Maricopa County DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN ADOPTED MAY 19 1999 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Contents EXECUTIVE S UMMARY.................................................... i Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1 B ACKGROUND History.................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Road Network ...................................................................................... 3 Existing Off-Road Network................................................................................ 4 Existing Plan, Programs, Policies, and Laws ................................................. 7 Existing Bicycle Design Guidelines .................................................................13 Existing Laws ......................................................................................................15 Bicycle Crash Review........................................................................................16 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Mission Statement..............................................................................................18 Goals & Objectives.............................................................................................18 Policies.................................................................................................................20 Facility Recommendations ................................................................................21 Recommended Bicycle Network ......................................................................21 Benefit / Cost of Additional Shoulder Pavement Width ...............................22 Bicycle Parking ...................................................................................................29 IMPLEMENTATION Timeline & Success............................................................................................31 Benchmarks.........................................................................................................31 Funding ................................................................................................................32 GLOSSARY......................................................................................................34 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................36 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan INTRODUCTION “Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia.”-H.G. Wells Even though never officially adopted, the 1993 Draft Maricopa County Bicycle Plan provided strong and effective guidance. This plan updates, expands and continues the work of the Draft Plan for the next five years. The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan (TSP) specifically called for updating the County bicycle plan (ref #1). The following quotes highlight commitment to updating the bicycle plan update: “Update the bicycle facilities plan.” “Amend the Roadway Design Manual to include bicycle design standards.” “Complete an Implementation Plan as part of the bicycle plan update.” This plan works toward implementing these bicycle related recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan and TSP as adopted by the Board of Supervisors (BOS). Apart from satisfying implementation requirements, the intent of this plan is to: • Provide an overview of bicycling conditions in Maricopa County. • Clearly outline facility, policy and program changes focused on improving and integrating bicycle transportation. • Strengthen the bicycle program overall while implementing recommendations over the time frame of the plan. The following document is organized into three major sections: Background, Recommendations, and Implementation. The Background section reviews existing plans, programs, laws and facility conditions. Under Recommendations new goals, objectives, and policies are detailed. Additionally the Recommendations section outlines facility improvements and a recommended bicycle network. The Implementation section sets a realistic guide for improvements “in the right place, at the right time, and at the right cost”. 1 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan BACKGROUND “I thought of that while riding my bike.” -Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity History In 1997, the culmination of four years of work were realized with the adoption of the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, and the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Together these plans provide a blueprint for the growth of Maricopa County over the next twenty years. An important element includes improving travel throughout the County, including bicycle transportation. Over the past ten years Maricopa County supported improvements for bicycle travel. In 1987 the BOS adopted a policy permitting the use of Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) for construction of bicycle facilities (ref #2). Derived from gasoline and vehicle license taxes HURF funds provide the main revenue source to plan and build roads. The policy stipulates a clear transportation use for bicycle facilities built with HURF. Bicycle facilities now compete with other road projects as a legitimate transportation need. Terms To Look For BOS = Board of Supervisors BAC = Bicycle Advisory Committee HURF = Highway User Revenue Funds MCDOT = Maricopa County Department of Transportation TSP = Transportation System Plan MAG =Maricopa Association of Governments Figure 1: Terms 2 In 1989 the BOS approved the development of a Bicycle Program. The program hired a full time Bicycle Coordinator, and created the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC). The BAC is one of two appointed citizens committees within the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), along with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). The ten member BAC consists of two appointees from each of the five supervisor districts, chosen by Supervisors for their skill and interest in bicycling. This highly skilled committee has been active in a wide variety of projects over the past nine years. The BAC conducts surveys, prepares teaching resources, reviews provisions for bicycle parking, and provides input for road projects. In 1993 the BAC prepared a draft bicycle facilities plan for Maricopa County. The resulting document defined a network of bicycle corridors, set guidelines for road improvements, and discussed strategies for implementation. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Existing Road Network Actual travel conditions vary throughout Maricopa County. Physical structures like streets, intersections, bike lanes, lane markings, and signs are the "facilities" used to define the overall travel environment. Understanding the status of facilities creates a benchmark by which future conditions and recommendations can be measured. The County currently boasts an estimated 1000 to 1200 miles of bicycle facilities (lanes, routes, paths, etc…) shown on the following Existing Bicycle Facilities map. The majority of these miles are located within cities and towns, with approximately 100-150 miles found in unincorporated Maricopa County. Table 3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation is responsible for 2,829 miles of roadway in unincorporated County areas. Nearly 2,000 of these miles are paved and potential routes for bicyclists. Seventy-five percent of County roads are classified as rural roads. Urban roads make up the remaining twenty-five percent. Roadways classified as rural are streets with shoulders rather than curbs and gutters. Urban streets do have a curb and gutter and are typically located in more developed areas. The County road network remains a rural system, with increasing numbers of urban roads as urban growth expands into the County. Functional Classification Functional Classification Rural Local Rural Minor Collector Miles 1,485 123 Rural Major Collector Rural Principal Arterial Total Rural 487 13 2,108 Urban Local Urban Collector Urban Minor Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Total Urban TOTAL 513 96 86 26 721 2,829 Source: RIS database, May 1996 Figure 2: TSP Table All streets (rural or urban) are classified by their purpose and capacity. Local roads are small two lane roads handling neighborhood traffic. Collectors are slightly larger streets, designed for more traffic, which connect areas to the main street network. The main street network consists of Arterial streets providing movement between major destinations throughout the County. The largest streets (up to six lanes) Arterials are designed to handle the majority of traffic. Table 1 Maricopa County Transportation System Miles of paved road 1,995 Miles of graded road 834 Miles of roadway 2,829 Major bridges 21 Minor bridges 240 River bottom crossings 27 Traffic signals (signalized intersections) 125 Signs and barricades 35,000 Roadway striping miles a year 16,661 Source: MCDOT Annual Report Figure 3: TSP Table In many situations County roads are located within a city’s boundaries in a County island. County islands are areas or road segments surrounded by one or more municipalities. Such island roadways should not be a gap or barrier to other municipalities extending their bicycle network. Maricopa County maintains an impressive 2,829 miles of road. Most of these miles are rural streets. Additionally, a majority of these roads are classified as local. Improvements for bicycling are typically focused on collectors and arterials or about 830 miles of the County roadway system. 3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Existing Off-Road Network In cooperation with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), MCDOT supports the development of a regional off road bicycle network. MAG has identified an extensive off-road bicycle network (see Fig. 5) for the urbanized parts of Maricopa County. Sections of this network fall within unincorporated County. MCDOT has not developed these unincorporated off-road sections due to HURF funding restrictions. The majority of existing County off-road facilities are found within the County Park System and serve recreation purposes. MCDOT has typically worked towards providing connections to park areas via on-street facilities. The County park system is detailed below: Figure 4: Parks 4 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Existing and Planned Off Road Bicycle System Plan Map (Maricopa Association of Governments) R D D R RD 19T H AVE A M HONDA BOW RD Tonto National Forest 168 TH ST DIXILETA DR 152 ND ST 144T H ST LONE MOUNT AI N RD 128T H ST DYNAMITE BLVD HAYDEN RD SCOT TSDALE RD DOVE VALL EY RD 1 60T H ST 48TH ST 5 6TH ST ST AGECOACH PASS CAREF REE HWY 40TH ST 3 2ND ST 2 4TH ST 1 6TH ST 7 TH ST 19T H AVE MR D CAREFREE FH 16 0 JO MAX RD SCOTTSDALE UNION HILLS DR BELL RD BELL RD MCD OW MCD O WELL BEARDSLEY RD MT N . RD PEORIA BEARDSLEY RD FORT MCDOW ELL IND. COMM. FOR T McDowell Mountain Park DEER VALLEY DR ELL RD HAPPY VALLEY RD PINNACL E PEAK RD SURPRISE DEER VAL LEY RD TLE TT DA PI MA RD DESERT HILLS DR JOY RANCH RD 35TH AVE 4 3RD AVE B AR CAVE CREEK ROCKAWAY HILLS RD 7TH AVE 33RD AVE 2 7TH AVE CIR CLE MOUNTAIN RD EW 5 1ST AVE 67T H AVE 5 9TH AVE 9 1ST AVE 8 3RD AVE BULL ARD AVE SARIVAL AVE REEMS RD 171 ST AVE 179 TH AVE 187T H AVE HAPPY VAL LEY RD GREENWAY RD GREENWAY RD Whit e Tank Park Wilderness Area E D S G JENNY L IN RD N EN GLI SH 195 TH AVE 2 03RD AVE 2 11TH AVE CROZIER RD 235 TH AVE IN RI VE R Lake Pleasant Park E AK L ER PP RD U 2 27T H AVE PR S H D LL SR T R S WE O H 243RD AVE E TL AS C G N RI P S IG F O R SE S H O PHOT O VIEW RD MINGUS RD NEW RIV ER RD D THUNDERBIRD RD WADDELL RD CACTUS RD EL MIRAGE PEORIA AVE FOUNTAIN HI LLS PHOENIX SR 87 OLIVE AVE BU S SALT RIVER IND. COMM. LITCHFIELD PARK CAMELBACK RD IND SCHOOL RD HH WY 88 BET HANY HM RD SR PARADISE VALL EY GLENDALE GLENDALE AVE USE RY P ASS RD NORTHERN AVE THOM AS RD THO MAS RD MCDOWELL RD MCDOWELL RD MCKELLIPS RD TOLLESON BROWN RD MESA UNIVERSIT Y DR BROADW AY RD GERMANN RD 5 9TH AVE ELLIOT RD South Mountain Park 51ST AVE 6 7TH AVE 7 5TH AVE L ITCHFIELD RD PECOS RD 99T H AVE 107 TH AVE Estrella Mountain Park WILL IAMS F IELD RD GUADAL UPE RD GUA DALUPE 83RD AVE NARRAMORE RD ARLI NG TON RD RAY RD SOUTHERN AVE BASELI NE RD 91ST AVE GOODYEAR 1 15TH AVE WARNER RD GILBERT RAY RD WILLIAMS FIELD RD PECOS RD PECOS RD GERM ANN RD CHANDLER BE LT OCOT IL LO RD Sierra Estrella Wilderness Area QUEEN CREEK RD OCOT ILLO RD QUEEN CREEK CHANDL ER HTS RD D CHANDL ER HEIGHTS RD RIGGS RD RIGGS RD MERI DIAN RD C RISMON RD SIGNAL BUTT E RD HAWES RD SOSSAMAN RD ELL SWORT H RD PO WER RD RECKER RD HIGLEY RD VAL VIST A DR GREENF IEL D RD LINDSAY RD COOPER RD G ILBERT RD M CQUEEN RD ARIZONA AVE ALMA SCHOOL RD D OBSON RD PRI CE RD RURAL RD MCCLINTOCK DR KYRENE RD 56T H ST 48T H ST 4 0TH ST 24T H ST 16TH ST 32ND ST 7 TH AVE CENTRAL AVE 7 TH ST HUNT HWY 27T H AVE PATTERSO N RD 35T H AVE REEMS RD BULL ARD AVE SARIVAL AVE CIT RUS RD COT TON LN PER RYVIL LE RD CHANDLER HT S RD GILA RIVER L IN EIND. COMM. R 19T H AVE T UTHILL RD JACKRABBIT TRAIL RAINBOW VLY RD QUEEN CREEK RD 43RD AVE DEAN RD ELLIOT RD AIRPO RT RD RAI NBOW RD WAT SON RD M ILLER RD CEMETERY RD BASELI NE RD DOBBINS RD TEMPE EL MIRAGE RD DYSART RD AVONDALE ROD-N EL RD (SOUTH RD) Figure 5: Off-Road Network 6 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws Bicycle travel is affected by a wide range of plans, programs and polices in Maricopa County. This includes transportation plans, land use plans, area studies, corridor studies, BOS adopted policies, and internal programs and initiatives. These elements together provide the structure which supports (or inhibits) the ability to improve conditions for bicycle travel. Plans Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan (1997) Adopted on October 20, 1997, the Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for land use, transportation, environmental and economic development decisions in unincorporated Maricopa County. Bicycling is closely integrated into the transportation section, as shown in the goal of the transportation element: “Provide an efficient, cost-effective, integrated, accessible, environmentally sensitive, and safe county-wide system that addresses existing and future roadway networks, as well as promotes transit, bikeways, and pedestrian travel.” The Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends a policy to "explore and encourage options to increase bikeways", in the effort to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips. The plan also states that bicycle facilities be included on new roadway construction to "increase opportunities" for the bicycling public. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes bicycling as an important piece of the transportation network. Transportation System Plan (1997) Developed concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan the Transportation System Plan (TSP) focuses on creating a transportation network to support the safe and efficient movement of goods and people. The underlying principle of the TSP is evaluating transportation investment by asking the following questions: Is it in the right place? Is it at the right time? Is it at the right cost? Bicycles are included as an integral component in this evaluation process. The TSP recommends three comprehensive improvements for bicycle travel; 1. Change the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual by making roadway cross-sections with bicycle treatments (existing alternative sections) the design standard rather than the alternative. 2. Update the County bicycle facilities plan (this document). 3. Develop an Implementation Plan as part of the update. These recommendations are intended to further mesh bicycle needs into the overall transportation development process. The TSP implements the transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan while this project works towards implementing the above bicycle elements for the TSP. 7 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Southwest Valley Transportation Study (1997) Completed in 1997, this area study was developed to provide a "comprehensive, multi-modal transportation plan" in cooperation with the cities of Avondale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Tolleson and the Town of Buckeye. Non-motorized (bicycle and pedestrian) transportation considerations were included as part of this process. This included the following policy as part of the Mobility Improvement goal: “Provide bikeway facilities on new or reconstructed arterial and collector streets.” The study designates a bikeway system throughout the Southwest Valley consisting of multi-use paths, bike lanes, and signed routes. To implement these improvements the study recommends the inclusion of bicycle facilities into larger roadway projects to minimize cost. Northeast Valley Area Transportation Study (1996) Focused on the New River/Desert Hills area, this plan serves as a guideline for development of a multi-modal transportation network. The goal for the non-motorized category states: Northwest Valley Northeast Valley Southwest Valley Williams Area “Provide public access that will reasonably accommodate non-motorized travel modes along roadways, including bike routes, equestrian trails and paths and pedestrian walkways to open space within five miles of Northeast Valley residents' homes.” This goal is supported by a policy recommendation which "delineates and protects dedication of bike lanes along major roadways, as per current Maricopa County policy". Additionally the plan recommended the following actions related to bicycling: Figure 6: Area Studies • Maricopa County Planning Department should encourage all new developments to designate bike and equestrian trails. Maricopa county should also require all new developments to provide bikeway and walkways for school children within elementary school service areas. • Maricopa County Department of Transportation should designate and preserve bike lanes along New River Road, Carefree Highway, and 7t h Street. 8 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Williams Area Transportation Plan (1997) The Williams Area Transportation Plan covers the unincorporated area of the County south and east of Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, and including the Town of Queen Creek. This extensive study revolves around the former Williams Air Force Base, which now houses Arizona State University East Campus, Maricopa Community College district, and other educational institutions. The bicycle section of this plan makes the following recommendations: • • • In accordance with the MAG Regional Bicycle Plan, provide bicycle lanes on Power Rd, Williams Field Rd, Guadalupe Rd, Rittenhouse Rd and Lindsay Rd. Provide bicycle lanes on all arterial streets. Construct bicycle lanes along major access points to the Williams campus. As the educational facilities in the Williams campus area grow the amount of bicycle activity is expected to increase. The recommendations in this plan focus on addressing this future need. Maricopa County Bicycle Facilities Plan (1993) Created to specifically address bicycle travel needs, this plan was important for Maricopa County government in accommodating multi-modalism. Intended as a long range, twenty year plan, this plan focused on identifying facilities and the creation of a County bicycle network. This network provided extension of local systems and regional connections. Key objectives from this plan include: • • • • Integrate a bicycle element in all County planning. Establish a review process for the Bicycle Program on all development plans. Develop a variety of bicycle facilities… Encourage bicycle education… Over 560 miles of bikeways were proposed in the plan. The majority of these miles were designated for bike lanes or as signed routes. Clear definitions of these facility types were included for design guidance. Safety, accessibility, and the overall driving environment were also addressed as elements of this plan. For the past five years this plan has helped integrate bicycle travel needs into the County transportation system. 9 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan SUMMARY OF BICYCLE RECOMMENDATIONS IN COUNTY PLANS PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan • • • • • • • SW Valley Area Plan • • • • NE Valley Area Plan • Williams Area Plan • • • Maricopa County Bicycle Facilities Plan • • • Promote and increase bikeways. Include multi-modal alternatives. Include bikes on all new road projects. Standard bicycle roadway section. Update bike plan, and implementation. Bikeways on new or reconstructed roads. Combine with larger roadway projects. Identifies bicycle network for SW Valley. Provide access to bike routes. Bike lanes along major roadways. Designated bikeways in new developments. Implement existing MAG bicycle plans. Bicycle lanes on all arterial streets. Improve bicycle access to campus. Integrate bicycling in all County planning. Bicycle review on all development plans. Identified facilities. Encouraged education. Figure 7: Plan Summary MAG Regional Bicycle Plan (1992) Maricopa County participates as a member of MAG and has relied on the MAG Regional Bicycle Plan as a basis for bicycle related efforts on several occasions. This 1992 plan developed a regional network of on road and off road bicycle facilities. The plan recommended over 660 miles of roadway improvements for bicycles, nearly 200 of those miles were in Maricopa County jurisdiction. The goals for this plan fall under four general categories; engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement. The MAG plan relies on member jurisdictions to implement their individual segments connecting and growing the regional system. This plan is currently in the process of being updated. 10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Bicycle Program In 1989 the BOS adopted a policy authorizing the creation of a County bicycle program. The program consisted of two main elements: first the creation of a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and second, the hiring of a full time dedicated bicycle coordinator. The advisory committee is comprised of two citizens from each of the five supervisor districts, appointed by the BOS. The committee was charged with a set of functions and responsibilities, including the following: • • • • Recommending routes for bicycles as part of a bicycle master plan for the County. Review, advise, and determine rules and regulations for the operation of a County bikeway system. Assist in the development of public awareness and support for bicycle programs. Recommend operating policies for a bikeway system. These four tasks are part of a larger set of responsibilities, which include County wide coordination, State and National activities, and public interaction. To this end the BAC members have been active in a wide variety of projects over the past eight years. They have conducted surveys, prepared teaching resources, reviewed provisions for bicycle parking, and provided input for road projects. Additionally, the BAC prepared the 1993 draft Bicycle Facilities Plan. This committee meets monthly to review and guide bicycle needs for MCDOT. As a result of this policy MCDOT hired a bicycle coordinator in 1990, and has maintained this position. The coordinator is in charge of organizing the BAC and fulfilling members’ requests. The person in this position represents the County on regional bicycle committees including the Governor’s Arizona Bicycle Task Force. The bicycle coordinator also brings forward bicycle projects, and ensures bicycle travel is incorporated into County government operations and policies. The bicycle program is the cornerstone of bicycle transportation for Maricopa County. 11 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Existing Bicycle Design Guidelines Maricopa County Department of Transportation has a well developed set of bicycle design guidelines. Chapter five of the Roadway Design Manual includes roadway cross sections with bicycle facilities (arterial examples shown below). Additionally chapter eight details bicycle facility guidelines (copy of chapter eight included in Appendix C). The existing guidelines in the Roadway Design Manual provide substantial direction for how and when to include bicycle facilities in County road projects. Figure 8: Cross-Section Examples 13 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan MCDOT also produces a Pavement Marking Manual. Included are specifications for bicycle facility pavement markings (example shown below). Line and lane widths for bicycle lanes are detailed along with various intersection and lane configurations (see copies in Appendix C). Figure 9: Design Example 14 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Existing Laws A variety of state and local bicycle related laws exist in Arizona. State laws basically provide a legal definition of bicycles, where they are allowed to ride, and the responsibilities of bicyclists. Under Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) a person riding a bicycle has “all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle…”. The City of Tempe provides local guidance addressing bicycle riding on sidewalks or bicycle lanes. State laws do not restrict the use of bicycles; in fact the statute provides in detail proper roadway and path use. Three of the main laws covering bicycling are shown below (refer to Appendix D for all State laws pertaining to bicycles): P OINT OF LAW #1 ARS 28-101. 6. "Bicycle" means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either: (a) Two tandem wheels, either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter. (b) Three wheels in contact with the ground, any of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter. P OINT OF LAW #2 ARS 28-812 . Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application. P OINT OF LAW #3 ARS 28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations: 1. 2. 3. 4. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or local authorities. D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway. E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority. 15 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Bicycle Crash Review This crash review summarizes six years of crash data 1991-1996. The data reflects only those crashes involving a motor vehicle and reported to law enforcement. Reported crashes are estimated to represent only 10% of all crashes according to national figures. The numbers include all of Maricopa County, incorporated and unincorporated combined. Estimated number of bicycle related crashes: 10,278 Total Injuries: Total possible injuries: Total fatalities: 7,040 3,144 90 68.5% 30.6% 0.9% 100.0% When and where are these accidents occurring? Thanks to year round riding conditions in Maricopa County, crashes are evenly distributed throughout the seasons. The bulk of crashes occur during the day, although a significant number (21.2%) did take place at night or at dawn. Nearly 85% of the crashes were on a roadway or alley, with the remainder occurring on a bike path or sidewalk (this reflects the reporting system of automobile involvement). What is happening during the crash? The data indicates in most situations the bicycle was traveling straight ahead 77% of the time, whereas the automobile was either going straight or making a right turn in 64% of all crashes. 50% of all crashes involved a crossing situation of one form or another between the automobile and bicycle (i.e. right turn, leaving driveway, left turn). The most frequent crash types for bicyclists compiled from national data include six common situations: • • • • • • The cyclist rides out of a driveway or alley without slowing or looking. The cyclist enters a signalized intersection even though aware of the law. A motorist stops at the intersection looking for traffic, then proceeds but fails to see a bicyclist coming from either left or right. At night on narrow roads a cyclist is riding on the edge and is overtaken by a motorist. Traveling along the road edge, the cyclist makes an unexpected left turn or swerves and collides with an overtaking motorist. A motorist at an intersection turning right, without signaling, turns into a cyclist coming from behind. Summary Maricopa County (urban and rural areas combined) experiences about 1700 reported bicycle related crashes per year. The major finding in this review indicates a significant hazard in crossing situations like right and left turns and leaving driveways. 16 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Bicycle Stress Level The stress level concept for evaluating the bicycle compatibility of roadways provides a framework in which roads can be rated based on their lane width, traffic volume and traffic speed. It was developed by Alex Sorton and the Northwestern University Traffic Institute. Most bicyclists that ride on the streets attempt to reduce the mental stress induced by motor vehicles. They prefer to avoid conflicts with automobiles and the strain of concentrating for long periods of time while riding along narrow, high speed, high volume roads. The bicycle stress level concept assigns values ranging from 1 to 5 based on traffic variables of curb lane volume, speed and width. Level 1 indicates the variables are not a problem for bicycles while Level 5 indicates there are major problems. One (very low)  Street is reasonably safe for all types of bicyclists except for children under 10. Two (low)  Street can accommodate experienced and casual bicyclists, and/or may need altering* or have compensating conditions** to accommodate youth bicyclists. Three (moderate)  Streets can accommodate experienced bicyclists, and/or may need altering* or contains compensating conditions** to accommodate casual bicyclists. Not recommended for youth bicyclists. Four (high)  Streets may need altering* and/or have compensating conditions** to accommodate experienced bicyclists. Not recommended for casual or youth bicyclists. Five (very high)  Streets may not be suitable for bicycle use. * “Altering” means that streets may be widened to include wide curb lane, paved shoulder addition, etc. ** “Compensating condition” can include street with wide curb lanes, paved shoulders, bike lines, low curb lane volume, etc. Stress Level Analysis Results The analysis described above was performed on the 473 mile bicycle network identified in this plan. This provides an idea of the existing stress level conditions for these particular road segments. Detail of stress level results for each segment can be found in Appendix A, generalized results are as follows: Stress Level Existing Road Conditions One Two Three Four Five Unanalyzed Miles (limited data) Total Miles 0 miles 3 miles 169 miles 235 miles 32 miles 34 miles 473 Figure 11: Stress Level Results 17 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS “Nothing compares with the simple pleasure of a bike ride.” -John F. Kennedy To improve the County transportation network for bicycling the following goals, objectives and policies are recommended for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Additionally a set of roads identified as the primary County bicycle network is outlined. Mission Statement Maricopa County Department of Transportation shall actively enhance, increase and enrich the freedom and opportunities of Maricopa County citizens by integrating bicycle transportation as a standard element in county planning, engineering, design, programs, systems and processes. Goal 1: Identify a connected bicycle network, which extends and compliments area bicycle plans and systems into and throughout the County. a. Create and maintain a database (map) of all cities’ bicycle plans. b. Combine network recommendations from other County plans. c. Create and maintain a database and map of the County bicycle network based on existing County road inventory data. d. Integrate county bicycle plans with current and future municipal plans. Goal 2: 18 Make roadway cross sections with bicycle lanes the roadway design standard. a. Revise the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Chapter 5 Geometric Design Standards with bicycle configurations as the standard. b. Revise the MCDOT Pavement Marking Manual Chapter 3 Standard Roadway Cross Sections with bicycle configurations as the standard. c. Develop alternative striping configurations based on the minimum widths detailed in Table 5.1: Lane Widths, of the Design Manual. d. Implement a re-striping program to include bicycle lanes when/where feasible. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Goal 3: a. Goal 4: Develop an Implementation Plan outlining specific steps, timelines, and processes towards complete implementation of this plan. Prioritize bicycle projects in Improvement Program (CIP). cooperation with the Capital Encourage and support existing bicycle safety and education programs operating in Maricopa County. a. Utilize the County Bicycle Advisory Committee to develop safety and education products. b. Participate with other organizations on safety and education efforts. Goal 5: Integrate bicycle transportation needs into ongoing and future transportation, land use, and economic development plans. a. Require the following review processes to transportation needs as defined in this plan: include bicycle Transportation • Small Area Transportation Studies • Design Concept Reports • Candidate Assessment Reports • Corridor Studies • Expand the participation of the Bicycle Coordinator in project scope development, project review and design review. • Utilize the BAC in a review capacity for all projects including bicycle facilities. Land Use and Economic Development • Comprehensive Plan • Master Plan Developments • Standard New Development • Small Area Plans 19 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Policies Policy 1: General Bicycle Policy a. Maricopa County recognizes bicycling as a viable transportation mode, and actively works toward consistently and prudently improving the transportation network to increase access, safety and equity to the transportation system. Policy 2: Facility Commitment Policies a. Maricopa County Department of Transportation shall include bicycle facilities on all County roadways as described in the Roadway Design Manual and the Pavement Marking Manual. b. Bicycle projects not directly combined with a larger roadway project shall be evaluated separately during the CIP process. c. The Capital Improvement Program shall rate projects with bicycle elements higher than projects without bicycle elements. Policy 3: Organizational Change Policies a. MCDOT shall institute a multi-modal review process during planning and design of projects as well as during review of subdivision and development proposals to ensure proper inclusion of bicycle, pedestrian and transit needs. b. Partners, consulting engineers, contractors and customers of Maricopa County Department of Transportation are to be informed of the position of the County towards bicycle transportation and encouraged to follow the same standards and principles when working with the County. 20 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Facility Recommendations The Maricopa County Bicycle Transportation Plan includes the addition of 473 miles of on-road bicycle facilities. There are 588 road segments from the County road database that have been combined and condensed to 110 segments for the purposes of this plan. One of the plan’s goals is to provide bicycle links between all the communities in Maricopa County. The inclusion of Old US80 connects Gila Bend and Arlington with Buckeye and the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Wickenburg was connected from the south by including Vulture Mine and Wickenburg Roads. Salome Highway is another rural route that provides a connection with La Paz County. Another goal is to provide bicycle links between cities in the Phoenix Metro area. There are many county islands in and on the edges of the valley cities that make it difficult for the cities to provide continuous, uninterrupted routes. Many of the segments in this plan line up with existing or planned bicycle facilities in various cities. Providing continuous travel routes along collector and arterial streets will facilitate the choice of the bicycle as an alternate mode of transportation. Recommended Bicycle Network The map on the following page shows the entire recommended bicycle network. The 110 network segments are grouped into various geographic regions. Each segment includes a description, and purpose for being included in the bicycle network (see appendix A). This network reflects a backbone for bicycle facilities to prioritize investment, and guide project development. A detailed listing of segment data can be found in Appendix A. Appendix A provides an initial framework for a Bicycle Improvement Program (BIP). The BIP will be updated annually in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The BIP tracks bicycle projects, prioritizes bicycle needs, and identifies required resources. The recommended bicycle network and Bicycle Improvement Program are intended as reference points and initial starting points. Projects not specifically found on the bicycle network or in the BIP should not discount the inclusion of bicycle facilities. The ultimate bicycle network for Maricopa County includes all streets functioning as an arterial or lesser classification. 21 539TH AVE E AGLE EY E RD 491ST AVE DOBBINS RD C A LI EN TE RD W S AL OM E HW I DIANSCHOOL RD N Y THOMA S RD CAMELBACK RD D R T EN M N ER RO OV C G K R Y D PT H MA N LA RD 411T HAVE 419T HAV E 395TH AVE TE IE N C AL Wolsey Peak Wilderness Area Signal Mountain Wilderness Area AG UA SISSONRD RD LOWER RIVER RD BA SELINE RD SOUTHERN RD BROADWAY RD 299TH AVE BUCKEYE PATTON RD D I XILETA DR LONE M OUNTAINRD DOVE VALLEY RD CAREFREE HWY LOWER BUCK EY E RD BUCKEYE RD VANBURENST N ARRAMO R E RD ELLIOT RD Big Horn Mountain Wilderness Area SOUTHERN AVE BUTTERFIELDSTAGE RD RD AG UA R DE HY HIGHLINE RD LAHMANRD NARRAMORE R D TURTLEB ACK MOUNT AIN RD RD Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Area RN PE AK RD S TN FORNES RD PIERPOINT RD KOMATKE RD INDIANRD WATERMELONRD I R SP GILABEND WOODRD THOMAS RD BASELINE RD AVONDALE Estrella Mountain Park JENNY LI NRD GLENDALE PEC O S RD Sierra Estrella Wilderness Area D PAR RICO MA South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area North Maricopa ROD-NEL RD( SOUT HRD) Mountains Wilderness Area PA TTE RSON RD RIGGS RD CHA NDLE R HTS RD OCOTILLORD QUEENCREEK RD GERMANN RD PECOS RD WILLIAMS FIELD RD ARLIN GT ON RD RA Y RD ELLIOT RD PEORIA TOLLESON EL MIRAGE Lake Pleasant Park LITCHFIELD PARK GOO DYEAR NARRAMORE RD DOBB IN S RD IN D SCHOOLRD CAMELBACK RD BETHANY HM RD GLENDALE AVE NORTHERNAVE White WADDELL RD C ACTUS RD Tank ParkOLIVE AVE PEORIA AVE MCDOWELL RD PATTERSONRD BELL RD GR EEN WAY RD BEARDSLEY RD SUNVALLEY PKWY DE ER VA LLEY RD SURPRISE HAPPY VALLEY RD PINNACLE PEAK RD JOMAX RD T O H 235T H AVE RD E AGLE EY E RD Eagletail Mountain Wilderness Area BASELINE RD LOWERBUCKEYE RD BUCKEYE RD VANBURENST 547T HAV E 19T HAVE VU LTUR EMINE RD 331ST AVE BLACK EAG LERD HA RQUAHALA VLY RD 355T H AV E 359T HAV E 355TH AVE IC RO W AV E 491ST AVE L IT TL E HO 387TH AVE 323RD AVE 331ST AV E A R P AINTEDROCK D AM R D V UL T UR EM INE RD WINTER SB URGRD 339TH AVE 339TH AVE ARLIN GT ONS CHOOL RD DE N OG T URNERRD 347TH AVE CITR US VALLEY RD 227TH AVE WAT SON RD R D ROOKSRD 195TH AVE WEL LS RD EN GL ISH 211T HAVE E TL S A C RA INBOWRD A K BRUNERRD 243RDA VE CEMETERYRD E WILSONAVE CROZ IE RRD DEAN RD V U LT U R E P P ALOV ERD ERD O LD US 80 RD O GLESBYRD 179T HAV E CI TRU SRD Harquahala Mountain D Wilderness Area M 555T HAVE M ILLERRD 187T HAVE P ERRYVI LLERD DYSARTRD 203RD AVE AI RPORT RD T UTHILL RD JACKRABBIT TRAIL RAINB OWVLY RD BULLARD AVE BULLARDA VE AG U IL 395T HAV E LI TCH FIELDR D 171ST AV E COTTONLN 115TH AVE REEMS RD REEM SRD E L MIRA GE R D SA RIVAL AV E SARIVA L AVE 107TH AVE PETE RD PA LOMA RD 99T HAVE 67TH AVE 67T H AVE 91ST AV E 91ST AVE NE W 59T HAVE JOY RANCH RD DESERT HILLS DR GILA RIVER IND. COMM. BELLRD UNION HILLS DR DE ER VA LLEY DR TEMPE CHANDLERHTS RD CHANDLER Incorporated Areas Bicycle Network MESA GILBERT SALT RIVER IND. COMM. THUNDERBIRD RD BA RTLET T DAM RD FH 160 Tonto National Mazatzal Wilderness Ar W WY HH BUS QUEEN CREEK MCDOWELL RD THOMAS RD SR87 IND. COMM. S N E San Tan Mountain Park HUNT HWY RIGGS RD CHANDLE R HEI OCOTILLORD QUEENCREEK GERMANNRD PECOS RD WILLIAMS FIEL RA Y RD WARNER RD ELLIOT RD GUADALUPE RD BASELINE RD SOUTHERN AVE BROADWAY RD UNI VERSI TY DR BROWN RD MCKE LLIP S RD McDowell Mountain Park FORT MCDOWELL FOUNTAIN HILLS PINNACLE PEAK RD HAPPY VALLEY RD JOMAX RD SCOTTSDALE DIXILETA DR LONE MOUNTAINRD DOVE VALLEY RD GREENWAY RD GUADALUPE South Mountain Park STAGEC OACHPASS CAREFREE HWY PARADISE VALLEY BEARDSLEY RD DYNAMITE BLVD PHOENIX B EL TL IN E R D CAVE CREEK HONDA BOW RD C I RCLE MOUNTAINRD RD ROCKAWAY HILLS RD 7T HS T RI VE R 5 1ST AV E 51ST AVE 83RD AVE 83RD AV E 371 ST AV E 363RDA VE 75T HAV E 43RD AVE 43RD AV E 32ND ST 32N D ST 35T H AVE 35T HAV E 19T HAV E 19T HAV E 40TH ST 40TH ST 33R D AVE 27THAVE 27T HAV E 24T HST 24TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 59T HAV E GS PHOTO VIEW RD I N R P MINGUSRD I GS F NEW RIVERRD KYRENERD 16T HST 16T HST 48T HST 48TH ST P IMARD PRICERD 7T HAVE 7T HA VE CENTRAL AVE 7T HS T SCOTTSDALERD RU RAL RD D R S NG ARIZONA AV E C OURTHOUSE RD 571ST AV E DOBSONRD 144T HST LINDSAY RD WICKENBURG G ILB ERT RD ALVINRD VAL VISTADR 523RDAVE OA T MA NR D MCQU EENRD 168TH ST HIGLEYRD FOR TM POWERRD HA YDE NRD MCCLINTOCK DR 319T HAVE GILABLVD MCDOW ELL MT N. RD REC KERRD 128T HST COO PER RD CDOW E LL RD SOSSA MAN RD JOHNS ON RD STOUT RD HAWESRD 307T H AVE LOGAN AVE CEMETERYRD ALMA SCHOOL RD 152NDS T R D D AM HO RS E SH OE 160T HST GRE ENF IELD RD U SER Y P A SS RD CRI SMONRD Figure 12: County Bicycle Network ELLSW ORTHRD 22 M ERI DIANRD E AK RL PE D UP R SIGNAL BUTTE RD HARQUAVARAVE Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Benefit / Cost of Additional Shoulder Pavement Width Introduction Building streets for more than automobiles requires a commitment and understanding that streets are a community resource not simply a car conduit. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) understands the benefits of building a better street, by developing excellent standards and guidelines inclusive of bicycling, pedestrians and transit. The benefits of these roadway standards and the added cost of providing them are important to review and understand. This section will detail what these standards are, the cost of providing them, challenges for building streets for modes other than the car and finally the benefits, both in hard dollar savings and quality of life improvements. Current Design Standards MCDOT builds two basic types of roadways, rural and urban. Urban roads have curbs and gutters at the edge of the roadway and are located in densely populated areas. Rural roads have no curb or gutter and are built in outlying areas of the County. Within the last few years MCDOT committed to building (or reconstructing) through attrition all rural roads with five foot paved shoulders primarily for safety reasons. Additional benefits realized include the provision of an area for bicyclist to ride without being in main traffic lanes. MCDOT currently has two cross-sections for urban collectors and arterials, one with and one without a four foot bicycle lane. The focus of this section will be on the 112 miles of arterials in the County road network, and the need for providing a wide paved shoulder/bicycle lane on these cross sections, see appendix B for exact details. COST The cost of building urban arterials with additional shoulder width is 4-6% higher than building the same roadway without the additional width. This translates into a range of $90,000-$160,000 more per mile depending on the roadway classification (minor or major). Estimates from MCDOT operations indicate an increase of $350 dollars per year/per mile of road for maintenance with this additional pavement width. Figuring a 20 year roadway lifetime, the potential cost of building one mile of road with bicycle lanes can be estimated between $91,890 and $164,164. Road Type Construction Cost w/o bikelane/mi Construction Cost w/ bikelane /mi Difference Per mile (increase in construction cost) % Increase Operations Increase per Mile, Over 20 yr Lifetime Total 20 yr Cost/mile w/ bikelane Urban Major Arterial $2,621,630 $2,778,794 $157,164 5.9% $7,000 ($350/mile/yr) $164,164/mile Urban Minor Arterial $2,146,565 $2,231,455 $84,890 3.9% $7,000 ($350/mile/yr) $91,890/mile 23 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Total Potential Investment Total Miles of Arterials 112 Additional Capital Cost Per Mile (high cost) $160,000 112 x $160,000 = $17,920,000 Additional Operating Cost Per Mile/Per Year $350 (112 x $350) x 20yrs = $784,000 Total Potential Investment (20 year lifetime) $18,704,000 Challenges One of the major benefits for building roadways with wide paved shoulders is the ability to add a bicycle lane to the street. Concern has been expressed over the expenditure of Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) for bicycle transportation. The Arizona State Constitution and Arizona State Statutes say nothing preventing the use of HURF for constructing or maintaining onstreet bicycle facilities (on-street facilities are the only recommended improvements in this plan). In fact, HURF is only restricted in terms of use for building and maintaining roads and streets. The state constitution says nothing about intended mode of use (see Article IX, Section 14 of AZ State Constitution). Furthermore, bicycles by State Statute are given the same rights and responsibilities of automobiles when operating on roads. (see Title 28 Chapter 3 Article 11 of the Arizona State Statute, attached). The Board of Supervisors recognized these facts in 1987 and issued a Board Policy indicating the allowed use of HURF for bicycle facilities (see Board Policy 61-88, attached). Another misconception is that bicycle facilities are for recreation not transportation. Part of this misunderstanding stems from the rural nature of the County road system. Bicycle trips on outlying rural roads are less likely work trips and more likely for exercise or touring. The focus of this plan is not on the outlying rural areas. The urban and near urban areas are the highest priority areas to improve for bicycling. An underlying principle behind the development of this plan is to extend, connect, and enhance the bicycle networks and plans of the incorporated areas. In urban areas, 1% of all trips are made by bicycle. The 112 miles of urban arterials in the County road network are the focus of these discussions and the focus of investment for bicycle facilities. Additionally any trip made by a bicyclist (no matter the purpose) is one less trip otherwise made in an automobile. Bicycles are granted the same rights and responsibilities as people who choose to use automobiles on the roads. There is no constitutional conflict preventing the construction of on-street bicycle facilities. Bicycle facilities (especially on the urban roadways) are designed and intended to provide transportation and increased mobility, and not as recreation facilities. In the United States these misconceptions are prevalent in most transportation 24 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan agencies, to varying degrees. Understanding them is the first step to overcoming these obstacles to improving our transportation environment. Benefits Benefits realized from building streets with wide paved shoulders/bicycle lanes include: accident reduction, lower automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), air quality improvements and enhanced quality of life. The following conservative estimations of the benefits clearly show initial investment and increased operating cost are outweighed by advantages to the public. Accident Reduction According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) roadways with paved shoulders have lower accident rates for the following reasons: Paved shoulders… • Provide space to make evasive maneuvers; • Accommodate driver error; • Add a recovery area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs and poles (highways require a “clear zone,” and paved shoulders give the best recoverable surface); • Provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly; • Provide increased sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway (rural: in cut sections or brushy areas; urban: in areas with many sight obstructions); • Contribute to driving ease and reduced driver strain; • Reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians; • Make the crossing pedestrian more visible to motorists; and • Provide for storm water discharge farther from the travel lanes, reducing hydroplaning, splash and spray to following vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. According to the most recent (1995-1997) accident data collected by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Maricopa County experiences about 3,300 accidents on average per year on County roads. Around 1300 per year of these are injury accidents, with about 45 fatal accidents per year. The remainder report either no injury, unknown, or simply not indicated. Maricopa County could reduce the number of injury and fatal crashes by at least 5%, (conservatively speaking), by building roadways with wide paved shoulders/bicycle lanes. This is supported by the Federal Highway Administration which found in The National Bicycling and Walking Study a 29% reduction in various accident types with the installation of paved shoulders. Other investments in roadway safety improvements have also been shown to reduce accidents. An evaluation by the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has shown the following benefits: Construction of medians Realigning roadways, removing roadside obstacles Constructing turn lanes and traffic channelization Improvement in signing = = = = 73% 66% 47% 39% reduction reduction reduction reduction The U.S. DOT calculates the societal cost of each traffic fatality at $881,000 and the cost of non-fatal injury crashes at $16,000 per accident. Assuming a 25 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan conservative 5% reduction in accidents by building roadways with wide paved shoulders the following benefits are realized for Maricopa County: Accident Types Total for County/yr 5% reduction Cost of Accident Injury 1300 65 $16,000 Fatal 45 2.25 $881,000 Savings/yr 65 x $16,000 = $1,040,000 2.25 x $881,000 = $1,982,250 Total Savings/year = $3,022,250 20 yr Lifetime Savings = $60,445,000 The study conducted by the U.S. DOT clearly shows significant reductions by investing in safety improvements to roadways. The 5% reduction in crashes for building roads with wide paved shoulders/bicycle lanes could clearly be much higher considering the trends found by these other safety improvements. Improving safety is one of the most cost effective investments for roadways, considering the high societal cost of these crashes. Lower Vehicle Miles Traveled National and regional figures show that bicycling accounts for 1% of all trips. Providing bicycle facilities is the primary method used to shift trips made via automobiles to trips made by bicycles. By building roadways (particularly in and near urban areas) with bicycle facilities it is reasonable to consider a certain number of trips will shift to bicycles. For the purposes of this section a conservative estimate of .5% mode shift will be considered. Estimations of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on the 112 miles of County arterials from County and MAG data indicate 850,000 miles traveled per day. Based on these figures the following savings can be realized if .5% of this travel is shifted to bicycles. Total VMT/day 850,000 mi .5% shift to bicycles/day 4250 mi Yearly VMT Saved Cost/mile* 4250 mi x 260 work days = 1,105,000 miles $0.44 Overall Yearly Savings 1,105,000 miles x $0.44 = $486,200 20 year lifetime savings $486,200 x 20 yrs = $9,724,000 *FHWA 1997 Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile Lowering vehicle miles traveled provides a substantial citizen savings. In addition to the saving from operating costs are pollution reductions. For every 1% of automobile trips replaced by bicycling an estimated 2% to 4% reduction in air pollution is realized (Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.) Creating a multi-modal system is a cornerstone of the County’s long range vision. Shifting trips from cars to bicycles in one of the elements used to realize this vision. The goal of the transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan reads as follows… 26 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Provide an efficient, cost-effective, integrated, accessible, environmentally sensitive, and safe county-wide multi-modal system that addresses existing and future roadway networks, as well as promotes transit, bikeways, and pedestrian travel. Shifting trips from automobiles to bicycles by building facilities (bicycle lanes) is a cost effective investment. Wide shoulders/bicycle lanes provide savings in lower VMT and lower pollution along with promoting multi-modal transportation benefiting all tax payers. Quality of Life AASHTO details the following benefits of wide shoulders. These benefits apply to rural shoulders and on-street bike lanes in urban areas (as prepared by Michael Ronkin, for the Oregon Department of Transportation): Capacity - highways with paved shoulders can carry more traffic, as paved shoulders: • Provide more intersection and safe stopping sight distance; • Allow for easier exiting from travel lanes to side streets and roads (also a safety benefit); • Provide greater effective turning radius for trucks; • Provide space for off-tracking of truck's rear wheels in curved sections; • Provide space for disabled vehicles, mail delivery and bus stops; and • Provide space for bicyclists to ride at their own pace; Maintenance - highways with paved shoulders are easier to maintain, as paved shoulders: • Provide structural support to the pavement; • Discharge water further from the travel lanes, reducing the undermining of the base and sub-grade; • Provide space for maintenance operations; • Provide space for portable maintenance signs; • Facilitate painting of edge stripes. In urban areas, bike lanes offer additional benefits to road users other than bicyclist. For Pedestrians: • • • • • Greater separation from traffic, especially in the absence of on-street parking or a planter strip, increasing comfort and safety. This is important to young children walking, playing or riding their bikes on curbside sidewalks. Reduced splash from vehicles passing through puddles (a total elimination of splash where puddles are completely contained within the bike lane). An area for people in wheelchairs to walk where there are no sidewalks, or where sidewalks are in poor repair or do not meet ADA standards. A space for wheelchair users to turn on and off curb cut ramps away from moving traffic. The opportunity to use tighter corner radii, which reduces intersection crossing distance and tends to slow turning vehicles. 27 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan • In dry climates, a reduction in dust raised by passing vehicles, as they drive further from unpaved surfaces (benefits our PM-10 efforts.) For Motorists: • • • • Greater ease and more opportunities to exit from driveways (thanks to improved sight distance). Greater effective turning radius at corners and driveways, allowing large vehicles to turn into side streets without off-tracking onto curb. A buffer for parked cars, making it easier for motorists to park, enter and exit vehicles safely and efficiently. This requires a wide enough bike lane so bicyclists aren’t “doored.” Less wear and tear of the pavement, if bike lanes are re-striped by moving travel lanes (heavier motor vehicles no longer travel in the same well-worn ruts). For Other Modes: • • • • • Transit: A place to pull over next to the curb out of the traffic stream. Delivery vehicles (including postal service): a place to stop out of the traffic stream. Emergency vehicles: Room to maneuver around stopped traffic, decreasing response time. Bicyclists: Greater acceptance of people bicycling on the road, as motorists are reminded that they are not the only roadway users; Non-motorized modes: An increase in use, by increasing comfort to both pedestrians and bicyclists (this could leave more space for motorists driving and parking). For the Community (Livability factors): • A traffic calming effect when bike lanes are striped by narrowing travel lanes. • Better definition of travel lanes where road is wide (lessens the “sea of asphalt” look). • An improved buffer to trees, allowing greater plantings of green canopies, which also has a traffic calming effect. Summary Providing roadways with wide paved shoulders/bicycle lanes costs typically 4-6% more than roads without shoulders. The benefits described outweigh this increase as shown below: Total potential cost (20yr, high cost, including annual operating increase) = $18,704,000 Savings from accident reduction (5% reduction, 20 year savings) Savings from lower VMT (.5% mode shift to bicycles, 20 year savings) Total Savings Benefit Cost ratio = $70,169,000/$18,704,000= 3.75 = $60,445,000 = $ 9,724,000 = $70,169,000 In addition to these dollar savings, there is a wide range of qualitative improvements realized from building streets with wide paved shoulders/bicycle lanes. They improve safety, capacity, maintenance, pedestrian environment, motorist environment and the use of the street by a variety of modes. 28 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Bicycle Parking The following section provides minimum standards for the development of bicycle parking on private property within Maricopa County. These standards are recommended to establish effective and attractive means for providing a minimum area for parking and storage of bicycles. These standards in part support the County Trip Reduction Ordinance. Rules Bicycle rack design shall: • Support the frame of the bicycle, allowing at least one wheel and the frame to be locked to the rack. • Allow the option of using a U-lock or cable with padlock. • Allow two bikes to be locked with one lock. • Be easy to understand and use without instruction. • Be anchored securely. Bicycle • • • • • • • rack shall be located: Along natural surveillance near main entrances. Where easy access is provided. With area around the rack for access, per design specifications. In well-light areas at night and well-shaded areas during the day. On flat surfaces out of the path of pedestrian and automobile traffic. Near walkways to building entrance. No greater distance than the nearest automobile parking space. Use Standards Performance Standard: To provide a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces that would meet the typical needs of most uses. Parking Space Standards Performance Standard: To provide an adequate area to park the bicycle. Bicycle Space: Bicycle rack installations shall allow 18 inches minimum between two bicycles, and 24 inches between pairs. Bicycle rack shall allow a minimum of two feet between abutting walls, fences, posts, or other objects, and the rack mechanism. Surface Standards Performance Standard: To provide a dust-free, well drained area for bicycle storage. Bicycle Space Surface: Bicycle space surface shall be paved in asphalt, concrete, or one inch of acceptable aggregate material. 29 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Residential Uses Mobile Home and Travel Trailer/RV Park 2 bicycle parking spaces per 20 auto parking spaces to meet the needs of any commercial, office or public assembly Single-family (includes mobile homes on owned lots) NONE Multiple-Family 2 bicycle parking spaces per 20 auto parking spaces to meet the needs of any commercial, office or public assembly. Fraternities & Sororities 1 bicycle parking space per room Public Assembly Uses Schools, Elementary and Junior High 1 bicycle space per 10 students All other public assembly uses 4 bicycle parking spaces per 20 auto parking spaces Hotels, Motels, Guest Ranches and Resort Hotels 2 bicycle parking spaces per 20 auto parking spaces Office and Commercial Uses 2 bicycle parking spaces per 20 auto parking spaces Industrial, Wholesale and Manufacturing Uses 2 bicycle parking spaces per 20 auto parking spaces ALSO One additional bicycle parking space shall be required if the number of required bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number. In regards to mixed use development, the required bicycle parking spaces shall be the sum of the required parking spaces for the individual uses. In regards to Special Use Permits, bicycle parking requirements are already subject to discretion by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 30 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan IMPLEMENTATION "Life is like riding a bicycle. You don't fall off unless you plan to stop pedaling." CLAUDE PEPPER Maricopa County committed to accommodating bicycles. Over ten years ago the Board of Supervisors created a bicycle program, hired a bicycle coordinator and appointed a citizens advisory committee focused on improving the bicycle environment in Maricopa County. The success of this foresight is evident today. A review of recent County plans and programs reveals a consistent inclusion of bicycle needs. Funding for bicycle facilities has been made possible through policy resolution and a comprehensive bicycle plan was developed and well utilized. This plan continues, improves and strengthens this ongoing effort. Outlined earlier are recommendations aimed at making improvements. Implementing these recommendations in a timely, cohesive and ordered manner remains the largest challenge. Timeline & Success First drafted in 1993 the bicycle plan is scheduled for major updates every few years. This plan will be updated according to the following schedule: Completed 1993 Current Update 1998 Future Updates 2002/2006/2010 Benchmarks Measuring implementation provides meaningful feedback showing the plan’s success. The following benchmarks lay out a guide to reflect work progress: • • • • • • • • • • Double the miles of bike lanes on County roadways by 2002. Make all recommended changes and reissue the Roadway Design Manual and Pavement Marking Manual within 6 months of plan adoption. Develop and institute a multi-modal review process within 6 months of plan adoption. Update on a yearly basis, in conjunction with the CIP, the Bicycle Improvement Program (BIP) as first presented in this plan. Establish a dedicated funding mechanism for bicycle improvements within 3 years of plan adoption. Implement the bicycle parking ordinance within 1 year of plan adoption. Fully align all CIP projects with policies adopted in this plan within 1 year of plan adoption. Conduct or take part in a comprehensive transportation survey which includes bicycle elements within 2 years of plan adoption. Host a bicycle planning workshop for MCDOT engineers within 6 months of plan adoption. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of pavement, lane and shoulder widths on the County road network within 5 years of plan adoption. 31 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Funding Funding for bicycle transportation improvements should be integrated into the overall Capital Improvement Program. Bicycle facilities constructed as part of larger projects are typically less expensive than independent bicycle projects. In many cases, however bicycle improvements are needed along roadways not scheduled for reconstruction. Dedicated funding sources should be created to fund a yearly Bicycle Improvement Program (BIP) within the MCDOT funding structure. Additionally, many types of Federal funding are also available for bicycle facilities, as described below. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century – TEA 21 TEA 21 reauthorizes the federal highway, transit, safety, research and motor carrier programs for the six-year period 1998-2003. It commits to spending $215 billion on transportation programs over the six-year period 1998-2003. TEA 21 is a continuation of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) which represented significant opportunities for improved state and local bicycle and pedestrian programs. Each state is required to develop transportation plans and programs that provide for inclusion of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities as part of their Intermodal State transportation system. Each metropolitan planning organization is required to develop transportation plans that include pedestrians and bicyclists as users within an intermodal system. When highway bridges are being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal funds on a highway where bicycles are permitted, then the bridge must provide accommodation for bicycles, if costs appear reasonable. Funding is available through the following TEA 21 programs: National Highway System (NHS) Funds These funds can be used to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities on land adjacent to any highway in the National Highway System (other than the Interstate System). The facilities must be primarily for transportation uses and must be located and designed in accordance with a plan developed by the State and MPO. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds These funds can be used for both bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways and for projects such as route maps, brochures and public service announcements. These projects must be transportationoriented and tied to a plan adopted by State and MPO. A percentage of each state’s annual STP funds is available only for Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEAS). Ten types of TEAs are defined including: “provision of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians” and “preservation of abandoned railway corridors, including the use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails.” Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program Funds These funds may be used for either construction on bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways or for nonconstruction projects related to 32 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan safe bicycle use (maps, brochures, etc.). The projects must be transportationoriented and tied to a plan adopted by State and MPO. Federal Lands Highway Funds These may be used to build bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways in conjunction with roads, highways and parkways at the discretion of the department charged with administration of these funds. The projects must be transportation-oriented and tied to a plan adopted by State and MPO. Scenic Byways Program Funds These funds can be used to construct facilities along highways for pedestrians and bicyclists. Highway Safety Funds Bicycle and pedestrian safety remain priority areas for highway safety program funding. The Governor’s Office of Highway Safety administers funding for safety related programs in Arizona. Grants are in the form of reimbursable contracts and are made on the basis on a 10% local match. Federal Transit Funding Transit funds may be used to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to transit facilities, to provide bicycle parking and shelter facilities and to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles. 33 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan GLOSSARY AASHTO  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ADOT  Arizona Department of Transportation. ADT  Average Daily Traffic volume APA  American Planning Association ARS  Arizona Revised Statutes. Bicycle  Every device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either: (a) Two tandem wheels either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter. (b) Three wheels in contact with the ground any of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter (ARS 28-101.6). Bicycle Facilities  A general term denoting improvements and/or provisions made by public agencies to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including all bikeways, shared roadways whether or not specifically so designated, parking facilities, signing and mapping. Bicycle Lane  A portion of roadway striped, with pavement markings and signed for exclusive use of bicycles. These must meet certain standards for width, striping, signing and marking. Bicycle Path  See “Shared Use Path.” All “Bicycle Paths” are actually shared with pedestrians, inline skaters, etc. Bicycle Route  Any combination of paths, lanes, trails or streets which are designated for bicycle travel by mapping or signing as a preferential travel route for alternate modes, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Bikeway  Any road, path, sidewalk, trail or passage which in some manner is specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. CMAQ  Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program Cross Section  Diagrammatic presentation of the right-of-way profile which is at right angles to the centerline at a given location. DOT  Department of Transportation Edge Line  A line which is used to show the outside edge of the travel lane for cars. Grade-Separated  An underpass, bridge or overpass. Allows motorized and non-motorized modes to avoid any interaction at intersections or street crossings. Highway  A general term denoting a public way for purposes of vehicular travel, including the entire area within the right-of-way. Intermodal  Use of more than one mode to accomplish a trip. Such as driving to Park-N-Ride lots to catch a bus; riding bike to bus stop; walking to bus stop; driving and walking. ISTEA  Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 MAG  Maricopa Association of Governments MCDOT  Maricopa County Department of Transportation Mode of Travel  Means by which a person’s mobility is powered and accomplished. This could be feet, bicycle, car, bus, horse, plane, skates, etc. MPO  Metropolitan Planning Organization Multimodal  Facility which provides for shared use by several modes, such as a park-and-ride lot with both car and bicycle parking. Multiuse Path  See “Shared Use Path.” Multiuse Trail  34 See “Shared Use Trail” Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan MUTCD  Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. A manual approved by the FHWA as a national standard for placement and selection of all traffic control devices on or adjacent to all highways open to public travel. Off-Road Facilities Sidewalks, shared use paths or trails, or any facility which is not an integral part of a roadway. Pavement Marking Painted or applied lines or legends placed on any bikeway surface for regulating, guiding or warning traffic. Pedestrian  Any person afoot or in a wheelchair, including motorized wheelchair. Right-of-Way  A general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually in a strip, acquired for or devoted to some public purpose. Roadway  Portion of highway for vehicle use. Rules of the Road That portion of a motor vehicle law which contains regulations governing the operation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Shared Roadway  All roads which do not have bike lanes or wide curb lanes where bicyclists and motor vehicles share the same roadway. Shared Use Path  A paved path used exclusively by human-powered modes and separated from motor vehicles by an open space or barriers. It can be within the highway right-of-way or an independent right-of-way. Bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, joggers and other nonmotorized users will use shared use paths at the same time. Shared Use Trail  An unpaved pathway exclusive for equestrian and human-powered modes. Shoulder  A portion of a highway contiguous to the roadway primarily for use by pedestrians, equestrians, bicyclists, stopped vehicles and emergencies. Shy Distance  Distance between a bikeway’s edge and any fixed object capable of injuring a cyclist using the facility. Sidewalk  The portion of a highway designed for preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians. Sight Distance  A measurement of the cyclist’s or motorist’s visibility, unobstructed, along the normal path to the farthest point of the roadway surface. TEA 21  Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Traffic Control Devices  Signs, signals or other fixtures, permanent of temporary, placed on or adjacent to a travelway by authority of a public body having jurisdiction to regulate, worn or guide traffic. Traffic Volume  The number of vehicles which pass a given point in a given amount of time. Transportation Corridor A strip of land between two termini within which traffic, topography, environment, and other factors are evaluated for transportation purposes. Travel Generators Particular areas or locations which represent trip destination points of the utilitarian bicyclist; for example, libraries, schools, recreation areas and work centers. Travelway  Any way, path, road or other travel facility used for any and all forms of transportation. Trip Attractors  Potential trip destinations, such as schools, recreation areas, shopping areas and employment centers. Vehicle  A device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks (ARS 28-102.52). Wide Curb Lane  A road constructed with extra width in the outside lane so cars and bikes can share the same lane. 35 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan BIBLIOGRAPHY AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1991. AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (Final Draft). Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1998. Alternative Transportation System Task Force. Report to the Governor. Phoenix, AZ. 1996. Antonakos, Cathy L. “Environmental and Travel Preferences of Cyclists.” Transportation Research Record No. 1438. Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 1994. Arizona Department of Transportation. Motor Vehicle Accident Data 1991-1996. 1998. Arizona Revised Statutes: Title 28. www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/title28.htm. City of Apache Junction, AZ. Engineering Guidelines. 1995. City of Chandler, AZ. Chandler Bicycle Plan. 1991. City of Glendale, AZ. Bicycle Plan of the City of Glendale. 1990. City of Glendale, AZ. Bike Map. 1997. City of Lake Charles, LA. Lake Charles Metropolitan Area Non-Motorized Transportation Study. 1995. City of Madison, WI. Planning Tools to Evaluate and Analyze the Bicycle Compatibility of Urban Street Networks. Madison, WI. City of Madison, Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division. City of Mesa, AZ. Typical Striping Cross Sections. 1994. City of Mesa, AZ. 1997-2000 Bike Plan. 1998. City of Peoria, AZ. City of Peoria Bicycle Route Plan. 1993. City of Peoria, AZ. Peoria Comprehensive Master Plan, Transportation Plan. 1997. City of Peoria, AZ. Preliminary Trails Master Plan. 1998. City of Phoenix, AZ. Existing Bikeway System, Fiscal Year 1996-1997. 1997. City of Phoenix, AZ. Standard Details. 1998. City of Phoenix, AZ. Street Classification System. 1992. City of Scottsdale, AZ. Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan. 1994. City of Scottsdale, AZ. Details. 1998. City of Scottsdale, AZ. Final Report and Recommendations of the Transportation Commission’s Review of Physical and Policy Sections of the Transportation Plan. Prepared by the Citizens for Better Transportation committee and the Recommendations of the Bicycle Task Force. 1989. 36 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan City of Scottsdale, AZ. General Plan Circulation Element. 1991. City of Surprise, AZ. Surprise Comprehensive Development Guide. City of Tempe, AZ. Bicycle Plan. 1991. City of Tempe, AZ. Bikeway Map. 1998. City of Tempe, AZ. Details. 1997. City of Tempe, AZ. 1995 Bicycle Facilities Plan Update Executive Summary. City of Tempe Bicycle Advisory Committee. 1995. Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists. Phoenix Bike Map. Phoenix, AZ. Wide World of Maps. 1993. Epperson, Bruce. “Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level-of-Service Standard.” Transportation Research Record No. 1438. Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 1994. Forester, John. Effective Cycling. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. 1992. Governor’s Arizona Bicycle Task Force. Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Guidelines. Phoenix, AZ. Arizona Department of Transportation 1988. Governor’s Arizona Bicycle Task Force. Planning Guide for Bicycle Facilities. Phoenix, AZ. Arizona Department of Transportation. Landis, Bruce W. “Bicycle Interaction Hazard Score: A Theoretical Model.” Transportation Research Record No. 1438. Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 1994. Landis, Bruce W. Bicycle Suitability Evaluation of Roadways. Session Syllabus for Bicycle Level of Service Methodology, 1998 State Transportation Conference, Arizona Department of Transportation. SCI Technology and Innovation. 1998. Landis, Bruce W. The Roadside Pedestrian Environment. Session Syllabus for Level of Service Methodology, 1998 State Transportation Conference, Arizona Department of Transportation. SCI Technology and Innovation. 1998. Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Bicycle Task Force and JHK & Associates. Regional Bicycle Plan. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa Association of Governments. 1992. Maricopa County, AZ. Brief Summary of Existing County Plans and Policies Relating to Bike Facilities. 1998. Maricopa County, AZ. City Boundaries of Maricopa County. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Public Works, Land & Right of Way Division. 1998. Maricopa County, AZ. Draft Trail System Plan for Usery Mountain Recreation Area. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Recreation Services Department. 1997. Maricopa County, AZ. Maricopa County Bicycle Facilities Plan, Draft - 1993. 1993. Maricopa County, AZ. Maricopa County, Department of Transportation, Traffic Counts Program 1997 Annual Report. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County, Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division. 1998. 37 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan Maricopa County, AZ. Maricopa County 2020, Eye To The Future: Comprehensive Plan. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County. 1997. Maricopa County, AZ. Maricopa County 2020, Eye To The Future: Transportation System Plan. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County. 1997. Maricopa County, AZ. MCDOT Accomplishments and Five-Year Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal years 1999-2003. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation. 1998. Maricopa County, AZ. Northeast Valley Area Transportation Study. Prepared by Lee Engineering. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation. 1996. Maricopa County, AZ. Pavement Marking Manual. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division. 1995. Maricopa County, AZ. Roadway Design Manual . Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation. 1993. Maricopa County, AZ. Roadway Database System. dbf. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation. 1998. Maricopa County, AZ. Southwest Valley Transportation Study. Prepared by BRW. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation. 1996. Maricopa County, AZ. Williams Area Transportation Plan. Prepared by JHK & Associates. Phoenix, AZ. Maricopa County Department of Transportation. 1997. Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program. Transportation Coordinator Handbook. Phoenix, AZ. Regional Public Transportation Authority. 1993. Oneil Associates for JHK Associates for the City of Scottsdale, AZ. Bicycle Riding Behavior & Attitudes Toward Bicycle Riding in Scottsdale. 1988. Phoenix Mapping Service. Phoenix Metropolitan Street Atlas, 1998 Edition. Phoenix, AZ. Wide World of Maps. 1998. Sorton, Alex. Program of Instruction for the Bicycle Planning and Facility Workshop. Evanston, IL. The Traffic Institute, Northwestern University. 1993. Sorton, Alex. Use of Bicycle Stress Level to Evaluate Street Compatibility for Bicyclists. Evanston, IL. The Traffic Institute, Northwestern University. http:/www.bikeplan.com/stress.htm. 1998. Town of Gilbert, AZ. Standard Detail. 1988. United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 3, What Needs to be Done to Promote Bicycling and Walking? Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1992. United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 4, Measures to Overcome Impediments to Bicycling and Walking. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1993. United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 6, Analysis of Successful Grassroots Movements relating to Pedestrians and Bicycles and A Guide On How to Initiate a Successful Program. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1993. 38 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bicycle System Plan United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 18, Analyses of Successful Provincial, State, and Local bicycle and Pedestrian Programs in Canada and the United States. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1993. United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 21, Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations into State and Local Transportation Planning, Design and Operations. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1992. United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 23, The Role of Local Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinators. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1993. United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 24, Current Planning Guidelines and Design Standards being Used by State and Local Agencies for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1992. United States Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Final Report. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. 1994. United States Department of Transportation. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation. Washington, D.C. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1996. Wachtel, Alan and Diana Lewiston. "Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections,” ITE Journal. September, 1994. (ISSN 0162-8178, Vol. 64, No. 9) Institute of Transportation Engineers. 39