02-07-1989 Park Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

, ' Feb. 8, 1983 BIKEWAYS �. ' render a loqical "beqinninq" and "ending". Due to limited ordinated operation. Therefore, the desiqner and adminis- ' funds the opportunity may or may not present itself to trator responsible for the project should require input from complete a desired link at a later date. all affected parties at an early staqe of project development to avoid last minute decision-makinq. ' 1. Determine appropriate standard 3. Evaluate the probability of implementinq adjacent a. No build - The no-build option would be used improvements. The probability of implementing the im- � when: provements on the rest of the major bikeway seqment — the present road desiqn and traffic volume should then be evaluated. A rouqh estimate of the cost to render an acceptable service level ("qood"or "fair"rank) accomplish these improvements should be made. Then — the senrice area is comparatively limited (al- considerinq the severity of the deficiencies compared to ' though the section under study may rank "poor" or "un- the need for improvements on other roads (and off•road satisfactory") bikeways) and considerinq the probable lonq-range fundinq — an acceptable parallel road or off-road bikeway capability, a decision should be made on whether or not is available to the majority of the same destinations as the these desirable improvements are likely to be accomplished , section under study. in the foreseeable future. b. Minimal level - An investment of this nature C. MINOR ROUTE EVALUATION ' would provide either better communication to travelers throuqh the siqning of an acceptable route or throuqh the A minor route is a road or off-road bikeway that placement of special informational siqns to cyclists; or serves as a tributary to the major bikeway route. The ser- throuqh the construction of a bituminous shoulder of vice area is significant at a local level,and serves to support ' relative dimension to the inplace aqqregate shoulder (not the principal travel comdor. Minor routes function as less than 4' unless under extenuatinq circumstances). The coliectors from cities, parks, commercial/residential azeas minimal level of effort generally should be avoided if it to the major bikeway system. Normally minor routes renders less than a fair ratinq unless qeometrics and financ- are existent "good" or "fair" roads, however if these� inq of the project prohibit such a desiqn. Generally speak- rbutes are rated "poor" or "unsatisfactory", the desiqn inq projects constructed at minimal level render a travel should not exceed the present or proposed standards of the corridor of qreater perceived safety -- this desiqn should major bikeway route design (or desired desiqn). , be the exception to the standard whereby the objective is a fair ratinq. Because there are several combinations of conditions that will be encountered when evaluatinq proposed pro- c. Moderate level - The moderate levei standard jects, it is important for the desiqner to qet the "big pic- ' would render a "fair" ratinq without major alteration to ture" of the proposed project area and surroundinq vicinity the existing road' qeometrics/drainage structure, etc. This to provide desiqn continuity (an acceptable level of stan- standard is the norm, whereby the achievement of a "fair" dards at a minimum cost). catinq would produce a travel corridor acceptable to the ' averaqe cyclist's sldlls and needs. Motorized traffic alonq (1) Ideally the standards used should produce a roads rated fair mix well with non-motorized traffic uniformly consistent "ratinq" level while minimizing the throuqh the implementation of this standard. variance in desiqn so as to not confuse motorists or cyclists. ' Anticipation and predictability of the desiqn of a travel d. Major level - Often times projects involvinq the corrridor often times can minimize the potential for acci- entire roadway (i.e., new road construction, overlay pro- dents. jects, etc.) should take into account the travel needs of ' cyclists. The review process is the same as presented pre- (2) All crossings of public roadways should be done viously (i.e., road analysis, parallel suitable routes, service at intersecuons at specially marked areas. This is a par- areas) yet the problem of retrofittinq a provision for ticular concern when desiqninq off-road bikeways because bikeways is not present. As with all transportation invest• of the lack of driver reaction time to an unexpected cyclist , ments, a thorouqh investigation must be conducted to maneuver. determine how to best serve the travelinq public with available funds. , 2. Evaluate the probability of implementinq the pro- posed project. The probability of implementinq the project � should be studied in conjunction with those aqencies and local units of qovernment directly impacted. Construction schedules should be flexible, yet provide enouqh quidance to the implementinq aqency to provide for a well-co- '