Presented at the February 23rd Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting in Manhattan, Kansas. The presentation presents an update to the 1998 Master Plan, recommending that we focus more on the 60% of potential riders who are "interested but scared" by creating a low-traffic, low-speed "green grid" for bicycle commuting.
2. Where we are now … Amsterdam = 40% CPH = 33% Davis = 17% Boulder = 12.3% Berkeley 9.9% Portland 5.8%
3. Missoula, Montana Population 57,000 in 2000, now 69,000+ College Town 7.2% bicycle mode share 64% of arterials with bike lanes
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. “The Missoula Model” Retrofit streets to max of 3 lanes Replace traffic signals with single lane roundabouts emphasizing bike/walk Connect all bike lanes, sidewalks, and trails One street per neighborhood = “green street” Max 25 mph speed in city limits Double bus service
12. 1998 Master Plan Complete Linear Trail Develop inter-city bicycle facilities Bicycle parking Policies for future growth
13. Types of Cyclists A: operate under most conditions B: casual riders. Prefer low-speed, low-volume streets or paths C: child riders. Require comfortable areas.
14. 1998 plan for completing the bike network “wheel and spokes” concept “All streets should be accessible to bicycle travel.” “An inter-connected network of designated bicycle routes – spokes – should be developed throughout the community.” “ideally, a rough grid of approximately ¼ - ½ mile spacing” Designated major streets as bicycle routes (College, Browning, Kimball, Poyntz, 14th, Juliette, etc.)
24. “on-street road segments suggested by the Master Plan were very unsafe for shared use of bicycles and automobiles” – Ben Ehreth 2004
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31. Current shortcomings Not up to date with latest paths Unfamiliar with backroads, cut-throughs, unofficial paths, and B-biker workarounds Focus on A-bikers (<2%) Recent innovations in bicycle planning
32. A revised approach … Focus on B-bikers not A-bikers Focus on everyday commuting, not just recreation Goal: Complete ½ mile unbroken grid network Use separate low-traffic routes when possible (B-biker friendly)
33. Why B-bikers? Over 85% of potential riders A-Bikers will ride anyway B-bikers not swayed by A-focused improvements
34. Types of Cyclists (Portland DOT Revision) Strong & Fearless = 1-2% (prefer no amenities … ride with traffic) Enthused & Confident = 6% (will ride with traffic, but prefer amenities) Interested but scared = 60% “No way. No how” = 32% Aim for the 60%
75. Advantages of BBs Cheap! (as little as $3,500/mile) Works for B-bikers (Portland State study) B-biker access to key destinations Preliminary studies show dramatic increase in ridership Creates *liveable* streets “For people concerned with safety and avoiding traffic, a well-connected network of low-traffic streets, including some bicycle boulevards, may be more effective than adding bike lanes on major streets with high volumes of motor vehicle traffic.” – Jennifer Dill 2009 JPHP
77. Still needed 2.5 miles of essential trails (Hayes, Anderson, Poliska, Miller Ranch – Anneberg, etc.) 2 miles of recommended trails 2 miles of recreational trail (N. Linear) 6 crossings of “the beltway” A few other intersection/crossing improvements
80. The Manhattan Formula # of key destinations served by route x # of people served by that route x level of improvement of that route + “network score” which = 1,000s of people brought into network + centrality of the improvement + miles of bike-able routes it adds to network / total cost = Impact per Dollar
81. Improvement Matrix Other notes: Bike Lanes = +1 Soft Surface => Hard Surface = +1 Smooth Surface => +1 (Soft => Smooth = +2) Sidewalk = Street Score +1 (min.2)
86. Summary of suggested revisions Current Master Plan Suggested Revisions bike lanes on core major arterials, complete Linear Trail Bike lanes on outer arterials (including roads with existing multi-use paths) Bike lanes in new developments Bicycle boulevards(BBs), complete core connections (will increase ridership) Complete outer connections using short multi-use paths connecting living streets / BBs. With money saved, dream big. Manhattan Greenway Project. (Update code to include requirement for BB/connections every 2,000 feet in new developments. Culdesacs must have pedestrian/bicycle connectivity.
