PRSR 10-12-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Feb. 8, 1983 BIKEWAYS ,4_ • render a logical "beginning" and "ending". Due to limited ordinated operation. Therefore, the designer 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 stage of project development to avoid last minute decision-making. 1. Determine appropriate standard 3. Evaluate the probability of implementing 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 segment — the present road design and traffic volume should then be evaluated. A rough estimate of the cost to render an acceptable service level ("good"or "fair"rank) accomplish these improvements should be made. Then — the service area is comparatively limited (al- considering 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 considering the probable long-range funding — 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 through the signing of an acceptable route or through the A minor route is a road or off-road bikeway that placement of special informational signs to cyclists; or serves as a tributary to the major bikeway route. The ser- through the construction of a bituminous shoulder of vice area is significant at a local level,and serves to support relative dimension to the inplace aggregate shoulder (not the principal travel corridor. Minor routes function as less than 4' unless under extenuating circumstances). The collectors from cities, parks, commercial/residential areas minimal level of effort generally should be avoided if it to the major bikeway system. Normally minor routes renders less than a fair rating unless geometrics and financ- are existent "good" or "fair" roads, however if these • ing of the project prohibit such a design. Generally speak- routes are rated "poor" or "unsatisfactory", the design ing projects constructed at minimal level render a travel should not exceed the present or proposed standards of the corridor of greater perceived safety -- this design should major bikeway route design(or desired design). be the exception to the standard whereby the objective is a fair rating. Because there are several combinations of conditions that will be encountered when evaluating proposed pro- c. Moderate level - The moderate level standard jects, it is important for the designer to get the "big pic- would render a "fair" rating without major alteration to ture" of the proposed project area and surrounding vicinity the existing road geometrics/drainage structure, etc. This to provide design continuity (an acceptable level of Stan- standard is the norm, whereby the achievement of a "fair" dards at a minimum cost). rating would produce a travel corridor acceptable to the average cyclist's skills and needs. Motorized traffic along (1) Ideally the standards used should produce a roads rated fair mix well with non-motorized traffic uniformly consistent "rating" level while minimizing the through the implementation of this standard. variance in design so as to not confuse motorists or cyclists. Anticipation and predictability of the design of a travel d. Major level - Often times projects involving 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 intersections at specially marked areas. This is a par- areas) yet the problem of retrofitting a provision for ticular concern when designing off-road bikeways because bikeways is not present. As with all transportation invest- of the lack of driver reaction time to an unexpected cyclist menu, a thorough investigation must be conducted to maneuver. determine how to best serve the traveling public with available funds. 2. Evaluate the probability of implementing the pro- posed project. The probability of implementing the project • should be studied in conjunction with those agencies and local units of government directly impacted. Construction schedules should be flexible, yet provide enough guidance to the implementing agency to provide for a well-co-