demand Model
Origin/Destination Data
Data (per Census 2010) about where (in terms of census blocks) car trips
begin and end in the community
Population and
Employment Density
Relative density of population and employment; areas with higher
density of population and employment tend to be more urban and thus
more likely to support trips by bicycle
Employment to
Population Ratio
Relative balance of employment opportunities to population density;
areas with a ratio closer to 1:1 represent the availability of employment
opportunities in close geographic proximity to commensurate population
density, thus increasing the likelihood of trips being made by bicycle
rather than personal automobile
Zero Car Households
Location of zero car households (2009-2013 American Community Survey
5 -yr Estimates); zero car households are inherently dependent on other
modes of travel, such as cycling, walking and transit
Bike to Work
Location (residences) of individuals that uses bicycle as means of
commuting (2009-2013 American Community Survey 5 -yr Estimates)
City of Corpus Christi
Destination Nodes
Nine Destination Nodes—areas that are pre -disposed for redevelopment
as compact, efficient, community centers—were identified in the City's
2011 Integrated Community Sustainability Plan
Once the Primary Destinations (Table 2, above) and Supplemental Data (Table 3, above) had been
mapped, the planning team created four concentric buffer rings around each destination. The area
inside the tightest buffer ring—a 0.25 mile radius around the destination—was weighted most heavily;
the area inside each successive 0.25 mile ring was assigned a lesser weighting, where the outer buffer
ring (i.e. the area between 0.75 mile and 1 mile around the destination) received the lowest score.
The team then aggregated the scores between overlapping buffer rings to create a heat map (Figure 1)
of the community, where the warmest colors represent the highest scores and depict the greatest
concentration of primary desti nations.
Figure 1: Heat map of the project area, where warm colors depict hubs of community activity as defined
by a concentration of key destinations such as schools, food markets, parks, civic institutions, transit
stops, low income housing locations, employment centers, and population centers.
EXHIBITA
METHODS 7
Bicycle Route Selection
Once the heat map of community activity centers had been finalized, the planning team examined each
of the high scoring (red) areas and assigned individual routing points—points to be connected to create
the bike network within each hotspot on the basis of land use, traffic movements, and local knowledge.
The team also identified appropriate locations to create routing connections across major arterials and
highways and assigned routing points accordingly.
The team then used a specialized tool within the GIS platform called Network Analyst to identify
connections between the routing points (i.e., to define connections between key locations). To guide
this preliminary network development, the team defined parameters that reflected community
members' priorities as captured through stakeholder engagement activities, including:
1. Off-road trail connections (existing or proposed) were prioritized over routes that followed the
street network. Community members indicated that, where possible, they prefer to cycle as far
from vehicles as possible. Likewise, there are locations in the project area where off-road trails
along stormwater easements or abandoned rail easements afford a much more direct connection
between key destinations than existing roadways.
2. Neighborhood streets and minor collectors were prioritized over busier roadways. Community
members expressed strong preference for a low stress bike network on streets with low traffic
volumes and speeds. What's more, when such streets are designated as Bicycle Boulevards (see
Infrastructure Illustrations) the infrastructure (paint and signage) required to keep cyclists safe is
much less capital intensive than that required on larger/busier streets.
3. Streets that pass through the orange areas of the heat map (Figure 1, page 7)—i.e. through areas
that are on the edge of or adjacent to activity centers—were prioritized over streets that run right
through the heart of an activity center or through areas with a very low concentration of
destinations (cool colors on the heat map). The confluence of traffic and land uses at the heart of
the community hotspots create unsafe conditions for cyclists, so it is safer to route cyclists within a
block or two of these destinations and then let them navigate the last block or two (potentially on
foot).
Once connections between community activity centers had been identified to create a preliminary
bicycle mobility network, the planning team reviewed each segment, using data (Table 4) about how
folks currently move around our community by bike to validate and refinethe preliminary network:
8 METHODS
TABLE 4: Stakeholder Bicycle Route Data Used to Validate the Bicycle Mobility Network
Data
Description
Stakeholder Participation
Routes
As part of the planning process, community members used the MAP IT!
application on the project website to record where they ride or would like
to ride if conditions improved
Strava Commuter Routes
The planning team encouraged community members to download and use
the smartphone application Strava to track various details of their
rides; the team aggregated all Strava data for the project area
Sport Routes for Road Bikes
As part of a previous project, MPO staff had mapped the top sport routes
for road bikes based on input from local cycling clubs' members
Bicycle Infrastructure Faci lite Selection
Once the preliminary bicycle mobility network had been thoroughly vetted (see Stakeholder
Engagement, page 9) and refined accordingly, the planning team identified the type of infrastructure
(see Infrastructure Illustrations, page 48) that should be installed on each segment of the network to
uphold the level of safety that the community seeks. The team began by compiling primary and
secondary data for every segment in the network:
TABLE 5: Primary Data Collected for all Bicycle Mobility Network Segments
Primary Segment Data
Daily traffic volumes for cars and trucks
Posted speed
TABLE 6: Secondary Data Collected for all Bicycle Mobility Network Segments
Secondary Segment Data
Right-of-way width
Shoulder width and material
Number of driveways
Number of travel lanes
Presence of curb and gutter
Presence, type, and relative utilization of on -street parking
EXHIBIT A
On the basis of vehicular traffic volume and speed (Primary Segment Data), the team used a specialized
model to assign each segment in the network to one of three bicycle infrastructure categories, wherein
the intensity of the infrastructure category is a function of the intensity of the street:
0
£ 200
>o
11
▪ c 400
▪ c
u m
d
c
w 800
f
600
1000
1200
Motor Vehicle Speed (MPH)
25 30 35 40 45 SO
55
60
Figure 2: Bicycle Infras ructure Categories as a Function of Traffic Volumes and Speeds
Mixed Bike and Vehic e Traffic: On low traffic volume and/or low speed (generally < 25 MPH) streets,
bicycles and cars can safely co -mingle. The specific type and combination of lane markings and signage
area function of the particular characteristics of the roadway.
On -street Bike Lane: On streets with moderate traffic speeds and volumes, a dedicated lane is
necessary to create a division between motorists and cyclists. Relatively higher traffic speeds and/or
volumes within this infrastructure category may necessitate a visual buffer between the bike and
vehicular travel lanes.
Separated Bicycle Facility: The busiest class of roadways require a physical separation between
motorists and cyclists. Depending on the context, protected bike facilities may take the form of cycle
tracks or multi -use sidepaths and may be specified either inside the roadway right-of-way or behind the
curb at sidewalk level.
Working with the model, the team next used the Secondary Segment Data (Table 6, page 8) to identify
specifically which type of infrastructure (see Infrastructure Illustrations, page 48) is appropriate on each
segment to uphold the target level of safety and service.
Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement for this bicycle mobility plan began in the spring of 2015 with the formation of
a Project Steering Committee comprising delegates from each of the local governmental, agency, and
private entities that may ultimately contribute, directly or indirectly, to the implementation of this plan.
In addition to numerous vetting meetings about specific portions of the plan with subsets of the
Steering Committee over the course of the project, the planning team convened the entire Steering
Committee on three occasions to get feedback on analytical methods and preliminary results.
The planning team employed a wide range of strategies to engage community members from the full
spectrum of geographic, socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural perspectives. The project Website,
www.CoastalBendlnMotion.org, provided three ways for participants to give input:
MAP IT!
A Web application that
enabled individuals to show
the planning team where
they ride or would like to ride
if conditions improved
TRACK IT!
A downloadable smartphone
application, Strava, allowed users
to automatically record speed,
distance, and other data every
time they took a bike ride. The
planning team used these data to
prioritize potential routes in the
new bike network
ANSWER IT!
A very short on-line survey
captured community
members' priorities for
cycling related safety and
education programs, policies,
and supporting facilities
The planning team included a consulting team (Olivarri and Associates, O&A) dedicated to direct, in-
person engagement to compliment information gathered through the project Web portal. O&A
developed a database of potential outreach destinations, community events, key contacts, and
community groups to track the public engagement process. The team categorized database entries by
geographic location, customer or clientele base, and the type of entity that each locale represented, and
this database was updated throughout the project as new events were identified and contacts made.
The O&A team captured details about who performed the outreach and whether interviews were
conducted or flyers passed, along with notes about the experience.
EXHIBIT A
METHODS 9
■■■■
Mixed
Bike
Traffic
Traffic
and
■
On -Street
Bike Lane
■.•
1111PP'1111
rdI
Separated
Facility
Bike
�E
.. Source:
HDR Engineering
Figure 2: Bicycle Infras ructure Categories as a Function of Traffic Volumes and Speeds
Mixed Bike and Vehic e Traffic: On low traffic volume and/or low speed (generally < 25 MPH) streets,
bicycles and cars can safely co -mingle. The specific type and combination of lane markings and signage
area function of the particular characteristics of the roadway.
On -street Bike Lane: On streets with moderate traffic speeds and volumes, a dedicated lane is
necessary to create a division between motorists and cyclists. Relatively higher traffic speeds and/or
volumes within this infrastructure category may necessitate a visual buffer between the bike and
vehicular travel lanes.
Separated Bicycle Facility: The busiest class of roadways require a physical separation between
motorists and cyclists. Depending on the context, protected bike facilities may take the form of cycle
tracks or multi -use sidepaths and may be specified either inside the roadway right-of-way or behind the
curb at sidewalk level.
Working with the model, the team next used the Secondary Segment Data (Table 6, page 8) to identify
specifically which type of infrastructure (see Infrastructure Illustrations, page 48) is appropriate on each
segment to uphold the target level of safety and service.
Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement for this bicycle mobility plan began in the spring of 2015 with the formation of
a Project Steering Committee comprising delegates from each of the local governmental, agency, and
private entities that may ultimately contribute, directly or indirectly, to the implementation of this plan.
In addition to numerous vetting meetings about specific portions of the plan with subsets of the
Steering Committee over the course of the project, the planning team convened the entire Steering
Committee on three occasions to get feedback on analytical methods and preliminary results.
The planning team employed a wide range of strategies to engage community members from the full
spectrum of geographic, socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural perspectives. The project Website,
www.CoastalBendlnMotion.org, provided three ways for participants to give input:
MAP IT!
A Web application that
enabled individuals to show
the planning team where
they ride or would like to ride
if conditions improved
TRACK IT!
A downloadable smartphone
application, Strava, allowed users
to automatically record speed,
distance, and other data every
time they took a bike ride. The
planning team used these data to
prioritize potential routes in the
new bike network
ANSWER IT!
A very short on-line survey
captured community
members' priorities for
cycling related safety and
education programs, policies,
and supporting facilities
The planning team included a consulting team (Olivarri and Associates, O&A) dedicated to direct, in-
person engagement to compliment information gathered through the project Web portal. O&A
developed a database of potential outreach destinations, community events, key contacts, and
community groups to track the public engagement process. The team categorized database entries by
geographic location, customer or clientele base, and the type of entity that each locale represented, and
this database was updated throughout the project as new events were identified and contacts made.
The O&A team captured details about who performed the outreach and whether interviews were
conducted or flyers passed, along with notes about the experience.
EXHIBIT A
METHODS 9
Rather than rely on traditional town meeting style events, wherein community members must disrupt
their schedule to attend and participate, team members attended community events and regularly
scheduled meetings for a diverse range of community groups. The team developed an interview
protocol, based on the ANSWER IT! on-line survey described above, for use as a tool when initiating
conversations with citizens at events about their level of interest in and priorities for cycling facilities and
programs. These one-on-one interviews yielded great information about individuals' bicycling habits,
sentiments about existing cycling infrastructure, and ideas for improvement. The interviewer included
certain demographic questions to determine the participant's age, gender, student status, and zip code.
Safety was the overwhelming theme in these interviews, and most respondents indicated that they do
not feel safe riding in the street—even in a conventional (unbuffered) bike lane—because of aggressive
drivers. Respondents also frequently cited the accumulation of debris in on -street bike lanes as an issue
with current infrastructure. Most participants were supportive of the planning effort and indicated that
having a safer, more connected bicycle network would be an asset to the city. Those who did not support
the idea cited equity, or a lack of faith in equal dispersal of the project's benefits throughout the city, as
well as concerns about funding for implementation and maintenance.
In addition to one-on-one interviews, the team hosted a handful of focus groups with key stakeholder
groups as a means of seeking input on the project. The MPO planning team used the information
collected through these interviews and focus groups to guide the best practice recommendations that
are included in the Matrix of Best Practices section of this plan.
The team also passed out flyers and posters at local businesses and organizations in various
neighborhoods to promote awareness of the planning process and the opportunities to engage.
Likewise, team members attached bicycle packets containing flyers to bicycle racks throughout the city
to increase awareness among local cyclists.
10 METHODS
TABLE 7: Summary of Community Engagement
Engagement Strategy
Number Conducted
Additional Details
Meetings of full Project Steering Committee
3
Appendix B
On-line survey responses collected
220
Appendix 6
Bike trips logged via Strava smartphone app
(May -Oct 2015)
8353
(730 unique riders)
----
Bike routes logged via MAP IT! Web app
200
(99 unique users)
......
Presentations given
26
Appendix D
Community events attended
15
Appendix E
Leaflets and posters distributed
900+
Appendix F
One-on-one interviews conducted
50
Appendix G
Focus groups hosted
5
• Industry
• Business owners
• Roadway design engineers
• RTA operators
• Corpus Christi Police Dept.
Targeted vetting of preliminary network
11
Appendix H
EXHIBIT A
f
. ,----
1
(t) N•'
,
,
r,...‘
. 4
I .
•
: .0 ..
t.L.P ,•
I
, -
co -
...........
s... ,r. •.,
4.,c•
1A....1.
. - --- -
' vomit
illIPF '414# 1
1.
'4
, T
y , .
' 4
_ ...
i•
' t .
- — .1. ,
_ ...1.1., ,..,
11/4
—i t-_,„:c li -.A.
. 1
.
. - -,.... i 4 ‘,
• r
t # 47,Ait, V Ys.:17i* t 0 , " ' ' I
•.‘••
• t • ,,, No•..., 4',',..% , .
I
• 4. k .,,
.• -‘
-
, Y
0114k
lY i st4
r ,, ,,, , ...,.! 1,,,.... • ._
, i •.,
a
um
I
\Stariest, , , v)
Ali 1 .;1
IIII''
A 1
ri
7 1 ab s
*1
gi...';?...4,,.
,
tr, III i
. 0.-
1041L454AA,, ..
,. dr
....„„opp
II
-....... _
_
4 -
‘ : .
1 , \
, .
. r'
i
40 4
. #
'44. •
# ,
i 'r
1 .
, •1 '''
. .
, # '
I
E
4
1, °•
.„
. , 1
1111/11/111111
r.
12
BICYCLE MOBILITY NETWORK PRESCRIPTION
On the basis of feedback gathered from the community through interviews, focus groups, and on-line
tools, the planning team prioritized a low -stress rider experience and maximal separation between
cyclists and cars by using off-road trail segments on stormwater easements wherever possible. Where
the bike network corresponds to the street network, the planning team prioritized neighborhood
streets with low traffic volumes and speeds. Where the network falls on busier roads, the team
identified alternatives to the standard on -street bike lane, such as separated multi -use paths or
protected cycle tracks outside of the vehicular travel lanes.
On average, most individual residences in the urbanized area of Nueces and San Patricio counties are
within a two to five minute bike ride (on a neighborhood street) from some segment of the network,
and the network delivers riders within 1/4 mile (about a 5 -minute walk) of:
1 89% (158 of 178) of early education and daycare centers, grade schools (public and
private) and higher education campuses
1 85% (122 of 143) of parks over two acres in size
1 83% (1088 of 1319) of transit stops and stations
1 82% (541 of 657) of low income housing units (Section 8 or Housing Tax Credit properties)
1 80% (104 of 130) of groceries, meat and fish markets, bakeries, and corner markets
1 77% (186 of 242) of pools, senior centers, recreation centers, movie theaters, community
pools, fitness centers, museums and hotels
EXHIBIT A
BICYCLE MOBILITY
NETWORK OVERVIEW
- -<via On Roadway Network'
On Roadway Network'
(Proposed)
Off -Road Multi -use
Trail
"On Roadway Network does
not necessarily mean in the street;
please see detailed network maps
and Infrastructure Illustrations, page
48.
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
13
Al
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
/ \
I� ■-/I1
�J
14
�+c
•
I
•
•
•
v
A2
XHIBIT A
tJ�
I\
A2
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
15
B2
INFRASTRUCTURE
low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
16
actraztv
Ave
??. n n - !0 m
B2
NORTH_ _u._-..,..m_._._....�m.,.,,... ��,-,.,......e................_.._�._..-..-d,........, _..-_..-.,. - ._.,...-_, ...,,...._._._._..__�,_.__''__-.....-._____
EXHIBIT A
Bl
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
Ak
NIJ
17
Cl
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
Mr,
18
:Cot tka
•
----- Stip:F6
C2
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
40
19
C3
INFRASTRUCTURE
low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
11110111111 Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
art Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street 011 which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
TBD: Corridor study
recommended
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
20
NORTH
Corp u
Christi
B1
C3
D3
ti*.ylutr. l.v
MiWiz,:,n pr
tstnpshere Rd
Hai St
tnrpur,
Christi Intl
Airporl
44
--TX -44 W
Ift
Cl
EXHIBIT A
C2
45lim4g0
D2
El
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
21
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
11111111
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
22
NORTH
7..S13 i-'
Corp us
('hri sl i
nr
C3
D3
E2
= EXHIBIT A
D3
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
TBD: Corridor study
recommended
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
23
El
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
ivewev,:r t Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
UNIMMONI Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
24
NORTH
D1
N
W
EXHIBIT A
E2
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
TBD: Corridor study
recommended
Seatments
54,4
Sup
are liste
Mid -block crossing
location
al Specialized Treatments
n Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
25
Fl
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
1l.%
26
F2
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
DIM
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
OffRoad Multi -use
Trail
TBD: Corridor study
recommended
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
27
F3
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
WI
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
TBD: Corridor study
recommended
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
28
NORTH
F 1 F2
Cabanas
F N
G1
G2
Gi
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
H1 2
EXHIBIT A
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
29
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Mufti -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
30
NORTH
van
•
Oso Beactt
Murocipa1
ol1 Course
F3
G3
ltextoolor,
lakoroew
•1,"twodk
Pork
H3
EXHIBIT A
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
.....Off! Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
TBD: Corridor study
recommended
110
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table8, page 47.
NORTH
31
G4
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
1111111111.111111111114 Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
1 TBD: Corridor study
recommended
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table8, page47.
32
NORTH
9m
RU,
CR 22 ;211...
CR -20A
CF( ?OA
G1
H1
i
S StatI
EXHIBIT A
Barnard 0,
I1
444,
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table8, page 47.
NORTH
33
H2
INFRASTRUCTURE
low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
SOINEMONI Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
34
NORTH
A
Nrtt
I .1\%),
so '""
n
EXHIBIT A
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table8, page 47.
NOR F -1
35
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
36
NORTH
EXHIBIT A
I]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
��•
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
37
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
38
NORTH
I4
J2
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
39
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table8, page47.
40
NORTH
EXHIBIT A
Jl
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
41
J2
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
42
NORTH
aQr� !ti'e.
EXHIBIT A
Ki
Off Road Multi -use Trail ends at Padre Island National Seashore
EXHIBIT A
Kl
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
43
K2
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
ISIMMeli Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
V location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
A _1
44
v.:.., EXHIBIT A
Multi -use Sidepath (one side) ends at Labonte Park
ft,Vsv krkk,?i
L1
E state
Par*
EXHIBIT A
r4.-"+ard 0
11
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
NORTH
45
INFRASTRUCTURE
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Transitional
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Transitional
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Transitional
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle Track
(both sides)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
Specialized Treatments
Mid -block crossing
location
Supplemental Specialized Treatments
are listed in Table 8, page 47.
46
NORTH
Costal Bend
State Vets:ins
Stern etery
Kingwood
❑in r 0i
Mallard Dr
EXHIBIT A
SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIALIZED TREATMENTS*
TABLE 8: Supplemental Specialized Treatments
Specialized
Treatments
Street Name
From
To
Transitional Infrastructure Final Infrastructure
Prescription Prescription
Reduce Travel
Lane Width.*
Up River Rd.
Deer Run
West Guth Park
entrance
Buffered Bike Lane
N/A
Williams Dr.
Holly Rd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Bison Dr.
Cimarron Blvd.
Super Sharrow
N. Port Ave.
Mesquite 5t.
Broadway St.
Bike Boulevard
N/A
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Booty St.
Alameda St.
Santa Fe St.
3
Road Diet
Alameda St.
Ayers 5t.
Louisiana Ave
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Golihar Rd.
Staples St.
Airline Rd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
5 19th St.
Morgan Ave.
Prescott St.
Buffered Bike Lane
N/A
5 Gregory St.
4th St.
Church St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Spohn Dr. South
Saratoga Blvd.
Parkway Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Violet Rd.
Starlite Ln.
Willowood Ck. Dr.
Sidepath, 1 side
N/A
Violet Rd.
Windsor St.
Timbergrove Ln.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Hunt Dr.
Long Meadow Dr.
Timbergate Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Lang Rd.
Recapture
Parking, 1 Side
Broadway Blvd.
Ayers St.
Louisiana Ave
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Brockhampton St.
Staples St.
Airline Rd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Bike Boulevard
Carroll Ln.
Holly Rd.
Brawner Pkwy
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Cedar Pass Dr.
Tiger Ditch
Everhart Rd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
McArthur St.
Horne Rd.
Belton St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Oso Pkwy
Yorktown Blvd.
S. Staples St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Oso Pkwy
Bar -Le -Doc Dr.
Lens Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Purdue Rd.
Retta Dr.
Waldron Rd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Timbergate Dr.
Hunt Dr.
5. Staples St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Treyway Ln.
Holly Rd.
Williams Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Trojan or.
Greenwood Dr.
Castenon St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Carroll Ln.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Timbergate Dr.
5. Staples St.
Master Channel 31
Recapture
Parking,
Both Sides
River Hill Dr.
Northwest Blvd.
Red River Dr.
Buffered Bike Lane
N/A
Specialized
Treatments
Reduce Street
Width••
Street Name
From
To
Transitional Infrastructure
Prescription
Final Infrastructure
Prescription
Beach Ave.
W. Causeway
Blvd.
Timon Blvd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Betty Jean Dr.
Williams Dr.
Holly Rd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Bison Dr.
Cimarron Blvd.
Bison Dr. (Prop)
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Bloomington St.
Archdale Dr.
Columbia St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Booty St.
Alameda St.
Santa Fe St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Buford St.
6th St.
Shoreline Blvd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Comanche St.
19th St.
Artesian 5t.
Sidepath, 1 side
N/A
Comanche St.
Palm Dr.
19th St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Daniel Moore
Ave.
Denver St.
Wildcat Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Dry Creek Dr.
E. Riverview St.
Rapids Dr.
Sidepath, 1 side
N/A
Gingerberry Dr.
Loire Blvd.
Lipes Blvd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Grenoble Dr.
Strasbourg Dr,
Cimarron Blvd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Hunt Dr.
Long Meadow Dr.
Timbergate Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Lang Rd.
Akins Dr.
Wildcat Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Loire Blvd.
Gingerberry Dr.
Beauvais Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Long Meadow Dr.
Saint Andrew's
Hunt Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Middlecoff Dr.
Player St.
Long Meadow Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
N. Gregory Rd.
Fresnos St.
4th St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Palm Dr.
Lipan St.
Comanche St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Robert Dr.
Ocean Dr.
5. Alameda St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Saint Andrew's Dr.
Long Meadow Dr.
Holly Rd.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Strasbourg Dr.
Loire Blvd.
Grenoble Dr.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Tarlton Dr.
Cheyenne St.
Prescott St.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Teague Ln.
Wildcat Dr.
Carroll Ln.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
Tiger Ln.
Kostoryz Rd.
Carroll Ln.
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
Buffered Bike Lane
Timbergate Dr.
5. Staples St.
Master Channel 31
1 -Way Cycle Track, both sides
N/A
• See pages 59-65 for illustrations
**The prescribed reduction in street width affects only the surplus width on the margins of the curb lanes and does not impact the effective travel lane width. A reduction to 11' travel lane widths allows surplus ROW to be repurposed for bicycle
facilities and may have a beneficial traffic calming effect but will not impact the efficiency of the street.
EXHIBIT A
47
48
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
Over 70% of survey respondents and interviewees indicated that they don't feel safe from vehicles on
existing bike facilities in our community. Thus, where the bike mobility network corresponds to the
street network (as opposed to off-road segments on stormwater or railroad easements), the planning
team emphasized alternatives to the standard (unbuffered) bike lane that provide more separation
between cyclists and vehicles. Each type of bicycle infrastructure that is prescribed in the network is
illustrated in this section. Design and maintenance standards are provided by way of reference to
external national standards (typically from the National Association of Community Transportation
Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide) that are updated frequently and independently, thus
ensuring that the bicycle mobility network in our community will reflect contemporary best practices.
EXHIBIT A
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Bicycle Boulevard 50
2. Buffered Bike Lane 51
3. Multi -Use Sidepath, One Side 52
4. Off -Road Multi -Use Trail 53
5. One -Way Cycle Track, Both Sides 55
6. Specialized Treatment: Highway Bicycle Route Connection 59
7. Specialized Treatment: Super Sharrow 60
8. Specialized Treatment: Recapture Parking / Narrow Street 61
9. Specialized Treatment: Road Diet 62
10. Specialized Treatment: Bicycle Route Street Crossing 63
EXHIBIT A
49
1
i
BIKE BOULEVARD WITH SHARROW SYMBOL. HOBOKEN, NJ
V BIKE BOULEVARD WITH DIVERTER. PORTLAND, OR
BICYCLE BOULEVARD
Description:
Bicycle Boulevards are typically local or neighborhood streets that prioritize travel by bicycle. Bicycle Boulevards encourage low motor
vehicle speeds, which discourages through traffic, and include safe crossings at busy streets, thus providing a low stress experience for
cyclists.
Features:
• Typical average daily traffic (ADT) volumes of less than 3,000 vehicles per day; lessthan 1,500 vehicles per day preferred
• Preferred maximum posted speed of 20-25 mph
Wayfinding signs for cyclists and shared lane markings ("sharrows") to let motorists know that cyclists will be present and have priority
are the minimum treatments to designate a corridor as a bike boulevard; shared lane markings provide lateral lane positioning guidance
to bicyclists, including riding outside the "door zone" of parked cars
• Supplemental treatments that should be considered include:
Bicycle friendly traffic calming features to ensure appropriate motor vehicle speeds, such as: traffic circles/mini-roundabouts,
vertical deflection (e.g. speed cushions, which can include cutouts that match the axle width of emergency vehicles)
• Priority assignment for through bicycle traffic at two-way stop or at all -way stop controlled intersections; this may necessitate
turning the signs to stop traffic on the cross street to the bike boulevard to minimize stops for bicyclists at two-way stops or
removing stop signs on two approaches at all -way stops
Traffic diverters at key intersections to reduce non-local/through motor vehicle traffic but allowing through bicycle traffic
Crossing improvements where the bike boulevard crosses major streets; this may include crosswalk markings, median refuge
islands, curb extensions (on streets with on -street parking), rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons,
or traffic signals
Benefits:
Allow for relatively low cost/rapid implementation without right-of-way acquisition or major capital investment
Provide a low stress bicycle experience that accommodates cyclists of nearly all ages and abilities
Provide traffic calming effect and reduce through traffic (particularly when supplemental treatments are implemented), which is of
general benefit to neighborhood character and safety
Provide opportunities to integrate water quality and green street infrastructure in conjunction with traffic calming devices (e.g. in
planters or traffic circles)
Challenges:
• Require appropriate crossing treatments at major intersections
• Necessitate appropriate wayfinding and safety signage to establish bicycle priority
• May impact movement of emergency, transit, and maintenance vehicles if supplemental traffic calming is implemented
Design and Maintenance Guidance:
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2014. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition.
II American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2012. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th
Edition.
• Alta Planning + Design and IBPI.2009. Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design.
Relative Cost:
Vary as a function of supplemental traffic calming and intersection crossing treatments implemented
• Minimum treatment (only signs and markings): ` 58,500 per mile (assumes 20 pavement markings & 10 signs per mile in each
direction)
EIXHI1BJF'UfAILLUSTRATIONS
BUFFERED BIKE LANE
Description:
Buffered bicycle lanes designate a portion of a roadway for exclusive use by bicycles (by way of striping, signage, and pavement markings)
that is separated from the vehicular travel lane or from parked cars by a striped buffer space (typically 2-5 feet in width).
Features:
• Typical use on streets classified as residential collectors and above
• Includes a 2-5 foot wide striped buffer space to separate the designated bicycle lane from the vehicular travel lane or parked cars
Benefits:
• Allow for relatively low cost/rapid implementation without right-of-way acquisition or major capital investment
• Can replace underutilized travel lanes or parking lanes with simple re -striping
• Provide higher level of safety and comfort for cyclists as compared to standard (unbuffered) bicycle lanes
• If used adjacent to on -street parking, provide greater separation between cyclists and parked vehicles, helping to eliminate "door zone"
conflicts and crashes
• Buffering helps distinguish the lane as a dedicated space for cyclists, thus reducing the likelihood that it is mistaken for a travel lane or
parking lane
• Indicate clearly that bicycles have the right to be on the road and thus helps reduce potential for bicycle/pedestrian conflicts on
sidewalks
• Encourage more predictable behavior by both motorists and bicyclists
• Allow motorists and/or bicyclists to pass other bicyclists with less delay and with fewer passing conflicts
• Improve sight distances at driveways and intersections
• Increase the separation between motor vehicles and sidewalks/pedestrians, thereby increasing the level of comfort for pedestrians and
indirectly fostering pedestrian activity
• May serve to calm traffic by creating the perception of a more distinct lane boundary
• Provide additional turningspacefortrucksandtransit
• Provide shoulder space for disabled vehicles, mail delivery, bus stops, and cars yielding to passing emergency vehicles
Challenges:
• Require more space than conventional (unbuffered) bicycle lanes
• Additional markings and maintenance increase cost relative to conventional (unbuffered) bicycle lanes
• Motorists may park illegally in buffered lanes
• Often collect debris and broken glass, which may render them (or sections of them) unusable; the buffer between the travel lane and
bike lane may reduce the natural "sweeping" effect of passing motor vehicles, potentially requiring more frequent maintenance (street
sweeping)
• May encourage poor behavior by bicyclists and right turning motorists at intersections and driveways, creating potential conflicts (i.e.
"right hooks")
• May create confusion among drivers as to whether they may cross buffer area to make turning movements
Design and Maintenance Guidance:
• National Association of City Tra nsportation Officials (NACTO). 2014. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition.
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2012. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th
Edition.
Relative Cost:
• Striping only: -$40,000 per mile
IN FRASTRUCTUEXHIBT j1SA
MULTI -USE SIDEPATH, ONE SIDE
Description:
A shared -use sidepath, located on one side of the street (adjacent and parallel to a street), that accommodates two-way non -motorized
traffic. Shared use paths are not dedicated bicycle facilities and thus also serve pedestrians, inline skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and
other non -motorized users.
Features:
• Most commonly used to provide a short connection between two offset intersecting streets or facilities that are part of the regional
bicycle network or to provide direct connection to a specific destination, such as a school
• Typically used in areas where right-of-way limitations or other physical constraints prevent the installation of bicycle infrastructure on
both sides of the street
1 Preferred width for a shared -use sidepath accommodating two-way, non -motorized traffic is 12-14 feet; minimum width is 10 feet
• Width of 8 feet may be acceptable to provide short linkages between other, more robust facilities or where rights-of-way are severely
constrained
Benefits:
1 Highly versatile facility
1 Physical Separation
Challenges:
1 Every street or driveway crossing presents a potential conflict point that merit additional mitigation; extreme care should be taken in the
design of sidepaths along streets with many driveways and street crossings (especially high traffic volume locations); conflict mitigation
includes strict access management and specific design treatments to improve visibility, reduce speed, and separate movements at
conflict points
• Presence of users of a wide variety of non -motorized modes and abilities and two-way traffic may reduce predictability operation and
increase potential for conflicts, necessitating additional interventions, such as path user speed limits
• Provides reduced level of service for cyclists relative to dedicated bicycle facilities
Design and Maintenance Guidance:
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2012. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th
Edition.
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2014. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition.
Relative Cost:
/ — $200,000 - $500,000 per mile, depending on width and material
E HIBJFTUf ILLUSTRATIONS
OFF-ROAD MULTI -USE TRAIL
Description:
A path, typically found along greenways, waterways, active or abandoned railways, and utility easements, within a right-of-way that is
independent and physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier. Multi -use paths are not dedicated bicycle
facilities and thus also serve pedestrians, in I i ne skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non -motorized users.
Features:
• Provides a separated path for non -motorized users along a linear corridor that is independent of the roadway network
• Preferred width for a multi -use path accommodating two-way, non -motorized traffic is 12-14 feet; minimum width is 10 feet
• Width of 8 feet may be acceptable to provide short linkages between other, more robust facilities or where rights-of-way are severely
constrained
Benefits:
• Highly versatile facility
• Independence from roadway network creates high quality user experience
Challenges:
• Intersections of trails with roadways present potential conflict points that may merit dedicated crossing treatments
• Presence of users of a wide variety of non -motorized modes and abilities and two-way traffic may reduce predictability operation and
increase potential for conflicts, necessitating additional interventions, such as path user speed limits
• Right-of-way acquisition may be costly and/or complicated
• Topography and drainage can greatly impact design, construction, and maintenance
• Personal safety measures, such as emergency call boxes and lighting, must be considered due to distance from roadways
Design and Maintenance Guidance:
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2012. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th
Edition.
Relative Cost:
• Typically $400,000 - $600,000 per mile, depending on width and material, not including amenities such as trailheads or supplemental
safety measures
INFRASTRUCTUEminEw SA
OFF-ROAD MULTI -USE PATH. LITTLE ECON GREEWAY, ORLANDO, FL
M fS?TRAI L
OFF-ROAD MULTI -USE PATH. MEAD GARDEN TRAIL, ORLANDO, FL
CENTRAL PARKWAY CYCLE TRACK. CINCINNATI, CH
ON F -WAY
CENTRAL TRACK SIDEWALK. EUROPE
ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK, BOTH SIDES
Description:
A one-way cycle track is a bikeway provided on both sides of the street that is physically separated from the vehicular travel lanes that
provides exclusive use by bicycles in the direction of motor vehicle travel. Separated bikeways may be placed at either street level, at
sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level; the preferred placement in the Corpus Christi metro area is at sidewalk level adjacent to or in
close proximity to the sidewalk.
Features:
1 Typically specified on streets with higher traffic speeds and/or volumes
1 Dedicated bicycle facility separated from motor vehicle traffic by a physical barrier (e.g. the curb)
1 Differentiated from the sidewalk by way of material choice or surface treatment (e.g. green pigmented concrete) and, where space
allows, by a strip (1') of differentiated texture (e.g. pavers or stamped concrete)
1 Preferred width for one-way cycle track 6 feet; minimum width is 5 feet
• A setback (buffer), preferably grass or otherwise vegetated, of 2 feet (minimum) to 6 feet (preferred) between the back of the curb and
the one-way cycle track is preferred to enhance separation between motor vehicles and cyclists and to allow for installation of utility
poles, fire hydrants, mailboxes, transit stops, driveway aprons, trash receptacles, etc.
Benefits:
• Physical separation from motor vehicle traffic appeals to users of a range of abilities
• Where sidewalk level cycle tracks are installed in lieu of on -street bike lanes, cost savings (estimated at $1/2M per mile) may be realized
during street reconstruction (with additional savings during maintenance) if the curb to curb street width is reduced
Challenges:
Every street or driveway crossing presents a potential conflict point that merit additional mitigation; extreme care should be taken in the
design of cycle tracks along streets with many driveways and street crossings (especially high traffic volume locations); conflict
mitigation includes strict access management and specific design treatments to improve visibility, reduce speed, and separate
movements at conflict points
1 Sidewalk level cycle tracks placed at the back of curb or within a couple feet of the back of curb may necessitate:
1 Revised driveway design to minimize intrusion into cycle track
• Additional consideration of utility poles placement, fire hydrants, traffic signal cabinets, street trees, trash receptacles, mailboxes,
etc.
• Design of curb ramps necessitates additional consideration to accommodate both the cycle track and sidewalk, particularly when the
cycle track is placed at the back of curb
1 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2014. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition.
• Caltrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information (DRI51). 2015. Comprehensive Design Guidance for Cycle Tracks,
Preliminary Investigation.
• Massachusetts Department of Transportation.2015. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide.
• Federal Highway Administration.2015. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide.
1 Varies. Typically commensurate with sidewalk construction when constructed at sidewalk grade adjacent to sidewalk
INFRASTRUCTUEXHIBISA
V ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK. CAMBRIDGE, MAtr
ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK, BOTH SIDES
5' (minimum) ADA compliant sidewalk
I- 1' (minimum) buffer between back of sidewalk and ROW limit
Unconstrained Condition: Back of Curb to ROW Limit >19'
•DD FIELD R•AI
L_ 6' (min.) landscape buffer at back of curb
6' (min.) 1 -way cycle track, differentiated from back of sidewalk and ROW limit
1' (minimum) textured divides between cycle track and sidewalk
56 INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
EXHIBITA
ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK, BOTH SIDES
l' (minimum) buffer between back of sidewalk and ROW limit
r
r 5' (minimum) ADA compliant sidewalk
Partially Constrained Condition: Back of Curb to ROW Limit 13' - 18'
Concept for Carroll Lane reflects recapture of substantially
underutilized parking on one side of the street:
Recaptured street width (approx. 7' total) is split evenly between
two sides of street: both curbs moved inward by half of width of
recaptured parking lane
Remaining parking could be alternate sides of the street every 2-4
blocks to create a chicaning and traffic calming effect
LL 2' (min.) landscape buffer at back of curb
5' (min.) 1 -way cycle track, differentiated from sidewalk by color or texture
No physical separation (possibly painted stripe) between cycle track and sidewalk
EXHIBIT A
Ma:Z• Al ;
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS 57
ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK, BOTH SIDES
1' (minimum) buffer between back of sidewalk and ROW limit
5' (minimum) ADA compliant sidewalk
Constrained Condition: Back of Curb to ROW Limit 11' - 12'
L •►•\PM'NI
Cycle track tied to back of curb (no buffer)
5' (min.) 1 -way cycle track, differentiated from sidewalk by color or texture
— No physical separation (possibly painted stripe) between cycle track and sidewalk
58 INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
EXHIBIT A
SPECIALIZED TREATMENT: HIGHWAY BICYCLE ROUTE CONNECTION
Application: Sunset Drive Connection to US 181 / Nueces Bay Causeway
• Schematic diagram of the bicycle connection between Sunset Drive and the one-way cycle track
proposed in each direction on US 181 across the Nueces Bay Causeway
• Sunset Drive immediately east of Indian Point Pier Road is currently closed to vehicle traffic (with
bollards) and functions as a shared use path
• Further east beyond the barricaded section of roadway, Sunset Drive currently provides a bike
boulevard connection to the City of Portland
• To the west of Indian Point Pier Road, a two-way sidepath should be installed along the US 181
frontage road (which is a two-lane, one-way road)
• The sidepath would connect to the one-way cycle track on each side of US 181, passing underneath
US 181 and around the north side of the frontage road to reach the southbound direction cycle track
• If existing ROW is too constrained to construct the sidepath along the side of the frontage road, the
outside travel lane of the frontage road could be converted into the two-way sidepath, which could
be separated by a barrier from motor vehicle travel
Iwo -way
sidepath
Roadway dosed to vehicle)
traffic & functions as
oR-streat shared use pati J
One-way cycle track
(southbound)
EXHIBIT A
One-way cycle Irackl
Inplhbound) )
NORTH
CD
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS 59
BOSTON, MA
SUPER
GAINESVILLE, FL
SPECIALIZED TREATMENT: SUPER SHARROW
Description:
Shared Lane Markings (SLMs), or "sharrows," are road markings used to indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles,
such as a Bicycle Boulevard. "Super Sharrows" (also known as enhanced or priority SLMs) are a variation of the "sharrow" that provides
greater emphasis and visibility of the markings. Super sharrows are currently considered an experimental treatment by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). Three primary marking schemes have been used forsupersharrows.
1. Placing sharrows on a continuous, longitudinal green stripe which is centered within a travel lane. It should be noted that although
there are four cities with ongoing, active experiments using this marking scheme (Salt Lake City, UT; Long Beach, CA; Medina, MN; and
Oakland, CA), the FHWA has discontinued approval of any further experiments using this specific marking scheme. It is presented here
only for comparative purposes.
2. Placing sharrows over green colored pavement background(rectangle).
3. Adding supplemental dashed striping on both sides of the sharrow marking.
The shared lane marking is not a facility type, it is a pavement marking with a variety of uses to support a complete bikeway network. The
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) outlines guidance for shared lane markings in section 9C.07. Information on bicycle
facilities and the MUTCD, including FHWA requeststo experiment, can befound atthis link:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/mutcd/index. cfm
Application: North Port Avenue
The only location currently recommended for consideration of super sharrows in the Corpus Christi metro area is North Port Avenue,
between Broadway Street and Mesquite Street. This street has the potential to provide an important bicycle corridor, but it is not currently
a candidate for changing the four -lane undivided typical section due to its function in accommodating freight movements and event traffic.
Despite high volumes on specialized occasions, North Port Avenue has low overall traffic volumes (less than 6,000 vehicles per day on
average); the implementation of super sharrows would encourage bicyclists to use this roadway as a connector to many key destinations
and would encourage motorists to completely change lanes to pass bicyclists. If implemented, super sharrow markings on this corridor
should be placed in the center of the outside travel lanes.
Benefits:
• Low cost/rapid implementation
1 Provide lateral lane positioning guidance for bicyclists; markings encourage bicyclists to ride further out into the travel lane in lanes too
narrow to share side by side with motor vehicles, which encourages safe passing by motorists
1 Let motorists know to expect bicyclists
• Indicate clearly that bicycles have the right to be on the road and thus helps reduce potential for bicycle/pedestrian conflicts on
sidewalks
• Providesawayfindingelementalongbikeroute
1 Discourages wrong -way bicycling
Challenges:
1 Super sharrow marking are considered experimental and require a request to experiment be submitted to FHWA
• Markings must be maintained, although maintenance needs are reduced if markings are placed in the center of travel lanes to avoid
vehicle wheel paths
• Outreach/communication may be required to educate motorists as to meaning of markings
Design and Maintenance Guidance:
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2014. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition.
EIXHT'B JAILLUSTRATIONS
SPECIALIZED TREATMENT: RECAPTURE PARKING / NARROW STREET
Description:
Many two-lane streets in the Corpus Christi metro area that function as collector or residential collector
streets are excessively wide due to underutilized on -street parking. Some such streets have designated
(striped) parking on each side of the street; some simply have two very wide lanes with no striped
parking. Because these streets often provide linkages to streets with higher functional classifications
(either arterials or other collectors), they typically have higher traffic volumes compared to most local
or neighborhood streets. The unutilized or underutilized parking space gives the perception of a wider
travel lane and thus may result in higher traffic speeds, particularly if the street does not have any traffic
calming devices, thus creating an intimidating and potentially dangerous environment for cyclists.
In such cases, recapturing the underutilized parking area on one side of the street by narrowing the curb
to curb width can create space for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure while potentially
reducing the cost of roadway reconstruction and maintenance.
Application: Brockhampton Street
Brockhampton Street between Stonehenge Street and Cimarron Boulevard is a two-lane residential
collector street with striped parallel parking on both sides of the street and a 40 -foot curb to curb width.
This example retrofit includes the following features:
• Highly underutilized parking space is recaptured on one side of the street; an adequate supply of
available on -street parking is maintained
• Both curbs are moved inward equally, splitting the available additional ROW width gained by
recapturing the parking lane
• A one-way cycle track (5 feet wide) is installed on each side of the street immediately adjacent to the
sidewalk, ideally set back from the back of curb by at least 2 feet; the cycle track is differentiated from
the sidewalk using colored pavement
• Parking could potentially be alternated on opposite sides of the street every 2-4 blocks to promote a
sense of equity in the neighborhood and to create a chicaning and traffic calming effect on the street
Benefits and challenges associated with the one-way cycle track are described in the One-way Cycle
Track, Both Sides section. The following are additional benefits and challenges associated with the
recapturing of parking or street narrowing:
Benefits:
• May reduce motor vehicle traffic speeds
• Provides a safer, lower stress cycling experience
Challenges:
• Removing travel lanes, even on a lightly traveled corridor, can be contentious and necessitates
effective public engagement and communication
Onemay
Hyde track
'ADAcompliant'
`sidewalk
EXHIBIT A
rOnStreet
i`parking
2 (min) bur',er between back
ofcurbandcycletrack
NORTH
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS 61
SPECIALIZED TREATMENT: ROAD DIET
Description:
A "road diet" describes a project to right size a street when it has surplus through lanes given traffic
volumes, when can create space for other travel modes or uses. The most common road diet projects
involve converting a four -lane undivided roadway to a two-lane roadway (one travel lane in each
direction plus a two-way center left turn lane) by removing one travel lane in each direction. A center
landscaped median or refuge islands can be used in place of the center two-way left turn lane in
locations where driveways are uncommon or absent.
Application: Gollihar Road
Gollihar Road between Staples Street and Airline Road is a good candidate for a road diet from a four -
lane undivided section to a three -lane section, with one travel lane in each direction and center two-
way left turn lane. With an average daily traffic volume of less than 7,000 vehicles per day, this roadway
section falls well below the typical maximum volumes for a four -lane to three -lane road diet of 15,000
vehicles per day. The project, as shown, would include the following features:
• Raised refuge islands at strategic locations, such as between Sheridan Drive and Mustang Trail, to
allow for two-stage pedestrian crossings. The refuge would be supplemented with high visibility
ladder style crosswalk markings and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). Additionally, the
median break at the island would be angled to force pedestrians and bicyclists to look toward the
direction of traffic they were about to cross
• The width gained by converting to a three -lane section would be captured by moving the curbs
inward an equal amount of each side, translating into savings during roadway reconstruction and
maintenance
• A one-way cycle track (5 feet wide) would be installed on each side of the street immediately
adjacent to the sidewalk, ideally set back from the back of curb by at least 2 feet; the cycle track is
differentiated from the sidewalk using colored pavement
• On -street parking on the south side of the street adjacent to King High School is retained
Benefits:
• Lower vehicle speed variability (i.e. more consistent traffic flow) due to the diversion (into the center
turn lane) of vehicles turning left and due to the elimination of aggressive movements between lanes
• Improved mobility and access, particularly for non -motorized modes:
• A three -lane cross section produces fewer conflict points between vehicles and crossing
pedestrians
• Pedestrians cross one lane of traffic at a time using median refuge islands
• Reduced number of collisions and injuries, which generally results from:
• A reduction in speed variability along the corridor
• A decrease in the number of conflict points between vehicles
• Improved sight distance for vehicles turning left
• Enhanced pedestrian experience and neighborhood character
• No right-of-way acquisition is required for most projects
• Traffic volumes on streets subjected to road diets typically do not vary from the pre -diet
condition, which indicates that function and level of service is not impacted (and may be
enhanced) by the road diet
62 INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
• Elimination of multiple threat pedestrian collisions (when a driver stops in one lane of a multi -lane road to permit a pedestrian to cross,
and a vehicle in an adjacent lane strikes the pedestrian who is crossing in front of the stopped vehicle)
Challenges:
• Removing travel lanes, even on a lightly traveled corridor, can be contentious and necessitates effective public engagement and
communication
'4.1858 to 3dane
road diet
ADAcompliant'
sidewalk
Cycle track
One-way
2' (min) bu ler between back
ofcurbandcycletrack
EXHIBITA
( R
I with median refuge
elocated crosswalk)
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
I'°e
et
`parking
NORTH
ED
SPECIALIZED TREATMENT: BICYCLE ROUTE STREET CROSSING
Description:
Bicycle boulevards and other bike facilities may be required to cross major streets at unsignalized
locations. To facilitate safe crossing maneuvers, there are several treatments that may be used
including high visibility crosswalk markings, median refuge islands, curb extensions (on streets with on -
street parking), rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons, or traffic
signals.
Raised Median with Refuge:
• Separates conflicts in time and location through use of median islands
• Creates a refuge for crossing bicyclists or pedestrians, providing them a safe resting point and
opportunity for them to cross the roadway in two stages, which becomes increasingly important
with higher trafficvolumes and speeds
• Crossings may be raised to provide drivers with more visual cues of the crossing location and to help
slow traffic or maybe flush with the roadway using painted islands
• Angling the crossing through the median or island forces the bicyclist or pedestrian to face oncoming
traffic and make better eye contact with approaching drivers
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons:
• Bicyclist or pedestrian activated high intensity flashing beacons mounted beneath standard crossing
warning signs that increase awareness of and visibility of non -motorized crossings
• Proven treatment in raising the percentage of drivers who yield to bicyclists and pedestrians at mid -
block crossings to more than 80% yield rates at many locations
• Preferable to mount signs on both sides of the street and within the median (if one is present)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon:
1 Used to improve crossings for non -motorized users where side street vehicular or non -motorized
trafficvolumes do not meet the minimum warrant thresholds for installation of a traffic signal
• Also known as a HAWK (High-intensity Activated crossWalK), the beacon consists of two red lenses
over a single yellow lens on the major street and includes pedestrian and/or bicycle indicators for the
crossing movement
• May result in less delay for motor vehicle traffic compared to a full traffic signal because stopped
vehicles are permitted to move if the crossing is clear once the beacon begins to flash red in a wig-
wag pattern; this occurs during the normal pedestrian 'flashing don't walk' phase, which
immediately follows the pedestrian 'walk' phase during a double solid red indication for motorists
• Have been shown to have similar driver yielding rates as RRFBs and are generally used on higher
speed roadways with two or more travel lanes in each direction
(Top left) Angled median break forces bicyclist to face the
direction of traffic he is about to cross. (Top right) High visibility
ladder markings and median island at bicycle boulevard
crossing. (Bottom Left) Rectangular rapid flashing beacons
(RRFBs) at midblock crossing. (Middle right) Signalized crossing
for a sidepath connecting two bike boulevard segments.
(Bottom right) Pedestrian hybrid beacon with colored pavement
bicycle crossing.
EXHIBIT A
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS 63
SPECIALIZED TREATMENT: BICYCLE ROUTE STREET CROSSING
Application: Doddridge Street at Fort Worth Street
New
crosswalk
(RRFB or pedestrian'
hybrid beacon 1
(Multiuse
side path
NORTH
CD
• Crossing location links bike boulevard segments on Fort Worth Street to the north and Reid Drive to the south
• On -street parking lane on the south side of Dodd ridge St. is recaptured between Fort Worth Street and Reid Drive to
provide a two-way sidepath between the two streets
• A curb extension is constructed in the parking lane at the western end of the sidepath
• Because there is no space for a median island with the four -lane undivided cross section, a high visibility crosswalk is
used in conjunction with additional enhancements (RRFBs or preferably, a pedestrian hybrid beacon) to stop traffic
for crossing bicyclists
64 INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
Application: Columbia Parkway Trail at West Point Road
W Point Rd
ro
�
Eastbound lane)
shifted south
Multi -use
side path
RR
( New crosswalk wui
l median refuge
0i -road
multi-usetrail
NORTH
1 Location provides a two-stage crossing for the Columbia Parkway Trail at West Point Road, and links the trail to the
bike boulevard on Yolanda Drive
1 On -street parking area on the north side of West Point Road is recaptured to create a two-way sidepath between the
Columbia Parkway Trail on the east side of the canal and Yolanda Drive
• The on -street parking area on the south side of West Point Road is recaptured in the immediate vicinity of the
Columbia Street/Columbia Parkway intersection, with the eastbound lane shifted to the south to allow the provision
of a center median refuge island for the trail crossing
• The median island nose is extended to the east of the trail crossing to provide a protected refuge area for crossing
bicyclists and other non -motorized users, as well as to control the speed of northbound left turning vehicles
• The trail crossing may be supplemented with RRFBs at the roadway edges and in the median
EXHIBIT A
SPECIALIZED TREATMENT: BICYCLE ROUTE STREET CROSSING
Application: Louisiana Avenue at Ocean Drive
Mie
Or -road
multi -use trail
New
`rosswalk,
Pedestnan
hv;ntl oeawn�
New
T crosswalk
r Exiting
signal , 4
NORTH
1 Provides a crossing of Ocean Drive from the proposed trail in Louisiana Parkway to the existing trail along the east side
of Ocean Drive
/ Louisiana Parkway Trail would connect to the existing signalized intersection for southbound Ocean Drive where
bicyclists and pedestrians would cross the west leg of Louisiana Avenue and the south leg of southbound Ocean Drive
1 A pedestrian hybrid beacon would be required to stop traffic for non -motorized users wishing to cross the
northbound lanes of Ocean Drive
/ Motorist delay would be minimal due to non -motorized crossings, as the southbound traffic signal and northbound
pedestrian hybrid beacon would operate independently with short clearance intervals due to the relatively short
distance required to cross each direction in isolation
Application: Staples Street at McClendon Street
Pedestrian
Irybrid beacon
IFrontage road
connection
I Now crosSwalk With
medlar. rattle
NORTH
/ Crossing location links bike boulevard segments on Blevins Street to the west and McClendon Street to the east
1 Although Blevins Street and McClendon Street do not align, no sidepath is necessary along Staples Street due to the
presence of the frontage road on the west side of Staples Street, which is also used as a short bicycle boulevard
1 A median island with refuge provides a two-stage crossing not only for bicyclists, but also transit users as there are
bus stops on each side of Staples Street that are in very close proximity to the marked crosswalk
1 The median island is placed to avoid blocking vehicular left turn movements at the cross streets
/ The crossing should be supplemented with RRFBs or, preferably, a pedestrian hybrid beacon
EXHIBIT A
INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS 65
66
MATRIX OF BEST PRACTICES: Will NOT be Adopted at This Time
Topics 'arra ve-or A •`'':"=T:"• -•u-en sec ions • ur -erc •rF iy erecommen•a
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
MATRIX OF BEST PRACTICES 67
68 MATRIX OF BEST PRACTICES
EXHIBIT A
"Cost of Implementation:
Low - Potentially accomplished through process modification within limits of existing budgets
lium
lium
Blum
Ilum
lium
lium
gh
and/or take on responsibility for landscaping and maintenance
EXHIBIT A
r.cr6r rvvr r r�sw
Services Depts.
MATRIX OF BEST PRACTICES 69
70 MATRIX OF BEST PRACTICES
EXHIBIT A
•"Cost of Implementation:
Poli ao Co.e Re .r
evahutes roadwav canital oroiects on the basis of 6 comolete street criteria
EXHIBIT A
gets
MATRIX OF BEST PRACTICES
71
M♦ -r.- , r I1 rr►T i- r1 ♦ /►Tl1"..1n
a•[nct of Imolwmantatinn
Perception Survey based on protocol used In development of this Plan
r
uepts.
72 MATRIX OF BEST PRACTICES
EXHIBITA
CASE STUDIES
1. Bikeshare 74
2. Accommodating Bikes on Transit 75
3. Bike Repair Tool Kiosk 76
4. School District Representation in Transportation Planning 76
5. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) 77
6. Bike Friendly Business Accreditation Program 77
7. Reducing Car Trips To School 78
8. Employer -driven Incentive Programs 78
9. Safe Routes To School Coalition/Task Force 79
10. Neighborhoods Funding Pedestrian Improvements 79
11. Special Maintenance Agreements 79
12. Wayfinding/Bicycle Maps 80
13. Cyclovia 80
14. Safe Passage Enforcement 81
15. Bicycle Diversion Program 81
16. Reduce Off-street Parking Requirements 82
17. Bicycle Counts 82
EXHIBITA
73
1
CASE STUDIES
A. Bikeshare - Jurisdiction Owned and Operated
In August 2008, the District of Columbia became the first jurisdiction in North America to launch a
bikesharing system. SmartBike D.C. offered 120 bikes at 10 stations in downtown D.C. and the Center
City. Approximately 1,600 people joined SmartBike D.C. during its 2 years of operation.
Meanwhile, Arlington County, VA was working on its own plans for a bikesharing system. Together,
Arlington and the District reviewed proposals and selected an operator for a new bikesharing system in
May 2010.
In August 2012, Alexandria, VA launched eight stations, becoming the newest member of the Capital
Bikeshare community. In May 2013, Montgomery County became the latest DC -area jurisdiction to join
the Capital Bikeshare program. Working together, the District of Columbia, Arlington County, Alexandria
and Montgomery County are proud to bring an expansive, multijurisdictional transportation system to
the region.
The Capital Bikeshare system is owned by the participating jurisdictions and is operated by Motivate, a
Brooklyn, NY -based company that operates several other bikesharing systems including Citi bike in New
York City, Hubway in Boston and Divvy Bikes in Chicago. Capital Bikeshare ads describe the scope for the
program: Capital Bikeshare puts over 3000 bicycles at your fingertips. You can choose any of the over
350 stations across Washington, D.C., Arlington and Alexandria, VA and Montgomery County, MD and
return it to any station near your destination. Check out a bike for your trip to work, Metro, run errands,
go shopping, or visit friends and family. Join Capital Bikeshare for a day, 3 days, a month, a year or try our
new Day Key option, and have access to our fleet of bikes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The first 30
minutes of each trip are free. Each additional 30 minutes incurs an additional fee.
Entity: Capital Bikeshare
location: Washington, D.C.
Website: www.capitalbikeshare.com
B. Nonprofit
In 2011, Boulder B -cycle launched a nonprofit program that allowed easy, low -impact transit for
seasoned bikers, commuters, and visitors alike. In contrast to a standard bike rental, bike sharing
allowed a community to share a fixed number of bikes through short station -to -station bike trips and
provided an all around shakeup of traditional commute options.
Once a rider purchases an entry pass, they can take as many 30 minute trips as they want for the
duration of that pass at no additional cost. Additional fees apply to all trips over 30 minutes,
encouraging riders to check bikes that aren't actively being used back into stations. The mobile app's
interactive, real-time map shows riders what stations might be close or most convenient plus updates
riders on bike availability.
74 CASE STUIDES
"Boulder B -cycle is part of the Boulder landscape and the Boulder experience" said James Waddell,
Boulder B -cycle Executive Director. "When you think of Boulder you think of the scenery, bikes and of
healthy, environmentally conscious people. Every time someone rides one of our bikes, that's gasoline
saved, carbon emissions spared and calories burned."
In addition to offering seamless transit, Boulder B -cycle has crafted a handful of city -specific "tours" that
give riders another way to experience Boulder culture. The brewery tour, for example, provides a map
with best routes and nearby station details for eight local breweries.
B -cycle, LIC. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trek bikes based out of Waterloo, Wisconsin, where they
design and manufacture the bikes and stations found in all B -cycle cities. On the software end, Trek
designs the front end software with which users interact, the back end database that all B -cycle systems
use, the B -cycle website platform, and the official B -cycle mobile app.
Entity: Boulder B -cycle
Location: Boulder, CO
Website: www.boulder.bcycle.com
C. Private for Profit
Deco Bike launched a 650 bicycle, 72 station system in March 2011 in Miami Beach, Florida and reached
180,000 rides by July 2011. Operations are active 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Their fee
structure offers two monthly plans and several hourly block plans, but no annual fee. Revenue comes
from advertising on the kiosks and membership fees only.
DecoBike is unique in the LIS, having funded the $4 million program entirely without public funding as a
concessionaire for the City of Miami Beach. In order to use Miami Beach's public spaces for their kiosks,
DecoBike pays the city 12% of membership fees and 25% of advertising revenue estimated to be worth
$13 million to Miami Beach over the 6 year contract. Operating expenses are projected to be $1.8
million annually, with 1/3 covered by advertising revenue, and the remainder, and any profit, coming
from user fees
Due to their agreement with Miami Beach, DecoBike is not allowed to advertise on the kiosks
themselves. While allowing such ad placement would improve both DecoBike and Miami Beach's
revenue take in the venture, public sentiment is that they would detract from the aesthetics of the
neighborhood.
Entity: Deco Bike LLC
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Website: www.citibikemiami.com
EXHIBIT A
2 Accommodating Bikes on Transit
Houston, Texas, is home to one of the most successful light rail lines ever built in the U.S. in terms of
ridership per track mile, boasting an average daily ridership of about 37,000 in September 2013.
METRORaiI's Red Line consists of 18 cars that operate along a 7.5 -mile route, beginning at the
downtown campus of the University of Houston and ending near the Texas Medical Center.
In 2007, BikeHouston, a local bicycle advocacy organization, and the Citizen's Transportation Coalition
joined forces to advocate for the implementation of bike racks on METRO buses. Houston METRO
began accommodating bicyclists on buses by equipping the buses with the highly successful front-
loading bike racks. However, for the light rail line, access for bicycles was severely limited, as bikes were
only allowed between 9:00 a.m and 3:00 p.m, there were no bike racks available on the n a r r o w -
aisled cars, and METRO officials had previously contended that the introduction of safety racks would
pose problems for safety and congestion.
As part of the long-term planning process, METRO began considering the details of light rail service
expansion. During discussions of the expansion, METRO officials sought the input of BikeHouston
representatives about their views of light rail service and possible impacts on the cycling community.
The communication was also intended to inform bicycling stakeholders about construction activities
that would be occurring around rail expansion in hopes that these issues could be communicated to the
wider bicycling community through the BikeHouston network. Through these conversations, members
of BikeHouston called attention to the limited accessibility issues and METRO listened to the concerns
in an effort to better plan for future light rail service.
As the conversation progressed, the working group expanded to include the Rail Operations Center and
Service Delivery staff, Safety and Security, Communications and Marketing, and Planning staff. The
inclusion of representatives from these departments allowed METRO to better gauge the
considerations of rider density during peak hours, configuration and safety of various bicycle storage
alternatives, and current operating conditions. Later, METRO established additional dialogue with the
communities where future rail will be installed and increased the bike working group to include the City
of Houston's Bikeways, Parks, and Sustainability departments.
During the bike working group's study of ridership patterns, METRO planners saw an opportunity to
change the hours that bicycles are permitted on board. To better accommodate cyclists, METRO
expanded the bike -friendly hours on light rail to include all but peak -hour travel, defined as weekdays
from 6:30 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. During weekends, bikes are now permitted at any hour. In
addition to the expanded hours, METRO and BikeHouston also worked to consider a number of bicycle -
storage alternatives, finally deciding on removing fixed seats from cars to provide space for bikes.
Reviewing a variety of configurations on the Siemens cars, BikeHouston members and METRO officials
gathered to test them, eventually deciding on a format that would remove two benches (four seats)
from each end of the car.
In July 2010, Houston METRO began implementing the changes in the form of a 30 -day trial period on
11 of the 18 Red Line cars. The program was initially "soft -launched," since there was uncertainty as to
the public reaction and impacts on ridership. Eight total seats from each car were removed and replaced
with standing space and overhead straps. By September 21, METRO judged the program a success and
implemented the changes on all 18 cars, adding signage informing riders of the appropriate bike entry
doors and storage areas. Furthermore, the incorporation of the Bikeways, Parks, and Sustainability
departments to the working group has allowed METRO to begin planning better for bicyclists as it
introduces light rail to new communities. Discussions thus far have included new mapping, wayfinding
signage, and bike racks.
Spurred by media coverage, Houston METRO conducted informal surveys during the testing period
using Twitter, Facebook, and other social media. Polling was done electronically and in-person, with
overwhelmingly positive results. The public relations survey conducted resulted in greater than 95
percent positive feedback. In fact, not only did riders react positively to the expanded access for
bicyclists, but the changes benefited multiple types of users, including passengers with disabilities,
parents with children, and those riders preferring to stand.
In October 2013, there were 22,230 total monthly bike boardings on METRO vehicles (including buses
and light rail cars). That figure is a 10 percent increase over the previous month and a 44 percent
increase over the total from October 2012.
Rider feedback indicated that the seat removal and hours changes were beneficial to riders beyond the
bicycling community. The Siemens rail cars have narrow aisles, which made navigating the cars difficult
for riders with physical challenges and to those pushing strollers. With the removal of seats, many
passengers have noted the improved navigability and improved options for securing wheelchairs,
strollers, and bikes. Most importantly, though, this initiative signals that Houston METRO is planning for
and promoting bicycling as part of a larger transportation network. According to METRO's associate
vice president, Andrew Skabowski, "Its METRO being more mobile, if we can. The biking community is
saying, 'Hey, we're not just for recreation anymore; we bike to work.' That's important to that
community, and we're there to assist and get people to work."
With the March 2013 expansion of Houston's bike share program, B -Cycle, METRO is working on a
report that includes recommendations for improving the transit -bike connection for bike share users.
The change was financially beneficial to Houston METRO. While the initial cost of the configuration
change was a total of $7,791.12, with labor accounting for $3,150 and materials for the remaining
$4,281.12, METRO also experienced a one-time savings of $8,640 by returning the removed seats to
the stock of spares. Further, METRO also saves $3,960 annually for the decreased maintenance needs
on the 18 cars.
Entity: HoustonMETRO
Location: Houston, TX
Website: www.ridemetro.org
EXHIBIT A
CASE STUIDES 75
3 Bike Repair Tool Kiosk
A-1 Builders in Bellingham has been a bicycle -friendly company for years. A decade ago, to mark the
company's 50th anniversary, A-1 built a large covered space for bicycle parking at the downtown
Community Food Co-op store.
Now, for its 60th anniversary, A-1 has built a covered community kiosk with a public bicycle repair
station by the sidewalk outside its offices at 3310 Northwest Ave. Rick Dubrow, company president and
an avid biker, said Bellingham and other communities would benefit from more bike -repair stations.
"Our hope is that this is the first of many," he said.
At first, the folks at A-1 were thinking about installing just a kiosk for community notices. Then, last
September, Patrick Martin, a production manager at A-1, took his daughter to Evergreen State College in
Olympia and saw a sturdy bicycle pump and repair station installed outdoors by some dormitories. He
thought back to the idea of a kiosk, and realized a pump and repair station could fit inside. "I thought we
should put the two together," said Martin, who did much of the design workforthe station.
A 12 -by -12 -foot concrete slab forms the base that is decorated with old bicycle parts—gears, tire rims,
lengths of bicycle chain—embedded in the concrete.
The side walls of the kiosk have plastic -covered maps showing local bicycle routes, trails, parks, and
Whatcom Transportation Authority bus routes. There's also a bulletin board for community notices. On
the outside back wall of the kiosk hangs covered shelves for a small community lending library, where
people can drop off and borrow books.
Inside the kiosk, bolted to the slab, is a vertical metal stand that holds a bicycle while it's repaired, tuned
up or given air. Basic bicycle -repair tools hang from the stand, secured by long cables to prevent theft. A
sticker on the stand has a QR code, so bikers with smartphones can scan the code to reach a website
with short how-to videos about basic bicycle repairs. Bolted next to the stand is a sturdy, hand -powered
bicycle pump.
Nearby on a shelf are two bicycle repair how-to books, also secured to prevent theft. A motion detector
turns on several lights when people enter the kiosk at night, for nighttime repairs and for public safety.
The installation cost about $16,000, much of which was covered by donations of money, materials and
labor, Dubrow said.
Entity:A-1 Builders
Location: Bellingham, WA
Website: www.albuilders.ws/
76 CASE STUIDES
4 School District Representation in Transportation Planning
The Phoenix School Safety Program was developed by a task force created following a collision involving
a young student who ran into a busy street against a traffic signal. The task force included a local parent
and individuals from the local police, transportation, highway safety, and law departments, as well as
representatives from local schools.
The task force recommendations yielded eleven major changes. The solution was a combination of
education, enforcement, and facilities improvement. Education measures included a new School
Crossing Guard training video, which was produced in English and Spanish to be used in all subsequent
training programs. A new training handbook (English and Spanish version) was developed and
distributed, in addition to a "Safest Route to School" walking plan to encourage parents and students to
safely walk to school. In addition, a School Safety Summit brought together the state's school and traffic
officials to work together to implement the recommendations.
For enforcement measures, a school crossing safety audit was developed to help identify those areas of
a school most in need of improvement. Phoenix also equipped schools with radar -controlled cameras
mounted to vans to enforce the speed limit during school start and dismissal times. Other
improvements included the installation of "SCHOOL" pavement stencils on roads approaching the
school area, fluorescent yellow -green school warning signs, safety vests for guards, staggered
crosswalks, and two trial active speed monitors that flash when a driver's speed exceeds the speed limit
during school operating hours. An experimental in -pavement flashing crosswalk was installed at a local
high school. Once activated by a pushbutton, the device issues verbal warnings to pedestrians that cars
may not stop. Additionally, school staff developed a set of guidelines for drop-off and pick-up times to
reduce congestion and spillover onto the street in front. Funding of $500,000 per year was provided by
the City of Phoenix.
The program resulted in the most significant advance in safety at Arizona schools since the inception of
the 15 mph school zone in 1950. The program reached 400 schools statewide, 6,872 speed citations
were given, 11 Safest Route to School walking plans were completed, and 173 crossing safety audits
were conducted.
Entity: City of Phoenix
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Website: www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Pages/School-Safety.aspx
EXHIBIT A
5
Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Rosa Guerrero Elementary is a Title 1 neighborhood school, and 75% of the 850 students live within
walking distance, or 2 miles, of the school. Sidewalks are present in the neighborhood around the
school, and approximately 30 percent of the students have permission from their parents to walk to
school. One of the biggest barriers for students walking to Guerrero Elementary is the traffic at a busy
intersection.
According to Carol Campa, former Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Coordinator for Texas
Department of Transportation, the City of El Paso was awarded $10,000 in SRTS funds to develop a SRTS
Plan and Program for Rosa Guerrero Elementary in 2007. The City selected a consultant and paid a
service fee of 58,000 to assist in the development of Rosa Guerrero Elementary School's SRTS Plan. The
remaining $2,000 was used to support PTA volunteers in developing an education and encouragement
program for students, teachers and parents to promote the SRTS Program at the school.
SRTS coordinators increased school and community support and gained volunteers by offering
education and training by the El Paso Police Department. The school also held two raffles, and offered
other incentives to reward volunteers for their hard work.
The school added traffic enforcement signage that identified "Drop Off Zone," "Pick Up Zone," and
"Students Crossing, Please Slow Down" as well as safety school stop signs for crossing guards, which
made drivers aware of students and parents walking to school. Raising driver awareness led community
members to feel safer walking to school.
The school provided incentives for parents and students who participated in the program. For example,
each time a student walked to school, he or she received SRTS pencils and stickers. Teachers tracked
students' progress by logging data into pamphlets purchased with federal funding. Students were
rewarded with SRTS water bottles. Participating parents were given water bottles and SRTS walking
logbooks to track their progress. All participating students were entered in a drawing for a bicycle that
was held at the conclusion of the SRTS program.
Entity: TOOT - Planning Section
Location: El Paso, TX
Website: www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/find-state-contacts/texas
6
Bike Friendly Business Accreditation Program
In Los Angeles, 50% of trips are under 3 miles—a 10-15 minute trip for the casual rider. The Bicycle
Friendly Business (BFB) Program is a citywide opt -in program that encourages businesses to embrace
bicycle friendly practices in order to attract more local trips by walking and bicycling.
According to Mayor Eric Garcetti, "The Bicycle Friendly Business Program represents one of the many
tools in our Great Streets toolbox. As we remake our streets to better serve our neighborhoods, the
Bicycle Friendly Business Program will make it easier for Angelenos to choose to travel and shop by bike.
We look forward to seeing you on the street!"
Council member Mike Bonin, who Chairs the City Council's Transportation Committee, recognizes that
people on bikes also tend to know their neighborhood better, which builds community and makes
neighborhoods safer:
"Our neighborhoods are stronger when people can live, work and shop at local businesses without
needing their cars, and the Bicycle Friendly Business Program will help put neighborhoods first in Los
Angeles. I'm excited to see the Bicycle Friendly Business Program expand throughout Los Angeles and I
think the expansion of this program is a great sign that LADOT is heading in the right direction and
making alternative transportation a priority."
The citywide program gives businesses the opportunity to be recognized for making accommodations
for staff and patrons who cycle by adhering to a variety of bicycle friendly practices. The program also
provides bicyclists with a directory of local participating businesses that specifies the bicycle friendly
amenities offered. The BFB program provides data resources to illustrate how bike friendly business
practices translate into enhanced profitability.
Entity: City of Los Angeles - DOT
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Website: www.ladot.tacity.org/index.htm
EXHIBIT A
CASE STUIDES 77
7 Reducing Car Trips to School
Morton Way Public School in Brampton, Ontario, Canada has 877 early education and elementary
students (Junior Kindergarten through Grade 5). During the past four years, Morton Way has sustained a
successful walk -to -school program, wherein between 83 and 92 % of students walk or bike to school on
specific days. Approximately 50 students travel to school -by -school bus because of distance.
Despite the success of the program, the Morton Way Community still felt there were too many students
arriving by personal automobile, so they implemented a "25 Cars or Less" campaign. A "thermometer"
display alerts drivers how many vehicles dropped off students the day before, and the daily school
announcements update the students of progress. There are also signs displayed around the school
promoting the "25 Cars or Less" campaign.
Entity: Morton Way Public School
Location: Brampton, ON (Canada)
Website: www.schools.peelschools.org/1510/Pages/default.aspx
78 CASE STUIDES
8 Employer -driven Incentive Programs
St. Lukes Hospital - Boise, ID: At St. Luke's Hospital in Boise, personnel who ride 60 % of their workdays
between May and September earn a $40 gift certificate to a local bike shop. The campus also boasts
showers and bike racks. Scott Dohmen, the hospital's employee alternative transportation coordinator,
says that the hospital has a commitment to providing incentives to those who ride to work "To promote
alternative transportation, get the cars off the road and get people in shape"
Clif Bar — Emoryville, CA: Clif Bar, which employs more than 300 employees at its Emeryville, CA
headquarters, takes bike -to -work incentives to a whole new level. The company's Sustainability
Benefits Program includes an incentive of up to $500 to buy or repair a commuter bike. Employees who
walk, bike, carpool or take public transportation to work can also earn points for each trip —
redeemable for rewards like cash, massages and Clif gear.
New Belgium Brewing— Fort Collins, CO: Cars are a rare sight at New Belgium Brewi ng's flagship brewery
in Fort Collins. After a year on the job, each New Belgium employee receives a free limited release Fat
Tire Cruiser bike, in honor of the company's best-selling Fat Tire Amber Ale. Employees can also borrow
a cruiser from a fleet of shared bikes for local errands and lunch breaks.
Honest Tea— Bethesda, MD: Organic beverage maker Honest Tea gives its employees who either bike or
walk to work $27.50 extra in their paychecks monthly. In addition, in the summer of 2007, the company
bought each of its then 52 employees Jamis bikes. The company's president and'TeaEO' Seth Goldman
bikes about a mile to work every day, so he understands the perils of the bicycle commuter. When the
company moved into its current office building in 2007, Goldman insisted on having showers installed in
the bathrooms.
Patagonia (multiple locations): Patagonia's Drive -Less program provides a monetary incentive for
employees to bike, walk, carpool or take public transit to work. It pays all U.S. and Canadian employees
$2 per trip, up to two trips per day. Each employee can earn up to $500 (pre-tax) per year. In the first year
of the program, more than 900 employees participated. As a collective result, in that first year Patagonia
employees drove 690,000 fewer miles, cut CO2 emissions by 500,000 pounds and saved 25,700 gallons
of fuel.
Jamba Juice— Emeryville, CA: Jamba Juice offers a set of bright orange loaner bikes for employees to use
for errands and lunch breaks, as well as plenty of space for bike commuters to park their own rides. The
company has also developed an extensive wellness program that includes health insurance premium
discounts in exchange for completing challenges, such as participating in Bike to Work Day, attending a
bicycle repair class, or going on a practice ride. Jamba Juice has become known in the area for its bike -
friendly ways and was identified as one of the most bike -friendly businesses of the year by local
advocacy group Bike East Bay.
EXHIBIT A
9
10
Safe Routes To School Coalition/Task Force
Many Denver schools struggle with traffic congestion and environmental pollution, and, like many
communities, an increasing number of children engage in less daily physical activity than is
recommended by healthcare professionals, contributing to Denver's growing childhood obesity
epidemic. Denver's Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program use a variety of strategies to facilitate safe
walking and biking to school. Additionally, successful SRTS programs involve the whole community:
parents, children, schools, the city, residents, neighborhoods, non-profit organizations and public
health agencies.
SRTS programming utilizes a Coalition made up of partners from Denver Environmental Health, Denver
Public Schools, Denver Public Health, Denver Public Works, Bicycle Colorado, BikeDenver, Safe Routes to
Schools National Partnership, WalkDenver, Livewell Colorado and others. Together, this Coalition is
actively working to develop systematic programming so that all Denver communities can achieve state
and regional Safe Routes to Schools goals.
Entity: City of Denver - Department of Environmental Health
Location: Denver, CO
Website: www.denvergov.org
Neighborhoods Funding Pedestrian Improvements
The Ida Culver House in the Greenwood neighborhood of Seattle has 600—foot section of walkway along
First Avenue NW that was designed and constructed in 1993-94. It is used by the residents of the Ida
Culver House and was the only section of the block without an asphalt walkway or concrete sidewalk.
The residents were awarded a Small and Simple Matching Fund projects grant by Department of
Neighborhoods (DON) to fund the project. Key factors used to evaluate the walkway were parking,
drainage, and ease of construction. Elimination of parking can make a walkway less desirable to
residents. Closing open ditches to accommodate a walkway is expensive. Slopes that would require
stabilization make construction difficult and more expensive. None of these factors was an issue at this
site. The walkway was estimated to cost $12,000 ($20 per linear foot for a five—foot wide walkway).
DON provided $5,000 and Ida Culver House $7,000. When the project was completed under budget,
the remaining $2,000 was returned to the residents. The walkway provides pedestrians with a firm,
stable walking surface that separates them from cars traveling along the adjacent roadway.
Budget
DON Small and Simple Projects Fund
Ida Culver House
Total
$7,000
$5000
$12,000
Entity: City of Seattle - Department of Neighborhoods
Location: Seattle, WA
Website:www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/
11
Special Maintenance Agreements
Over the years, the Seattle Engineering Department (SED) had received a number of requests for traffic
control at a particular neighborhood intersection. Investigation revealed high speeds, (85% of the traffic
was going 31 mph or faster), high volumes (1,215 cars per day), and high accident rates (five accidents in
the last three years). Although the community had requested traffic control for each of the four previous
years, the intersection did not compete successfully for a traffic circle until 1995*. Additional
complications included special design because of difficult intersection geometry. As with all traffic
circles funded by SED, the Engineering Department and community volunteers landscape the circle in
the spring following construction and a community volunteer maintains the traffic circle.
Budget SED Neighborhood Traffic Control Program $6,500
Total $6,500
* SED's Neighborhood Traffic Control Program receives funds to build seven to fifteen traffic circles a
year. With over 600 annual requests for traffic circles, priority is given to those intersections with high
accidents, speeds, and volumes. If an intersection does not compete well for SED funding, communities
are encouraged to apply to the Department of Neighborhoods for Matching Funds.
Entity: City of Seattle - Public Utilities
Location: Seattle, WA
Website:www.seattle.gov/util/
EXHIBIT A
CASE STUIDES 79
12
Wayfinding/Bicycle Maps
Oakland residents lacked a comprehensive guide to walking and biking in their city, making it difficult to
know the availability and quality of walking and bicycle routes. A generous grant from the State of
California Office of Traffic Safety mandated an education project targeting the general population of
pedestrians. The Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project used the grant to create a map that highlights
walkways, bikeways, landmarks, civic destinations such as schools and libraries, neighborhood names,
historic networks of paths, major transit routes, and street grades. The back of the map features bike
and pedestrian safety tips, a primer on pedestrian design improvements, recommended walks, and
walking tour information. The 18,000 maps printed were distributed to neighborhoods and community
organizations, bookstores, bike shops, schools, and recreation centers.
The map was a collaboration between the Oakland Heritage Alliance and local volunteers, who all
helped survey existing pathways and staircases. City archivists aided in the effort by finding the names of
most of Oakland's old neighborhoods. An experienced designer and publisher was contracted to
produce the map. Funded by the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, total costs came to $48,000
including staff time, street grade surveys, map design, and map printing. The project took 6 months
from concept to printing.
Walk Oakland! has generated excitement and positive feedback from neighborhood groups and school
kids. It is expected that the map will serve as a starting point for further projects to encourage both
walking and better pedestrian -friendly design. Demand has been high, and it is expected that another
printing will be necessary in the near future.
Entity: Rufus Guides
Location: Oakland, CA
Website: www.rufusguides.com/oakland.html
80 CASE STUIDES
13
Cyclovia
Boulder's Cyclovia is a full day event that takes over several miles of road that brings the Boulder
community together in a free outdoor setting, promoting healthy and active living among neighbors.
Hundreds of vendors within 10 different zones provide free activities such as dance, climbing, kayaking,
cycling workshops, rodeo, running, walking tours of downtown Boulder, yoga, Frisbee, and more. Some
workshops are bi-lingual, drawing more participants. People bike, dance, walk, rollerblade, scooter, or
travel by some other active mode to get between the zones. Many of the vendors that Boulder Green
Streets works with are socially and environmentally responsible companies and organizations,
providing the participants of Cyclovia with knowledge about what their local community businesses
have to offer.
In 2012, around 15,000 people participated in Cyclovia, with 65% arriving to the event by alternative
means. In an attempt to increase the number of participants to 20,000 and also increase the number of
people arriving by bike, walking, or any alternative to a car, Boulder Green Streets added a new
innovation and creativity zone, developed an interactive event app, recruited more socially and
environmentally responsible business and organizations to participate, and committed to becoming a
zero waste event. Boulder Green Streets supports Boulder businesses and government groups that
offer health and active living services and products, as well as local non-profit partners offering
programs in sustainability health services and active living, as part of its promotion of healthy, active,
and sustainable living.
Entity: Boulder Green Streets
Location: Boulder, CO
Website:http://www.bouldergreenstreets.org
EXHIBIT A
4 Safe Passage Enforcement
Until 2014, Chattanooga police had never enforced the safe passing law—even though it had been on
the books since 2007. In general, the safe passage laws present practical challenges to police.
Chattanooga Police Chief Fred Fletcher—who has placed new emphasis on enforcing the law—came to
the department after serving as a police liaison to the cycling community in Austin, Texas, where officers
get training on how to eyeball a three-foot violation. A good rule of thumb, Fletcher said, is to gauge
whether the officer on a bike can reach out and touch the car; if so, it's closer than three feet. Despite
being a big believer in the training, Fletcher wanted to try new equipment that would improve officers'
ability to identify violations. He knew an Austin -based software firm called Codaxus was developing a
device to support safe passing laws. The device uses an ultrasound detector to measure the distance
between a car and a cyclist. "You can obviously tell the difference between 36 inches and 10 inches,"
said Chris Stanton, a co-founder of Codaxus. However, the margin between two feet and three feet is
more subtle, especially when cars are moving quickly. Technology can provide a more precise
measurement, Stanton said.
The Codaxus device uses an ultrasound detector to measure the distance between the car and the
cyclist. A separate camera attached to the handlebars of the bike records a reading of the distance as
well as the license plate and model of the vehicle. In Chattanooga, judges have agreed to consider the
video archives as evidence of motorists violating the law. Judges have agreed to mandate bike safety
classes in lieu of fines for motorists who have been cited. If someone refuses to take the class, however,
they could face a maximum fine of $50. In most cases, officers try to use the technology to educate
motorists about the law, even going as far as replaying the video to show how the close encounter feels
from a biker's perspective. "We're trying to increase empathy and understanding," Fletcher said. "It's
clear that very few people are intentionally putting people at risk." The department is trying to raise
awareness about the law through marketing too. Some police vehicles have signs on windows that
diagram the required distance between vehicles and bikes.
Entity: City of Chattanooga
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Website: http://www.chattanooga.gov/police-department
1 5 Bicycle Diversion Program
A bicycle "diversion" program allows offending cyclists to take a cycling safety workshop as an
alternative to paying a traffic fine, thus diverting them from the system. A new CA law signed by
Governor Jerry Brown will make it possible for bicyclists who are ticketed for certain infractions to
attend a class on safe bicycle riding and thus reduce their fines.
"When a bicyclist is ticketed for a moving violation in California, they by default receive the same
monetary fine as when driving a motor vehicle. This means that with court fees added a stop sign
violation can cost around $200, and running a red light around $400," explained Assembly member
Richard Bloom.
"The penalty should be determined so as to encourage safe behavior and not so punitive that it
discourages bicycling altogether, especially for low-income individuals who rely the most on bicycling
for everyday transportation"
The objective of the diversion alternative is a reduced fine and a more educated and knowledgeable
bike rider.
Bike East Bay has been working with other advocacy groups to formulate the best programs for local
needs. Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, the City of Long Beach, and the San Francisco Bicycle
Coalition have all expressed interest in creating diversion programs. Davis already has an on -campus
diversion program and is interested in expanding it citywide. The cities of Huntington Beach and
Alameda both used to have programs but suspended them because of a legal prohibition against them
in the existing vehicle code. The Marin County Bicycle Coalition already has a diversion program, which
it has been able to run because of strong local support from the police and courts.
Bike East Bay currently incorporates a diversion program into its regular educational offerings. Like
Davis, UC Berkeley has its own police department that issues citations on campus. For on -campus
infractions, ticketed bicyclists can attend a class, bring proof of attendance to the police, pay a fee, and
have the ticket destroyed. The fee, around $50, is much less than what they would have to pay for a
ticket if it went through the court system.
"Most police departments will hold a ticket for anywhere from thirty to sixty days before sending it on"
to the courts, says Robert Prinz, Education Coordinator for Bike East Bay. "So if ticketed cyclists attend
one of our classes during that time, the ticket never gets sent to the courthouse, so there are no added -
on fines, no court costs at all." This system greatly simplifies the entire process by limiting the exchange
of money to a single transaction between the ticketed individual and the police.
Bike East Bay funds its classes through grants, and receives a flat fee for its classes, no matter how many
students show up for it. This way it doesn't need to rely on a minimum number of students—nor on a
minimum number of ticketed bicyclists— to support its education program and, it can make the classes
available to anyone who wants to take them.
There are 33 cities in the East Bay, and Bike East Bay would need to set up agreements with local police
departments in all of them. Once a program is approved, said Prinz, individual officers don't even need
to have a lot of knowledge about the program. "UC Berkeley police use a sticker on the back of citations
that have information about our classes," he said, which include a phone number and information about
signing up for classes.
Entity: Bike East Bay
Location: California (Statewide)
Website: www.bikeeastbay.org
EXHIBITA
CASE STUIDES 81
1 6 Reduce Off-street Parking Requirements
The cities of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Columbus, Indiana, and Sacramento, California—three cities of
different sizes, with different development contexts, and in different parts of the country—have each
reduced or eliminated off-street parking requirements downtown and in mixed-use areas, yielding a
range of benefits.
Lifting onerous parking requirements has promoted infill development by creating more buildable area
on infill properties, opening the door to projects that renew derelict building or activate what were
previously inactive hardscapes or garbage -strewn lots while helping to create the density that defines a
vibrant walkable urban core.
None of these three cities has experienced parking shortage or economic losses because of the
reduction in required parking. Today, Sacramento's parking code aligns with the visions espoused in the
general plan allowing planners to review projects and approve projects wherein developers are given
the discretion to decide how much (or how little) parking to install.
Entity: City of Sacramento
Location: Sacramento, CA
Website: www.portal.cityofsacramento.org/Economic-Development/
82 CASE STUIDES
17
Bicycle Counts
Cambridge has one of the highest percentages of bike commuters in Greater Boston and now, the city
has a way to show it off.
If you find yourself biking down Broadway Street in Kendall Square, you can now check out how many
cyclists came before you that day. The city installed a bike counter displaying the number of cyclists who
passed through the area, according to city spokesperson Cara Seiderman. The new contraption, which
displays in big green numerals the daily count of cyclists who have passed the spot, will supplement the
city's bike census, taken every two years. During those counts, employees spread out over 17 locations
for four hours and record the cyclists they see. The city then extrapolates that data to come up with the
number who pedals through the area. Seiderman said they will not be doing away with the manual
count, but officials hope the new bike counter will be more accurate and easier. "We know that a lot of
people are traveling by bicycle in Cambridge and that the numbers have been increasing for more than a
decade," City Manager Richard C. Rossi said in a statement. Officials think the counter is a way to show
how many people are out biking, and making sure people know "bicyclists count" However, Seiderman
said they are also excited about the valuable data they will be able to collect. "If you can get 24/7 data,
you have a much better picture of what the patterns are," she said. "We can see if they're biking year-
round or biking through the rain."
Officials believe the counter is the first of its kind in the state. With it, Cambridge joins the ranks of such
bike -friendly cities as Portland, OR, and Montreal. The counter from the Montreal-based Eco -Counter
company was funded by a $25,000 grant from the Helen and William Mazer Foundation. The machine
resets at midnight, ensuring a fresh daily count. A less prominent estimate of the annual bike tally is also
be displayed.
Entity: City of Cambridge
Location:Cambridge, MA
Website: www.cambridgema.gov/traffic/news/2015/07/permanentbicyclecounteronbroadway
EXHIBIT A
Cr)
CO
0000 COCc00 a 000 cc CO 000 a 0 per. 0•
^N`
W
C
0
N
C
O
o
W 2
E
C
I— 0
QC U
N
a) O
2 a) U .� C O)
Q E 2 U ii
Z m N
J ai.,-,
o
N DC
c 0) ap
/) LL J
U N, oy c v) 0)
0 0 c
D
S.'
° m a. a a 0 m o Cl)O > c (D ° UoC a)
0) U >, UDv
v 0 cN
0 Y0a ® >) 75 � a) Ca 0
Q
LU m3onQ o''
o 5Y
in m o `
N ri 4 so K a0 c O 1
W
T
X
W
SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVES
1 Bike Share Programs
A Bike Share is a non -motorized transportation service, typically structured to provide users point-to-
point transportation for short distance trips (usually around'''/ to 3 miles), that allows users to pick up a
bicycle at any self -serve bike station in the network and return it to another bike station near their
destination. Since 2010, bike share systems have been introduced in over 30 cities in the US and have
supported over 36 million bike share trips.
As bike share grows more common, it is increasingly becoming a key urban amenity for global cities. Bike
share programs extend the reach of existing transit, make one-way bike trips possible, and eliminate
some barriers to riding such as bike ownership, storage, maintenance and concerns about theft. Bike
share can provide new mobility options for people of all income levels and can play a key role in
improving public health by facilitating an active lifestyle.
Bike share has evolved significantly since its inception in 1965, when Amsterdam city council member
Luud Schimmelpennink proposed the world's first public bike share system as a way to reduce
automobile traffic in the city center. He proposed that 20,000 bicycles be painted white and distributed
for pick-up and drop-off anywhere in the city center, free of charge. When the city council rejected the
proposal, Schimmelpennink's supporters distributed fifty donated white bikes for free use around the
town.
The next attempt at a bike -share system occurred in La Rochelle, France in 1993, which offered a free,
but more regulated, program that allowed the public to check out bicycles for two hours. Cambridge,
England, implemented a similar system in the same year. This type of free bicycle rental system, also
known as a "bicycle library," reduced problems with theft and vandalism since users were required to
show identification and leave a deposit in order to use the bicycle. However, these bicycle libraries also
required the user to return the bike to the same place from which it had been checked out, limiting the
usefulness of the system as a point-to-point transit option.
In order for a bike share system to be efficient and well utilized, it must be properly planned and
designed. The density of bike share station and nearby destinations is a key consideration in planning
bike share programs, which is why central business districts are often well suited for implementing such
programs, particularly in the pilot phase.
Definitions
II Bike Share Station: structure that holds the automated customer terminal/kiosk and docks
that dispense bikes.
Dock: mechanism that retains bikes in an upright and locked position.
II Terminal: self -serve kiosks, like those found at transit locations, where users can get
information and make payments to check out bicycles.
Rebalancing/Redistribution: process by which bicycles are redistributed throughout the
service area to ensure that each bike share station has an appropriate ratio of available docks
and bikes to ensure optimum service; typically S0% bikesto 50%open docks.
84 SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE
• Station -less bike share: emerging technology that utilizes an electronic locking system based on
GPS and wireless communications (cell phone). Security and checkout infrastructure is located
on each bike to transmit usage and location data and monitor maintenance and unauthorized
use.
Business Models
Publicly Owned and Operated: The jurisdiction pays the up -front capital cost, and owns the
infrastructure and equipment (i.e. bicycles and bike stations). The jurisdiction may work with a private
contractor which handles membership management, customer service, marketing, bicycle
redistribution, data management, and maintenance of stations and bicycles. Under such an
arrangement, the government accepts financial responsibility for the program, while the private
contractor accepts liability exposure.
Nonprofit: A nonprofit organization manages operations and service. The nonprofit may be explicitly
created for the operation of the bike share program, or bike sharing service may be added to the
purview of an existing organization. Local jurisdictions typically participate in one of two ways in this
model: 1) the nonprofit organization receives startup funding and some funding for operations from
local and state governments; and/or 2) the local jurisdiction acts as a fiscal agent to request federal
funding and passes funds to the nonprofit. This model removes most of the financial liability from the
jurisdiction and places it on the nonprofit organization, which is responsible for both fundraising and
managing operational revenues and expenditures.
Private/for Profit: A private company provides, owns and operates the service; government
involvement may be limited to certain aspects of planning for the stations, such as the issuing of
necessary public space permits. To cover permitting costs for the use of public space, the private bike
share company may be required to provide a percentage of profits (typically around 10-25%). To
generate additional profits, the bike sharing company may sell advertising space on its bicycles and/or
stations. It is important to note that several successful European bike share models, including Paris and
Barcelona, use this approach.
System Planning and Design
Station Location (see -attached map of proposed station locations)
Station spacing is key
• Where feasible, stations should be located:
Where increased population and job densities positively impact ridership
Proximal to transit stops or hubs to facilitate connectivity
Along existing network of bike infrastructure or on streets that are accommodating to
bicycles in scale and activity
• In locations that are clearly visible from multiple approaches and maximize pedestrian
circulation and accessibility
Between multiple destinations that generate activity at different time of day
EXHIBIT A
Station Density and Level of Service
• Target density: 8-16 stations per square half mile and is highly context dependent
Y Target supply: 10-30 bikes per 1K residents/tourists in the program coverage area
Y Target docking space to bike ratio: 2-2.5 docking spaces per bike in system
Station Type and Design
Manual vs. Automated: Systems can be either manual or automated. In a manual system, an attendant
records the user's information and helps with checking bikes in and out (including payment).
Automated systems allow users to check bikes in or out and make payments electronically, either at the
terminal or kiosk or directly at the docking station. These types of systems often use specialized key
cards.
Modular vs. Permanent: Modular stations are designed to be moved to allow maximal flexibility in
network configuration. They are typically constructed on a base that is then bolted into the concrete or
asphalt; many modular station designs include solar power. Permanent stations typically takes typically
involve excavation and trenching to reach the power source.
Docking Styles
Docking Spaces: Each space docks one bicycle. The number of spaces determines the size of the station's
footprint, enabling station size to be adjusted to fit the available space. This style of dock takes up more
space per bike than cycle parking areas but may be better suited for an urban environment. Bicycles are
checked out at either the terminal or at the actual docking space, depending on the station design.
Cycle Parking Area: Bicycles are stored on racks in a secured area. Cycle parking areas are a good option
for larger stations (more than 50 bicycles) because cycle parking racks can hold more bikes per square
meter than docking spaces. At stations with cycle parking areas, bicycles are checked in and out
manually or through a turnstile. Because these stations require a secure area that is fenced or walled
off, they can be more intrusive in the urban landscape.
Software and Payment Mechanisms
Most systems use card technology (smart cards, magnetic cards, or credit cards) to check bikes in and
out. Key considerations include:
• How customers register and pay for the system
• How bikes are check in and out from docking spaces
• How information is transmitted both internally for management and externally for
customers
Table 9: Financial Models for Bike Share Programs
Capital Cost and Financing
Stations
(terminal + docking spaces)
Software
Station Installation
Coordination and Oversight
Maintenance Operations (staffing)
User Fees`
Sponsorship Opportunities
Capital
Cost
Operating
Costs
Potential
Revenue Sources
Bicycles (tubeless and chainless)
Maintenance Depot/Control Center
(annual update)
Replacement/Maintenance Hardware
Marketing
Insurance
Advertising Sales
Private Investment
"User Fees - Depends on business model and relative importance of defraying system costs
Option
- Range (5)
Hourly
$2 - $8 (first 15 min. free)
Individual Daily Membership
$3 - $30
Individual Weekly Membership
$9 - $30
Individual Monthly Membership
520 - $40
Individual Annual Membership
513 - $95
Corporate Annual Membership
$35 - $50 /employee••
""Corporate Annual Memberships can include unlimited free trips up to 30 minutes
Sponsorship Opportunities
• Whole system capital cost underwriting
• Whole system operations underwriting
• Individual station capital cost underwriting
y Individual bicycle capital cost underwriting
Y In-kind marketing support
Advertising Sales
• Individual station
• Individual bicycle
EXHIBITA
Indirect Savings
• Reduced shuttle operation/costs by area hotel
• Increased pedestrian traffic to area
restaurants and retail
• Increased transit ridership
• Effective expansion of CBD/tourist district
SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE 85
PRELIMINARY
PROPOSED BIKE SHARE
STATION LOCATIONS
•Preliminary Proposed
Bike Share Stations
Low Cost/Rapid Implementation
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard as
Intermediary
Treatment
Buffered Bike
Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
as Intermediary
Treatment
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side) as
Intermediary
Treatment
Strategic Capital Investment
1 -way Cycle
Track (both ways)
Multi -use Sidepath
(one side); pink
indicates side of
street on which
facility should be
installed
Off Road Multi -use
Trail
TBD: Corridor study
recommended
z
0
x
86
NMfsp p./1
Location: Downtown and North Beach area. Corpus Christi, TX
2 Walking School Buses and Bicycle Trains
Walking together to Badin Elementary School in Badin, North Carolina.
A walking school bus and bicycle train both consist of groups of students accompanied by adults that
walk or bicycle a pre -planned route to school. Routes can originate from a particular neighborhood or, in
order to include children who live too far to walk or bicycle, begin from a designated parking lot. They
may operate daily, weekly or monthly. Often, they are started in order to address parents' concerns
about traffic and personal safety while providing a chance for parents and children to socialize.
Walking school buses and bicycle trains can be loosely structured or highly organized. For example,
walking buses or bicycle trains can be as simple as neighborhood families deciding to walk or bicycle
together, possibly sharing parental chaperoning on a rotating basis. More formal, organized walking
school buses and bicycle have a coordinator at the school or district level who recruits volunteers and
participants, creates a schedule and designs a walking route. While requiring more effort, more
structured walking school buses and bicycle trains offerthe opportunity to involve more children.
Quick steps to a walking school bus or bicycle train Loose/informal structure:
1. Invite families who live nearby to walk or 3. Decide how often the group will travel
bicycle as a group together
2. Pick a route and take a test walk or ride 4. Start walking or bicycling
Highly organized/formal structure:
1. Determine the amount of interest in a walking school bus or bicycle train
2. Contact potential participants and partners and identify a coordinator
3. Identify route(s)
4. Identify a sufficient number of adults to supervise walkers or bicyclists; (The Centers for
Disease Control recommends one adult per three children for children ages 4 to 6 and one
adult for six children for older elementary children ages 7 to 9 (2000); for bicyclists, one adult
per three to six children is recommended)
5. Finalize logistical details including setting a time schedule, training volunteers and promoting
participation
6. Promote and host a kick-off event
7. Track participation
8. Make changes to the activity as needed
3 Local Improvement Districts
A Local Improvement District (Improvement District) is a method of financing capital improvements
constructed by the city that provide a special benefit to the properties within the boundary of the
Improvement District. The Improvement District formation process leads to the sale of bonds and the
retirement of those bonds via annual payments paid by the property owners within the district. The
Improvement District assessments become liens on the benefitted properties.
Existing language for municipal laws:
City of Corpus Christi, TX (Ord. No. 027066, § 8, 12-1-2006)
Assessment and improvement districts -
(a) The city shall have the power to establish assessment districts, in the manner hereinafter provided,
for the purpose of constructing public improvements within said districts and to provide that the
cost of making any such improvements shall be paid by the property owners owning property
specially benefited by reason of making the improvements. The city may levy a special assessment
as a lien against any such property and issue certificates of obligation covering the cost of such
improvements bearing interest not to exceed the maximum legal rate. No assessment district shall
be created without first submitting the question to a vote of the qualified voters in the city who own
real estate in the proposed district. If the returns of the election show that two-thirds or more of the
qualified voters of the city who own real estate in the proposed assessment district voting in the
election voted in favor of the proposition, the city council shall create the assessment district and
establish its boundaries. All matters pertaining to any assessment lien for public improvements shall
be made in substantial compliance with the laws pertaining to street improvements.
(b) The city shall have power to establish improvement districts, in the manner hereinafter provided, in
order to assist in the development of commerce, tourism, resort activity, and convention
accommodation for the promotion of the welfare of the city. Within any such improvement district,
the city council shall have the power to lease, sublease or provide for the installment sale of any city -
owned improved or unimproved land, or any interest therein, for any governmental or private use,
at its fair market value as determined by the city council without the necessity of voter approval. The
term of any such transaction shall not exceed sixty years. An improvement district under this
subsection shall be established by the council subject to approval by a majority vote of the qualified
voters of the city voting at an election called for approval of the establishment of the district. The
metes and bounds description of any such district, as approved by election, shall be kept on file in
the office of the city secretary as part of the public records of the city, and any improvement district
established by Charter amendment prior to the adoption of this provision shall be maintained in full
force and effect and shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
City of Portland, TX
Request by property owners for street improvements study -
The owners of real property abutting a public street located within the city may request of the city a
preliminary engineering study and report concerning improvement of all or part of such street by
presenting to the city engineer a letter of request for consideration of a street improvement project. The
request shall be submitted on forms made available by the office of the city engineer. Such letter of
request must specify the proposed length and location of the portion of the street for which the study is
requested, and must be signed by persons constituting at least fifty-one (51) percent of the property
owners and owning at least fifty-one (51) percent of the property frontage involved in the requested
improvement study. Such letter of request shall designate one (1) property owner residing on such
street as the representative of the property owners filing the request for communications with the city
engineer and city staff.
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE 87
4 Special Maintenance Agreements
Planning for and investing in operation and maintenance (O&M) is key to maximizing the return on
investments in bicycle infrastructure. Traditional centralized systems for O&M, which are the
responsibility of municipalities and utilities, may not be adequate to address all O&M needs in the face
of conflicting budgetary priorities; in such cases, community- or user -based systems for supporting
O&M may yield increased efficiency, benchmarking, raise awareness/debate, and improved resource
allocation. The keys to improving operation and maintenance—and hence resource efficiency and
sustainability—are the availability of accurate information about the relative condition of infrastructure
and the distribution of clear roles and responsibilities.
The creation of special maintenance agreement between municipalities and neighborhoods allow the
neighborhoods to spearhead maintenance of bicycle infrastructure. Under such agreements, the
neighborhood may commit to keeping the bicycle infrastructure free of litter, debris and graffiti, and/or
agree to be responsible fora variable number of cleanups each year fora specific duration of time.
5 Cyclovia
Cyclovia is a Spanish term that means cycle way, either a permanent bike path or the closing of certain
streets or cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclovia has its origins in Columbia and the inspiration is credited to
Bogota. Each Sunday and on public holidays from 7am until 2pm certain main streets of Bogota, Cali,
Medellin, and other municipalities are closed to cars to grant runners, skaters, and bicyclists safe and
unfettered use. At the same time, stages are often set up in city parks and aerobics instructors, yoga
teachers and musicians lead people through various performances.
Cyclovias have gained a following in Australia, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and in a number of cities in the United States. Successful US
cyclovias include Durham, NC; Fort Collins, CO; and in the Lone Star State in Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso,
and San Antonio.
6 Safe Passage Citation Fee Structure
Law enforcement plays an essential role in supporting bicycle travel by reducing unsafe operation of
motor vehicles and bicycles and by reminding the public about the legal rights and duties of road users.
Police officers, prosecutors, and judges should treat bicyclists as full and equal road users in the
investigation, citation, and prosecution of traffic laws, and in assigning fault/liability and awarding
damages. The State of Texas Safe Passage Law S.B. No. 1416, effective September 1, 2015, requires cars
to provide cyclists with a three foot buffer; trucks must allow six feet of clearance. The City of Corpus
Christi adopted an analogous ordinance on May 15, 2012, under which violations are considered a Class
C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of no more than $500.
Opinions vary about preferred fee structure for violations of Safe Passage ordinances. Data from other
communities suggests that law enforcement officials may be more inclined to cite motorists for violating
Safe Passage laws if the fee is minimal (–$50 for first time offenders, up to –$150 for repeat offenses).
Critics of this perspective argue that the number of citations issued is limited by the challenge of
88 SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE
enforcing the law, i.e. observing the violation and judging the distance, rather than by enforcement
officials' opinion about the severity of the penalty. Likewise, proponents of stricter penalties argue that
the law is designed to protect vulnerable users—cyclists—and thus must be stringent enough to inspire
motorists to change their behavior. Local law enforcement officials should be party to any local dialogue
aimed at optimizing Safe Passage laws and fee structure at the local level.
7 Rules and Codes for Safe Cycling
Potential fodder for local safe cycling codes includes:
Basic Rules of the Road
1. First come, first served – Everyone on the road is entitled to the lane width they need. This
includes the space behind, to each side and the space in front. If you want to use someone
else's space, you must yield to whoever is using it.
2. Drive on the right half of the road - n the United States, everyone must drive on the right-hand
side of the roadway.
3. Stop/yield before entering a busier roadway - When you come to an intersection, if you do not
have the right of way, you must yield.
4. look/yield before moving laterally- If you want to change lanes, you must yield to traffic that is
in your new lane of travel.
5. Practice destination positioning at intersections -Bikes can share the same lane with other
drivers. If a lane is wide enough to share with another vehicle (about 14 feet), ride three feet to
the right of traffic. If the lane is not wide enough to share, "take the lane" by riding in the
middle.
6. Practice speed positioning between intersections - The slowest vehicles on the road should be
the furthest to the right. Where you position yourself on the road depends on the location of
any parked cars, your speed, and your destination. Always pass on the left.
Signaling
Bicyclists are required to use the proper hand signals when turning, changing lanes or stopping:
1 Reduced shuttle operation/costs by area hotel
• Increased pedestrian traffic to area restaurants and retail
• Increased transit ridership
• Effective expansion of CBD/tourist district
EXHIBIT A
Helmet Laws
Most states require the use of bicycle helmets to some degree, often for children under the age of 16 or
18, and local ordinances in many US cities exceed requirements in their respective states by requiring
helmets for cyclists of all ages. The following are examples of municipal bicycle helmet laws within the
state of Texas.
City
Ages
Effective Year
Arlington
Under 18
1997
Austin
Under 18
1996/97
Bedford
Under 16
1996
Benbrook
Under 17
1996
Coppell
Under 15
1997
Dallas
Under 18
1996/2014
Fort Worth
Under 18
1996
Houston
Under 18
1995
Southlake
Under 15
1999
Local codes addressing helmet use typically include language such as: Any person from the ages of
(defined locally), riding or otherwise moving on a bicycle, including any passenger thereon and/or
person being towed thereby, on any public area in the City shall wear an approved helmet, and shall
have either the neck or chin strap of the helmet fastened securely while the device is in motion.
Standard Definitions: "Approved helmet" means a head covering designed for safety that shall meet or
exceed the requirements safety of standards adopted by the U.S. Consumer Product safety Commission
(CPSC) 15 USCS 6004, or such subsequent nationally recognized standard for helmet performance as
the city may adopt. The helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chinstrap that shall be fastened
securely while the wheeled -vehicle is in motion.
"Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power upon which a person or persons may
ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is eleven inches or more in diameter, or three wheels,
any one of which is more than twenty inches in diameter. Within this ordinance, the term "bicycle" shall
include any attached trailers, side cars, and/or other device being towed by a bicycle.
Lights and Reflectors
In virtually every state, bicyclists are required to have red lights on the back and white lights on the front
while riding at night. Details vary between individual state and local laws.
Texas: Must have a white light on the front and a red reflector or red light on the rear (for riding at night):
(551.104b, effective September, 2001).
Riding on Sidewalks
Some communities—particularly in those with robust bicycling infrastructure—may opt to enact codes
that prohibit bicyclists over a certain age (13 in San Francisco, for example) from biking on sidewalks.
However, in communities with fledgling cycling culture and/or particularly dominant driving culture, the
adoption of local codes that expressly permit cycling on city streets and sidewalks as a by right use
(except where explicitly indicated otherwise by signage or other equivalent notification) may help to
foster cycling culture by alleviating uncertainty among the general public and law enforcement officials
about where cyclists are permitted. Such codes should clearly indicate that cyclists must yield to
pedestrians on all shared facilities.
Stop Signs and Stoplights
As with motorists, bicyclists must come to a complete stop at all stop signs and red lights. Consistent
enforcement of this particular requirement, where covered state and/or local codes, can be an
important strategy in promoting safe cycling and fostering a sense of equity among motorists who may
otherwise be critical of what they perceive as disproportionate leniency for cyclists.
As with enforcement of Safe Passage ordinances among motorists, the fee structure for enforcement of
stop sign/red light violations by cyclists is an important consideration, and local law enforcement
officials are key stakeholders in the discussion. Officials may be less inclined to cite cyclists if they
perceive the penalties to be unduly stiff; conversely, if fees for violators are not sever enough, they will
not inspire the desired change in behavior and may be perceived as inequitably by motorists, thus
breeding resentment.
Encroachment on Bicycle Infrastructure
Local codes must provide clear, explicit authority for citation of encroachments and/or degradation of
public cycling infrastructure. Parked vehicles, overgrown foliage, trash receptacles, and other such
infringements on bike infrastructure pose a very serious safety risk to the cycling public and must be
addressed swiftly and with the appropriate severity so as to deter repeat offense. The creation, as
recommended in this plan, of a dedicated telephone hotline and smartphone application for use by the
public in reporting such encroachments can be a meaningful contribution to the efficiency of code
enforcement operations, but the efficacy of such a tool depends on the passage of local codes that allow
for appropriate response by code enforcement officials.
Applicability of Traffic Laws
Sample language: Every person riding a bicycle upon a street or sidewalk shall be granted all of the rights
and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by the laws of this state
declaring rules of the road applicable to vehicles, this Code XXX or other ordinances of this city
applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as to those provisions of laws and ordinances which by their
nature can have no application, and except as otherwise provided in this chapter available code
language.
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE 89
8
Bike Safety Classes in Lieu of Fines
DriveKind RideKind was jointly developed by the Austin -based nonprofit Please BE KIND to Cyclists
(Please BE KIND) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to promote safe driving
practices by motorists as they share Texas roads with vulnerable road users such as cyclists and
pedestrians. The mission of DriveKind RideKind is to educate and inspire all road users to encourage
personal responsibility and foster behavioral change to enhance safety.
The program includes a video and program guide. The program guide is made up of 7 sections and
corresponding video segments:
Section 1: ATrueStory
Section 2: Awareness
Section 3: Infrastructure
Section4: Distractions
Section5: Crashes
Section 6: Sharing the Road
Section 7: Personal Responsibility
The program includes topics for class discussion and key take -a -ways. Instructors, school owners and
administrators, and the public are welcome and encouraged to request, view, download, and share the
DriveKind RideKind video. Most notably the program is free and implementation is flexible.
Municipalities can develop 1-2 hour long classes or half-day workshops with the program focusing on
aspects of the program that address specific community needs.
9 Standard Contracting Language for Construction Zones
When planning major roadway projects, construction and development guidelines should require
contractors to provide continuous access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure so as to minimize
disruption to the commuting public. The Traffic Control Plan that is typically developed as part of the
planning process for roadway projects is the appropriate place to address this need.
Language found in the General Notes for Traffic Control might be enhance to read as follows:
Contractor shall provide continuous access to all business and residential driveways during the
construction period. Contractor shall also provide safe and well -signed continuous access to pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure and/or alternate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure during construction
period."
90 SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE
10
Bicycle Counts
One of the more significant problems for advocates of active mobility is the dearth of accurate bicycle
use data. Knowing how many people are bicycling informs demand for infrastructure, provides
feedback on the value of existing facilities, identifies needed improvements, helps compare safety
between modes, and bolsters local support for active mobility. The lack of data is also problematic
when apportioning transportation dollars.
There is national recognition of the need to collect more and better data for bicycling. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has launched a "Bicycle -Pedestrian Count technology Pilot Program"
with ten Metropolitan Planning Organizations to collect this data.
At the state level, a Washington State Department of Transportation research initiative, in conjunction
with Portland State University developed a bicycle and pedestrian miles traveled metric estimate for
Washington State. A second phase is underway to develop tools for implementation of the
methodology.
EXHIBIT A
1 1 Performance Measures
Periodic program evaluation is critical to assess progress toward stated plan objectives. Program
evaluation provides accountability to the public (and those who fund projects or programs) and thus
may help bolster community support for program investments and expansion.
Category
Metric
Suggested
Evaluation Period
Source of Data
Quality of
Bicycle
Infrastructure
Bicycle
Safety
Total percent build out of Bicycle Mobility
Network
Number of miles of bike infrastructure (built in
conformance with Bike Mobility Plan in terms
of location and infrastructure type) per capita
Total annual municipal capital spending on
bicycle infrastructure
Proportion of respondents (to community
survey implemented every 3 -years) who cite
the poor condition of existing bike facilities as
a reason for not riding more often
Number (city-wide) of reported bike/vehicle
interactions
Number (city-wide) of reported vehicle crashes
of any" type
Annual
Annual
Annual
3 Years
Annual
Municipal Engineering
Dept./MP0
Municipal Engineering
Dept./MPO
Municipal Engineering
Dept.
MPO
Municipal Police
Depts.
Number (City-wide) of fixed (permanent) signs
related to safe cycling installed within the
project area
Total annual municipal expenditures on bike
safety outreach/awareness (PSAs, vehicle
wraps, city -sponsored safety courses)
Percentage of grade schools (grades 1-12)
with some form of designated Safe Routes
to School Program
Proportion of respondents (to community
survey implemented every 3 -years) who cite
not feeling safe from vehicles on existing bike
facilities as a reason for not riding more often
Proportion of respondents (to community
survey implemented every 3 -years) who cite
feeling that local drivers are too aggressive
toward cyclists as a reason for not riding
more often
Annual
Municipal Police
Depts.
Annual
Annual
Annual
3 Years
3 Years
Municipal Traffic/
Engineering Dept.
Municipal P10/
and/or PD
School Districts
MPO
MPO
Category
Metric
Suggested
Evaluation Period
Source of Data
Bicycle
Demand
Bicycle counts on select corridors as part of
existing municipal traffic count program; when
possible, counts should be instituted on a given
corridor before and after the construction of
infrastructure prescribed in this plan
Bike boardings on transit on a route -specific
basis as a proportion of available rack space
Annual
Annual
Municipal Traffic/
Engineering Dept.
RTA
Number of zero -car households, total and per
demographic categories (race, gender,
household income level)
Number of bike commuter rates, total and per
demographic categories (race, gender,
household income level)
Number of registered Strava Metro commuters
and in the number of commuter trips logged
per month
Number of requests submitted monthly
through telephone hotline/smartphone app
regarding encroachments/repair on bike
infrastructure
Percentage of students (grades 1-12) who bike
to school at least one day per week
Proportion of respondents (to community
survey implemented every 3 -years) who
report riding a bike (for any reason) at least
once per week
Proportion of respondents (to community
survey implemented every 3 -years) who
indicate that the vision defined in this plan
accurately describes their vision for the future
of their community
Number of business certified as Bike
Friendly Businesses"
10 Years
10 Years
Annual
Annual
(average
monthly totals)
Annual
3 Years
3 Years
Annual
Census
Census
Strava/MPO
Municipal Streets
Dept.
School Districts
MPO
MPO
Chamber of Commerce
(or other sponsor of
BFB Certification
Program)
.data from other communities suggest that the installation of bicycle infrastructure is associated with a reduction
in vehicular crashes of all types)
"through certification program recommended in this plan
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE 91
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement Database
Appendix B: Steering Committee Invitees
Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Survey and Data Summary
Appendix D: Presentation Locations
Appendix E: Community Events Attended
Appendix F: Poster and Flyer Locations
Appendix G: Interview Protocol and List of Interviewees
Appendix H: Targeted Vetting of Preliminary Bicycle Mobility Plan
Appendix I: Sample Resolution in Support of Implementation
of the Bicycle Mobility Network
Appendix J: Drive Kind Ride Kind Program Guide
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance
Appendix L: Priority Sport Routes for Road Bikes
EXHIBIT A
A-1
A-1
A-2
A-6
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-9
A-1 1
A-12
A-18
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement Database
Stakeholders Outcome
nCo�nt]
en.sory rw. u.a Ent M N1004 �,,, ' spM.n ro
Corpus Christi EDC
Lain Vasey
CEO/President
Corpus Christi ISD
Dr. Roland Hernandez
Superintendent
City of Gregory
Robert Meager
Chief of Police
City of Portland
Ell P.M
Assistant City Manager
Jamie Pyle, P.E.
nen
Leh ant et 10
Judy Telge
Director of Development
City of Corpus Christi
Bicycle & Pedestrian Subcommittee
Gretchen Arnold
Chair
Capital Programs
Jeff Edmonds, P.E.
Director of Engineering Services
Jerry Shoemaker, P.E.
Senior Program Manager
Development Services
Dan Grimsbo
Director of Development Services
Island Strategic Action Committee
Greg Smith
Chair
Parks & Recreation
Jay Ellington
Director
Stacie Talbert Anaya
Assistant Director
Corpus Christi Police Department
B 1
(Then) Interim Police Chief
Mark Schauer
All Ga. news
Left MO 010
Senior Officer
Street Maintenance & Repairs
Dan Grimsbo
Director of Development Services
Transportation Advisory Commission
Scott Harris, P.E.
Chair
Traffic Engineering
Dr. Raymond Chong, P.E.
Director of Traffic Engineering
Convention & Visitors Bureau
Elvia Aguilar
Director of Brand Management
Corpus Christi Housing Authority
Gary Allsup
Director
Del Mar College
Mark Escamilla
President
Downtown Management District
Terry Sweeney
Executive Director
North Beach Community Association
Carrie Robertson Meyer
President
Nueces County
Glen Sullivan, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Port of Corpus Christi Authority
Natasha Fudge, P.E.
Project Engineer/Planner
Regional Transportation Authority
Gordon Robinson, PMP
Director of Planning
San Pat County
Dolores Hinojosa
ROW Coordinator
San Patricio County EDC
Becky McMillon
Director
SEA District Association
Bill Durril
General Manager
TAMUCC
Amanda Drum
Executive Director, Strategic
Engagement & Initiatives
TxDOT- Planning
Victor Vourcos, P.E.
Director of Development Services
Pcal
.,.gator! ..Poloo
ft..
P...Py.Pa.
ea Pn. Pa.w
a..r.•ssd.wP,a
P®
ed . pon n,,..
mn.n Poo
�.,..a.�.�H,.... rn...,a
eenem.;ni s m
Cornet
.�
Son ack
h.,kad.�3.
.,d.,,.,
>o
Com pony
w
Cornet Pent
ammw.
w....n, penn ne Gene
Mended Jely13.101 ...,.
m
a.m
.
P...n.n pre...
4o..n.
.amch,n...P.0 a
« .. wee....., Me Cann, sna ....
Panes. .,4
...«. P..Comm
.a..I Pani
P.n P.nde..5..a D...... en
N.C. s..4w=..z04
.
Com «.Pon
mei
Pee aCorp. Chrio0
.11.sto..n.w.e.n.npm..
xs
Cant P
,.......r...e..i>ed..
- w. w.
.n
3.w+.or
0.
.
a..D..lw350W.Mat
iw„
ten • Cir mon
...
.w..Ationan w....n•..«,33a.
.
opw ...wr..,
..0
e...
c..n..r
mw ..2..00.
PPn•. P.w. Nal,.
,o
=u
P..
m...m
o.,,na.. 3_• 3..n •
a.. a.n.,.aw.�.....4.4.win.d...nd..
'Inn Own 'Downtown Delivery On nm
,w
,
.30004 T...F..w/
,Dm«,
Cam
Com
CCM •
aI*,..—..
smitunal ers
..�.�w
w
.D
Cops C1.1144
In..h,.d...,.ad...h..a.o.w
�.
In.u.a.immaweded0wn.z.=s.....
c..
...nl
K110...n.
yer, .e"`a"n;ue.....+......nh la
rlOof P.
....
,,.dw
h..hn...
..wo.....a...
.u.s
DM1..D.dn
P
Howe dh..
=oo
=ao
,.•••.w.t
...nn orer SO people. conduct. s.....,
P—.
.P••w
,
' ..n
...w
.an..wm..d.o...nn.e.
Pa......
r
.«.«.d.....,o.....
_.
....._...
Ps...«.
.d
w
we
..... _. -
A-1 APPENDICES
Appendix B: Steering Committee Invitees
Entity
Delegate
Title
Corpus Christi EDC
Lain Vasey
CEO/President
Corpus Christi ISD
Dr. Roland Hernandez
Superintendent
City of Gregory
Robert Meager
Chief of Police
City of Portland
Brian DeLatte, P.E.
Assistant City Manager
Jamie Pyle, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Coastal Bend Center for Ind. Living
Judy Telge
Director of Development
City of Corpus Christi
Bicycle & Pedestrian Subcommittee
Gretchen Arnold
Chair
Capital Programs
Jeff Edmonds, P.E.
Director of Engineering Services
Jerry Shoemaker, P.E.
Senior Program Manager
Development Services
Dan Grimsbo
Director of Development Services
Island Strategic Action Committee
Greg Smith
Chair
Parks & Recreation
Jay Ellington
Director
Stacie Talbert Anaya
Assistant Director
Corpus Christi Police Department
Michael Markle
(Then) Interim Police Chief
Mark Schauer
Assistant Chief of Investigations Bureau
Ronald Zirbes
Senior Officer
Street Maintenance & Repairs
Dan Grimsbo
Director of Development Services
Transportation Advisory Commission
Scott Harris, P.E.
Chair
Traffic Engineering
Dr. Raymond Chong, P.E.
Director of Traffic Engineering
Convention & Visitors Bureau
Elvia Aguilar
Director of Brand Management
Corpus Christi Housing Authority
Gary Allsup
Director
Del Mar College
Mark Escamilla
President
Downtown Management District
Terry Sweeney
Executive Director
North Beach Community Association
Carrie Robertson Meyer
President
Nueces County
Glen Sullivan, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Port of Corpus Christi Authority
Natasha Fudge, P.E.
Project Engineer/Planner
Regional Transportation Authority
Gordon Robinson, PMP
Director of Planning
San Pat County
Dolores Hinojosa
ROW Coordinator
San Patricio County EDC
Becky McMillon
Director
SEA District Association
Bill Durril
General Manager
TAMUCC
Amanda Drum
Executive Director, Strategic
Engagement & Initiatives
TxDOT- Planning
Victor Vourcos, P.E.
Director of Development Services
EXHIBITA
Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Survey and Data Summary
How often do you ride a bicycle?
Daily
At least once
per week
1-4 times per
month
Less than 3
dozen times
I do not ride
a bike
Answered: 222 Skipped: 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ans. Choices
Daily
ess Man a dozen limes per
How often do you use a bicycle for TRANSPORTATION (instead of a car or bus to
reach a destination)?
Daily
At least once
per week
1-4 times per
month
Less than a
dozen times ...
I do not ever
use a bicycle..
Answered: 195 Skipped: 28
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
..pons.. AHrwr MACH Response.
1a.21 t. S5 aIH 12.$5%
At Past emu per Me6
16.12 t. lrr roes Per ma. teAe t.
.._.._. e5 sees___. —____ .._•__.___- _... sees_... .......
30.21% Lessthen a drz dozen .es per year
20.511.
12.1614 I do not ever use a naycle for TRANSPORTATION 30.28 i.
leer I 222 Totel 105
EXHIBIT A
APPENDICES A-2
Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Survey and Data Summary (con't)
Which of the following prevent you from riding a bike more often
(select all that apply)?
Absence of
bike facilit...
Poor condition
(e.g. debris...
I don't feel
safe from...
Stray dogs
Local drivers
are too...
Lack of secure
bike parking...
The bike racks
on the buses...
There is no
place to sho...
Other (please
specify)
Answered: 218 Skipped'5
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer ch Responses
77.6254 Im
Absence or trle WOW (e.o- ere ranee a pew) etsrrpew streets on Mich IV lee to nae
Poor corgilon (e.g. dedd In die lane) of ex aeng take Iec221#$
1 don't del sale from vehdes on Me existing bike fealties
._ .. ___.__ 6666. .........
Stray doge
How likely would you be to use each of the following amenities?
Free bike
safety sours...
Free bike
safely tours...
Public.
do -it -your....
Free bike
maintenance),..
Free bike
maintenance)...
Free printed
map of bike...
Informational
website
Telephone
hotline to..
On-line form
to report bi...
Free
smartphone b...
2 3
Free bake safety course o • eveMng hams on weekends
64.555, 132 lo,M,epar Posts al near
-t-vo6r,e ponce.
Teats% 1119Mrations around lhecommurOty
Free lolSe maNienanttttepar rouree 157 ItsrILL weekends
10.64% 91 _._.Free
__._____.6_66
pait 0000. it o 11•11.
Locale sere are too eggresswe torrent cyckW
LaaM of secret bate pelnng at my ur2tlnat on(al
dx0. 0161.06026 006. 60 60.112.1
1,010 no 661466 0 00.60 611161 2116060 where 1 work
01160 101eeee022201)
A-3 APPENDICES
to evening eudoO2
01Y.00%
Free printed map MI., be I.ailry
/6.111% >0 MI. le gon street One x • erpeh Y 00
-informational welnte vatsgam and . seheMIenfevede such as
1.02% + education programs torcyrlists
Telephone hotline to report bike Facility maintenance Issue/safety concern
16.713 s (031, ,06.6 0 :6000rM_ a- r aderwnpe,.sue sate, comers
Tartwwanaarea: 116
EXHIBIT A
Answered: 211 Skipped: 12
4 5 6 7 8
u�nie iv
Unlikely soz t 1
211.0496 2103% p la.>a. r
0.o% 23. 07,
1$ l
9 10
q.leatw
rMr ya e.
2.47
2 24
44 16016
4e 10,
298
0,61
207
48 2112
rr am
Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Survey and Data Summary (con't)
How accurately does the following statement describe your vision for the future of your
community?
The metropolitan area of the Coastal Bend is a place where walking and biking are
integral to the community culture and represent viable, safe travel and recreation
options for residents and visitors of diverse abilities.
1 lha
statement 110
2. This
statement..
3. This
statement...
Answered: 204 Skipped: 19
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
AMMINChelmbe
1. This statement does not dessnee my vwnn fel me h*we & my community et slr
3.TA1s statom., partially deocubos my vimon for ...lure 0 my r.mnmumy.
3. Ris statement accurately de,ri.s ury vision Jnr nre 0101. ni my mu muniry.
1
.20
0•Pan i'
22.4%
12.04%
1.
keel
204
711336
711640
71343
7/362
71360
78370
70373
7.74
16350
76262
76307
78300
75402
75404
In which zip code do you live?
Answer choses
783 m
7.
40
]0.313
78363
78308
78.170
78371
78,4
78380
78.
78387
78190
7.01
7.02
78404
EXHIBIT A
75405
76406
7.417
76406
7,100
7.10
71411
.12
74413
71414
711415
75416
71417
71415
784111
Answered. 202 Skipped: 21
■
000
.spenses Answer Chteces Responses
78405
7841.
78407
78408
78409
8.58%
/8410
a. 7.
78411
78412
7.111 12.970
7.14 18.320
78415 2.4130
784,
0.9. 78418 1301%
7.430. ,. 78419
Total
202
APPENDICES A-4
Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Survey and Data Summary (con't)
How old are you?
10-15
16.18
19.22
23.29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Answered: 199 Skipped: 24
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ant.. CMlcos
1616
1618
19-22 _.__..
23-29
30-38e t e.
40+a 19a02.
6049
10
28
QS Are you a full-time student?
Yes
No
Answered 198 Skipped: 25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
An.. Choices
Yes
Ratponwt
14.1.4
nee 5.6194 I2U
Total 1811
Gender ?
Answered: 201 Skipped. 22
Male
Female
,,u 07 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
22.0.4 +s
6049
12.04.4
Answer Choices
Total 199 Total
A-5 APPENDICES
Iliasponsits
5724•,.
EXHIBIT A
08 26%
Appendix D: Presentation Locations
Date
Audience
03/10/2015
City of Corpus Christi City Council
04/01/2015
Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority
04/10/2015
Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure Group
04/13/2015
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Foundation
05/07/2015
City of Corpus Christi Mayor's Breakfast
05/13/2015
Texas Society of Professional Engineers, Corpus Christi Chapter
05/14/2015
City of Corpus Christi Mayor's Fitness Council
05/20/2015
City of Corpus Christi Transportation Advisory Committee, Bicycle & Pedestrian
Subcommittee
06/01/2015
Corpus Christi Cycling Club, Corpus Christi Triathlon Club, i-quack/South Side
Cycling Club
06/04/2015
Flour Bluff Business Association
06/04/2015
Corpus Christi Greater Hospitality Association
06/24/2015
Physical Activity Coalition for Nueces County
07/07/2015
Local Emergency Planning Committee
07/07/2015
City of Portland City Council
07/14/2015
Young Business Professionals
07/17/2015
Corpus Christi Air Quality Group
07/23/2015
Portland Chamber of Commerce
08/27/2015
Nueces County Safe Communities
09/21/2015
City of Corpus Christi Transportation Advisory Committee, Bicycle & Pedestrian
Subcommittee
09/22/2015
Island Strategic Action Committee (select officers)
09/23/2015
Braselton Homes
09/23/2015
North Beach Community Association
10/22/2015
Corpus Christi Association of Realtors
11/03/2015
American Diabetes Association
11/19/2015
City of Corpus Christi Ad Hoc Infrastructure Committee (Chair only)
12/08/2015
West Oso Integrated School District
01/05/2016
City of Corpus Christi Transportation Advisory Committee (including Bicycle &
Pedestrian Subcommittee)
01/11/2016
Portland Rotary Club
02/08/2016
Portland Integrated School District
Appendix E: Community Events Attended
Public outreach at fifteen events during the summer of 2015 included project introduction and
overview, distribution of informational flyers, and in-depth interviews with receptive participants. The
intent was to reach a greater diversity of community members than would typically have participated by
attendinga public meeting.
Date
05/16/2015
Event
Beach to Bay
Reached
Note
Flyers & people
05/27/2015
Farmer's Market
15
Flyers & people
05/29/2015
A La Mano (Food Truck Fridays)
50
Flyers & people
05/30/2015
It's Your Life SK
20
Flyers & people
06/05/2015
Art Walk
38
Flyers & people; 8 ln-depth Interviews
06/13/2015
Juneteenth
35
Flyers & people; 5 ln-depth Interviews
06/13/2015
Portland Dog Park /
5K Bike Race & Pet Karnival
25
Flyers & people; 5 In-depth Interviews
06/17/2015
CC7D Brew & Film Crews
50
Flyers & people
06/19/2015
Olympic Day Celebration
43
Flyers & people; 11n -depth Interviews
06/19/2015
Garcia Library
32
Flyers & people; 1 In-depth Interviews
06/20/2015
Stache Dash SK
50
Flyers & people; 6 In-depth Interviews
06/23/2015
Hooks Baseball Game
(Tuesday night)
120
Flyers & people; 8 In-depth Interviews
06/24/2015
McDonald Library
—
Flyers
07/18/2015
Ride -In Theater
4
In-depth Interview
07/23/2015
BMX Interviews
20
Flyers & people; 2 In-depth Interviews
EXHIBIT A
APPENDICES A-6
Appendix F: Poster and Flyer Locations
In an effort to supplement the outreach done at community events, flyers and posters were left at
businesses and organizations around the project area to bring awareness to the public about the
project. At each location, stacks of 10 or more flyers were left in easily accessible areas. If a bulletin
board or poster area had room, a poster was left as well. Locations were selected both to cover a wide
geographic area and to target specific bike -friendly or bike -accessible businesses. Approximately 900
flyers were left at more than 50 businesses.
6 Points Downtown Flour Bluff
Nester's Executive Surf Club La Playa
Bleu Frog Mercantile House of Rock Fun Trackers
Price's Chef Restaurant Axis Tattoo La Palma
Good Shepherd Resale Youga Yoga Coffee Waves
All Good Downtown Fitness Flex Fit 24/7
South Side Carl's Fine Flowers Papa Murphys
Natatorium Hester's By the Bay
Brinca Art Museum Other
Big Bowl Korean BBQ Colier Pool
Smoothie King Portland/Gregory HEB Pool
Flex Fit Gym Hibbett Sports Greenwood Pool
Gold's Gym Gregory City Hall Joint Venture Theads
B&J Pizza Academy Garcia Library
Fuzzy's Taco Shop City Pool & Community Center La Retama Library
Goodwill Portland First United Methodist Church Neyland Library
Small Planet La Iguana Restaurant Harte Library
RowZone Portland City Hall Hopkins Library
Siagon Cafe
West Side
Alameda & Texan Trail Boys & Girls Club Greenwood
Island Yogurt Shop La Michoacana
Freedom Fitness McDonald Library
Marble Slab
A-7 APPENDICES
Flyer Sample
transportation.
We want to hear from you!
MAP IT!
map where you
bike ride or where
you'd like to ride
TRACK IT!
download Strava to
your smartphone
to track your routes
ANSWER IT!
survey to share
your priorities
www.coastalbendinmotion.org
www.facebook.com/coastalbendinmotion
EXHIBIT A
Appendix G: Interview Protocol
What is your primary reason for riding a bicycle?
1 Transportation
• Recreation
• Exercise
• Other
How often do you ride a bicycle?
• Everyday
• At lease once a week
1 1-4 times a month
• Less than a dozen times yearly
• Ido not use a bike
Where do you ride your bicycle?
• Streets
• Destinations
1 On street or on sidwalk How
many miles do you typically ride to gettoyourjob/destination?
Why do you use a bike for transportation as opposed to a car or public transportation?
What improvements do you think could be made to make your commute easier?
What improvements do you think could be made to encourage more people to use bicycling as a form of
transportation?
How accurately does the following statement describe your vision for the future of your community?
(Select one)
The urban area of the Coastal Bend is a place where walking and biking are important to the community
culture and represent practical, safe travel and recreation options for residents and visitors of all levels
of ability.
• This statement does not describe my vision for the future of my community at all
• This statement partially describes myvision for the future of mycommunity
• This statement accurately describes my vision for the future of my community
In which zip code do you live?
How old are you?
Are you a full time student? Yes No
Appendix G: List of Interviewees
Interview
1
Gender
Age
65
Student/
Non -Student
Zip Interview
78374 26
Gender
Age
39
Student/
Non -Student
Zip
78413
M
N
M
N
2
F
65
N
78374 27
M
29
N
78413
3
F
12
5
78374 28
M
28
N
78413
4
F
45
N
78374 29
F
28
N
78413
5
F
42
N
78374 30
M
54
N
78414
6
F
65
N
78374 i 31
F
45
N
78414
7
F
38
N
78374 ! 32
M
72
N
78414
8
M
12
5
78374 ! 33
F
35
N
78414
9
F
12
5
78374 i 34
M
43
N
78414
10
M
10
S
78374 ' 35
F
11
S
78414
11
F
35
N
78404 36
F
63
N
78414
12
F
46
N
78404 37
M
50
N
78414
13
M
53
N
78404 I 38
M
23
N
78415
14
M
14
5
78405! 39
M
23
N
78415
15
M
43
N
78405 40
M
35
N
78415
16
F
56
N
78410 41
F
19
S
78416
17
F
54
N
78411 42
M
8
Y
78416
18
M
43
N
78411 43
M
14
Y
78416
19
M
63
N
78411 44
F
65
N
78418
20
F
25
S
78412 45
M
63
N
78418
21
M
16
S
78412 46
M
33
3
78418
22
M
16
S
78412 47
M
5
S
78418
23
M
17
5
78412 48
M
24
5
78418
24
F
17
S
78412 49
M
34
N
78418
25
M
22
N
78413 50
M
15
5
—
EXHIBIT A
APPENDICES A-8
A-9
Appendix H: Targeted Vetting of Preliminary Bicycle Mobility Network Appendix I: Sample Resolution in Support of Implementation of the
Date
Entity
Delegate
Title
05/16/2015
City of Portland
Jamie Pyle, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Portland
Brian DeLatte, P.E.
Assistant City Manager
09/04/2015
Convention & Visitors
Bureau
Elvia Aguilar
Director of Brand
Management
Downtown Management
District
Terry Sweeney
Executive Manager
SEA District Association
Bill Durrill
General Manager
09/17/2015
North Beach Community
Association
Carrie Robertson Meyer
President
09/21/2015
Texas A&M University
Corpus Christi
Dr. Amanda Drum
Executive Director, Strategic
Engagement & Initiatives
Regional Transportation
Authority
Gordon Robinson, PMP
Director of Planning
City of Corpus Christi
Scott Harris, P.E.
Chair, Transportation
Advisory Commission
City of Corpus Christi
Gretchen Arnold
Chair, Bicycle & Pedestrian
Subcommittee
09/23/2015
City of Corpus Christi
Tom Niskala
Consultant, Capital
Programs
City of Corpus Christi
Sara Munoz
Senior Engineer,
Traffic Engineering
City of Corpus Christi
Dr. Raymond Chong, P.E.
Director of
Traffic Engineering
City of Corpus Christi
Stacie Talbert Anaya
Interim Director, Parks &
Recreation
City of Corpus Christi
Annika G. Yankee
Senior Project Manager
City of Corpus Christi
Mark Schauer
Assistant Chief of
Investigations Bureau
City of Corpus Christi
Ronald Zirbes
Senior Officer
City of Corpus Christi
Jerry Shoemaker, P.E.
Senior Program Manager,
Capital Programs
City of Corpus Christi
Andy Leal, P.E.
Assistant Director,
Street Operations
Invite Sent
City of Corpus Christi
Greg Smith
Chair, Island Strategic
Action Committee
Invite Sent
San Patricia County EDC
Becky McMillan
Director of Finance
City of Gregory
Chief Robert Meager
Chief of Police
Invite Sent
NAS/COAD
Col. Pouge
Email request. graphic sent
APPENDICES
Bicycle Mobility Plan
1. WHEREAS, That the [Adopting Body] has a vision that the community is a place where walking and
biking are integral to the community culture and represent viable, safe travel and recreation options for
residents and visitors of diverse abilities and
2. WHEREAS, the [Adopting Body] has a goal of improving the health of its residents and the air quality
of the community;
3. WHEREAS, both obesity and insufficient physical activity are creating significant health problems for
Americans, leading to increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, endometrial, breast, and colon cancers,
high blood pressure, high cholesterol, stroke, liver and gallbladder disease, sleep apnea, respiratory
problems, and osteoarthritis;
4. WHEREAS, a primary contributor to obesity is lack of sufficient physical activity; 2
5. WHEREAS, bicycling is a safe, low -impact aerobic activity, enjoyed by millions of Americans, and
provides a convenient opportunity to obtain physical exercise while traveling to work, shops,
restaurants, and manyother common destinations;3
6. WHEREAS, bicycling frequently provides a practical alternative to driving, since 28 percent of all car
trips are to destinations within one mile of home,40 percent of all trips are two miles or less from homes
and around 30 percent of commuters travel five miles or less to work;
7. WHEREAS, bicycling can greatly increase access to important services and provide more range of
travel for people who do not own or cannot operate a car, including our increasing aging population,
children and youth, people who are low-income, and those with disabilities or medical restrictions on
driving due to issues like seizure disorders or vision impairments; 7
8. WHEREAS, replacing car trips with bicycle trips improves air quality by reducing the amount of
carbon dioxide emissions, in light of the fact that transportation sources account for nearly one third of
all such emissions in the United States, an average motor vehicle emhts 8.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide
per gallon of gasoline that it burns, and biking emits essentially none;
9. WHEREAS, asthma rates are at their highest levels ever, with nearly one in l0 children and almost one
in 12 Americans of all ages suffering from asthma, and replacing motor vehicle trips with bicycle trips
reduces the pollutants that directly contribute to asthma in both children and adults;9
10. WHEREAS, replacing car trips with bicycle trips reduces congestion and wear and tear on roads,
improving quality of life for residents and providing afinancial benefit for [Jurisdiction];
11. WHEREAS, providing safe, convenient, and adequate bicycle parking is necessary to encourage
increased use of bicycles as a form of transportation; 10
EXHIBITA
Appendix I: Sample Resolution (con't)
12. WHEREAS, cities that have improved bicycle infrastructure, including parking, have seen a
measurable increase in bicycletrips;tJ
13. WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, [Adopting Body] desires to adopt and implement the Strategic
Plan for Active Mobility to (1) develop of a cohesive, strategic network of bicycle facilities that
accommodates a diversity of riders (2) enhance bicycle mode share for trips of all types (3) promote
health and wellness through bicycling, and (4) enhance safety for bicyclists.
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas supports the implementation of the
Corpus Christi's Metropolitan Planning Organization's Strategic Plan for Active Mobility.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE [ADOPTING BODY]:
Attest: City of Corpus Christi
Rebecca Huerta, City Secretary Nelda Martinez, Mayor
'Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overweight and Obesity: Health Consequences. Atlanta: CDC, 2012.
Available at: www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/health.html.
2Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overweight and Obesity: Causes and Consequences. Atlanta: CDC,
2012. Available at: www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/index.html.
'See Active Living Research. Active Transportation: Making the Link from Transportation to Physical Activity and
Obesity, Research Brief. 2009. Available at:
www.activel ivingresea rch.o rg/files/ALR_Brief_Act iveTransportation. pdf.
See America Bikes, League of American Bicyclists. Factsheet: National Household Travel Survey. Available at:
www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/nhts09.pdf; see also T. Litman. "Short and Sweet Analysis of
Shorter Trips Using National Personal Travel Survey Data."Victoria Transport Policy Institute (February 22, 2012)
at 3. (41% of all trips are 3 miles or less (and 67% of those are by car), and 19% of all trips are 1 mile or less (and
42% of those are by car)). Available at: www.vtpi.org/short_sweet.pdf.
See America Bikes, League of American Bicyclists. Factsheet: National Household Travel Survey. Available at:
www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/nhts09.pdf; see also Ralls-to-Trails Conservancy. Turning Potential
into Practice: Walking and Biking as Mainstream Transportation Choices. 2007. Available at:
www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/TrailLink%2007%20Program_Mobility.pdf (citing FHWA
2006).
6 Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 'figure 2
On a typical day, how many miles one-way do you travel from home to work?" Omnistats, 3(4): 2003. Available
at: www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/html/figure 02.html.
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Federal Highway Administration University
Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, Lesson 8: Pedestrian Characteristics. July 2006, p. 1-10. Available
at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05085/pdf/lesson8lo.pdf; Office of the Prime
Minister, Social Exclusion Unit. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. Feb. 2003,
p. 1-7. Available at:
http://webarchive. nations la rc hives.gov.0 k/+/http://www.ca binetoffice.gov. u k/m ed is/cabi netoffice/social_exc lu
sion_task_force/assets/pu bl ications_1997_to_2006/maki ng_tra nsport_2003. pdf.
s U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The 'Carbon Footprint' of Daily Travel:
NHTS Brief. 2009. Available at: http://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/Carbon%20Footprint%20of%20Travel.pdf.
'See, e.g., C. Paige. "Pediatric Asthma Linked to Car Emissions." Boston Globe, March 2, 2008. Available at:
www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/02/pediatric_asthma linked to_car_emissions/; Environmental
Working Group's Auto Asthma Index (and sources cited therein). Available at:
www.ewg.org/sites/asthmaindex/about/; R. Rabin. "Asthma Rate Rises Sharply in U.S., Government Says." New
10See, e.g., Vanderbilt T. "What Would Get Americans Biking to Work? Decent Parking." Slate, Aug. 17, 2009.
Available at: www.slate.com/id/2225511/; see also, e.g., City of New York Department of City Planning,
Transportation Division. The New York City Bicycle Survey: A Report Based on the Online Public Opinion
Questionnaire Conducted for Bike Month 2006. 2007. Available at:
www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/transportation/bike_survey.pdf at p.15 (NYC commuters report a lack of safe
storage for bicycles as a leading reason for not commuting by bike).
"See, e.g., Marin County Bicycle CoalitionEconomic Benefits of Bicycling in Urban Environments . Available at:
www.marinbike.org/Resources/EconomicBenefitsOfBicycling.pdf (citing a 118%-125% increase in bicycle use in
Marin County over the last ten years due to improvements in infrastructure, including pathways, shared use
lanes, intersection improvements and bicycle parking; and pointing to increased revenue due to retail purchases
by bicyclists with adequate access to infrastructure and parkings ee also J. Dill and T. Carr. "If You Build Them,
Commuters Will Use Them - Another Look."Transportation Research Board 2003 Annual Meeting (cities with
higher levels of bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes and paths) witnessed higher levels of bicycle commuting).
Available at: www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v30/nS1/full/jphp200856a.html.
EXHIBITA
APPENDICES A-10
Appendix J: Drive Kind Ride Kind Program Guide
so BE KIND to Cyclists is pleased to add to your instructional
ibex, an educational video promoting safety for both motorists
nd cyclists,
:This video, titled DriveKind RideKind, was jointly developed
by Please BE KIND to Cyclists and the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) to promote safe driving practices by
motorists as they share Texas roads with vulnerable road users such
I'I
c
Drs cyclists and pedestrian.
:Please BE KIND to Cyclists developed the DriveKind RideKind video
Hander a TxDOT grant, specifically for: driver education instruction and
hools, defensive driving classes, commercial driving schools, law
enforcement academies in Texas, as well as the general public.
,,... The DriveKind RideKind video is correlated to the Texas Education
Agency's (TEA) Program of Organized Instruction for Driver Education
and Traffic Safety.
Instructors. school owners, administrators and the general public are
welcome and encouraged to view, download and share the DriveKind
RideKind video at no cost at DnIo KindRideKind.org.
A-1 1 APPENDICES
Curriculum - Program Gine. c:
Section l: ATrue Story
Section: Awareness
Section 3: Infrastructure
5.06,.4: Dbtraniom
Section 5. Cradr.a
Section 6: Shang the Rood
Section 7 Personal Responsibility
TEA Program of Organized Instruction (POI)
for Driver Education and Traffic Safety
POI 1.1.1: Introduction (legal and tesponsible reduced.nsk dnving pr.u.tu
P011.1.3. Rightof-Way
00! 1.1.5: Controlling lrafhc Fiow
001 1.1.7'. Cooperating with Other Roadway Users
0013.1.1, Visual Attention, Mental Attention and Communication
0014.1.1: Driving Practices
00141.2. Fatigue
1014.1.3: Aggressive Dnving
P015.1.1; Risk Factors
P015.1.2. Space Management
P016.1.1. Environmental Charaderrwcs
0017.1.1: Dnmactrom
0017.1.2. Multi -task Pedormenres
P019.1.1. Adverse Weather and Reduced Visibility Conditions
P01 12.1: Personal Responsrbiluy
EXHIBIT A
Resources
Please BE KIND 5. Cycfmt.
www BEM NDtoCydists mg
www lacehook.cnm/Pleas.BEKINDtoCyc6,1.,
Texas Deportment of hanapert tive. Driver Resources
www .t xdot. gcv/driver. hb n I
Texas Transportation Cede, Title 7. Vehicles IL Traffic.
Sac. 331. "Operation of Bicycles..."
000statutcsi ep ;stata.t v.us/doa/tn/htm/an.551.hnn
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Bicycle R.seurcas
www.nhtsa.gov/tcydea
Taxes Department of tternpertatla, Bicycle R.seuees
1rdn1 gnv/driver/ahare.road!bicy_les html
Texas Sale Routes to Schools
www.tn.leroutaa.org/
Texas Education Agency's Education 5erviae Canter, Region XIII,
Driver Treeing Division
www4.esc 13.nat/dri,ors/
Texas Education Agency'. Program of Organised Instruction for
Driver Education and Traffic Safety November 2009
www4.e1c13.n.lOplocas/drivers/dors/nntructionalobjectives 1.pdi
Texas Commission on Lew Enforcement
Academy
s/nTraining
rni/.www deose valets uscni/tronasproviders academycfm
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Cammerei1 Driver E a ..ahem
www.drevorg/tr-tescsicell-educttionsphp
T Department of Public Safety Driver Licensing
w
ww.trops.stateta..us/Drivei Lisnse/
T mit Daprtm.nt .f Public Saha Cemmereial Drhr.r Lionising
wwwdvdps state.tx us/Di iverLicense/CommerdalLicenso Ilim
Official US Gev.rnment Website .n Detracted Drivirw
Disrraaion.Gov
Smart Growth America, Dmrg.rous by Design 2014
wwwsmartgrowthamerico.org/reaarch/dangerous-by-deign/dbd2014/
regional -data/
Appendix J: Drive Kind Ride Kind Program Guide (con't)
DriveKind
Ride Kind Cb
r I�BE KIND
C.wis
Please BE KNVD teCydbb members woe nab gdets, mown., poky makers, and
comnuany mwnbee to rm.E assess sdwa/now mutual mspen between dmort and
cycles on the nw, sea ng hoed./ and ewe hatwcusccmnnaius.
Save a Life -
For more Information contact:
Lydia Bryan.Valdea
1 +DOT Traffic Safety Pegram
Manager/ CTCM/ Paralegal
TKDOT Traffic Operations D'rviaion,
Traffic Safely Section
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas 18704
512-416-3243
J
Pat Ber dao
DreeKind RldeKind Program Manager
Please BE KIND to Cydih
805 W. 10th Step
Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78701
512.7168955
DriveKindRidcKind. org
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance
Developed by ChangeLab Solution
Edited for use by Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. "BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR
RENOVATIONS."
§ 1. PURPOSE
§ 2. DEFINITIONS
§ 3. BICYCLE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
§ 4. BUILDING PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
§ 5. EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION
§ 6. BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS —GENERAL
§ 7. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING ONLY
§ 8. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING ONLY
§ 9. MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING SPACE CREDITS
§ 10. (optional) MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS
SECTION II. "BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING FACILITIES."
§ 1. PURPOSE:
§ 2. DEFINITIONS:
§ 3. LICENSING CONDITIONS
§ 4. LOCATION:
§ 5. BIKE RACKS:
§ 6. SIGNAGE
§ 7. CONTRACTUAL LIMITS ON LIABILITY
SECTION III. "BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS INVOLVING STREET
CLOSURES."
§ 1. PURPOSE
§ 2. CONDITIONS ON STREET CLOSURE PERMITS
§ 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORED PARKING
§ 4. LOCATION
§ 5. PUBLICITY AND SIGNAGE
§ 6. INSURANCE COVERAGE AND FEES:
SECTION IV "REMOVAL OF ABANDONED BICYCLES."
§ 1. PURPOSE
§ 2. DEFINITIONS
§ 3. REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
SECTION V."IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE."
§ 1. REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
§ 2. TRAINING
§ 3. REPORTING
SECTION VI. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE
EXHIBIT A
APPENDICES A-12
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance (con't)
An Ordinance of (Jurisdiction (e.g. the City of )] Providing for Bicycle Parking and Adding to the
[Jurisdiction] [Zoning/Planning/Municipal/County] Code.
SECTION I.
[ARTICLE/CHAPTER] OF THE [JURISDICTION] [ZONING/PLANNING/MUNICIPAL/COUNTY
CODE] IS HEREBY ADDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
"BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS."
41. PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to provide sufficient safe and convenient bicycle parking in
New Developments and Major Renovations to encourage bicycling as a form of transportation, reducing
traffic congestion, air pollution, wear and tear on roads, and use of fossil fuels, while fostering healthy
physical activity.
§ 2. DEFINITIONS: Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:
(A) "Bicycle Parking Space": A physical space that is a minimum of [2.5] feet in width by [6] feet in
length with a vertical clearance of at least [7] feet that allows for the parking of one bicycle, and if
located outside, is hard surfaced and well drained.
(B) "Bike Locker": A lockable enclosure consistent with industry standards that (i) can hold one
bicycle, (ii) is made of durable material, (iii) is designed to fully protect the bicycle against [insert
specific local weather concerns, e.g.: rain, snow, ice, high winds], (iv) provides secure protection
from theft, (v) opens sufficiently to allow bicyclists easy access, and (vi) is of a character and color
that adds aesthetically to the immediate environment.
(C) "Bike Rack": A device consistent with industry standards that (1) is capable of supporting a bicycle
in a stable position, (ii) is made of durable materials, (iii) is no less than [36] inches tall (from base
to top of rack) and no less than [1.5] feet in length, (iv) permits the securing of the bicycle frame
and one wheel with a U-shaped lock, and (v) is of a character and color that adds aesthetically to
the immediate environment.
(D) "In -Street Bicycle Parking": A portion of a vehicle parking lane or other area on a roadway that is
set aside forthe parking of bicycles.
(E) "Long -Term Bicycle Parking": Bicycle parking that is primarily intended for bicyclists who need
bicycle parking for more than 3 hours and is fully protected from the weather.
(F) "Long -Term Bicycle Parking Space": A Bicycle Parking Space that provides Long -Term Bicycle
Parking.
A-13 APPENDICES
(G) "Major Renovation": Any physical improvement of an existing building or structure, excluding
single-family dwellings and multi -family dwellings with 4 or fewer units, that requires a building
permit and has an estimated construction cost equal to or exceeding [$250,000], excluding cost
of (1) compliance with accessibility requirements for individuals with disabilities under
governing federal, state, or local law, and (2) seismic or other structural safety retrofit.
(H) "New Development": Any construction of a new building or facility that requires a building
permit, excluding single-family dwellings and multi -family dwellings with 4 or less units.
(I) "Short -Term Bicycle Parking": Bicycle parking primarily intended for bicyclists who need bicycle
parking for 3 hours or less.
(1) "Short -Term Bicycle Parking Space": A Bicycle Parking Space that provides Short -Term Bicycle
Parking.
§ 3. BICYCLE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: Short -Term and Long -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces shall
be required for all New Development and Major Renovations.
(A) Required Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces: All New Development and Major Renovations shall
provide at least the number of Short -Term and Long -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces identified in the
table in this subsection [Section II, § 3(A)]; however, the number shall not fall below a minimum
of [2] Short -Term and [2] Long -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces, regardless of other provisions herein,
except that multi -family dwellings that have private garages (or equivalent separate storage
space for each unit) are not required to provide any Long -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces. Where the
calculation of total required spaces results in a fractional number, the next highest whole number
shall be used. Up to half of the required Short -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces may be replaced with
Long -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces.
General Use
Category
Specific Use
Number of Short -Term Bicycle Number of Long -Term Bicycle
Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Required
Residential
Multi -Family Dwelling with
more than 4 units:
(a) without private garage
or equivalent separate
storage space for each unit
(b) with private garage
or equivalent separate
storage space for each unit
EXHIBIT A
(.05] per bedroom
or
[1] per (20] units
or
1.051 per bedroom
or
111 per (20] units
1.05] per bedroom
or
[1-4] per [4] units
None
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance (con'[)
General Use
Category
Specific Use
Number of Short -Term Bicycle
Parking Spaces Required
Number of Long -Term Bicycle
Parking Spaces Required
Commercial
Office Building
General Retail
Grocery
Restaurant
Parking Garage
Outdoor Parking lot
[1] per each [20,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
[1] per each [5,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
[1] per each (2,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
[1] per each (2,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
[2) spaces
[1) per [20) motor vehicle spaces
[1-1.5] per [10,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
[1] per [10,000-12,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
[1] per [10,000-12,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
[1) per [10,000-12,000] sq.ft.
of floor area
(1] per [20] motor vehicle spaces
(2) spaces
Civic
Non -assembly cultural (e.g.,
library, government buildings)
Assembly
(e.g., church, theater,
stadiums, parks)
Schools (K-12)
Colleges and Universities
[1) per each [8,000 -10,000)
sq. ft. of floor area
Spaces for [2-5] per cent of
maximum expected daily
attendance
(1] per each (20] students
of planned capacity
[1] per each [20] students
of planned capacity
[1 -1.5) per each [10-20]
employees
[1- 1.5) per each [20]
employees
[1] per each (10-20)
employees and [1) per each
[20) students of planned
capacity for grades 6-12
[1] per each [10-20]
employees and [1) per each
[10) students of planned
capacity or [1) per each
[20,000) sq. feet of floor area,
whichever is greater
Industrial
Manufacturing and Production,
Agriculture
[2] spaces (Can be increased at
discretion of Planning/Zoning
Administrator)
[1] per [20] employees
(B) If the New Development or Major Renovation is for a use not listed in the above table, the
number of Bicycle Parking Spaces required shall be calculated on the basis of a similar use, as
determined by the [Planning Director/Zoning Administrator].
(C) If the Major Renovation has an estimated construction cost of between [$250,000] and
[$1,000,000], excluding the cost of (1) compliance with accessibility requirements for individuals
with disabilities under governing federal, state, or local law, and (2) seismic or other structural
safety retrofit, the number of Bicycle Parking Spaces required by subsections [Section II, § (3)(A) -
(B)], shall be reduced by 50 percent; however, the minimum requirement of [2] short-term and
[2] long-term bicycle parking spaces shall still apply.
§ 4. BUILDING PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Prior to issuance of a building permit
for New Development or a Major Renovation, the submitted plans must include specific provisions for
bicycle parking that are consistent with the requirements of this Ordinance. No certificate of occupancy
for said building permit shall issue at the conclusion of the project until [Jurisdiction] finds that the
applicable provisions of this Ordinance have been complied with.
§ 5. EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION: In the event that the [Jurisdiction]
has authorized a permit holder to remove existing bicycle parking in the public right-of-way due to
construction, the permit holder shall replace such bicycle parking no later than the date of completion
of the construction. At least [7] days prior to removal of such bicycle parking, the permit holder shall
post, in the immediate vicinity of the bicycle parking area, a weather-proof notice, with a minimum type
size of [1] inch, specifying the date of removal. In the event that any bicycles remain parked on the date
of the removal, such bicycles shall be stored for a reasonable period, not less than [45] days, and a
conspicuous, weather-proof notice shall be placed as close as feasible to the site of the removed bicycle
parking containing information as to how to retrieve a removed bicycle.
If bicycle parking is likelyto be removed, pursuant to this section, for more than [120] days, it shall, to the
extent possible, be temporarily re-sited, in coordination with [insert appropriate department, such as
Department of Public Works], to a location as close to the original site as feasible, pending completion of
the construction. If the temporary site is not clearly visible from the original site, the permit holder shall
post a conspicuous, weather-proof notice in the immediate vicinity of the original site informing
bicyclists of the location of the temporary site.
§ 6. BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS - GENERAL:
(A) All Bicycle Parking Spaces shall be:
(1) well lit if accessible to the public or bicyclists after dark;
(2) located to ensure significant visibility by the public and building users, except in the case of
Long -Term Bicycle Parking that is located in secured areas;
(3) accessible without climbing more than one step or going up or down a slope in excess of
[12] percent, and via a route on the property that is designed to minimize conflicts with
motor vehicles and pedestrians.
(B) All In -Street Bicycle Parking and Bicycle Parking Spaces located in a parking facility shall be:
(1) clearly marked; and
(2) separated from motor vehicles by some form of physical barrier (such as bollards, concrete
or rubber curbing or pads, reflective wands, a wall, or a combination thereof) designed to
adequately protect the safety of bicyclists and bicycles.
EXHIBITA
APPENDICES A-14
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance (con't)
(C) AlI Bike Racks shall be located at least [36] inches in all directions from any obstruction, including
but not limited to other Bike Racks, walls, doors, posts, columns, or exterior or interior
landscaping.
(0)
Unless Bicycle Parking Spaces are clearly visible from an entrance, a sign indicating their location
shall be prominently displayed outside the main entrance to the building or facility, and
additional signs shall be provided as necessary to ensure easy way finding. A "Bicycle Parking"
sign shall also be displayed on or adjacent to any indoor room or area designated for bicycle
parking. All outdoor signs required by this subsection [Section II, § 6(0)] shall be no smaller than
[12] x [18] inches and utilize a type size of at least [2] inches. All indoor signs required by this
subsection [Section II, § 6(D)] shall be no smaller than [8] x [10] inches and utilize a type size of at
least [5/8] inch.
§ 7. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING ONLY: All
Short -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces shall contain Bike Racks and shall meet the following requirements,
in addition to the requirements in [Section II, § 3] above:
(A) Location:
(1) Short -Term Bicycle Parking must be located either (a) within [50] feet of the main public
entrance of the building or facility, or (b) no further than the nearest motor vehicle parking
space to the main public entrance (excluding parking for individuals with disabilities),
whichever is closer. If the New Development or Major Renovation contains multiple
buildings or facilities, the required Short -Term Bicycle Parking shall be distributed to
maximize convenience and use.
(2) Short -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces may be located either (a) on-site or (b) in the public
right-of-way (e.g., sidewalk or In -Street Bicycle Parking), provided that an encroachment
permit is obtained for the installation and the installation meets all other requirements of
[indicate the law governing encroachments on public rights-of-way]. If Bike Racks are
located on public sidewalks, they must provide at least [5] feet of pedestrian clearance, and
up to [6] feet where available, and be at least [2] feet from the curb.
(B) Bike Rack Requirements: Bike Racks used for Short -Term Bicycle Parking must be securely
attached to concrete footings, a concrete sidewalk, or another comparably secure concrete
surface, and made to withstand severe weather and permanent exposure to the elements.
A-15 APPENDICES
§ 8. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING ONLY: Long -
Term Bicycle Parking shall be provided in either (1) Bike Lockers or (2) indoor rooms or areas specifically
designated for bicycle parking (including designated areas of an indoor parking facility), and shall satisfy
the following requirements, in addition to those set forth in [Section II, § 3] above:
(A) Location: Long -Term Bicycle Parking may be located either on- or off-site. If located off-site, it
shall be no more than [300 feet] from the main public entrance.
(B) Requirements for Indoor Long -Term Bicycle Parking: Long -Term Bicycle Parking located in
designated indoor rooms or areas shall contain Bike Racks or comparable devices. Such rooms
shall be designed to maximize visibility of all portions of the room or designated area from the
entrance. Supplemental security measures (such as limiting access to a designated indoor bike
parking room to persons with a key, sma rt card, or code) are optional.
§ 9. MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING SPACE CREDITS:
(A) For every [6] Bicycle Parking Spaces provided, the number of required off-street motor vehicle
parking spaces (excluding parking spaces for individuals with disabilities) on a site shall be
reduced by [1] space.
(B) To encourage the installation of showers at non-residential sites, the number of required off-
street motor vehicle parking spaces for such sites shall be reduced as follows: A credit of [1] space
shall be provided for the first shower installed, with additional off-street motor vehicle parking
credits available at a rate of [1] space for each additional shower provided per [25] required
Bicycle Parking Spaces. In order to claim these credits, which shall be in addition to the bicycle
parking credits provided for in [Section II, § 9(A)], shower facilities must be readily available for
use by all employees of the New Development or Major Renovation.
§ 10. (optional) MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS: In the event that satisfying all of the
requirements of [Section II] would be (a) infeasible due to the unique nature of the site, or (b) cause an
unintended consequence that undermines the purpose of this Ordinance, a property owner (or
designee) may submit a written request to the [Planning Director/Zoning Administrator/other Local
Administrator or designee] fora modification of the requirements of [Section II]. The request shall state
the specific reason(s) for the request, provide supporting documentation, and propose an alternative
action that will allow the purposes of this Ordinance to be fulfilled as much as possible.
SECTION II
[ARTICLE/CHAPTER] OF THE [JURISDICTION] [ZONING/PLANNING/MUNICIPAL/COUNTY
CODE] IS HEREBY ADDED TO READ "BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING
FACILITIES."
§ 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of [Section III] is to provide sufficient safe and convenient bicycle parking in
parking facilities so as to encourage bicycling as a form of transportation, which in turn reduces traffic
EXHIBIT A
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance (con't)
congestion, air pollution, wear and tear on roads, and use of fossil fuels, while fostering healthy physical
activity.
§ 2. DEFINITIONS: The definitions set forth in [Section II, § 2] shall apply to [Section III], unless the
context clearly requires otherwise.
§ 3. LICENSING CONDITIONS: As a condition of the issuance or renewal of a license required by the
[Jurisdiction] for a parking facility, parking facilities shall provide [1] Bicycle Parking Space per each [20]
vehicle parking spaces provided, with a minimum of [6] Bicycle Parking Spaces. Where the calculation of
total required spaces results in a fractional number, the next highest whole number shall be used.
§ 4. LOCATION: All Bicycle Parking Spaces required by [Section III] shall be located in an area, preferably
on the ground floor, that (1) can be conveniently and safely accessed by bicycle and by foot in a way that
minimizes conflicts with motor vehicles, (ii) is not isolated, and (iii) maximizes visibility by parking facility
patrons and attendants. If the licensed parking facility has multiple entrances, the required Bicycle
Parking Spaces may be spread out among the multiple entrances. Bicycle Parking Spaces shall be
accessible without climbing more than one step or going up or down a slope in excess of [12] percent.
§ 5. BIKE RACKS: All Bicycle Parking Spaces required by [Section III] shall contain Bike Racks and shall be
well lit if accessible to the public or bicyclists after dark or if in an interior or darkened location. All Bike
Racks shall also provide a clearance of at least [36] inches in all directions from any obstruction
(including but not limited to other bike racks, walls, doors, posts, columns or landscaping), and shall be
separated from vehicles by some form of physical barrier (such as bollards, concrete or rubber curbing
or pads, reflective wands, a wall, or a combination thereof) designed to adequately protect the safety of
bicyclists and bicycles. All Bike Racks located outdoors shall also be securely attached to concrete
footings and made to withstand severe weather and permanent exposure to the elements.
§ 6. SIGNAGE: Parking facilities shall also install prominent signs, no smaller than [12] x [18] inches and
utilizing a type size of at least [2] inches, in or near each entrance that advertise the availability of bicycle
parking, and the location, if it is not visible from the entrance.
§ 7. CONTRACTUAL LIMITS ON LIABILITY: [Section III] shall not interfere with the rights of a parking
facility owner (or designee) to enter into agreements with facility users or take other lawful measures to
limit the parking facility's liability to users, including bicycle users, with respect to parking in the parking
facility, provided that such agreements or measures are otherwise in accordance with the requirements
of [this Ordinance] and the law.
SECTION III.
[ARTICLE/CHAPTER] OF THE [JURISDICTION] [ZONING/PLANNING/MUNICIPAL/COUNTY
CODE] I5 HEREBY ADDED TO READ "BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS
INVOLVING STREET CLOSURES."
§ 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of [Section IV] is to provide sufficient safe and convenient bicycle parking at
special events involving street closures to encourage bicycling as a form of transportation, which in turn
reduces traffic congestion, air pollution, wear and tear on roads, and use of fossil fuels, while fostering
healthy physical activity.
§ 2. CONDITIONS ON STREET CLOSURE PERMITS: As a condition of a permit for the closure of a street
for a special event in which the daily number of participants is projected to be [1,000) or more,
monitored bicycle parking shall be provided by the event sponsor (or a designee) for at least [1] % of
expected daily participants beginning [Y:: hour] before and ending [''/: hour] after the time of the event
each day of the event.
§ 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORED PARKING: Monitored bicycle parking shall include the
presence, at all times, of one attendant, or more as needed, to receive bicycles, dispense claim checks,
return bicycles, and provide security for all bicycles.
§ 4. LOCATION: All monitored bicycle parking shall be located within [500] feet of at least one regular
entrance or access point to the event.
§ 5. PUBLICITY AND SIGNAGE: All publicity, including signs, for the event shall state the availability of
monitored bicycle parking, its location, and cost, if any. All event maps shall include the location of
monitored bicycle parking. If monitored bicycle parking is not within eyeshot of each entrance, signs
shall be provided to ensure easy way finding.
§ 6. INSURANCE COVERAGE AND FEES: The event sponsor or designee must provide insurance
coverage for the monitored bicycle parking in case of damaged or stolen bicycles, and may charge users
a fee to cover the cost of providing the monitored parking.
SECTION IV.
[ARTICLE/CHAPTER] OF THE [ZONING/PLANNING/MUNICIPAL/COUNTY CODE] I5 HEREBY
ADDED TO READ "REMOVAL OF ABANDONED BICYCLES."
§ 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of [Section V) is to ensure the reasonably prompt removal of bicycles
abandoned in Bicycle Parking Spaces so as to encourage bicycling as a form of transportation, which in
turn reduces traffic congestion, air pollution, wear and tear on roads, and use of fossil fuels, while
fostering healthy physical activity.
EXHIBIT A
APPENDICES A-16
Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking Ordinance (con't)
§ 2. DEFINITIONS: The definitions set forth in [Section II, § 2] of this Ordinance shall apply to [Section
V], unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
§ 3. REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS: On [a quarterly basis], owners of property (or a designee) subject to
[Sections II or III of this Ordinance] shall remove, from all Bicycle Parking Spaces associated with their
property, including those located on the public right-of-way, bicycles that have been abandoned. A
bicycle shall be deemed to be abandoned if it has not been removed after having been tagged with a
notice of removal for [2] weeks for Short -Term Bicycle Parking Spaces or [4] weeks for Long -Term Bicycle
Parking Spaces. However, a bicycle shall not be deemed to be abandoned if the bicyclist and property
owner (or designee) have a written agreement regarding provision of long term storage covering the
time period in question. Abandoned bicycles may be donated to non -profits that reuse bicycles or may
be disposed of in any lawful manner.
SECTION V.
[ARTICLE/CHAPTER] OF THE [JURISDICTION] [ZONING/PLANNING/MUNICIPAL/COUNTY
CODE] IS HEREBY ADDED TO READ "IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE."
§ 1. REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES: The [Planning Director/Zoning Administrator and/or other
relevant local administrator(s)] [is/are] authorized to promulgate new and amend existing rules,
regulations, procedures or forms as necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of [this
Ordinance].
§ 2. TRAINING: [Jurisdiction] shall periodically make trainings or training materials available to
planners and other employees involved in the implementation and enforcement of [this Ordinance].
§ 3. REPORTING: The [Planning Director/Zoning Administrator] shall provide an annual report to the
[Adopting Body] regarding the implementation of this Ordinance that shall, at a minimum, include the
following information relevant to the preceding year: (1) the number of Short and Long -Term Bicycle
Parking Spaces created pursuant to [Sections II and 1111, and the number of events for which special
event bicycle parking was provided under [Section IV] ; (2) (if applicable) a brief summary of each
request for modification received and action taken in response thereto; and (3) any other information
learned that would improvefuture implementation of [this Ordinance] and its goals.
SECTION VI. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:
(A) All ordinances or parts thereof that conflict or are inconsistent with this Ordinance are repealed
to the extent necessary to give this Ordinance full force and effect.
(B) If any section or portion of this Ordinance is judicially invalidated for any reason, that portion
shall be deemed a separate and independent provision, and such ruling shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
A-17 APPENDICES
SECTION VII.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be effective [upon passage (insert other date if desired)]
("Effective Date"), except that:
(A) [Section II, § 3] ("Bicycle Parking Spaces Required"), and [Section II, § 4] ("Building Permits and
Certificates of Occupancy") shall only apply to New Development and Major Renovations for
which a building permit is issued on or after [120] days from the Effective Date.
(B) [Section I8] ("Bicycle Parking Requirements for Parking Facilities") shall apply to Parking Facilities
that were licensed prior to the Effective Date, and have less than [180) days remaining on their
license, as follows: [1/21 of the required number of Bicycle Parking Spaces shall be provided no
later than [120] days from the expiration of the parking facility's license, with full implementation
required no later than [180] days from the expiration of the parking facility's license.
(C) [Section IV] ("Bicycle Parking Requirements for Special Events Involving Street Closures") shall
not apply to events for which the temporary street closure was authorized pursuant to an
application submitted prior to the Effective Date.
EXHIBIT A
d
4
1 9 n
Dada
Korff
RePo>ler,
SR -4'.
„,6
•
Carpus
Chrsit hit
Airport
•
SR -8:;
• ••
•
. •
.
•
SR -10
Cabanss
Field Nas
C esti Naval
Station
EXHIBIT A
KEY
MAP
Appendix 1:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-18
SR -1
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
A-19
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
SR -1
11:
sserim
,‘1
River Hilb
County Club
k.,04.td
4k,
P'6kve0,Di. 6- -
10,2104•VeN. fer)...
y • -
•
" •
" •
•
fleeee •
SR -2,
C8. 52
q F •3,-t Martin
Country
e5tale
Palk
EXHIBIT A
SR -2
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-20
r
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
A-21
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
Hart
Cemetery
asate
tden 64c, 2.ot,
Fared 0 •
‘4,0
3 rr,
Costal Bend
Ste Veterans
Cm eery
EXHIBIT A
t 4
Its1 Of
nOfttL pop
^r
ifOte
P fb
'5"51,08 D r
HeY m Dr
70m
hioK. roe Rd
CMsolm
MCNorton Rel
me R^_ McNodon
EXHIBIT A
V)
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-22
SR -5
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
A-23
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
Koch
tetnery
2
tote
aat
SR -5
• • •
a a
•
taleLsu ,aaattot
• 4 •
EXHIBIT A
,,kylina.
3111pS',1'
Rd •
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-24
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
A-25
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
•hfiatabo ri•
held
II •
• •.
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
1,37.N
H Cross
C- elery
R• eHYI
", tatety.
bort
crPLi3
•
•
•
1
•
••
•
•
o� ai
Bkid
Pak
SR
A+ Nun c
Pak
EXHIBITA •
-
SR -7
Ct)tiattr,
tat
. .
,
. .
• .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
•
SR -8
Heti
P ty
/
g
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
* •
• •
• •
• •
•.•.
• •
•
• •
.•'.
.-*
te
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
•.
•
•
•
•
SR -9 •
•
•
•
•..
EXHIBIT A **...
0
V)
SR -8
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-26
SR -9
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
A-27
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• t'
•
••
i•re
• ,
4r
•
•
•
•
•
euttfold
Park
•
•
•
•
•
•
• SR -9
'
* • •
`5‘e• Gotha
•
• '
. 4.
$
.
•
• -,,., :', • ,
-!„ '.- .!... • .
.3i.. .
•
t , • .*'• •
• •
AN* •
• -.._ •
ii• ,-
..• . -,
4"• ,,, ' ,...
,i• ,..,, '
et!
6"'
oN
PopeS°utheark
,4^' 1 , A' '''
,.., C-'' •1'
Lem or
Pelt
ez-
Evetyn
Price Posh
,7.
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT A
Lincoln
Park
SR -10
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
A-28
SR -11
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
_7.42 Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
A-29
NORTH
0
•
SR -11
f Schamm
EM7063
Park
•-•,`
a
, _',4rmevaP,
P'ask
4!••,,„, •
•
• • 4
7
Lincoln
Part
0...4
....4..
44
•
SR -14 *--.
.
SR -14
EXHIBIT A
SR -15
SR - 1 2
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-30
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
A-31
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
SR -13
SR -15
EXHIBITA
EXHIBIT A
ISR -14
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-32
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
A-33
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
•
•
•
SR -12
•••
•
•
if
of•f
I
••
•
••
•
•
"'";ra'..
ss, •
4 n,
•
•
•
i
••
i
•
•. i
+•
9 •
' ��,
r
e
�r
SR -15
SR -13
,,4tte
v 14 {Rank
EXHIBIT A
Appendix L:
Priority Sport Routes
for Road Bikes
Routes
Central City Loop
Lamar Park Group
Guide
North Side Circuit
Oso Bay Loop
NORTH
A-34
CREDITS
Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization Staff:
Jeffrey Pollack, AICP
ENV SP, LEED AP BD+C
Transportation Planning Director
Daniel V. Carrizales
System Administrator
Elena J. Buentello, AICP
Transportation Planner
Brigida Gonzalez
Assistant Transportation Planning Director
& Title VI Coordinator
Victor Mendieta
GIS Manager
Vilma lasso Matthew Blankenship
Executive Secretary GIS Technician
Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization
5151 Flynn Parkway, Suite 404
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411-4318
Tel: (361) 884-0687 Fax: (361) 884-8529
E-mail: ccmpo@cctxmpo.us
Website: www.corpuschristi-mpo.org
Project Website: www.coastalbendinmotion.org
Direct support for this plan provided by:
City of Corpus Christi
IN
MEI
City of
Corpus
Christi
Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority
Technical assistance with this plan provided by:
Olivarri
=8 ASSOCIATES
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the
State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section
104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views
or policy of the U.S. Departmental Transportation.
11
11
.F s..
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
State of Texas } CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
County of Nueces } Ad # 1111180
PO #
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, this day personally came aeo i a l.4 Cn , who
being first duly sworn, according to law, says that she is LEGAL SALES REPRESENATIVE AND
EMPLOYEE OF THE PUBLISHER, namely, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, a daily newspaper
published at Corpus Christi in said City and State, generally circulated in Aransas, Bee, Brooks, Duval.
Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Live Oak, Nueces, Refugio, and San Patricio, Counties, and that the
publication of NOTICE OF PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE(S) NO which the annexed is a true copy,
was inserted in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times on:
CC-Corpus Christi Caller-Times 05/30/16 Mon
CC-Internet - caller.com 05/30/16 Mon
LEGAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE
On this ( day of 1. , 20 i(.4 1 certify that the attached document is a true
and exact copy made by publisher.
Notary Public, State of Texas
;$.*�1"Ya'';. MICHELLE JOYCE CABRERA
My Notary ID#124864183
%•• Expires March 19,2020
9 :5 P.V S I Nnr 910Z
CALLER-TIMES<< Monday,May 30,2016 a 3E
Legals
NOTICE OF PASSAGE OF
ORDINANCE(S)
*NO. 030861, Ordinance
amending MobilityCC, a
transportation element of
the Comprehensive Plan of
the City of Corpus Christi,by
adopting the Corpus Christi
Metropolitan Planning Orga-
nization (CCMPO) Strategic
Plan for Active Mobility,
Phase 1: Bicycle Mobility
Plan; providing for sever-
ance;providing for a repeal-
er clause; and providing for
publication.
NO. 030862, Ordinance
amending the Unified Devel-
opment Code("UDC"),upon
application by The Salvation
Army ("Owner"), by chang-
ing the UDC Zoning Map in
reference to a 2.42 acre tract
of land,being all of Lots 1-16,
Block 6 and a 15 foot wide
alley, Bay View No. 3, from,
the "RS-6" Single-Family 6
District to the "RS-6/SP"
Single.Family 6District with
a Special Permit for a social
service use;
NO. 030863, Ordinance
amending the Unified Devel-
opment Code ("UDC"),
upon application by Magel-
lan Terminals Holdings, LP
("Owner"), by changing the
UDC Zoning Map in refer-
ence to Lots 22-26,34-42 and
55-56, Country Club Place,`
from the"RS-6"Single-Fam-"
ily 6 District, "ON" Office
District and "RM-1" Multi-
family 1 District to the "IL"
Light Industrial District;and
NO. 030864, application by
Yun W. Hwang ("Owner"),
by changing the UDC Zoning
Map in reference to Lot 1-B,
Block 1, Padre Island No. 1,
together with that portion of
Estrada Drive (now closed),
adjacent to said Lot 1-B,
Block 1, Padre Island No. 1,
from the "RM-3" Multifam-
ily 3 District to the"RS-TH/-
PUD" Townhouse District
with a Planned Unit Devel-
opment
evelopment Overlay;, amending
the Comprehensive Plan to
account for any deviations;
and providing for a repealer
clause and publication.
These ordinances were
passed and approved on
second reading by the Cor-
pus Christi City Council on
May 24,2016.
/s/Rebecca Huerta
City Secretary -