mobile county bicentennial bicycle & pedestrian ... - Mobile MPO

MOBILE COUNTY BICENTENNIAL
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SPONSORED BY:

Summary of Findings:
• From Public Comments
Received from the Mobile
County Bicycle and
Pedestrian Survey.
• From the Two Public Meeting Charrettes Held for the Mobile County Bicycle
and Pedestrian Comprehensive Plan.
• From the Inventory and Analysis of Existing Facilities within Mobile County
and Available Master Plans from Cities and Towns within Mobile County.

Statistical Summary of Bicycle Collisions
Total Collisions: 265
With Injury: 133
No Injury: 128
Fatal: 4
2006-2010 Bicycle Collision Summary
Cause of Collision:
Bicyclist 86
Vehicle 172
Unknown 7
Total Collisions By
Road Size:
Interstate 9
5+-Lanes 20
4-Lane 55
3-Lane 14
2-Lane or less 156
Parking Lots 11
No records could be located for the governmental entities within Mobile County not listed above.
Collisions By Gov’t:
4 in Chickasaw
1 in Creola
206 in Mobile
10 in Prichard
7 in Saraland
1 in Satsuma
36 in Mobile County

Bicycle Collisions 2006 – 2010
Type of Area Collisions Injury Causal Unit
Yes No Fatal Vehicle Bicyclist Unknown
Interstate: 9 Collisions or 3.4% of Total Collisions
Commercial 5 5 4 1
Residential 1 1 1
Open Country 3 3 3
Urban Roadway 5+ Lanes or More: 20 Collisions or 7.5% of Total Collisions
Commercial 17 6 11 14 3
Residential 3 1 2 3
Urban Roadway 4 Lanes: 54 Collisions or 20.4% of Total Collisions
Commercial 42 14 26 2 32 10
Residential 11 7 4 5 6
Open Country 1 1 1
Urban Roadway 3 Lanes: 14 Collisions or 5.3% of Total Collisions
Commercial 14 4 10 12 2
Urban Roadway 2 Lanes or Less: 120 Collisions or 45.3% of Total Collisions
Commercial 44 20 24 25 19
Residential 75 54 21 40 30 5
Open Country 1 1 1
Rural Roadway 4 Lanes: 1 Collision or 0.4% of Total Collisions
Commercial 1 1 1
Rural Roadway 2 Lanes or Less: 36 Collisions or 13.6% of Total Collisions
Commercial 10 10 10
Residential 11 10 1 5 5 1
Open Country 15 8 5 2 12 2 1
All Roadways / Parking Areas
Commercial 133 (50.2%) 44 87 2 98 35
Residential 101 (38.1%) 72 29 54 41 6
Open Country 20 (7.5%) 9 9 2 17 2 1
Parking Lot 11 (4.2%) 8 3 3 8
Total 265 133 128 4 172 86 7
Source: The above was researched from records of the University of Alabama Center for Advanced Public Safety. Collision records were only
available for the cities of Chickasaw, Creola, Mobile, Prichard, Saraland and Satsuma and for rural Mobile County. No records could be located for
the other governmental entities within Mobile County.

Statistical Summary of Pedestrian Collisions
Total Collisions: 509
With Injury: 403
No Injury: 33
Fatal: 73
2006-2010 Pedestrian Collision Summary
Cause of Collisions:
Vehicle 203
Pedestrian 260
Bicyclist 9
Unknown 37
Total Collisions By
Road Size:
Interstate 23
5+-Lanes 10
4-Lane 45
3-Lane 7
2-Lane or less 188
Lanes Unknown 214
Parking Lots 22
No records could be located for the governmental entities within Mobile County not listed above.
Collisions By Gov’t:
4 in Bayou La Batre
5 in Chickasaw
3 in Citronelle
317 in Mobile
51 in Prichard
11 in Saraland
4 in Satsuma
114 in Mobile County

Pedestrian Collisions 2006 – 2010
Type of Area Injury Causal Unit
Number Yes No Fatal Vehicle Pedestrian Bicyclist Unknown
Interstate: 23 Collisions 4.5% of Total Collisions
Urban Area 17 9 2 6 6 9 1 1
Rural Area 6 4 0 2 2 4 0 0
Urban 5 or More Lanes: 10 Collisions 2.0% of Total Collisions
Commercial 8 6 2 0 5 3 0 0
Residential 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0
Urban 4 Lanes: 40 Collisions 7.9% of Total Collisions
Commercial 26 16 2 8 14 10 1 1
Residential 12 11 1 0 7 2 1 2
School 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0
Urban 3 Lanes: 7 Collisions 1.4% of Total Collisions
Commercial 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 0
Residential 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
School 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0
Urban 2 Lanes or Less: 148 Collisions 29.1% of Total Collisions
Commercial 33 29 3 1 26 5 1 1
Residential 106 91 8 7 80 20 3 3
School 7 5 2 0 4 2 0 1
Open Country 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
Urban Roadway, Lanes Unknown: 154 Collisions 30.3% of Total Collisions
Commercial 77 58 3 16 1 64 0 12
Residential 74 67 2 5 0 65 0 9
School 3 2 0 1 0 2 0 1
Rural 4 Lanes: 5 Collisions 1.0% of Total Collisions
Commercial 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
Open Country 3 2 0 1 2 0 0 0
Rural 2 Lanes or Less: 40 Collisions 7.9% of Total Collisions
Commercial 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Residential 12 8 1 3 8 3 1 0
School 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Open Country 26 22 1 3 19 6 0 1
Rural Roadway, Lanes Unknown: 60 Collisions 11.8% of Total Collisions
Commercial 12 9 0 3 0 12 0 0
Residential 12 9 0 3 0 11 0 1
Open Country 36 25 1 0 34 0 2
All Roadways / Parking Areas
Commercial 162 (31.8%) 122 10 30 49 96 2 15
Residential 220 (43.2%) 190 12 18 98 102 5 15
School 15 (2.9%) 11 3 1 8 5 0 2
Open Country 67 (13.2%) 51 2 14 23 40 0 4
Interstate 23 (4.5%) 13 2 8 8 13 1 1
Parking 22 (4.3%) 16 4 2 17 1 1 0
Totals 509 403 33 73 203 260 9 37
Source: The above was researched from records of the University of Alabama Center for Advanced Public Safety. Collision records were only available for the cities of Chickasaw, Creola,
Mobile, Prichard, Saraland and Satsuma and for rural Mobile County. No records could be located for the other governmental entities within Mobile County.

Key Findings of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey
Tabulation and analysis of the survey responses revealed the following key
findings. The statistical analysis and numerous comments made of the
completed surveys will provide a greater depth of insight regarding the
problems and needs of walkers and bicyclists.
General Findings:
• The overwhelming majority of the respondents (95%) either lives or
works in Mobile County.
• Respondents were almost evenly divided between males (53%) and
females (47%).
• The most response was from age groups of 25 - 34 and 45 - 54 with only
11% of respondents under 24 years old and 10 % over age 64.

Key Findings Related to Both Bicyclists and Walkers:
• Most walkers (41%) do so daily while bicyclists are about evenly divided between
daily and weekly.
• A substantial majority of both walkers and bicyclist do so for recreation / exercise
purposes.
• Schools or library are the destination of less than 8 percent of walkers and 10
percent of bicyclists. Although the percentages are low, more bicyclists bike to work
(8%) than walkers walk to work (4%).
• A large percentage of both walking and biking is done on neighborhood streets.
• Both walkers and bicyclists consider connectivity to be important.
• Personal safety is a very major concern of both walkers and bicyclists.
• In discussing or listing specific streets that would benefit the most from
improvements, walkers and bikers identified Dauphin Street the most frequently with
other streets receiving frequent mention as follows: Government Street, Old Shell
Road, Airport Boulevard and Broad Street. Downtown and Midtown were also
mentioned often.
• Respondents mentioned Airport Boulevard the most regarding safety concerns. Old
Shell Road, Dauphin Street, Government Street and Broad Street were individually
mentioned about half as much as Airport Boulevard.

Key Findings Regarding Walking Related Questions Include :
• Less than 3% walk between home and school and only slightly more than 4% to work.
• Of the respondents that walk, 39% do it daily and 28% at least weekly.
• A large majority (55%) walk for recreation / exercise purposes or to visit a park or
community center, while 18% of people walk to pursue errands or shopping (coming in
at second place).
• A small percentage of respondents walk to work, school or library destinations.
• Most people cited the lack of sidewalks or sidewalk problems (41%) as a major
deterrent to walking followed by safety concerns at 29%.
• Highest percentages of walkers do so on sidewalks located along local or neighborhood
streets (32%).
• Lack of sidewalks, sidewalks in poor condition, difficulty of crossing unsafe streets and
concerns about personal safety were the major reasons for not walking.
• Wider sidewalks with in good physical condition and safer intersection crossings are the
most important factors to encourage more walking followed by off-street walking trails.

Key Findings Regarding Bicycling Related Questions Include:
• The bicycle respondents classified their skill level equally, between advanced (49%)
and intermediate (49.5%).
• Of the respondents that bike, most do it at least weekly.
• Bicycle activity is primarily for recreation / exercise purposes or to visit a park or
community center (51%), while 18% of people bicycle to pursue errands or shopping.
• Less than 3% bicycle between home and school, while 8% bicycle to work.
• The overwhelming major reason preventing bicycling are aggressive, speeding
drivers and personal safety concerns. A lack of bicycle lanes was a distant third.
• Cited concerns about traffic and aggressive drivers as the main reason why they
don’t bicycle more.
• Dedicated bicycle lanes, trails and paved shoulders would encourage more bicycling.

Mobile County Area
Proposed Bikeway and
Walkway Routes

Mobile County:
Existing
Facilities

Location of Abandoned Rail Line
Potential for Rails-To-Trails, Requires Further Research
into Available Right-Of-Way

Abandoned Rail Line - From Mobile to Citronelle
(Abandoned Rail Extends to Waynesboro, Mississippi)
North end of abandoned rail bed.
South end of abandoned rail bed.
A 3 mile rails-to trails project is
constructed on this same
abandoned rail bed in Citronelle.
The trail is 10 ft. wide with asphalt
surface and features landscaping. It
is lighted by natural gas lamps.
Here is the abandoned rail bed in
Prichard, which shows where the rail
tracks once crossed North Wasson
Avenue. The clearing for the
abandoned rail bed can also be seen
in alignment with the track lines left in
the road (tracks have been removed).

Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Walkways

Mobile County:
Immediate
Priority
Bikeways
(1 to 5 Years)

Mobile County:
Short Range
Priority
Bikeways
(5 to 10 Years)

Mobile County:
Mid to Long
Range Priority
Bikeways
(10+ Years)

Mobile County:
Immediate
Priority
Walkays
(1 to 5 Years)

Mobile County:
Short Range
Priority
Walkways
(5 to 10 Years)

Mobile County:
Mid to Long
Range Priority
Walkways
(10+ Years)

Mobile Metro Area
Proposed Bikeway and
Walkway Routes

Mobile Metro Area – Existing Facilities

Mobile Metro Area – Proposed Bikeways

Mobile Metro Area – Proposed Downtown Bikeways

Mobile Metro Area -
Immediate Priority Bikeways (1 to 5 Years)

Mobile Metro Area -
Short Range Priority Bikeways (5 to 10 Years)

Mobile Metro Area -
Mid to Long Range Priority Bikeways (10+ Years)

Mobile Metro Area – Areas In Need of Walkways

Mobile Metro Area -
Immediate Priority Walkways (1 to 5 Years)

Mobile Metro Area -
Short Range Priority Walkways (5 to 10 Years)

Mobile Metro Area -
Mid to Long Range Priority Walkways (10+ Years)

Suggested Design Guidelines
Based on Roadway Types

Roadway Characteristics – City of Mobile & Surrounding Metro Area
(Includes Chickasaw, Dawes, Eight Mile, Prichard, & Saraland)
Street Lanes Pavement
Edge
Shoulder
On
Street
Parking
Applicable Bikeway
Design Guideline
Figure
Airport Blvd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Curb None No Figure 1
Airport Blvd. 4 None None No Figure 2
Azalea Road 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Baker Street 2 Curb None No Figure 1
Baker Street 2 None None No Figure 2
Baybridge Road (US 90) 5 Curb None (Cochrane Bridge only) No Figure 2
Bayfront Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Beauregard Street 6, 7 Curb None No Figure 1
Bel Air Blvd. 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Bellcase Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Bear Fork Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Broad Street (South) 2, 3, 4, 5 Curb None Yes Figures 1 & 3
Broad Street (North) 6, 7 Curb None No Figures 1 & 3
Canal Street 5, 6 Curb None No Figure 1
Cochrane Bridge 4 Curb Yes (Could handle bike lane) No N/A
College Parkway 2 Curb None No Figure 1
Conception Street (South) 2, 4 Curb Yes (Could handle bike lane) Yes Figure 1
Cottage Hill Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Cottage Hill Road 3, 5, 7 Curb None No Figure 1
Craft Hwy (South) 2 None None No Figure 2
Craft Hwy. (North) 4 Curb None No Figure 1
Dauphin Island Pkwy. 3, 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Dauphin Island Pkwy. 5 None None No Figure 2
Dauphin Street 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Demetropolis Road 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Duvall Street 3 Curb None No Figure 1
Forest Hill Drive 2 None None No Figure 2
Girby Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Government Street (US 90) 4, 5, 6 Curb None Yes Figures 1 & 3
Government Street (US 90) 4, 5, 6 None None No Figure 2
Halls Mill Road 2, 4 Curb None No Figure 1
Halls Mill Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Hamilton Blvd. (Cty 26) 3 None None No Figure 2
Highpoint Blvd. 2, 4 None None No Figure 2
Higgins Road 4 None None No Figure 2
Hillcrest Road 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Holcombe Ave. 2 Curb None No Figure 1

Roadway Characteristics Continued – City of Mobile & Surrounding Metro Area
(Includes Chickasaw, Dawes, Eight Mile, Prichard, & Saraland)
Street Lanes Pavement
Edge
Shoulder
On
Street
Parking
Applicable Bikeway
Design Guideline
Figure
Hollinger Island Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Industrial Pkwy. 4 None None No Figure 2
Knollwood Drive 2, 3, 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
McGregor Ave. (North) 2 None None No Figure 2
McGregor Ave. (South) 2, 5 None None No Figure 2
McVay Drive 4 Curb None No Figure 1
Michael Blvd. 2 None None No Figure 2
Michigan Ave. 4 Curb None No Figure 1
Moffett Road (US 98) 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Moffett Road (US 98) 5 None None No Figure 2
Nan Gray Davis Road 3 Curb None No Figure 1
Navco Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Old Bay Front Rd. (Closed 12/31/2010) 2 None None No Figure 2
Old Shell Road 2, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Old Shell Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Old Spanish Trail (US 90) 4, 5 None None No Figure 2
Overlook Road 3 Curb None No Figure 1
Rangeline Road 2, 6 None Yes (No. of Laurendine Rd.) No Figure 2
Rosedale Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Saint Stephens Road (US 45) 2 None None No Figure 2
Saint Stephens Road (US 45) 2, 3, 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Saraland Blvd. (US 43) 5, 6 Curb None No Figure 1
Saraland Blvd. (US 43) 5 None None No Figure 2
Satchel Paige Road 2 Curb None No Figure 1
Schillinger Road (North) 2, 5 None None No Figure 2
Schillinger Road (North) 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Schillinger Road (South) 2, 4 None None No Figure 2
Schillinger Road (South) 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Shelton Beach Road (North) 2 None None No Figure 2
Shelton Beach Road (South) 2 None None No Figure 2
Spring Hill Ave. 4, 5, 6 Curb None No Figure 1
Swedetown Road 3 Curb None No Figure 1
Tanner Williams Road (Cty 70) 3 Curb None No Figure 1
Telegraph Road (US 43) 4 Curb None No Figure 1
Terrell Road 2 None None No Figure 2
Texas Street 2 Curb None No Figure 1
Theodore Dawes Road (Cty 30) 3 None None No Figure 2
Three Notch Road 5 Curb None No Figure 1

Roadway Characteristics Continued – City of Mobile & Surrounding Metro Area
(Includes Chickasaw, Dawes, Eight Mile, Prichard, & Saraland)
Street Lanes Pavement
Edge
Shoulder
On
Street
Parking
Applicable Bikeway
Design Guideline
Figure
University Blvd. (North) 4, 5, 6 Curb None No Figure 1
University Blvd. (South) 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Virginia Street 2 None None No Figure 2
Virginia Street 3 Curb None No Figures 1 & 3
Water Street (North) 4, 6 Curb None No Figure 1
Water Street (North) 2 None None No Figure 2
Zeigler Blvd. 2, 4, 5 Curb None No Figure 1
Zeigler Blvd. 2 None None No Figure 2
Roadway Characteristics – Mobile County Roads Outside the City of Mobile Metro Area
Street Lanes Pavement
Edge
County Road 41:
From Citronelle Walk & Bike Trail to Cedar Creek
State Park
US Hwy 45:
From Industrial Pkwy (Hwy 158) to Citronelle Walk
& Bike Trail (at Celeste Road)
US Hwy 90:
From Theodore Dawes Road (Cty 30) to MS State
Line
Hwy 188:
From US Hwy 193 (Grand Bay) to Hwy 193 (Heron
Bay)
Shoulder
On
Street
Parking
Applicable Bikeway
Design Guideline
Figure
3 None None No Figure 2
2, 3 None None No Figure 2
2, 3, 5 None
2, 3 None
Yes (Has min. 3’ striped /
paved shoulder both sides -
areas with warning stripes)
Yes (Has min. 3’ striped /
paved shoulder 1 side, from
Bayou La Batre to Coden)
No Figure 2
Yes Figure 2

Roadway Characteristics Continued – Mobile County Roads Outside the City of Mobile Metro Area
Street Lanes Pavement
Edge
Dauphin Island Pkwy (Hwy 193):
From Laurendine Road (Cty 24) to Bienville Blvd.
(Dauphin Island)
McFarland Road:
From Three Notch Road (Cty 32) to Jeff Hamilton
Road (Cty 36)
Moffett Road (US 98):
From Wilmer Tanner Williams Road (Cty 5) To
Schillinger Road (Cty 31)
Snow Road (Cty 25):
From Jeff Hamilton Road (Cty 36) to Moffett Road
(US 98)
Tanner Wiliams Road (Cty 70):
From Shillinger Road North (Cty 31) to Wilmer
Tanner Williams Road (Cty 5)
Wilmer Tanner Williams Road (Cty 5):
From Tqanner Williams Road (Cty 70) to Moffett
Road (US 98)
2 None
Shoulder
Yes (Has 3’ striped shoulders
both sides from north end of
Heron Bay Bridge which
transitions to narrow 2’
shoulders at south end of
bridge. Shoulders widen to
5’ just north of Dauphin
Island bridge to south end of
bridge where 10’ wide offroad
asphalt trail picks up on
east side of road, which
extends south to Bienville
Blvd. 10’ off-road asphalt
trail)
On
Street
Parking
No
Applicable Bikeway
Design Guideline
Figure
Figure 2 (Where no
bikeway facility exists)
2, 3 None None No Figure 2
2, 5 Curb / None None No Figures 1 & 2
2, 3 None None No Figure 2
2, 3 Curb / None
None (18” wide shoulder at
Big Creek Lake dam crossing
does not provide adequate
width for bikeways /
walkways, w/ or w/o
guardrail)
No Figures 1 & 2
2 None None No Figure 2

Bike Lane on Street With Curb & Gutter
Typical Section

Bike Lane on Street Without Curb & Gutter
Typical Section

Bike Lane on Street w/ Curb & Gutter (Street Parking Allowed)
Typical Section

Shared Use Roadway Signing
(All Roadways are Shared-Use Roadways, Unless Prohibited by Law)

3-Feet Safe Distance Passing Law

Road Diet Bicycle Lane Conversion
For Average and Low Traffic Volume Roadways

Typical Bike Lane Pavement Markings
For Two-Way Street

Typical Off-Road Shared-Use Trail Section
Trail Shared by Bicyclists & Pedestrians
Typical Trail Section

Typical Walkway Design Guidelines for Proposed Walkways

Questions?
SPONSORED BY: