Loading...
TC 08-01-94 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 /665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner H 4 RE: August Meeting and Agenda DATE: July 25, 1994 There will be a meeting of the Frederick County Transportation Committee at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 1, 1994, in the conference room of the Old Frederick County Court House, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. The Transportation Committee will discuss the following items: AGENDA 1) Presentation Of The Bicycle Plan For The City Of Winchester And Frederick County. 2) Other - September Public Hearing. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 ITEM #1 BICYCLE PLAN FOR WINCHESTER AND FREDERICK COUNTY In April 1993, an ad hoc committee was created to develop a comprehensive bicycle plan for the City of Winchester and Frederick County. The goal was to create a plan that addressed the needs of our area, and developing standards that were consistent with the VDOT Bicycle Advisory Guidelines. The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) completed a final draft of this plan in March 1994. The BAC would like this plan to be recognized by the City of Winchester and Frederick County through the update of each localities Comprehensive Plan. The BAC presented this plan to the Frederick County Planning Commission in June. The Planning Commission directed staff to allow the BAC to present this plan to the Transportation Committee and the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee. The Planning Commission has asked for a recommendation from each committee prior to the inclusion of the bicycle plan into the Comprehensive Plan update. Included under this agenda item is a copy of the proposed Bicycle Plan For The City Of Winchester And Frederick County for your review. Please take the opportunity to examine this plan prior to the August 1, 1994 meeting. Representatives from the BAC will be attending this meeting to present the bicycle plan. Staff asks that the Transportation Committee have the BAC address all comments and concerns during this meeting, and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding this matter. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to: Individuals, groups and agencies that participated in the preparation of this plan and The Winchester -Frederick County Bicycle Plan Advisory Committee: John P. Lewis, Chairman Bruce Santilli, VDOT, Subcommittee Co -Chair Mike Perry, Winchester Wheelmen, Subcommittee Co -Chair Mollie Grunmeier, Sarah Zane Bicycle Co., Subcommittee Co -Chair Steve Gyurisin, Chamber of Commerce, Subcommittee Co -Chair Dr. Dennis Wise, Winchester Parks and Recreation, Board Chair Robert Roper, Frederick County Parks and Recreation, Board Chair Nancy Rudolph, Lord Fairfax Community College Harley Knowles, Shenandoah University George Caley, Winchester Medical Center Ruth Riemenschneider, At -Large Citizen, County John Davis, At -Large Citizen, City James W. Rhodes, At -Large Citizen, City Dr. Neil Crowe, At -Large Citizen H. K. Benham. III, At -Large Citizen Winchester Planning Department Frederick County Planning Department Winchester Parks and Recreation Department Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction......................................................................1 II. Definitions.........................................................................2 III. Existing Conditions..........................................................6 IV. Assess Demand Statement................................................7 V. Goals and Objectives........................................................7 VI. Standards for Bikeway Location/Type ............................9 VII. Proposed Bikeway Network............................................10 VIII. Bikeway Design for Safety and Convenience.................12 IX. Increasing Bicycle Safety Through Public Informationand Education.............................................19 X. Keeping the Plan Current................................................20 Appendices AppendixA.......................................................................21 AppendixB.......................................................................25 AppendixC.......................................................................27 AppendixD.......................................................................33 11 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Winchester and Frederick County are fortunate to have a substantial number of physical features conducive to bicycle riding. Variable topography, a mild climate, abundance ofroads in rural settings, and beautiful views are just some of the positive features which contribute to widespread use of bicycles in this area. Recent increases in this use have occurred as a result of high fuel prices, costs associated with automobile ownership, and a public increasingly conscious of environmental and health issues. A large percentage of bicycle travel in the area is associated with Shenandoah University, Lord Fairfax Community College, Clearbrook and Sherando Regional Parks, Winchester City Park, BMX Bike Track, Handley, James Wood Ridge and Sherando High Schools and historical sites. Increased bicycle use also means increased potential for arise in bicycle accidents. Some ofthe more obvious factors attributing to unsafe bicycle travel are the general lack of facilities in the City and County, including bike lanes, roadway bike paths, paved shoulders, bike routes, bike trails and supplemental facilities such as bicycle parking. Consequently, bicyclists must cope with the existing road network and parking facilities which present numerous hazards and physical barriers. Bicycle riding offers numerous advantages over other modes of transportation. These include the following: (1) energy conservation; (2) nonpolluting; (3) economical; (4) limited space requirements; (5) minimum congestion; and (6) healthful form of exercise. Because the bicycle is a desirable and viable form oftransportation, the main purpose of this plan is to identify measures to enhance bicycle safety by providing a safe and efficient bikeway system linking the City and County, and to increase bicycle awareness among the general public. This plan is a framework for guiding future decisions in the City and County for both specific physical improvements and programs aimed at improving bicycle safety. To be effective, bicycle transportation planning must be conducted in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Recently constructed and proposed VDOT road projects have not included bicycle facility improvements. This is due to a VDOT policy requiring that a particular road segment be identified in a locally adopted comprehensive bicycle plan before a bicycle facility can be designed and constructed as part of the roadway. With the adoption of this plan, the likelihood of VDOT participating in the construction of bicycle facilities will greatly increase. All bicycle activity falls into two major categories: utilitarian and recreational trips. Persons engaged in either of these have different objectives; as a result, elements of bikeway planning and design must respond to different needs in each category. For the utilitarian bicyclists, the objective is not a trip, but reaching a specific destination such as a shopping center, school, or work place. The bicycle is merely a vehicle for making the trip, although secondary objectives such as exercise and pleasure may influence the choice of the vehicle. The utilitarian cyclist, while appreciating scenic bikeways where they coincide with specific travel lines, places highest priorities on directness of bikeways, acceptable grade profiles and minimized 1 delay or inconveniences. For the recreational cyclist (i.e. tourists, mountain, physical fitness and pleasure riders), the trip itself is the objective. Scenic bikeways with meanders, overlooks, points of interest and challenges are desirable features. Emphasis will be given to providing a well designed, safe bikeway system to serve the utilitarian and recreational trips in the urban areas by providing a network which permits access to trip attractors in the City and County. In the rural portions of the County the emphasis will be on designating safe bikeways which serve both access to trip attractors in the outlying part ofthe County as well as provide linkage to the City, towns and County urban areas. If the opportunity exists, alternative bikeways should be pursued, such as along proposed greenway parks, and abandoned railroad and utility rights-of-way. These corridors could be utilized to connect bikeways, which otherwise could not have been connected because of physical barriers, costs, or availability. In addition to plans regarding a bikeway system in the City and County, education of bicyclists and motorists, bicycling safety, maintenance, law enforcement and supplemental bicycling facilities, such as parking, fall within the scope of this plan. There are many bicyclists in the community but before a safe and efficient bicycle system is realized, a major change in attitude as well as a significant financial investment will be required. The adoption of this plan is just an initial step and will require interest and participation of many agencies, organizations and residents to ensure implementation. II. DEFINITIONS Below are some definitions for basic terms that will be used throughout this plan. Bicycle - A vehicle having two tandem wheels, propelled solely by human power, upon which a person or persons may ride. Bicycle Facility - A general term denoting bikeways and other provisions to accommodate bicycling, including roadway improvements, signage, parking, etc. Bikeways - Any road, street, path, or way which is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use ofbicycles or are to be shared with other modes of transportation. Bikeways can be divided into three (3) basic categories for planning purposes: A) Separate Facilities - bike lanes, roadway bike paths, paved shoulders; B) Shared Facilities - bikeway where bicyclists and motor vehicles share the same roadway; and C) Bike Trails. Bike Lanes - These facilities consist of portions of roadways which have been designated for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles. 2 Appropriate signage and pavement markings are usually provided in conjunction with these bikeways. These facilities are usually located along moderate to high volume roadways which connect major trip attractors, and lane markings are used to differentiate the areas assigned to bicyclists. To provide this type of facility, street pavement must be widened or the number of lanes or median width reduced. Potential advantages include a higher predictability of bicyclist movement, increased directness oftravel and continuity, and accommodation ofbicyclists in higher volume travel corridors. City and County Urban Area bike lanes along roads with or without on -street parking should be a minimum of Y wide. The bike lanes in the County Rural Area should also be a minimum of Y wide (See Figures #1, 2, & 3). Source for Figures #1-7 and 9-12: VDOT Bicycle Advisory Committee's "A Virginia Guide for Bicycle Facility Planning" Bicycle Lanes Motor vehicle lams Bike lane Width: varies Width: 5'-6' Bike Lane on Streets With Parking Figure #2 I I I Motor vehicle larks Bike lane Parking Width: varies Width: 5-6' Width: varies Bike Lanes on Curbed Streets (curb & gutter) Fic"Iro ff 3 I I I e t Motor vehicle lane Bike lane Width: varies Width: 6' with 4' to the left of the gutter 3 Separate Bike Paths - These facilities are physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by open space or barriers, within the road right-of-way and are usually located along high volume or high speed traffic corridors. These pathways are intended exclusively for bicycle use and pedestrian use is discouraged. Potential advantages of roadway bike paths include directness and continuity of travel, recreational opportunities, and the removal ofbicyclist from potential vehicle/bicycle conflicts. Potential disadvantages include high cost of construction, pedestrianibicycle conflicts, acquisition problems, and difficulty of maintenance. These facilities should be a minimum 5' wide for one-way travel and a minimum 10' wide for two-way travel (See Figure #4). Seperate Bicycle Paths Figure #4 Two way bicycle path Width: 10'min *Assume pedestrians will use facility Paved Shoulder - These facilities consist ofpaved portions ofthe traveled ways that are primarily intended for the accommodation of stopped vehicles for emergency use, and for lateral support ofbase and surface course. This type facility should be considered along roadways designated for improvements to accommodate safer bicycle travel when a bike lane or a roadway bike path is not possible because of limited right-of-way or financial constraints (See Figure #S). Shr%IIIrlert-- Fi Motor Vehicle Lane Shoulder Width: varies Width: 4'-8' Bike Routes - These facilities are located on roads where no provision is made for physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles and are marked only by bicycle route designation signs. These facilities are used primarily to (1) provide linkages to trip attractor areas and (2) provide facilities for recreational purposes. In most cases, no improvements are made to enhance safety unless it is part of regular road maintenance; however, bicyclists usually interpret such signed routes as safer than other roads, so any designation must be carefully considered. Bike Routes in the City and County Urban Areas may be designated along roadways with a minimum 14' wide right travel lane and in the County Rural Areas along roadways with a 10' wide right travel lane. In some cases because of fiscal or financial constraints, a bike route may be appropriate in lieu of a separated facility (bike lane, roadway bike path, or paved shoulder); however, the roadway must meet the width requirements above (See Figure # ). 4 (*b BIKE ROUTE Figure #6 Bike Trail - is a bikeway which utilizes public lands or other rights-of-way not along public roads. In some locations there are opportunities, such as along greenway corridors and abandoned railroad rights-of-way, to construct bike trails to accommodate bicycle travel. Although it is generally unacceptable to mix pedestrians and bicycles, in some instances the lack of viable alternatives and limited land requires that pedestrians be allowed to utilize these facilities (See Figure #7). Figure # 7 Recreational Bicyclist -this bicyclist's objective is not necessarily reaching a specific destination, but instead to exercise and enjoy the scenery. Scenic roadways with meanders, overlooks, and points of interest are usually desirable features. Rights -of -Ways - A term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually in a strip, publicly acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes. Trip Attractors - Particular areas or locations that offer trip destination points to the bicyclist such as the university, schools, parks, natural areas, community facilities, commercial centers, points of interests, and other activity centers. Trip Generators - Particular areas or locations, usually residential areas, where bicycle trips originate. Utilitarian Bicyclist - This type of bicyclist's objective is to reach a specific destination such as work or school. This type of bicyclist places importance on the direct bikeways, acceptable grades and minimization of delays. III. EXISTING CONDITIONS Until now, neither the city nor the county has had any official bicycle plan. The purpose of this plan is to develop a comprehensive bicycle system for the Winchester and Frederick County area. Since there is substantial bicycle use in both the city and county, a joint plan was pursued to promote the coordination of cycling facilities and educational efforts. Currently, the only bicycle facilities that exist are a mountain bike trail and B.M.X. track in Jim Barnett Park, which are designed for recreational use, bicycle racks at schools, parks, some area businesses and the Winchester Medical Center. In addition to these bicycle facilities, "Share the Road" signs have been placed on Middle Road from the Winchester/Frederick County border to the Frederick County/Shenandoah County border and on Apple Pie Ridge Road from Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School to the Virginia/West Virginia border. In both jurisdictions "Bike Rodeos" are sponsored by businesses, schools and civic organizations. Frederick County has recently received $171,000 in ISTEA Enhancement Funds for the construction of a 2.45 mile bicycle facility to serve several residential areas in the southern section of the county. This bikeway has been designed to link residential development and park land on theNorth side of Rt. 277 with Sherando High School and established park land on the South side of Rt. 277. Sherando High School and Sherando Park represent a focal point of activity for the residents living in the urban development area of southern Frederick County. When completed, this bikeway will have a direct benefit for 642 planned or completed housing units, with the potential future expansion of the bikeway impacting over 3,669 housing units. In western Frederick County, which is primarily rural, the topography and dangerous roadways cause accessibility problems for many bicyclists. A lack of community awareness as it relates to existing bicycle activity creates many safety hazards for cyclists. Through implementation of a bicycle safety education program, we will provide a safer environment for bicyclists. There are numerous businesses, educational institutions, historical sites and recreational areas in the city and county which are virtually inaccessible to bicyclists. The addition of bicycle facilities will provide increased and safer accessibility for bicyclists. This bicycle system, developed with the cooperation of the City of Winchester and Frederick County, will undoubtedly increase the utilitarian and recreational bicycle use in the Northern Shenandoah Valley. IV. ASSESS DEMAND STATEMENT In developing a potential bikeway network, a number of factors were analyzed. First, a survey taken by the Winchester/Frederick County Bicycle Advisory Committee resulted in a return of 335 questionnaires (Refer to Appendix D, page 33). The survey concluded that the lack ofbicycle facilities and safety concerns restricted most riders from riding a bicycle to work, shop, or school. Suggestions for particular bicycle routes were Routes 50, 522, and 11 as entrance and exits to the City of Winchester; second, bicycle trip attractors and generators were identified throughout the City and County. Because of lack of additional data, identification was based in part on observation and part intuitive judgment. Although some changes in trip generators may occur, the overall location of trip attractors is expected to remain static. Finally, the Bicycle Plan Advisory Panel identified roadways that are heavily utilized by the bicycling community. V. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Bicycle Network and Coordination Goal 1: Provide a comprehensive and coordinated regional bikeway system which is responsive to a wide range of bicyclist characteristics Objective: Develop a bikeway system that meets or exceeds VDOT and AASHTO standards. Objective: Provide a bikeway system which serves commuter, utilization and recreational bicyclists' needs by coordinating County, City, University, and national bikeways. Objective: Develop and maintain a bikeway system which provides safe access to trip attractors such as the university, schools, parks, natural areas, community facilities, commercial centers, points of interest and other activity centers. Objective: Integrate the bikeway system into planning for other modes of transportation and physical development. Objective: To provide an alternative means of transportation to historical and scenic significant areas within the region. Bicycle Design for Safety and Convenience Goal 2: Provide a bikeway system that is safe and convenient for users Objective: Develop a bikeway system that minimizes potential conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles, pedestrians, and other bicycles. Objective: Provide adequate signage, bikeway markings and other physical improvements along bikeways to ensure safe and easy use by bicyclists and alert motorists. Objective: Provide all bikeways with riding surfaces free of obstructions; maintain all bikeways free of trash, gravel, and other hazards. Objective: Develop improved methods of bicycle accident data gathering, analysis and retrieval capability. Objective: Provide bicycling facilities that consider the needs of commuting bicyclists by providing secure parking facilities. Increasing Bicycle safety through Public Information and Education Goal 3: Inform and educate the general public of bicycle advantage, bicycle facilities, and regulations Objective: Develop a comprehensive public information and education program to raise the community's awareness and improve the safety and enjoyment of bicycle riding. Objective: Effectively inform motorists and pedestrians of their responsibility in relation to bicycle traffic. Objective: Effectively educate bicyclists on the "rules of the road" and bicycle safety. Objective: Support law enforcement of bicycle regulations. Objective: Develop a map of bikeways to be made available to the public. Financing of Facilities Goal 4: Provide a comprehensive bikeway system that is feasible and cost effective Objective: Establish priorities for bikeway development consistent with funding priorities while maintaining flexibility to develop any segment of the bikeway system as special opportunities permit. Objective: Develop bikeways which are cost efficient in terms of construction vs potential benefits provided. Objective: Maintain awareness of all potential funding sources. Objective: Support establishment of funding sources for maintenance of bicycle facilities. 8 VI. STANDARDS FOR BIKEWAY LOCATION/TYPE The guidelines below were also utilized to evaluate potential bikeway locations and types. There will be cases where these guidelines will dictate a certain facility, location or type; however, it is recognized that because of costs, limited right-of-ways or other factors, these guidelines will sometimes be impossible to satisfy and compromises are expected. Nevertheless, the City and County should strive to locate and design facilities that meet the guidelines below whenever practical. These guidelines were primarily developed from the "AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities" and VDOT comments. CONTINUITY. Incomplete street networks, barriers, hazards and other impediments can restrict continuous bicycle travel. Bikeways should be located on roads that offer continuity for several miles. DIRECTNESS. Direct bikeways to trip attractors should be developed. This is of particular importance to utilitarian riders. ACCESS. Bikeways should be located where they will be accessible to the intended users. If they are inaccessible due to time, distance, barriers, or other factors, they will not be used. ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED. This standard is frequently given greater weight than others in locating bicycle facilities. In Appendix A is a draft matrix developed for the FHWA Manual "Selecting Highway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles," which recom- mends the facility type based on traffic volume, speed, type of user, and other factors. At such a time that VDOT adopts facility type recommendations, they will supersede the above. ROADWAY WIDTH. Given adequate payment width, an otherwise undesirable road may become useful. Although existing wide streets for bicycle use are most desirable, facilities where improvements are possible should be considered. Bikeways on existing rights-of-way may be in the form of bike lanes, roadway bike paths, paved shoulders, and bike routes. The Virginia Department of Transportation's guidelines for recommended width of various types of bikeways can be found in the definition section of this plan. To minimize costs, use of existing easements, streets, or right-of- ways should be encouraged when feasible. (See Figures #1 through #5, Pages 3 & 4) UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. In addition to bicycle facilities along roadways, consideration should be given to creating facilities along utility right-of-ways, particularly abandoned railroad right- of-ways. SAFETY. Bicycle safety is of utmost importance. The most inexperienced bicyclist may not feel safe on high volume and high speed roadways regardless of safety improvements. However, a more experienced cyclist may prefer these facilities because of directness. Areas of high accident potential can sometimes be minimized through design. The cost and benefits of providing facilities should be weighed against designating alternative routes. 0 TRUCK AND BUS TRAFFIC. Trucks and other large vehicles adversely effect bicycle travel due to their width and aerodynamics. Buses often utilize the right portion of the travel way and shoulder to pickup riders. This portion ofthe roadway is also often used by bicyclists and the potential for bicycle/bus conflicts are increased on roadways with high bus traffic. Roads containing a high volume of either of these vehicles should be avoided if possible. ON -STREET PARKING. Roads where on -street parking is allowed should be avoided as bikeways. However, in the City it may be necessary to designate bikeways along roads that allow on - street parking. In these cases, design measures should be used to minimize conflicts (see On -Street Parking, Figure #2, Page 3). ATTRACTIVENESS. Scenic value is particularly important to the recreational bicyclist, and facilities should be located in scenic areas to the extent practical. Use of flood plains and natural greenways should be encouraged as part of the bicycle network. MAINTENANCE. Bicycle facilities should be located in areas where they can be regularly and easily maintained. Arterial and collector roads have the best potential for meeting this standard. MARKINGS. Signing and marking ofbikeways must be uniform and consistent ifbikeways are to command the respect of the public and provide safety to the users. All signing and marking of bikeways must be warranted by use and need. Basic principals and standards for uniform signing of bikeways is available through the Virginia Department of Transportation. SECURITY. Both bicycles and bicyclists are vulnerable to criminal acts; security needs to be considered in the location and design of facilities. Secure bicycle parking facilities should be provided at public destination points. PAVED SHOULDERS. Roadway shoulders for bikeways should preferably be 5 to 6 feet wide. This provides ample width for bicycle traffic, yet it is narrow enough for vehicle traffic to blow the area free of debris. Shoulder areas against a curb face must be a 5 -foot minimum width or 4 feet from the longitudinal joint between the concrete gutter and pavement to the shoulder stripe. Five foot shoulders are required from the face of a guardrail or other roadside barrier. VII. PROPOSED BIKEWAY' NETWORK A. A comprehensive map showing the location of all designated bikeways has been inserted in the back of this plan as Appendix B. Also included, as Appendix C, is a complete inventory of the bikeways outlined in this plan. B. SPOT IMPROVEMENTS' Often, a community's existing street network can be made considerably less 1 The Virginia Department of Transportation, Bicycle Advisory Committee, "A Virginia Guide for Bicycle Facility Planning," pp. 59-61. 10 hazardous and more convenient for bicycling through small, relatively inexpensive "spot" improvements. Spot improvements may be made to drainage grates, street pavements, intersections, pavement markings, railroad crossings, traffic signals, bicycle parking and signs. Such improvements are generally undertaken independent of, but may be included within, larger street improvement projects. 1. Street stormwater drainage grates can be a serious hazard for bicyclists. Grates with drainage slots parallel to the roadway can catch a bicycle wheel and cause the bicyclist to be thrown to the ground. Parallel slot grates should be identified and then modified or replaced. Welding steel straps or bars perpendicular to the slots will make existing parallel slot grates safer. Parallel slot grates can be replaced with safer grates having short angled slots or honey comb shaped inlets, or curb -face inlets, without a loss in their efficiency to carry water away from the area. 2. Since bicyclists have narrow, high pressure tires and little shock absorption they are greatly affected by pavement surface conditions. Rough, bumpy or broken street pavement will make bicycling uncomfortable, can damage bicycle wheels or cause flat tires, and can cause a bicycle to fall (probably into traffic). Debris on the road surface, and gravel or sand deposited from nearby driveways, construction sites, or from ice and snow control, can also pose a hazard to bicyclists. Road construction and repair efforts, particularly patching of utility cuts, should provide a smooth finish surface. Street sweeping programs should require extra attention be given to removing debris from the right edge of the road pavement or paved shoulder. 3. Most bicycle/motor vehicle accidents occur at street intersections. Problems obstructed visibility can be a factor in many of these accidents. Improving visibility at intersections may be relatively simple, and involve the removal, relocation or lowering of signs, fences, and vegetation that are obstructions. For other, more substantial obstructions, warning signs or signals may be the only short term means of improving safety. Bicyclists waiting at intersections can also benefit from improvements that provide refuge areas sheltered from through or right turning vehicles. 4. Railroad tracks which run diagonal to the roadway can catch a bicyclist's front wheel and cause a fall. Paving an additional area on the outside of the crossing provides bicyclists with greater riding area so that they can adjust their path to cross the tracks at a more perpendicular angle. Warning signs and/or pavement markings should be used to alert bicyclists of the tracks and direct them to 11 the perpendicular path crossing. An alternative, which increases bicycle safety and reduces long term maintenance costs, is the installation of a rubberized railroad crossing mat around the tracks. To save costs, sections of the material could be installed only in the outside lane areas where bicyclists tend to ride. Pavement markings should be used to direct bicyclists to the crossing section. 5. Most demand -actuated traffic signals are unresponsive to bicycles. At red lights, bicyclists must either wait until a motor vehicle arrives to trip the signal or ignore the light and take their chances. Consequently, unresponsive signals can cultivate dangerous bicycling habits. However, some new designs for signal detectors, such as the modified quadruple loop (CalTrans Type D), are more responsive to bicycles. Standard loops can be tuned to amplify the detection of bicycles. The right edge of standard rectangular loops is often sensitive enough to detect a bicycle which is stopped directly over it. Some jurisdictions, such as San Diego, CA, have marked the right edge with special stencils that indicate exactly where bicyclists should stand to activate the signal. 6. Pavement markings and signs can provide relatively easy and inexpensive improvements for bicycle convenience and safety. Like motorists, bicyclists can benefit from signs providing directions, destinations, cautions and warnings. Signs such as "Share the Road," that are directed to both motorists and bicyclists can also improve the bicycling environment. While warning signs are not suitable fixes for serious safety hazards, they can be quite valuable in the short term, until the hazard can be permanently corrected. Special pavement markings can be used for marking hazards, bike lanes trail crossings and traffic signal detector loops. However, thermo-plastic tape gets very slippery when wet and should not be used where bicyclists are likely to ride over it. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices should be consulted when considering signs and pavement markings for any street or bikewayuse. VIII. BIKEWAY DESIGN FOR SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE During the planning of bikeways, measures must be taken to ensure that the facility is designed for safety and convenience. Below are standards to be followed, when appropriate, in designing bikeways. INTERSECTIONS. Controlling devices such as traffic signals, signs and pavement markings can be designed to minimize conflicts at intersections. The design of intersections is crucial because of the potential conflicts that may arise due to the relative differences in speeds of motor vehicles and bicycles and the low visibility of bicycles. 12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS. Stopping sight distances for bicycles should be considered in the design of clearance intervals especially on down grades. A bicycle speed of 10 mph and a perception of 2.5 seconds should be used for this purpose. The possibility of locating detectors for traffic actuated signals in the bicyclist's path should be considered. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS. Traffic control signs may be classified either as regulatory, warning, or guide signs. Signs should be located sufficiently in advance of the conditions they indicate to permit the bicyclist to take the necessary actions. Warning signs should be kept to a minimum so that the possibility that they will be ignored due to overuse is reduced. Possible standard heights and widths of typical bike signs are indicated in Figure #8. Additional signage is not required around Bicycle Route Signs ter. 76 67/5 41A '11111 dia 24" x 18" 18" x 24" 12" x 18" Signs for Bicycle Lanes 24" x 30" O IGHT ANE 24" x 30" ;L11111 BIKE LANE 12" x 18" 13 BEGIN RIGHT TURN UNE YIELD TO BIKE LANE 12" x 18" 36" X 30" Warning Signs �il NZ, 30" x 30" Bicycle Crossing SHIM rR 18" x 18" Roadway Signs Bicycle Trail Signs 30" x 30" 18" x 18" 24" x 18" 12" x 9" Hazardous Condition Signs for Other Facilities KEEP USE ' YIELD LEFT RIGHT f PED TO SIGNAL LLEDS 12" x 18" 12" x 18" 12" x 18" Other WATCH FOR BIKES Source: Transportation Research Board NCHRP Synthesis 186: Supplemental Advance Warning Devices BIKEWAY NARROW. 18" x 18" Parking 24" x 24" 12" x 18" Bicycle Bicycle Prohibition Parking Area Virginia's "Share the Road" 9THE ARE ROAD Source: VDOT Traffic Engineering Division memorandum TE -225 - "Share the Road" Bicycle Signs 14 PAVEMENT MARKINGS. Pavement markings may be more useful for bicyclists as compared to road signs since they are more directly within the bicyclist's cone of vision. They may take the form of line patterns, lane lines and traverse lines. In addition, word and symbol messages may be used on bike lanes. Figures #9, #10 and #11 (Pages 13-15) provide examples of line patterns and word and symbol messages. Lane lines follow normal highway practice. Word and Symbol Pavement Markings for Bicycle Facilities 4 T' -L- 4' T 2o' 6' I 6' Figure #9 15 Typical Pavement Markings: Designated bicycle lane, two-way traffic with parking and low right turn volume. Figure #10 16 Intersection Pavement Markings: Designed bicycle lane with left turn area, heavy turn volumes, parking, one-way traffic or decided roadway. Figure #11 17 ROADWAY SURFACES. Pavement surface quality and smoothness is important because bicycles do not have as much shock -absorbing capacity as motor vehicles. Standards for materials have not been established because construction details will depend on the soil bearing capacity and other conditions particular to the site. Construction joints should be saw cut to provide a smooth ride. Surfaces should also be skid resistant. Broom or burlap finishes are preferred over trowel finishes. If a shared roadway or paved shoulder, the surface material should be smooth. DRAINAGE. A minimum cross slope of 2% should be provided for all new construction. Drainage grate inlets and utility covers should be flush with the road surface. Parallel bar grate inlets are particularly dangerous to bicyclists. These should be replaced by bicycle safe inlets. When this is not immediately possible, steel cross straps or bars should be welded perpendicular to the parallel bars to provide a maximum safe opening between straps. This should only be considered as a temporary correction. Curb inlets should be used on all new construction and should replace old grates whenever possible on existing roads. ON -STREET PARKING. Bikeways along streets with on -street parking should be designed in a manner that minimized conflict. Additional road width should be provided adjacent to on -street parking. Figure #12 indicates possible design improvements. Example of Bike Lane and Parking Combination Figure #12 l I I I I I � Motor vehicle lanes Bike la= Parking Width: varies Width. 5'-6' Width: varies LIGHTING. Lighting for bikeways on existing rights-of-way can be served by the existing lighting system. Lighting of bike trails should be considered. TRASH RECEPTACLES. Trash receptacles should be provided along all bikeways. PARKING. Parking accommodations should be based on observed need. Ideal capacity is 110% of peak parking demand. Parking should be provided at major trip attractors. Parking facilities should be designed so that they do not bend wheels or damage other bicycle parts. Bicycle thefts are common and bicyclists need parking racks that offer good security. Bike racks should be tamper -proof or accommodate the new high security U-shaped bike locks. Covered parking should be considered for those bicyclists who ride in all weather conditions. Facilities should be located so that bicycles will not be damaged by motor vehicles, and so they won't interfere with normal pedestrian or vehicle traffic. In addition, the interfacing of bicycle travel with public transit should be considered. The provision of permitting racks on buses to carry bicycles should also be considered. 18 BARRIER POSTS. Barrier posts may be used to limit vehicle traffic on a bike path; however, when placed in a bike path, they often become a hazard to the cyclist. Often a cyclist does not expect them and they may be hard to see. When used, they should be spaced wide enough for easy passage by bicyclists. Other solutions to discourage motor vehicles should be examined. The most obvious would be adequate signing to inform the motorist. One successful method used in Eugene, Oregon is for the bike path to branch into two narrow bike paths just before it reaches the roadway. This makes it more difficult for the motor vehicle to access the bike path. IX. INCREASING BICYCLE SAFETY THROUGH PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION Comprehensive public information and education programs need to be implemented to raise the community's awareness and improve the safety of bicycle riding. In both jurisdictions "Bike Rodeos" are sponsored by businesses, schools, and civic organizations. EDUCATION Encourage programs that increase motorists' awareness of bicyclists and educates them on proper driving techniques that will reduce the potential for bicycle/vehicle accidents. Increase bicycle education through continuous use of maps, slide presentations, pumper stickers, public service announcements, safety outreach teams, bicycle week, and bicycle rodeos. Encourage bicycle programs that educate bicyclists of all ages on the "rules of the road," proper riding techniques, and potential dangerous situations that arise while riding (i.e., doors opening on parked cars, buses pulling over for stops, and roadway barriers). Encourage schools, civic organizations, appropriate City/County agencies, and clubs to sponsor education programs, bike rodeos, and races which emphasize safety. Distribute bicycle education materials on proper use of the bicycle and bicycle facilities to the general public. PROGRAMS Through the local bicycle clubs, prepare and distribute bicycle maps identifying suitable bikeways throughout the area and provide a brief description of each. Encourage employers to provide bike racks, bike lockers, showers and washrooms for utilitarian bicyclists to encourage employees to bike to work. In addition, encourage bike racks and lockers at transportation transitional points such as park-and-ride lots and major bus stops. Law enforcement agencies should be alerted to areas of frequent bicycle theft or vandalism, and take action to deter. 19 SAFETY Encourage bicyclists to wear adequate equipment, such as helmets and brightly colored clothing, to make bicycling safer. Improve bicycle accident reporting procedures such that a complete picture of causative factors can be determined, thereby allowing subsequent corrective measures to be obtained. Devise an effective enforcement program that is characterized by consistency, adequate and appropriate penalties, and positive attitudes of police. Such programs should be preceded by or be in conjunction with public education programs. Law enforcement efforts should be directed towards bicyclists behavior which is most likely to lead to collisions, such as failing to obey stop signs and traffic signals, wrong way riding, and riding without lights at night. An effective program to deal with youthful bicyclists should be emphasized. Frequent contact between local bicycle advisory committees and the police can highlight the need for enforcement and identify problem areas. Use of bicycles or motorcycles rather than police cars by traffic patrols makes the contact with bicycle offenders easier. Community education and support of enforcement efforts builds respect between bicyclists and motorists. X. KEEPING THE PLAN CURRENT Changes in thebicyclist's needs, circulation patterns, and priorities will occur as implementation of this plan progresses. To ensure that the plan remains a viable document for guiding decisions affecting bicycling, the plan must be periodically reviewed and an effort made to keep it flexible. The following measures are suggested as a means to keep the plan current. - Review the plan at least every five years for the applicability of the stated goals and objectives. - Develop measures of effectiveness for evaluating attainment of goal and objectives. - Avoid the implementation of unconventional facilities, or facilities, requiring extensive physical development or modification of the overall bikeway network. - Ensure that provided facilities are developed in a manner that allows for them to be safe and convenient for the bicyclist. This plan is only a beginning point. Its success depends upon initiation and coordination of public and private efforts at all levels. It is essential that broad citizen input and support from bicyclists, motorists, and other groups be developed during the implementation phase. 20 APPENDIX A 21 N N Table 2. Group A bicyclists, urban section, with parking. (Advanced) Less than 2 000 Annual Average Dail Traffic Volume AADT ,— Average 2,000 10,000 Over 10,000 Motor Vehicle Adequate Inadequate uate Oneratinc� Seed Sight Distance Si ht D stance Si hdt Distance SlnhtDstance Si huate t Dist to Inadequate Truck; Bus,<RV ante Si ht Distance (Less tharr 30 mph) we we Truck, Bus, RVTruck; Bus, RV we We WC w We ! we 14 14 1`4 14 14 1�} 14} 14 4 we we we ` �5 15 14 30 - 40 mph we `. we we We We WG Vi(C �, WC WC 14 14 15 15 14 ° } �: - we we we Mj 5, 15 1415 15 E0 mph We wCWC:: We WV W }>k W^ �<•, WV WC 15 15 15 15 15 we we we 16 15 ; 16 < 16 16 11 Over SO mph na na na na na na na na na na j Koy: wC =vide curb lane sh = shoulder sl = shared lane bl = bike lane by = bike path na = not applicable Recommended width of facility shown in feet. ( ) Proposed changes to draft not yet implemented at time of publishing, but indicated for clarity. N w A,ver� ge �i0iG( ��elllCle inq S eed (Less than 30 mph 30 — 40 mph ';0 — E0 mph Table 5, Group B/C bicyclists, urban section, with parking (Basic/Child) Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume AA Less than 2,000 Adequate Inadequate Sight Distance Si ht Distance Truck, Bus,: RV WC we we we 14 14 14 14 bl bl. bi bl S 5 5, 5 bl 'bl.., bj bl 6 I 6 6 6 2,000 — 10,000 Over 10,000 Adequate Inadequate Sight Adequate Inadequate Distance Si ht Distance Sight Distance Sight Distance Truck,> Bus, RV < Truck, Bus; RV I we we we 1 r° we b l 14 14 14 5 5 5 bl 5. bl bl bl bl bl 5 Ef g< > Ery 4;, 5 6 bl bl blbl bl 6 5 6 6 bl bl 6 :6 6 6 na na na na na na. na na na na na I na Key; wide curb lane sh = shoulder sl = shared lane bl bike lane by = bike path na = not a Recommended width of facility shown in feet, applicable O Proposed changes to draft not yet implemented at time of,;publishing, but indicated for clarity, Y Table 6, Group B/C bicyclists, rural section. (Basic/Child) Annual Average Dail Traffic Volume AADT Less than 2,000 2,000 — 10,000 �r�;ge Over 10,000 �.iotor Vehicle Adequate Inadequate uate O rein, S eed Sight Distance Sight Distance Si hdt Dis ance Si equate nhtDate s lance Si ht Distance Inadequate Truck, Bus, RV Sight Distance (Less than 30 mph) sh sh sh '.: sh sh Truck,;Bus, RV ' Truck, Bus, RV r 4 4 sh sh sh sh sh sh 4 4 4 sh `� '4 4 4 .4 4 4 00 — 10 mph sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh 4 4 4 4 4 6 6, 4 6 g i E0 mph sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh . s 6 6 G G i h sh sh sh 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 �0 rni�t� sh sh sh sh sh sh: sh sh sh sh sh sh 6 6 6 G 8 8 8. 8 8 8 8 a Key: we = Wide curb lane sh = shoulder sl = shared lane bl = bike lane b = bike path Recommended width of facility shown in feet. P p na not applicable ( ) Proposed changes to draft not yet implemented at time of publishing, but indicated for clarity, APPENDIX B 25 ♦, o 1 577 V T • \ II ti 1 69� `i ur / ♦ C, 696 0 G 600 71 ♦ ` r 1bd 695 I R 891 �Sr's1.1a R7`p� (897 `Frecllew~ww�'yrf '♦ I yyy,,, '4 i / 731 600 g7 +� 809 '' 697 r .f �' .''•� 6e1 696 577 �.► / 671 ♦ F 688 $9J+,+ 800 f D.rp' 0 740 698 - `\x Tl\ D _ S9w 590 0 ,` �• -'I,-- 0•N..•�" \ p 6 e NIv67� \ �� 1 ,Rt5e(; \rp \ 77 ) t! , +p 715 � N, \ 0711 p•.\ 671 8 aw y "'g �`W1i�681 .. / G,'/• 1 wroar•,. 700 01„7 i`� ec 57 ♦ 7 . 69J 4 '686 _ ; � ( 61 •� MI. awwa. Cn. (1 iJ •i 10 707 701 r1 9i (;``. \®\ 600 I67I 1,T •� 651 •P• 78 701697 b by I �0 wa�'1-, %��..a 8J'. si w �OP�tP + o .♦ c OJ � 1 ������ i 1'i � 08 �V_ 671 + ♦ 71 0 ♦ - '' 651' V dI a 0•V/ r �� ♦\ 601 6071 dSntw e / `� 39 r �pyl� etkr:w r �\I O i` �..•n3$, 6s1 671 78� / Eb— Is ` 733 "-u' j� ]JIr oV a N 669 f 669v• +1 I •♦ tf 703 ,/�f .,� W 1 5 4 ���+ 669 on B•ar ` \ a. 757 /'.i •,xe'esra 601 :. `_ 'C J ;• 601 005 17 V 608 ) L •o,p � 661 ' B1 � �1 elo 50 /f 737 •�;• .S � es1 7Jo a" ., a."a T / 71s a k w.. 1 1 Ir 707 70 O� � '"�yeo PI 739 VrMr ; a7 [x'770 / r.• 7.•a• 70 ✓�. 9/ 677. �B6 0 1 871 F ,,r� 668 moo. (6'6 •, pf • ♦B ''577 _ C•0. B61 : f 701 !y 751 ; CS•f / _ a K 87 7 dh o 1 2V` ♦ ` 610 Gor• 1 S •. n 717 - f IS p - •ice , I it 708 • ..651 /l0r' ii81 1 nya � r--..-..-.... F tw [870 __y LL77 7a 808 858 In IM•7 CNdn 3 R / 7 Ya9rra roat 650 q SrapMn•on �:� $!'•p N•yai0 IV •. 771 66 651 ♦'yam,,,.. 743 65, L7J. � 977 a3 h. ♦fes g' 9 - b t&OWn ; : BNl _ 781 • • 0.1 ,�� 799 7J9 Y 600 680 ^ 67 r \ 6 �4 1 wr 687 '` �t♦ 'Ji - y �, Qj 19 F. Ua� i fill `:, .dr ` Alt• , %7 ._,• �Mu> 704 6ptrp, 617 ,. 617 1... �a� 1 608 A 660 661 '. 718 978 27 ` 651 ` 7M y♦.i. 7a � 600 / els. •p. ma; �' o>.- Caljgy Si7 70 �� •Y•• � BI� 7�. •�ItO fi5IT I wm ., ; `• bIS(o' 6560 DI$f.'- ...� a' WLLLE 17 4 6� ♦� '�� 670 1 ':•:•!' 7 1 �i9 fir, a y TOBEBB t `e^'.5 656 1 1 i.;.:.:.• 651 0 Bbl \ e 77 r.... �-.,J 1•-1 j nem* eae 1•T ,•�, 1 ,.;..,..., rgi12 j 1$ +' 810 619 70 v7 7`:> 858 677 1' Olt 1 610 <��p •� �� 1 ` 671 .i 655 655 `•'\� - 606f 679 '•r `` 17� °.7�\ f FO' '� \ 816• 72 e F 81 1 50 719 {1% / P �/ ✓ 1, a b77 \t_ 1 / VtV / 1 3 0•r5 V'� 7 r ♦ � f 670 \ R \ e A<� K55 I 507 Oa^.r°° 6 1 611 77J 1 606 4 732 500 1 ZEE 16 I' 1t_ ., Fw 679 81) 76 '`O �( �'`�` � � � ~9 0. , re . r9arlee•v'n 790 817 /Q�'?w\ � rrtNt• �l g 75 0Ae 78 Mu 611 6/1� t 91c QUph 55 !ti00I ] i, jjjVVV��� I �I ^,, 77t or; ►aa,, J a / 617 0• o p 'r _��®�/ ♦�. Qcy, 673 �Y /p e 7J41 . r ' 617-y� --. (+� �`-71''J/�f ..•'�'I ..825 r_� a � �/� O •rn 1 N.. 807 / t X977 _ 'f ,t• f � 6iC FN f117 1 N 1 SV f Gr 7 Or� 6JI •1 v-' 760 "�O M �. TO BT 71B Q r as r•a0w fill/// �( S\f6 _ •P o� � �{5�. 1 811 1 u 77�� °; ..� ; Pf• 87- ray 6J6 , a r P -3 a, 1 ON— BO1 �t^I � TO STM66URG ' Ilpequl 636 ` <• _. ;1^"'_'!_. a 6a3)/ , P I %\ 6 7 11 LA v in ft , I r �gy ...: . 8771 `` 1-- -•_ n- -- -nt 616 1 ♦' 601 877 0` 877 .i,T�.. 679 el �N 7 - - - _ n7 G �•p000 C11�I 8J• 077 TY _ ` E;75 L6�3 � .i'� 1� '.., � 636 -� �o V V��,(((. 1J5 \ 610• r• �8�\� fir• �7 710 TO BOYCE ♦4 877 6 7 fl y 875 710 / 1 mss' 600 �\r``'/�7/ ,{ 7roI .677 i 7e 54 I d> f u 1 7.n �� '.\ 75e / a 871 ` •a0 �\- 1 /709/6771 '•, u _ ;'!ai /. 677 775 636 i7 ®� - F �7pA �� lrau.,wowr co twar ff ' 676 F � e71 d* •" w'eTvN oa;v5� * � e10 / 6.7 , • 735 or � 0 �. C 0••' 6 I 'e 639 t _ eao A N O ,✓ S\ ��'� 777 -r- ��,6;7, � 3 7 ,qy e51 ��° L � �� 7s •; )a i , TO 6TWOUR0735 w �\1 677 ��'�+� O \ \ `'N—ar1R8 TO FRONT ROYAL N f 840 Y "1 W R R E N COUNTY -7 ® Short Term Designation Long Term Designation i j TRIMGENERATORS AND ATTRACTORS ® PUBLIC SCHOOLS EMERGENCY SERVICES FIR RECREATIONAL AREAS i HISTORICAL AREAS MAJOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL. GOVERNMENT FACILITIES APPENDIX C 27 City of Winchester 11/9/93 Proposed Bike Routes Inventory Functional Class Pavement Width Shoulder Short Term Long Term Anticipated Average Daily Posted Width Length Designation Desi nation Tr s Volume Speeds N. Loudoun St. from Frederick County line to Piccadilly St. 2&3 29, C+G .75 bike route - R&U varies 2,700-6,700 25 W. Piccadilly St. from Loudoun St. to Washington St. 2 40, C+G - bike route - R&U 8,000 25 Washington St. from Piccadilly St. to Gerrard St. UL 37' C+G .69 bike route - R&U 4,800 25 Gerrard St. from Washington St. to Valley Ave. (Rt. 11) 2 0 C+G - bike route - R&U no record 25 Valley Ave. (Rt. 11) from Gerrard St. to Cedar Creek 3 48, C+G 1.50 bike route - R&U 14,300 25-35 Valley Ave. (Rt. 11) from Cedar Creek to Frederick County Line 3 40' 4' 1.40 bike route - R&U 17,000 35 Cork St. From Frederick varies varies County line to Washington (generally (generally St. 2) 30•) C+G 1.30 bike route - R&U 8,000 25 Town Run from Cork St. to 00 University Dr. NA 1 1 - - bike path R not applicable Abrams Creek from University Dr. to Pleasant Valley south of Featherbed Lane NA 1 1 - - bike path R not applicable Jubal Early Dr. from Pleasant Valley Rd. to Rt. 11 3 48D C+G - bike route - R&U no record Jubal Early Dr. from Valley Ave (Rt. 11) to Amherst St. (Rt. 50) 3 48D C+G - - bike path R&U no record Functional Pavement Class Width Shoulder Width Len th Short Term —Designation Long Term Anticipated Designation ri s Average Daily Volume Po Posted sted Speeds Amherst St. (Rt. 50) from Frederick County line to Wood Ave. Amherst St. from Wood Ave. to Washington St. Middle Rd. from rrederick 3 2 48'D 36' 6' C+G - - bike bike route route -R&U _ R&U 15,300 20,100 35 35 County line to valley Ave. (Rt. 11) Cedar Creek Grade from 2 30' 4' 1 mile bike route - R&U 3,200 35 Frederick County line to Valley Ave. (Rt. 11) Pleasant valley Rd. from 3 48' C+G .50 bike route -R&U 9,500 35 Cork St. to Papermill Rd. Papermill Rd, from Pleasant 3 48' C+G - bike route - U 17,500 40 Valley Rd. to Frederick County line Tevis St. from Valley Ave. 2 20' 4' .78 bike route -U no record (Rt. 11) to Papermill Rd. Fox Drive from Frederick 2 36' 4' .51 bike route - U 16,900 25 County line to Amherst St. Merriman's Lane from Amherst 2 20' - 1.74 bike route -U 4,200 25 St. to Frederick County line Legend: UL - Urban Local UL 18' - . .91 bike route - R&U no record 25 1 - Local St. 2 - Collector St. 3 Arterial R Recreational use U - Utilitarian use D Divided Highway C+G Curb and Gutter (no shoulder) County of Frederick Proposed Bike Routes Inventory 11/9/93 Functional '-- ---- Class Pavement Width Shoulder Width Len th Short Term Long Term Anticipated Average Daily Posted Brucetown Rd. (Rt. 672) from Designation ea na io Trips Volume Speeds Clarke County line to Hopewell Rd. to Shared lane, bike Information Welltown Rd. (Rt. 661) MC 16_22 2-8' 5.17 *bike lane, paved currently Welltown Road (Rt. 661) from route shoulder or bikeway R being 25-55 Hiatt Rd. (Rt. 672) to Hopewell Rd. Shared lane, bike developed by the Vir inia (Rt. 672) MC 16' 2' .40 *bike lane ' paved g Department of Hiatt Rd. & Catalpa Rd. Rt. 672) route shoulder or bikeway R Transportation 45-55 from Welltown Pike (Rt. 661) Shared lane, Bike to Old Baltimore Rd. (Rt. 677) MC 18-16' 2• lane, paved N.P. Old 2.55 *bike route shoulder or bikeway R Baltimore Rd. (Rt. 677) from H::att Rd. (Rt. 672) to Cedar Shared lane, bike Grove Rd. (Rt. 654) MC 18, 2 lane, paved N.P. •57 *bike route shoulder or bikeway R St. Clair Rd. (Rt. 677) from N.P. Cedar Grove Rd. to Lake St. Shared lane, bike Clair Dr.MC 18 2 lane, paved •68 *bike route shoulder or bikeway R Senseny Rd. (Rt. 657) from N.P. Clarke County line to Shared lane, bike City of Winchester MC 22, 51 lane, paved Lj Chapel Rd. (Rt. 627) from 3.67 *bike route shoulder or bikeway R&U 25-45 Frederick county line to Shared lane, bike Town of Middletown MC 18_24 2-6' 1.42 *bike lane, paved Middle Rd. (Rt. 628) from route shoulder or bikeway R&U 25-55 Frederick County line to Shared lane, bike Marlboro Rd. (Rt. 631) MC 22, 81 8' paved 8.75 *bike route shoulder or bikeway R N.P. Marlboro Rd. (Rt. 631) from Middle Rd. (Rt. 628) to Shared lane, bike Town of Stephens City MC 18-22' 1-4' 2.95 *bike lane, paved Hi -es Rd. (Rt.. 625) from route shoulder or bikeway R N.P. Ma;-lboro Rd. :Rt. 631) to Shared lane, bike r,iddletown MC 18-20' 1-2' 3.92 *bike lane, paved route shoulder or bikeway R 35-55 I e rom City of Winchester to Valley Pike (Rt. 11) to Main St. (Stephens City) to Valley Pike (Rt. 11) to Hain St. (Middletown) to Valley Pike (Rt. 11) to Frederick County line Welltown Road (Rt. 661) from (Rt. 672) west to (� Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) N. Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) from City of Winchester to WV line Cedar Grove Rd. & Marple Rd. (Rt. 654) from Old Baltimore Rd. (Rt. 677) to Indian Hollow Rd. (Rt. 679) Indian Hollow Rd. (Rt. 679) from N. Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) to N. Hayfield Rd. (Rt. 600) MC Functional Class Pavement Width Shoulder width Len th Short Term Long Term Anticipated Average Daily Posted 48' 10-12' 21.2 Shared lane, bike Desi nation Des n on Trips Volume Speeds Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622) Shared lane, bike *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway R&U N.P. from Frederick County line to city of Winchester Shared lane, bike *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway Shared lane, bike N.P. Information Shared lane, bike MC 16' 2' 9.66 *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway R currently Apple Pie Ridge Rd. (Rt. 739) MC to being 45-55 from WV line to Rt. 522 and south to Fox Drive 663 16-22'2-6 9.43 *bike Shared lane, bike developed by the Virginia N.P. to the City of Winchester thru MIC route lane, paved R of shoulder or bikewayDepartment Transportation Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50) from City of Winchester Shared lane, bike to WV line MA 24-80' 6-10' 19.92 *bike lane, paved Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) from route shoulder or bikeway R 35-55 WV line to City of Winchester MC 30-54' 6-10' 7.92 *bike route Shared lane, bike R&U 45 lane, paved Valle Av f shoulder or bikeway I e rom City of Winchester to Valley Pike (Rt. 11) to Main St. (Stephens City) to Valley Pike (Rt. 11) to Hain St. (Middletown) to Valley Pike (Rt. 11) to Frederick County line Welltown Road (Rt. 661) from (Rt. 672) west to (� Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) N. Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) from City of Winchester to WV line Cedar Grove Rd. & Marple Rd. (Rt. 654) from Old Baltimore Rd. (Rt. 677) to Indian Hollow Rd. (Rt. 679) Indian Hollow Rd. (Rt. 679) from N. Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) to N. Hayfield Rd. (Rt. 600) MC 25-44' 5-6' 11.36 MC 16-22' 2-6' 2.56 PA 48' 10-12' 21.2 MC 22' MC 18-20' 8' 1.42 2-6' 5.68 Shared lane, bike *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway R&U 25-55 Shared lane, bike *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway R 45-55 Shared lane, bike *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway R&U N.P. Shared lane, bike *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway R N.P. Shared lane, bike *bike route lane, paved shoulder or bikeway R N.P. Functional Class Pavement Width Shoulder Width Short Term Long Term Anticipated Average Daily Posted Len th esi nation Designation Trins Volume Speeds From N. Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) to Siler Lane Information to Gainesboro Rd. to N. Currently Hayfield Rd. to S. Hayfield Rd. being to Back Mt. Rd. to Wardensville developed by Grade to Wardensville Pike Shared lane, bike the Virginia (Rt. 55) to WV/Fred. County lineHC 16-20' 1-4' 20.17 *bike route lane,shoulderved bikewayDepartment R of Transporta£ion N.P. Papermill Rd. (Rt. 644) from City of Winchester Front MC Royal Pike 20' 4' 1.36 *bike route Shared lane, lane, paved bike (Rt. 5226)S) shoulder or bikeway R&U 45-55 Front Royal Pike (Rt. 5225) from (Rt. 50) to Clarke Co, line MA 48-22' 8-10, 7.12 *bike route Shared lane, lane, paved bike shoulder or bikeway R&U 35-55 Legend: I - Rural Interstate UI - Urban Interstate PA - Rural Principal Arterial UPA - Urban Principal Arterial MA - Rural Minor Arterial UMA - Urban Minor Arterial MC - Rural Major collector UC - Urban Collector MIC - Rural Minor Collector UL - Urban Local LOC - Rural Local R - Recreational U - Utilitarian *Route has less than the recommended pavement width for shared road use. N.P. - Not Posted W N APPENDIX D 33 A survey taken by a subcommittee of the Winchester/Frederick County Bicycle Advisory Committee through the placing of surveys in bicycle shops and retail establishments selling bicycles, as well as being published in the local papers, results in a return of 335 questionnaires. The tabulation from those questionnaires is shown as follows: Where do you live presently? 153 City of Winchester 182 Frederick County How many members of your family currently ride a bicycle? 790 How many members of your family ride a bicycle for: work trips 94 shopping trips 72 school trips 43 recreation 680 exercise 576 Other 33 Do any of the following restrict members of your family from riding a bicycle to work, shop, or school: 243 Lack of adequate bicycle facilities (pathways, bikelanes) 120 Lack of places to park/store your bicycle 15 Too much physical effort 176 Personal safety 43 Takes too long 14 Other Which of the following would increase the number of bicycle trips made by your family: 151 Bicycle routes to your work place 115 Bicycle routes to schools or colleges 137 Bicycle routes to shopping areas 248 Bicycle routes to recreation areas 34 Do you feel additional bicycle pathways/bikelanes should be provided? 315 Yes 19 No Do you have any suggestions for any particular bicycle routes? 26 All Major Routes - 11, 50, 522, 7 17 Stephens City Area 15 Parks 10 Old Railroad 9 Amherst/Merriman's Lane 9 Cedar Creek Grade 8 Middle Road 8 Apple Pie Ridge 4 Pleasant Valley Road 3 Senseny Road 3 Mountain Bike 1 Route 37 1 Apple Blossom Mall The single issue that was most prevalent in the comment section was a concern for safety as well as education of young ridgers. Another common theme was the lack of respect for bicycles by those operating vehicles utilizing the same roadway. Suggestions for particular bicycle routes was dominated by the main entraces and exits of the City, that being Routes 50, 522, and 11. The other single most requested route was the Apple Pie Ridge area. 35 i i C ii ITEM #2 OTHER - SEPTEMBER PUBLIC HEARING This is a reminder to all Transportation Committee members that we will hold a public hearing in September for the update of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. At this time, staff has only received one citizen request for inclusion on this plan, and one suggested addition from VDOT. Currently, the Incidental Construction Section of the Secondary Road Plan appears to be in great shape. All projects within this section are proposed to be funded with the next fiscal year. With this in mind, it would be appropriate to include new projects to this section during the September update. Therefore, staff asks that all committee members forward any request for incidental construction projects to our department during the month of August.