Phase 1 Bike Plan_r

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 func on of the intensity of the street:
Figure 2: Bicycle infrastructure categories as a func on of traffic volumes and speeds
Motorized Vehicle Direc onal Volume
(per lane per hour)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
25
Motor Vehicle Speed (MPH)
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
On-Street
Bike Lane
Mixed Bike and
Vehicle Traffic
Separated Bike
Facility
Source: HDR Engineering
Mixed Bike and Vehicle Traffic: On low traffic volume and/or low speed (generally < 25 MPH) streets,
bicycles and cars can safely co-mingle. The specific type and combina on of lane markings and signage
are a func on of the par cular characteris cs 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. Rela vely 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 separa on between
motorists and cyclists. Depending on the context, protected bike facili es may take the form of cycle
tracks or mul -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 iden fy
specifically which type of infrastructure (see Infrastructure Illustra ons) 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 forma on of
a Project Steering Commi ee comprising delegates from each of the local governmental, agency, and
private en es that may ul mately contribute, directly or indirectly, to the implementa on of this plan.
In addi on to numerous ve ng mee ngs about specific por ons of the plan with subsets of the
Steering Commi ee over the course of the project, the planning team convened the en re Steering
Commi ee on three occasions to get feedback on analy cal 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 perspec ves. The project Website,
www.CoastalBendInMo on.org, provided three ways for par cipants to give input:
MAP IT!
A Web applica on that
enabled individuals to show
the planning team where
they ride or would like to ride
if condi ons improved
TRACK IT!
A downloadable smartphone
applica on, Strava, allowed users
to automa cally record speed,
distance, and other data every
me they took a bike ride. The
planning team used these data to
priori ze poten al routes in the
new bike network
ANSWER IT!
A very short on-line survey
captured community
members' priori es for
cycling related safety and
educa on programs, policies,
and suppor ng facili es
The planning team included a consul ng team (Olivarri and Associates, O&A) dedicated to direct, inperson
engagement to compliment informa on gathered through the project Web portal. O&A
developed a database of poten al outreach des na ons, community events, key contacts, and
community groups to track the public engagement process. The team categorized database entries by
geographic loca on, customer or clientele base, and the type of en ty that each locale represented, and
this database was updated throughout the project as new events were iden fied 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.
METHODS
9