Phase 1 Bike Plan_r

PLAN INTENT AND OVERVIEW
The MPO's Bicycle Mobility Plan is intended to foster cycling as a meaningful transporta on alterna ve
for riders of diverse abili es. 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 recrea onal 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 essen al goods and services for all residents of our
community. As detailed in the Methods Sec on (page 6), the team used state-of-the-art mapping
so ware to iden fy exis ng and future centers of community ac vity and to define key connec ons
between them.
On average, most individual residences in the metropolitan area of Nueces and San Patricio coun es are
within a two to five minute bike ride (on a neighborhood street) from some segment of the bike mobility
network, and the network delivers riders within ¼ mile (about a 5- minute walk) of:
89% (158 of 178) of early educa on and daycare centers, grade schools (public and
private) and higher educa on campuses
85% (122 of 143) of parks over two acres in size
83% (1088 of 1319) of transit stops and sta ons
82% (541 of 657) of low income housing units (Sec on 8 or Housing Tax Credit proper es)
80% (104 of 130) of groceries, meat and fish markets, bakeries, and corner markets
77% (186 of 242) of pools, senior centers, recrea on 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 priori zed a low-stress rider experience and maximal separa on 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 priori zed
neighborhood streets with low traffic volumes and speeds. Where the network falls on busier roads,
the Plan prescribes alterna ves to the standard on-street bike lane, such as separated mul -use
sidepath or protected cycle tracks (see Infrastructure Illustra ons) outside of the vehicular travel lanes.
support bicycles. Where installa on 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 construc ng 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 opportunis cally over me
and will ul mately help to reduce the overall cost of maintaining our streets.
This Bicycle Mobility Plan comprises two major components. Sec on One, the Network Prescrip on,
details just over 290 miles of network connec ons:
TABLE 1: Bicycle Mobility Network Summary
Infrastructure Type
Low Cost/High Impact/Rapid Implementa on*
*No major capital investment required other than paint and signage
Strategic Capital Investments
Bicycle Boulevard
Buffered Bike Lane
Mul -use Sidepaths
1-way Cycle Tracks
Off-road Mul -use Trails
(on stormwater and old railroad easements)
Network
Miles
Percent
of Network
Installa on of the right infrastructure in the right places is cri cal to catalyzing the change necessary for
walking and biking to become endemic to our community culture, but we also have other means of
promo ng ac ve mobility op ons.
Sec on Two of this plan, Best Prac ce Recommenda ons, includes recommenda ons and case studies
related to educa on and encouragement programs, suppor ng infrastructure, code reform and
enforcement, and program evalua on.
64
7
8
145
290
22
2
3
50
66 23
The installa on of even the most robust, dedicated bicycle infrastructure, which is o en separated from
the vehicular travel lane to afford the highest level of safety, can represent a meaningful cost savings as
compared to maintaining the exis ng condi on of many of our streets. Asphalt pavement designed to
support vehicles is much more expensive to build and maintain than hardscape designed only to
2