Bikeways & Trails Master Plan Appendices 05-31-2011

ContentsAppendix ABikeway Quality Index

Appendix BAlbuquerque Cycle Zones

Appendix CDesign Guidelines

Appendix DBicycle Counts and Survey Responses

Appendix ESafe Routes to School

Appendix FEnd-of-Trip Facility Evaluation

Appendix GStreet Plan

Appendix HBicycle Friendly Communities Action Plan

Appendix IPublic Meetings

Appendix JStakeholder Workshops

Appendix KInterviews

Appendix ABikeway Quality Index

Appendices

Bikeway Quality Index The goal of BQI analysis is to capture a snapshot of the current condition of biking infrastructure using both qualitative and quantitative measures. Studying well-performing bikeways and pinpointing deficient facilities will allow improve-ments to be carefully targeted to areas that need improvement or areas where minimal improvement will significantly improve the cycling experience.

Bikeway Segment DefinitionUsing existing GIS data, project staff surveyed existing bicycle facilities, including trails. The segments range in length from 250 feet to over 6,000 feet. The following graphic shows a typical division of segments.

Data Collection and SynthesisThe team collected data for all the existing trails within the City. Each route was followed on a bicycle and rated for a number of criteria including pavement quality and width. The data for street routes were taken primarily from the pro-vided GIS data and most of the evaluation factors like speed, and pavement quality were estimated based on facility type.

Bikeway Quality AnalysisThe BQI factors included are:

Auto SpeedDefinitionThe posted speed of the segment.

ReasoningAuto travel speed plays a large part in how comfortable cyclists feel while traveling on the road. Generally, increasing auto speeds are associated with decreasing cyclist comfort and quality of the cycling experience.

Basic MethodologySpeed was combined with volume data to create a composite measure-ment. (See Speed and Volume Integration)

Auto VolumeDefinitionThe average number of cars that pass along a street is called Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The City provided ADT data for most segments, and this number was used when available. When this information was not available or counts were taken before the year 2000, an estimated volume was assigned. This estimate was based on the street’s functional classifica-tion (local highway, arterial, or local street), and number of auto lanes.

ReasoningAs a general rule, increasing auto volumes equate to decreasing cyclist comfort and ride quality.

Basic MethodologySee speed volume integration factor (below) for calculation detail

Speed and Volume Integration DefinitionThe relationship between auto speed and volume plays a significant role in defining the feel of comfort on a road segment. Four extreme relationships are recognized: low speed-low volume, low speed-high volume, high speed-low volume, and high speed- high volume.

Color changes represent segment changes

Appendices

The relationship between these variables is not linear: for example, a high speed-low volume street may be worse than a low speed-high volume street. Most cyclists prefer more slow moving vehicles to few fast moving vehicles. By assigning categorical rankings of speed and volume, we can more closely define how cyclists respond to varying combi-nations of these factors.

ReasoningSpeed and volume each impact cyclist comfort and ride quality, and these factors interact in a non-linear manner. It is ap-propriate to create a composite measure that captures this interrelationship.

Basic MethodologyEach segment is assigned to a category based on the speed and volumes in Table 1 below. The color key (best – worst) results in a quantitative ranking of 1 (worst) – 5 (best).

Table 1. Speed and Volume Relationship Methodology

Motor Vehicle Daily Volume10,000+ 2 2 2 1 1

8,000 2 2 2 1 1

6,000 3 3 3 2 1

4,000 4 3 3 2 1

2,000 8 4 3 3 2

1,000 5 8 4 3 2

500 5 5 4 3 2

Posted Speed (MPH) 18 25 30 35 40+

Facility WidthDefinitionThe width of the bike lane: This is measured from the center of the lane striping on each side. If the bike lane is against a curb, the width is measured from the center of the lane stripe to the edge of the curb. Bike lanes received 1 – 3 points based on the following criteria:

• 1 point if the facility was less than 5 feet wide• 2 points if the facility was exactly 5 feet wide• 3 points if the facility was more than 5 feet wide

The width of a trail/path: This is measured from the edge of pavement on one side to the edge of pavement on the other side. Multi-use trails received 1 – 3 points based on the following criteria:

• 1 point if the facility was less than 8 feet wide• 2 points if the facility was exactly 8 feet wide• 3 points if the facility was more than 8 feet wide

The width of Bike Boulevards/Shared roads: This is not measured, due to the nature of the facility it is assigned the highest width score.

ReasoningWider facilities are more comfortable than narrow facilities.

Basic MethodologyThe data was added to the GIS from several sources including, field checks, and City GIS data. There were no calculations performed to get these numbers, they were simply added to the GIS data as width in feet per segment and scored in the overall segment analysis.

Appendices

Pavement QualityDefinitionPavement quality was assigned as an overall measure of quality throughout the entire segment. Facilities were assigned 1 – 5 points based on the basic pavement quality.

• 5- Only new or nearly new pavements are likely to be smooth enough and free of cracks and patches to qualify for this category.

• 4 - Pavement, although not as smooth as described above, provides a smooth ride while exhibiting some signs of surface deterioration.

• 3 - Riding qualities are noticeably inferior to those rated at a four or five. Defects may include rutting, cracking - longitudinal or trans-versemap cracking, raveling and extensive patching. 3 is the maxi-mum rating for any pavement that has a ridge height greater than ¼” at gutter lip.

• 2- Flexible pavement having distress over 50 percent or more of the surface, washboard surface, potholes and pavement shoving. Rigid pavement distress includes joint spalling, patching, etc.. Bike lanes that have valve boxes or manholes that have not been adjusted to grade.

• 1 - Pavements that are in an extremely deteriorated condition. Distress occurs over 75 percent or more of the surface.

ReasoningCyclists are more affected by pavement quality than automobiles. Poor pavement quality can be distracting to a cyclist, potentially dangerous due to potholes and cracks and can decrease the quality of the ride experience.

Basic MethodologyThese were qualitative measures gathered in the field or assumed based on facility type. There were no calculations performed to get these numbers, they were simply added to the GIS data as value per segment and scored in the overall segment analysis.

Signing and MarkingDefinitionThe segment is assigned a score of 1 if it is signed and marked as a trail or bike route.

ReasoningSigned and marked bikeways improve wayfinding and can increase use.

Basic MethodologyThese were qualitative measures gathered in the field or assumed based on facility type. There were no calculations performed to get these numbers, they were simply added to the GIS data as value per segment and scored in the overall segment analysis.

Facility Evaluation and Model OutcomesThe data gathered for each bikeway segment is then used to score each segment using a 0-20 scale, shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Bicycle Quality Index Factor Weights

Good pavement quality

Poor pavement quality

Poor pavement quality

Appendices

Facilities scored a potential of 20 points, with score ranging from 6 – 19. No facility scored a perfect 20 points. Both multi-use trails and on-street facilities were scored on the same scale to facilitate comparison of the cycling ex-perience, though in some cases different criteria were used. Multi-use trails generally scored higher than on-street facilities; while the lowest trail segment scored a 13, the lowest scoring on-street facility scored a 6. The average score for multi-use trail segments was a 16.1 while the average score for an on-street facility was 12.4 this is consistent with the most people’s perception of relative level of comfort in on-street vs. off-street facilities. Within the on-street facilities, it is useful to sample the variation in average facility quality. Table XX shows the on-street facility types and associated average segment scores:

Figure XX. Average Scores for On-street Bikeways by Type

These average scores are consistent with the expected variation in the level of quality and comfort most cyclists experience with riding on these types of facility. Of course, there are some cyclists that prefer on-street riding to cycling on multi-use trails and experience the same quality of ride on all facility types.

This tool has many potential uses beyond the development of project recommendations, one of which is to highlight high performing facilities and quantify the reasons for excellent performance. Once measured, this information can be extract-ed and applied to other facilities throughout the city. For example, the quality of cycling facilities in the NW quadrant of the city is high based on the presence of many multi-use trails that provide many opportunities to bicycle on a network of trails that are separated from motor vehicles. However, looking at the cycle zone factors for land use indicates that many people may not bicycle in this area due to a relatively low population and employment density, and a relatively low quality of roadway connections, which decreases the opportunity for cyclists to choose their route. However, the NW quadrant performs well in terms of exiting bikeway density and connectivity, indicating that cyclists may find it easier to traverse this part of the city on designated bikeway facilities than the SW quadrant or portions of the SE quadrant. Examination of the BQI map indicates that the NW quadrant can be significantly improved through increased connection of bikeways and roadways.

Another use of the BQI tool is the examination of conditions within the facility types to identify priorities for spot im-provements. For example, an analysis of surface quality conditions on the multi-use trail system can be used to generate a list of repaving priorities. For example, existing multi-use trail facilities that scored a one or two for surface quality should be considered priorities for repaving projects. Similarly bicycle lanes that scored a one for facility width should be widened to five-feet, especially along bicycle lanes with high roadway speeds and volumes.

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

nn

n

n

nn

n n

n

n

nn

n

n

Æc

Æc

Æc

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

Montano Rd NW

Unser Blvd NW

Rio G

rande

Blvd

NW 2nd S

t NW

Edith

Blvd

NE

Coors

Blvd

NW

Paradise Blvd NW

Alameda Blvd NW

Griegos Rd NW

Golf Course Rd NW

12th

St NW

Irving Blvd NW

Comanche Rd NE

Dellyne Ave NW

Candelaria Rd NW

McMahon Blvd NW Corrales R

d NW

Matthew Ave NW

Montano Rd NE

Campbell Rd NW

Taylor Ranch Dr NW

Rainbow Blvd NW

La Orilla Rd NW

El Pueblo Rd NW

Kachina St NW

Calendaria Rd NW

Paseo del Norte NW

Ouray Rd NW

Atrisco Dr NW

Frontage Rd NW

Calle Nortena NW

Montano Dr NW

Vulcan Rd NWUn

iverse

Blvd

NW

Homestead CIR NW

St Josephs Ave NW

Renaissance Blvd NE

San I

ldefon

so D

r NW

Venta

na R

anch

Netw

ork N

W

Eagle

Ranch R

d NW

Loma L

arga R

d NW

Don Quixote Dr NW

81st

St N

WAlamogordo Dr NW

Paradise Blvd NW

McMahon Blvd NWIrving Blvd NW Un

ser B

lvd NW

Coors Blvd NW

McMahon Blvd NW

Rio G

rande

Blvd

NW

Coors

Blvd

NW

El Pueblo Rd NW

Bosq

ue Tr

ail

Unser B

lvd

McMahon BlvdIrving Blvd Alameda Trail

Black Arroy

o

Ladera DrAtrisco Dr

Monta¤o Rd

Paseo del Norte

Northwest Utility Easement Trail

Unser Trail

Paradise Blvd SouthRainb

ow Bl

vd-W

est

Vista

del N

orte D

r

Lyon

Blvd

Unive

rse B

lvd

Alban

Hills Tra

il

Oakri

dge S

t

North

Dive

rsion

Cha

nnel

Osuna Rd South

Eagle Ranch Rd

Paseo del Norte

McMahon Blvd

Monta¤o Rd

Bosq

ue Tr

ail

Albuquerque Bikeways and Trails Master Plan UpdateSource: City of Albuquerque, MRCOG, Gannett FlemingAuthor: Date: January 2011

Appendix A - Map 1. Bicycle Quality Index - Southwest Quadrant

I 0 10.5Miles

Destinations®ÆP Park & RideÆc Libraryn School

Parks

Bikeway Quality Index Score

Highest

Lowest

Note: Black line caps denote a multi-use trail

§̈¦40§̈¦25

£¤550

UV556UV448

UV165

§̈¦

§̈¦

n

n

n

n

nn

n

n

n

n n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

nn

n

n

n

nn

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

nÆc

Æc

Æc

Æc

Æc

Æc

Æc

Æc

®ÆP

®ÆP®ÆP

®ÆP®ÆP

Nm 333

Claremont Ave NE

Coal Ave SE

Gibson Blvd SE

Morris

St N

E

Constitution Ave NE

Moon

St N

E

Edith

Blvd

SE

Silver Ave SE

Indian School Rd NE

Yale

Blvd S

E

Wash

ington

St N

E

Lead Ave SE

2nd S

t NW

Penn

sylva

nia S

t NE

Southern Ave SE

Chelw

ood P

ark B

lvd N

E

Chico Rd NEUtah

St N

ECopper Ave NE

Juan

Tabo

Blvd

SE

Marquette Ave NE

Edith

Blvd

NE

Carlis

le Blv

d SE Ridgecrest Dr SEBr

oadw

ay B

lvd S

E

Eastern Ave SEE Central Ave

Hardin Dr SE

Randolph Ave SE

Carlis

le Blv

d NE

Central Ave E

Turne

r Dr N

E

San P

edro

Dr S

E

20th

St SE

Candelaria Rd NE

Alvara

do D

r NE

Campus Blvd NE

Cutler Ave NE

Unive

rsity

Blvd S

E

Mountain Rd NWSta

nford

Dr N

E

Girar

d Blvd

SE

Santa Clara Ave SE

Singing Arrow Rd SE

Avenida Cesar Chavez SE

Toma

sita S

t NE

F Ave SEKe

ntuck

y St S

E

Euba

nk Bl

vd S

EUtah

St S

E

Haines Ave NE

Susan Ave SE

K Ave SE

Eliza

beth

St SE

Loma Vista Dr NEYale

Blvd N

E

Woodland Ave NELexington Ave NE

Candalaria Rd NE

Encantado Rd NE

Uptown Blvd NE

Martin Luther King Ave NE

Corne

ll Dr S

E

Chelw

ood B

lvd N

E

Easterday Dr NE

Redondo West Dr NE

Gulfstream Dr SE

Claremont Ave NW

Acoma Rd SE

San Pablo St SE

Mountain Rd NELove Ave NE

Indian School Rd NE

Copper Ave NESilver Ave SE

Copper Ave NE

Unive

rsity

Blvd S

E

Hardin Dr SE

2nd S

t NW

Lead Ave SE

Alvara

do D

r NE

Constitution Ave NE

Alvara

do D

r NE

Moon

St N

E

I-40

I-25

I-40 Trail

Paseo de las Monta¤as

Kirtland AFB Trail

Tramway

Piedra Lisa Trail

Gibson Blvd

Pase

o del

Norde

ste

Four

Hills

Rd

Lomas Trail

Unive

risty B

lvd

Girar

d Blvd

I-40 East Trail

Foothil

ls Trail

I-40 Trail

Tramw

ayTra

mway

Kirtla

nd AF

B Trai

l

Gibson Blvd


Appendix A - Map 2. Bicycle Quality Index - Southeast Quadrant

I 0 10.5Miles


Parks


Highest

Lowest


§̈¦40§̈¦25

£¤550

UV556UV448

UV165

§̈¦

n

n

nn

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

nn

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

nn

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Æc

Æc

Æc

Æc

Æc

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

Comanche Rd NE

Tramway Rd NE

Spain Rd NE

Osuna Rd NE2nd S

t NW

Edith

Blvd

NE

Academy Rd NE

Jeffer

son St

NE

Morris

St N

E

Alameda Blvd NW

Roy Ave NW

Wyoming Blvd NE

Barst

ow S

t NE

Louis

iana B

lvd N

E

Penn

sylva

nia S

t NE

Harper Dr NE

Corrales R

d NW

Burlis

on Dr

NE

Montano Rd NE

Euba

nk Bl

vd N

E

San P

edro

Dr N

E

Layton Ave NE

McLeod Rd NE

El Pueblo Rd NW

Carruthers St NE

Lowe

ll St N

E

Tiburo

n St N

E

Impe

rata S

t NE

Freedom Way NE

Wash

ington

St N

E

Malague

na LA

NE

Ellison St NE

Renaissance Blvd NE

Alameda Blvd NE

San Fransisco Rd NE

Morni

ngsid

e Dr N

E

Corta

deria

St N

E

Moon

St-E

rbbe S

t NE

Camino Del Sol NE

Barst

ow S

t NE

Euba

nk Bl

vd N

E

San P

edro

Dr N

E

Jeffe

rson S

t NE

El Pueblo Rd NWI-25

Tramw

ay

Paseo del Norte

Paseo del Nordeste

Pino Arroyo

Del Rey Ave

Alameda Trail

S Domingo Baca Arroyo

Bosqu

e Trail

Wyoming Blvd

Vista

del N

orte D

r

Bear Canyon Arroyo

Osuna Rd South

La Cueva Arroyo

Ballo

on M

useu

m Dr

North

Dive

rsion

Cha

nnel

Harper St Holbr

ook S

t

La Cueva Arroyo

Paseo del Norte

Tramw

ay


Appendix A - Map 3. Bicycle Quality Index - Northeast Quadrant

I 0 10.5Miles


Parks


Highest

Lowest


§̈¦40§̈¦25

£¤550

UV556UV448

UV165

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

nn

n

n

nn

n n

n

n

nn

n

n

Æc

Æc

Æc

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

®ÆP

Montano Rd NW

Unser Blvd NW

Rio G

rande

Blvd

NW 2nd S

t NW

Edith

Blvd

NE

Coors

Blvd

NW

Paradise Blvd NW

Alameda Blvd NW

Griegos Rd NW

Golf Course Rd NW

12th

St NW

Irving Blvd NW

Comanche Rd NE

Dellyne Ave NW

Candelaria Rd NW

McMahon Blvd NW Corrales R

d NW

Matthew Ave NW

Montano Rd NE

Campbell Rd NW

Taylor Ranch Dr NW

Rainbow Blvd NW

La Orilla Rd NW

El Pueblo Rd NW

Kachina St NW

Calendaria Rd NW

Paseo del Norte NW

Ouray Rd NW

Atrisco Dr NW

Frontage Rd NW

Calle Nortena NW

Montano Dr NW

Vulcan Rd NWUn

iverse

Blvd

NW

Homestead CIR NW

St Josephs Ave NW

Renaissance Blvd NE

San I

ldefon

so D

r NW

Venta

na R

anch

Netw

ork N

W

Eagle

Ranch R

d NW

Loma L

arga R

d NW

Don Quixote Dr NW

81st

St N

WAlamogordo Dr NW

Paradise Blvd NW

McMahon Blvd NWIrving Blvd NW Un

ser B

lvd NW

Coors Blvd NW

McMahon Blvd NW

Rio G

rande

Blvd

NW

Coors

Blvd

NW

El Pueblo Rd NW

Bosq

ue Tr

ail

Unser B

lvd

McMahon BlvdIrving Blvd Alameda Trail

Black Arroy

o

Ladera DrAtrisco Dr

Monta¤o Rd

Paseo del Norte

Northwest Utility Easement Trail

Unser Trail

Paradise Blvd SouthRainb

ow Bl

vd-W

est

Vista

del N

orte D

r

Lyon

Blvd

Unive

rse B

lvd

Alban

Hills Tra

il

Oakri

dge S

t

North

Dive

rsion

Cha

nnel

Osuna Rd South

Eagle Ranch Rd

Paseo del Norte

McMahon Blvd

Monta¤o Rd

Bosq

ue Tr

ail


Appendix A - Map 4. Bicycle Quality Index - Northwest Quadrant

I 0 10.5Miles


Parks


Highest

Lowest


§̈¦40§̈¦25

£¤550

UV556UV448

UV165

Appendix BAlbuquerque Cycle Zones

Appendices

Albuquerque Cycle ZonesThe Cycle Zone Analysis (CZA) tool allows the City to better understand which parts of the City are best suited for cap-turing large numbers of cycling trips, which have greater potential to do so than they are currently, which areas are best suited for strategic investments, and which areas may need innovative bikeway treatments to maximize cycling potential. Breaking the City into zones which share similar characteristics, allows a comparison and analysis that provides informa-tion that can be used to guide future facility investments.

Cycle Zone DefinitionA cycle zone is defined as an area of the City that possesses similar characteristics for cycling. Cycle Zones are not Trans-portation Analysis Zones (TAZ) and TAZs cannot be used for cyclezone analysis. Generally, a cycle zone is defined by features that represent significant barriers or crossing difficulties, like I-25, I-40 and the Rio Grande River. They are also defined by neighborhoods and areas that contain places that are desirable destinations for cyclists like parks or neighbor-hood centers. In addition, cycle zone boundaries reflect a change in the character of a neighborhood (e.g. block size or street connectivity).

The cycle zones and their boundaries were delineated by City and consultant staff familiar with cycling conditions, neigh-borhoods, and features that represent crossing difficulties for cyclists. The City’s political limits also served as a boundary for this analysis.

Data Gathering and SynthesisThe analysis was based on existing data from the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.

The measures that were chosen and the reasoning for their inclusion in the cycle zone analysis equation are discussed in more detail below. In many cases, the selected measures were translated into density units – square acre or linear feet - to account for size variations between zones. The following measures were used for cycle zone analysis:

Road Network Density: (ft/square acre)DefinitionThe density in linear feet per square acre of all roads in the cycling zone. This includes roads of all types, including local streets, arterials, highways and freeways.

Example

ReasoningA zone with a greater density of roads will facilitate a better cycling experience. Riders will be able to go more places and have greater route choice.

Appendices

Basic MethodologyGIS tools were used to determine the overall length of roads falling within each cycle zone. This was divided by the zone’s acreage to obtain an average road network density.

Bike Network Density: (ft/square acre)DefinitionThe density in linear feet per square acre of all the City of Albuquerque’s bicycle facilities within a specific cycling zone. The facilities used for this analysis include only existing facilities.

Example

ReasoningThe presence of facilities designed for cyclists increases their comfort and safety. A greater presence of cycle facilities will improve the cycling experience.

Basic MethodologyThe bicycle network layer was intersected with the cycle zone boundary, and then the lengths of each segment or partial segment that fell within a specific zone were summed. The resulting number was divided by acreage to obtain the average density

Road Network ConnectivityDefinitionA measure of road network connectivity, this number ranging from 0 – 1 represents the ratio of cul-de-sacs and three-way intersections to four- or more way intersections. The closer to one, the more grid-like the street pattern. An overall average score was calculated for each zone.

Appendices

Example

ReasoningA zone with greater roadway connectivity will facilitate a better cycling experience. Riders will be able to easily go more places and have greater route choice.

General MethodologyGIS was used to determine all points in the City where one road was intersected by at least one other road. The location and number of roads at each intersection point were recorded. For each cycle zone, the overall number of intersections was summed up as well as the number of intersections that were at least four ways. These numbers were used to determine the percentage of intersections that were four-ways or more.

Bike Network ConnectivitySame measure and use as road network connectivity, but applied specifically to the existing on-street bicycle and trail network

Slope: (% greater than 5%)DefinitionThe percentage of roads and bikeways with slope greater than 5% for each cyclezone.

ReasoningTopography can decrease the ease of cycling. A great cycle zone will be relatively flat. Topography is an issue that is dif-ficult or impossible to change and is very important to consider when evaluating the bikability of a zone.

General MethodologyElevation data from the United States Geologic Service was used to determine the elevation at all starting and ending points of the road segments in the City. The elevations were used to calculate the overall slope for each road segment.Land Use MixDefinitionThis factor combines the degree of concentration of cycling generating land uses in a Cycle Zone with the residential and employment density in a Cycle Zone.

ReasoningAreas with a high population and employment density as well as a good use of bicycle trip generating land uses create a significant number of potential cycling trips.

Appendices

CalculationThe methodology involves calculating both the overall level of land use mix and combined residential and employ-ment density in each Cycle Zone. The scores from the land use mix and residential and employment datasets were then integrated as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Employment Density and Land Use Integration

Model and Zone ScoresOnce the cycle zone analysis is complete, the scoring, normalization and weighting of the data occurs. Positive Z-Scores are calculated for each major metric of the Cycle Zone Analysis and then weighting is applied. Score weighing is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Composite CZA Factor Weights

Composite scores showing the relative quality of the cycling experience in each zone are displayed on Map B-1. Higher scores represent areas that have the best existing cycling conditions, these are zones 19, 20, 23 and 24. Zone 4 is the high-est scoring Zone on the west side of the river due to a dense and well-connected network of bicycle facilities. Zones 8 and 25 generally scored the lowest for most factors including land use, existing roadway network density and connectivity, and existing bikeway network connectivity.

Table 3 shows the scores for each zone by from low to high. This table can be used to understand the existing conditions in each zone, understand the factors that can be changed, and develop a strategy to develop each zone to it’s maximum cycling potential. For example, zone 4 scores poorly for roadway density but well for connectivity. The factors that con-tribute the highest percentage of the overall score for bikeway density and bikeway connectivity are some of the high-

Appendices

est in the city. This contributes to a high overall score, but cyclists still may face challenges traversing this zone on roadways that are not part of the designated bikeway network due to lower roadway density and connectivity. These findings indicate that as the roadway network in this zone increases, the relative quality of the cycling network will increase. Any new construction in this zone should include accessways to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. These accessways should be signed to increase user’s awareness of these facilities. A summary of existing conditions along with suggested strategies to improve the relative Cycle Zone Analysis Scores is included in Appendix A. Maps showing the relative score for each factor are included in Appendix B.

Table 3. Summary of CZA Factor Scores

I-40I-40

I-25

I-25

1

3

2

8

6

18

7

15

17

12

25

16

5

9

21

13

19

224

23

14

20

24

10 11

4TH

ST N

W

2ND

ST N

W

CEN TRAL AV E

COORS BLV

D NW

COOR

S BL

VD S

W

ISLE

TA B

LVD

SW

LOM AS BLVD NE

CEN TRAL AV W

MENAUL BLVD NE

TRAM

WAY

BLV

D NE

BROA

DWAY

BLV

D SE

CANDELA RIA RD NE

EUBA

NK B

LVD

NE

UNSER BLVD NW

2ND

ST S

W

WYO

MIN

G BL

VD N

E

EDIT

H BL

VD N

E

RIO

GRAN

DE B

LVD

NW

ACADEMY R D N E

PASEO DEL NORTE N E

MONTAN O RD NW

TRAM WAY RD NE

MONTGOM ERY BLVD N E

JUAN

TAB

O BL

VD N

E

G IBSON BLVD SE

LEAD AV SE

ZUNI RD SE

PASE

O DE

L VO

LCAN

NW

COAL AV SE

SPAIN RD NE

LADERA DR NW

LOUI

SIAN

A BL

VD N

E

EASEM ENT NW

BRID GE BLVD SW

GOLF

COU

RSE

RD N

W

12TH

ST

NW

DEN NIS CHAVEZ BLVD SW

UNSER BLVD SW

UNIV

ERSI

TY B

LVD

SE

R IO B RAVO BLVD SW

YALE

BLV

D SE

OSUNA RD NE

UNIV

ERSE

BLV

D NW

NM 4

7

INDIAN SCHO OL RD NE

ROY AV NE

PASE

O DE

L VO

LCAN

SW

98TH ST SW

VENTURA ST NE

ATRISCO DR NW

COMANCH E RD NE

ELL ISON DR NW

COORS BLVD

NM 4

7 S

E

TINGLEY DR SW

SO UTH ER N AV SE

WESTSIDE BLVD NW

LYON

BLV

D NW

IL IFF RD NW


Appendix B - Map 1. Cycle Zone Analysis Composite Existing Conditions

I 0 31.5Miles

Composite Cycle Zone ScoreLow

High

Appendix CDesign Guidelines

Appendices

1. On-Street Facility Design GuidelinesThere are a range of different types of bicycle facilities that can be applied in various contexts, which provide varying levels of protection or separation from automobile traffic. This section summarizes best practice on-street bicycle facility design from North America and elsewhere.

1.1. Facility SelectionThere are a wide variety of techniques for selecting the type of facility for a given context. Roadway characteristics that are often used include:

• Motor vehicle speed and volume • Demand for bicycle facilities• Presence of heavy vehicles/trucks • User preference• Roadway width • Land use/urban or rural context

There are no specific rules for determining the most appropriate type of facility for a particular location; engineering judg-ment and planning skills are critical elements of this decision.

A 2002 study combined bikeway dimension standards for ten different communities in North America. The goal of the study was to survey the varying requirements available and provide a best practices approach for providing bicycle facili-ties. The study included a comparison with European standards, and found that “North Americans rely much more on wide lanes for bicycle accommodation than their counterparts overseas.” The table below shows the results of this analysis, which recommends use of bike lanes or shoulders, wide lanes, or normal lanes.

North American Bicycle Facility Selection Chart(King,. Michael. (2002). Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison of Approaches. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.)

Appendices

1.2. Shared RoadwaysDesign Summary• Any street without specific bicycle facilities, where bicycling is per-

mitted.• Can be signed connections, often to trails or other major destina-

tions.• Sign R4-11 BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE sign may be used

on roadways where no bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by bicyclists are present and where travel lanes are too narrow for bicy-clists and motor vehicles to operate side by side (MUTCD Section 9B.06).

Discussion A treatment appropriate for commuter riders and those accessing a trail, shared roadways can provide a key connection. Shared roadways are indicated exclusively by signage, which provide key connections to destinations and trails where providing additional separation is not possible.

Roadways appropriate for shared roadways often have a centerline stripe only, and no designated shoulders. Bicyclists are forced to share a travel lane with automobiles. This type of facility can be developed on a rural roadway without curb and gutter. It can also be used on an urban road where traffic speeds and volumes are low (photo), although shared lane markings in addition to signage may be more appropriate in these locations. Guidance The DPM defines shared roadways as, “any roadway that may be legally used by both motor vehicles and bicycles and is not specifically desig-nated as a bikeway.”

The DPM states that, “where trails intersect with the street network, safe connections to the on-street bikeway system should be designed.” Shared routes may be an appropriate treatment for such connections.

See also: MUTCD Section 9B. 20 Bicycle Guide Signs.

Shared roadway recommended configuration.

This bike route in Los Angeles provides a wide outside lane adjacent to on-street parking.

Appendices

1.3. Shoulder BikewaysDesign SummaryDPM recommended widths (measured from painted edgeline to edge of pavement):

• 6’on roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or greater.• 5’ on roadways with posted speed limits of 35 mph or below.• 4’ may be considered on low-speed, low-volume streets where right-

of-way constraints exist.• Can include pavement markings and ‘Share the Road” signage.• See bike lane section (page 12) for additional guidance for determin-

ing if bike lanes are required. Discussion On streets without adequate space for bike lanes, or on rural roads with a large shoulder, shoulder bikeways can accommodate bicycle travel. Shoulder bikeways are generally used by commuter and long-distance recreational riders, rather than families with children or more inexperi-enced riders.

In many cases, the opportunity to develop a full standard bike lane on a street where it is desirable may be many years. It is possible to stripe the shoulder in lieu of bike lanes if the area is 50 percent of the desirable bike lane width and the outside lane width can be reduced to the AAS-HTO minimum. If the available bike lane width is 2/3 of the desirable bike lane width, the full bike lane treatment of signs, legends, and an 8” bike lane line would be provided. Where feasible, extra width should be provided with pavement resurfacing jobs, but not exceeding desirable bike lane widths. Guidance The DPM states that, “paved shoulder bikeways are located on un-curbed arterials and collectors and consist of a smooth paved surface that covers all or part of the roadway shoulder.” The DPM also specifies that bike lanes and paved shoulders are the standard treatments for use on arterial or collector streets.

The New Mexico Bicycle-Pedestrian-Equestrian Advisory Plan provides guidance on the use of rumble strips to provide a buffer on roadway shoulders. It also has information about guard rails, pavement edges, and shoulder continuity.

See also: MUTCD Section 9B. 20 Bicycle Guide Signs.

Recommended shoulder bikeway configuration.

Shoulder bikeways are appropriate along wide rural roads where vehicles can avoid passing close to bicyclists.

Appendices

1.4. Wide Curb LaneDesign Summary• Outside lane widths of 14-16’ (DPM), 14-15’ NM BPE Plan• The width of the door zone is generally assumed to be 2.5’ from the

edge of the parking lane.• Place in a linear pattern along a corridor (typically every 100-200

feet).

Recommended Placement:• At least 11’ from face of curb (or shoulder edge) on streets with on-

street parking.• At least 4’ from face of curb (or shoulder edge) on streets without on-

street parking.

Discussion On wide curb lane bikeways, high-visibility pavement markings called shared lane markings (also known as sharrows) are used to position bicyclists within the travel lane. These markings are often used on streets where dedicated bike lanes are desirable but are not possible due to physical or other constraints. Shared lane markings are placed strategically in the travel lane to alert motorists of bicycle traffic, while also encouraging cyclists to ride at an appropriate distance from the “door zone” of adjacent parked cars. Shared lane markings also encour-age cyclists to ride in a straight line so their movements are predictable to motorists. Shared lane markings made of thermoplastic tend to last longer than painted ones.

GuidanceThe 2009 MUTCD notes that shared lane markings should not be placed on roadways with a speed limit over 35 MPH, and that when used the marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals no greater than 250 feet thereafter. Placing shared lane markings between vehicle tire tracks (if possible) will in-crease the life of the markings. (See MUTCD Section 9C.07).

Shared lane marking placement guidance for streets with on-street parking.

Shared lane markings are currently used in Albuquerque.

Appendices

1.5. Bike LanesDesign SummaryDesignated exclusively for bicycle travel, bike lanes are separated from vehicle travel lanes with striping and also include pavement stencils. Bike lanes are most appropriate on arterial and collector streets where higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater separation.

The DPM recommends minimum bike lane widths of:

• 5 feet, measured from painted edgeline to edge of gutter, on roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or greater.

• 4 feet, measured from painted edgeline to edge of gutter, on roadways with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less.

However, AASHTO and other guidance recommends a five-foot mini-mum for bike lanes, with four feet only in restricted corridors. This text should be considered for revision to specify that a five-foot bike lane is recommended on streets with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less. In addition, the DPM should specify that bike lanes are measured to the inside edge of the gutter pan, ensuring smooth pavement rather than a gutter edge in the bike lane.

Discussion Many bicyclists, particularly less experienced riders, are more comfort-able riding on a busy street if it has a striped and signed bike lane than if they are expected to share a wide lane. Providing marked facilities such as bike lanes is one way of helping to persuade more tentative rid-ers to try bicycling.

Bike lanes can increase safety and promote proper riding by:

• Defining road space for bicyclists and motorists, reducing the possibility that motorists will stray into the cyclists’ path• Discouraging bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk• Reminding motorists that cyclists have a right to the road.

In an urban setting, it is crucial to ensure that bike lanes and adjacent parking lanes have sufficient width, so that cyclists have enough room to avoid opened vehicle doors.

Additional GuidanceThe DPM defines bike lanes as, “a lane on the roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.” The DPM recommends the provision of bike lanes on all new or reconstructed arterial and collector roadways.

The DPM also specifies that high-speed traffic (posted speed of 40 mph or greater) and the presence of large vehicles (truck, bus, or recreational vehicle) are significant factors affecting the acceptability of potential bikeway locations. In locations where these conditions exist, bike lane widths of 5-feet or greater are recommended.”

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities guideline states that “if used, the bicycle lane symbol marking shall be placed immediately after an intersection and other locations as needed… If the word or symbol pavement markings are used, Bicycle Lane signs shall also be used, but the signs need not be adjacent to every symbol to avoid overuse of the signs.”

The New Mexico Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan specifies that “A vertical edge of pavement should not be left in the useable shoulder area or bicycle lane after construction or maintenance”, stating that four feet (minimum) of clear space should be provided and noting that partial overlays create undue hazards for cyclist.

See also MUTCD Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes.

Bike lanes are a popular accommodation for commuter and recreational cyclists.

Bike lane pavement markings in Portland, Oregon provide character to the roadway.

Appendices

1.5.1. Guidelines for Bike Lanes1.5.1.1. Bike Lane Adjacent to On-Street Parallel Parking

Design SummaryBike Lane Width• 6’ recommended when parking stalls are marked.• 4’ minimum in constrained locations.• 5’ acceptable if parking not marked (drivers tend to park closer to the

curb where parking is unmarked).• 7’ maximum (greater widths may encourage vehicle loading in bike

lane).

Travel Lane Width• 12’ for a shared lane adjacent to a curb face.• 11’ minimum for a shared bike/parking lane where parking is permit-

ted but not marked on streets without curbs.

DiscussionBike lanes adjacent to on-street parallel parking are common in the U.S. and can be dangerous for bicyclists if not designed properly. Crashes caused by a suddenly-opened vehicle door are a common hazard for bicyclists using this type of facility. On the other hand, wide bike lanes may encourage the cyclist to ride farther to the right (door zone) to maximize distance from passing traffic. Wide bike lanes may also cause confusion with unloading vehicles in busy areas where park-ing is typically full.

Some treatments to encourage bicyclists to ride away from the ‘door zone’ include:

• Installing parking “T’s” and smaller bike lane stencils placed to the left (see graphic at top).

• Provide a buffer zone (preferred design; shown bottom). Bicyclists traveling in the center of the bike lane will be less likely to encounter open car doors. Motorists have space to stand outside the bike lane when loading and unloading.

Guidance From AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities:

“If parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed between the parking area and the travel lane and have a minimum width of 5’. Where parking is permitted but a parking stripe or stalls are not utilized, the shared area should be a minimum of 11’ without a curb face and adjacent to a curb face. If the parking volume is substantial or turnover is high, an additional 1’- 2’ of width is desirable.”

Parking ‘T’ bike lane design.

Parking buffer bike lane design.

Appendices

1.5.1.2. Bike Lane Adjacent to On-Street Diagonal Parking

Design SummaryBike Lane Width• 5’ minimum.• White 4” stripe separates bike lane from parking bays.• White 6” stripes separate bike lane from motor vehicle travel lanes. • Parking bays are sufficiently long to accommodate most vehicles

(vehicles do not block bike lane). Discussion In areas with high parking demand such as urban commercial areas, diagonal parking can be used to increase parking supply. Conventional “head-in” diagonal parking is not recommended in conjunction with high levels of bicycle traffic or with the provision of bike lanes as drivers backing out of conventional diagonal parking spaces have poor visibil-ity of approaching bicyclists.

The use of ‘back-in diagonal parking’ or ‘reverse angled parking’ is rec-ommended over head-in diagonal parking. This design addresses issues with diagonal parking and bicycle travel by improving sight distance between drivers and bicyclists and has other benefits to vehicles includ-ing: loading and unloading of the trunk occurs at the curb rather than in the street, passengers (including children) are directed by open doors towards the curb, no door conflict with bicyclists. While there may be a learning curve for some drivers, using back-in diagonal parking is typi-cally an easier maneuver than conventional parallel parking. Guidance This treatment is currently slated for inclusion in the upcoming update of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Recommended bike lane adjacent to on-street diagonal parking design.

‘Back-in’ diagonal parking is safer for cyclists than ‘head-in’ diagonal parking due to drivers’ visibility as they exit the parking spot.

Appendices

1.5.1.3. Bike Lane Without On-Street Parking

Design SummaryBike Lane Width• 4’ minimum when no curb & gutter is present.• 5’ minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter.• Recommended Width:• 6’ where right-of-way allows.

Maximum Width• 8’ Adjacent to arterials with high travel speeds (45 mph+).

Discussion Wider bike lanes are desirable in certain circumstances such as on higher speed arterials (45 mph+) where a wider bike lane can increase separation between passing vehicles and cyclists. Wide bike lanes are also appropriate in areas with high bicycle use. A bike lane width of six to eight feet makes it possible for bicyclists to ride side-by-side or pass each other without leaving the bike lane, increasing the capacity of the lane. Appropriate signing and stenciling is important with wide bike lanes to ensure motorists do not mistake the lane for a vehicle lane or parking lane. Guidance

Recommend bike lane without on-street parking design.

Two Lane Cross-Section with No Parking*.*Bike lanes may be 4’ in width under constrained circumstances.

Appendices

1.5.1.4. Bike Lane Striping at Intersections

Design Summary• Stop striping bike lanes at painted crosswalks or the near side cross

street property line• At complex intersections, bike lanes may be dotted.• At signalized or stop-controlled intersections with right-turning

motor vehicles or at bus stops on the near side of the intersection, replace the solid striping to the approach should be with a broken line with 2-foot dots and 6-foot spaces for 50 to 200 feet.

• If a bus stop is located on a far side of the intersection, replace the solid white line with a broken line for at least 80 feet from the cross-walk on the far side of the intersection.

• At T-intersections with no painted crosswalks, continue the bike lane striping on the side across from the T-intersection through the inter-section area with no break.

DiscussionBike lane striping should be brought to the crosswalk or property line on the near side of an intersection. Bike lane striping is not continued through intersections, except where high volumes of motor vehicles are turning right, a bus stop is located in advance of or on the far side of the intersection, or at a complex intersection. In the example photo from Portland, OR, bicyclists are directed on the right hand side of a light rail stop, while the road continues to the left. This diversion sets cyclists up to cross the light rail tracks at a 90 degree angle.

Some jurisdictions are experimenting with using shared lane mark-ings or other high-visibility pavement markings through intersections. At high-speed intersections, such as where a highway on- or off-ramp crosses a bike lane, colored pavement can be used to highlight the con-flict area (see innovative design guidelines).

Consistency of intersection design and visibility of cyclists travelling in a bike lane should be a priority to accommodate bicyclists through intersections.

GuidanceAASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999).

Typical pavement markings for bike lane on two-way street (AASHTO)

Bike lane dashed through complex intersection.

Appendices

1.5.1.5. Bike Lanes at Roundabouts

Design Summary• Reduce the speed differential

between circulating motorists and bicyclists (25 mph maximum circulating design speed).

• Design approaches/exits to the lowest speeds possible, to reduce the severity of potential collisions with pedestrians.

• Encourage bicyclists navigat-ing the roundabout like motor vehicles to “take the lane.”

• Maximize yielding rate of motor-ists to pedestrians and bicyclists at crosswalks.

• Provide separated facilities for bi-cyclists who prefer not to navigate the roundabout on the roadway.

• Indicate to drivers and bicyclists the correct way for them to circulate through the roundabout through appropriately- designed signage, pavement markings and geometric design elements.

• Indicate to drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians the right-of-way rules through appropriately -designed signage, pavement markings and geometric design elements.

DiscussionResearch indicates that while single-lane roundabouts may benefit bicyclists and pedestrians by slowing traffic, multi-lane roundabouts may significantly increase safety problems for these users. Multi-lane roundabouts pose the following chal-lenges to bicyclists riding in a bike lane:

• Bicyclists must take the lane before they enter the roundabout to avoid becoming caught in a “right hook,” a situation in which a motorist turns right, across the path of a bicyclist traveling straight. Entry leg speeds must be slow enough for bicyclists to be able to take the lane safely.

• Theoretically, once motor vehicle volumes reach a certain magnitude, there are no gaps in traffic large enough to accom-modate a bicyclist.

• Bicyclists must be able to correctly judge the speed of circulating motorists to find a gap that is large enough for them to safely enter the roundabout. This task is particularly difficult if the circulating motorists are traveling at a much higher speed than the bicyclists. In addition, if circulating speeds in a roundabout are much higher than 20 mph, driv-ers behind a bicyclist may become impatient, and may pass the bicyclist and turn in front of him, creating more risks for the bicyclist.

• As a circulating bicyclist approaches an entry lane, a driver waiting to enter must notice the bicyclist, properly judge the bicyclist’s speed, and yield to him/her if necessary. In a location where there are few bicyclists, motorists may not even register that there is a bicyclist approaching. If a bicyclist is hugging the curb, s/he may be outside the motorist’s cone of vision.

GuidanceThe New Mexico Bicycle-Pedestrian-Equestrian Advisory Plan state provides additional guidance for providing bicycle travel around roundabouts.

Recommended bike lane at roundabout design.(Source: UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center for Caltrans, Identifying Factors that Determine Bicyclist and Pedestrian-Involved Collision Rates and Bicyclist and Pedestrian Demand at Multi-Lane Roundabouts, 2009).

Appendices

1.5.2. Retrofitting Existing Streets with Bike LanesMost major streets in Albuquerque are characterized by conditions (e.g., high vehicle speeds and/or volumes) for which dedicated bike lanes are appropriate to accommodate safe and comfortable riding. Although opportunities to add bike lanes through roadway widening may exist in some locations, most major streets in Albuquerque pose physical and other constraints requiring street retrofit measures within existing curb-to-curb widths. As a result, many of the recom-mended measures effectively reallocate existing street width through striping modifications to accommodate dedicated bike lanes. The DPM notes that, “the addition of bike lanes as part of arterial and collector rehabilitation is recommended where feasible.” While largely intended for major streets, these measures may be appropriate on some lower-order streets where bike lanes would best accommodate cyclists.

1.5.2.1. Roadway Widening

Design Summary• 6’ preferred.• 4’ minimum (see bike lane guidance).

Discussion Bike lanes could be accommodated on several streets with excess right-of-way through shoulder widening. Although street widening incurs higher expenses compared with re-striping projects, bike lanes could be added to streets currently lacking curbs, gutters and sidewalks without the high costs of major infrastructure reconstruction.

As a long-term measure, the City of Albuquerque should find oppor-tunities to add bike lanes to other major streets where they are needed. Opportunities include adding bike lanes as streets and bridges are widened for additional auto capacity or as property development necessitates street reconstruction.

Guidance

Roadway widening is preferred on roads lacking curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

Example of roadway widening to accommodate bike lanes and sidewalks.

Appendices

1.5.2.2. Lane Narrowing (Road Diet 1)

Design SummaryVehicle Lane Widths• Before: 12 to 15’; after: 10’ to 11’.

Bike Lane Width• See bike lane design guidance.

Discussion Also called a ‘Road Diet’, lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to create the needed space to provide bike lanes. Many roadways in Albuquerque have existing lanes that are wider than those prescribed in local and national roadway design standards, or which are not marked. Most standards allow for the use of 11-foot and sometimes 10-foot wide travel lanes to create space for bike lanes.Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before the decision is made to narrow travel lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for bike lanes.

Guidance

This street in Portland, Oregon previously had 13’ lanes, which were narrowed to accommodate bike lanes without removing a lane.

Example of vehicle travel lane narrowing to accommodate bike lanes.

Appendices

1.5.2.3. Lane Reconfiguration (Road Diet 2)

Design Summary

Vehicle Lane Widths• Width depends on project. No narrowing may be needed if a lane is

removed.


Discussion The removal of a single travel lane will generally provide sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for bike lane retrofit projects. Depend-ing on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations exist. For instance, a four-lane street (with two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. Prior to implementing this measure, a traffic analysis should identify impacts.

This treatment is slated for inclusion in the update to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Guidance

This road was re-striped to convert four vehicle travel lanes into three travel lanes with bike lanes.

Existing Conditions

Three-to-Two Lane Road Diet

Travel Lane

14' varies

PlantingStrip

Side-walk

PlantingStrip

Side-walk

varies

BikeLane

11' 14'

Turn Lane

6.5'

Travel Lane

varies

PlantingStrip

Side-walk

PlantingStrip

Side-walk

varies11'

Travel Lane BikeLane

6.5' 11'

Buf-fer

Buf-fer

2' 2'

Travel Lane

5'+ 5'+

5'+ 5'+

Example of vehicle travel lane reconfiguration to accommodate bike lanes.

Appendices

1.5.2.4. Parking Reduction (Road Diet 3)

Design Summary

Vehicle Lane Widths• Width depends on project. No narrowing may be needed depending

on the width of the parking lane to be removed.


Discussion Bike lanes could replace one or more on-street parking lanes on streets where excess parking exists and/or the importance of bike lanes out-weighs parking needs. For instance, parking may be needed on only one side of a street (as shown below and at right). Eliminating or reducing on-street parking also improves sight distance for cyclists in bike lanes and for motorists on approaching side streets and driveways. Prior to reallocating on-street parking for other uses, a parking study should be performed to gauge demand and to evaluate impacts to people with disabilities.

Guidance

Some streets may not require parking on both sides.

Example of parking removal to accommodate bike lanes.

Appendices

1.5.3. Bike Lane Maintenance ConsiderationsLike all roadways, bike lanes require regular maintenance. This includes sweeping, maintaining a smooth roadway, ensuring that the gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flat, and installing bicycle-friendly drainage grates. These considerations are particularly relevant to bike lanes, as cyclists have a narrow corridor to traverse.

1.5.3.1. Drainage Grates

Design Summary• Require all new drainage grates be bicycle-friendly, including grates

that have horizontal slats on them so that bicycle tires do not fall through the vertical slats.

• Consider a program to inventory all existing drainage grates, and replace hazardous grates as necessary.

Discussion Drainage grates are located in the gutter area near the curb of a road-way. They typically have slots to drain water into the municipal storm water system. Many grates are designed with linear parallel bars spread wide enough for a tire to become caught so that if a bicycle were to ride on them, the front tire would become caught and fall through the slot. This would cause the cyclist to tumble over the handlebars and sustain potentially serious injuries.

Guidance• BIKESAFE Repetitive/Short-Term Maintenance: http://www.bicy-

clinginfo.org/bikesafe/countermeasure.cfm?CM_NUM=-4

1.5.3.2. Surface

Design Summary• Ensure that on new roadway construction, the finished surface on bikeways does not vary more than ¼”.• Maintain a smooth surface of all bikeways that is free of potholes.• Maintain pavement so ridge buildup does not occur at the gutter-to-pavement transition

DiscussionBicycles are much more sensitive to subtle changes in roadway surface than are motor vehicles. Various materials are used to pave roadways, and some are smoother than others. Compaction is also an important issue after trenches and other construction holes are filled. Uneven settlement after trenching can affect the roadway surface nearest the curb where bicycles travel. Sometimes compaction is not achieved to a satisfactory level, and an uneven pavement surface can result due to settling over the course of days or weeks.

Guidance• BIKESAFE Repetitive/Short-Term Maintenance: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/countermeasure.cfm?CM_

NUM=-4

Examples of bicycle-safe drainage grates.

Appendices

1.6. Bicycle BoulevardsDesign Summary• Roadway width varies depending on roadway configuration.• Use D11-1 “Bike Route” sign as specified for shared roadways.• Shared lane markings may be applied.• Intersection treatments, traffic calming, and traffic diversions can be

utilized to improve the cycling environment, as recommended in the following pages.

DiscussionTreatments for bicycle boulevards include five “application levels” based on their level of physical intensity, with Level 1 representing the least physically-intensive treatments that could be implemented at rela-tively low cost. Identifying appropriate application levels for individual bicycle.

Traffic calming and other treatments along the corridor reduce vehicle speeds so that motorists and bicyclists generally travel at the same speed, creating a more-comfortable environment for all users. Bicycle boule-vards incorporate treatments to facilitate convenient crossings where the route crosses a major street. They work best in well-connected street grids where riders can follow reasonably direct and logical routes and when higher-order parallel streets exist to serve thru vehicle traffic.

Bicycle boulevards/bike routes can be treated with shared lane mark-ings, directional signage, traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers, and /or other traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes. Bicycle boulevards can employ a variety of treatments from signage to traffic calming and pavement stencils. The level of treatment provided at a specific location depends on several factors, discussed following.

Guidance• The DPM defines bicycle boulevards as, “a bike route designed to

encourage the through movement of bicycles while maintaining local access for motor vehicle travel.”

• Bicycle boulevards have been implemented in Berkeley, Emeryville, Palo Alto, San Luis Obispo, and Pasadena, CA; Portland and Eugene, OR; Madison, WI; Vancouver, BC; Tucson, AZ; Minneapolis, MN; Ocean City, MD; and Syracuse, NY.

• Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook. www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.php

• City of Berkeley. (2000). Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guide-lines. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=6652

• AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Recommended design for bike routes/ bicycle boulevards.

Bicycle boulevards are low-speed streets that provide a comfortable and pleasant experience for cyclists.

Appendices

Discussion (continued)Bicycle boulevards serve a variety of purposes:• Parallel major streets lacking dedicated

bicycle facilities: Higher-order streets typi-cally include major bicyclist destinations (e.g., commercial and employment areas). However, these corridors often lack bike lanes or other dedicated facilities creating an uncomfortable, unattractive and potentially unsafe riding environment. Bicycle bou-levards serve as alternate parallel facilities that allow cyclists to avoid major streets for longer trips.

• Parallel major streets with bicycle facili-ties that are uncomfortable for some users: Some users may not feel comfortable using bike lanes on major streets due to high traffic volumes and vehicle speeds, conflicts with motorists entering and leaving drive-ways, and/or conflicts with buses loading and unloading passengers. Children and less-experienced riders might find these environments especially challenging. Utiliz-ing lower-order streets, bicycle boulevards provide alternate route choices for these bicyclists. It should be noted that bike lanes on major streets provide important access to key land uses, and the major street net-work often provides the most direct routes between major destinations. For these reasons, bicycle boulevards should comple-ment a bike lane network and not serve as a substitute.

• Ease of implementation on most local streets: bicycle boulevards incorporate cost-effective and less physically-intrusive treatments than bike lanes and cycle tracks. Most streets could be provided relatively inexpensive treatments like new signage, pavement markings, striping and signal improvements to facilitate bicyclists’ mobil-ity and safety. Other potential treatments include curb extensions, medians, and other features that can be implemented at reasonable cost and are compatible with emergency vehicle accessibility.

• Benefits beyond an improved bicycling environment: Residents living on bicycle boulevards benefit from reduced vehicle speeds and thru traffic, creating a safer and more-attractive environment. Pedestrians and other users can also benefit from boulevard treatments (e.g., by improving the crossing environment where boulevards meet major streets).

Sample bicycle boulevard treatments.

Appendices

Bicycle Boulevard Application Levels.

It should be noted that corridors targeted for higher-level applications would also receive relevant lower-level treatments. For instance, a street targeted for Level 3 applications should also include Level 1 and 2 applications as necessary. It should also be noted that some applications may be appropriate on some streets while inappropriate on others. In other words, it may not be appropriate or necessary to implement all “Level 2” applications on a Level 2 street. Furthermore, several treatments could fall within multiple categories as they achieve multiple goals. To identify and develop specific treatments for each bicycle boulevard, the City of Albuquerque should involve the bicycling community and neighbor-hood groups. Further analysis and engineering work may also be necessary to determine the feasibility of some applica-tions.

The City should strive to implement bicycle boulevards of Level 3 or higher, with additional traffic calming or diversion as needed.

Appendices

1.6.1. Level 1: Bicycle Boulevard SigningDesign Summary• Signing is a cost-effective yet highly-visible treatment that can improve

the riding environment on a bicycle boulevard. • The City should adopt consistent signage and paint markings through-

out the region. Discussion Wayfinding Signs (Can be non-standard treatment)Wayfinding signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bicycle boulevards, including where multiple routes intersect and at key bicyclist “decision points.” Wayfinding signs displaying destina-tions, distances and “riding time” can dispel common misperceptions about time and distance while increasing users’ comfort and accessibil-ity to the boulevard network.

Wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and should correspondingly use caution. Note that too many signs tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than per vehicle signage standards.

Additional guidance for signage is provided on page 71.

Warning signsWarning signs advising motorists to “share the road” and “watch for bi-cyclists” may also improve bicycling conditions on shared streets. These signs are especially useful near major bicycle trip generators such as schools, parks and other activity centers. Warning signs should also be placed on major streets approaching bicycle boulevards to alert motor-ists of bicyclist crossings. Guidance • Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and

Design Handbook. www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.php • City of Berkeley. (2000). Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guide-

lines. • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.• MUTCD.

D11-1

Sample bicycle boulevard signage.

Wayfinding signs help bicyclists stay on designated bicycle routes.

Appendices

1.6.2. Level 2: Bicycle Boulevard Pavement MarkingsDesign SummaryUse pavement markings to designate bicycle boulevards and provide directional/wayfinding information

Discussion On-Street Parking Delineation Delineating on-street parking spaces with paint or other materials clearly indicates where a vehicle should be parked, and can discourage motorists from parking their vehicles too far into the adjacent travel lane. This helps cyclists by maintaining a wide enough space to safely share a travel lane with moving vehicles while minimizing the need to swerve farther into the travel lane to maneuver around parked cars.

In addition to benefiting cyclists, delineated parking spaces also pro-mote the efficient use of on-street parking by maximizing the number of spaces in high-demand areas.

Centerline Striping RemovalAutomobiles have an easier time passing cyclists on roads without centerline stripes for the majority of the block length. If vehicles cannot easily pass each other using the full width of the street, it is likely that there is too much traffic for the subject street to be a successful bicycle boulevard. In addition, not striping the centerline reduces maintenance costs. Berkeley paints a double yellow centerline from 40-50’ at uncon-trolled or stop-controlled intersections, as well as pavement reflectors to identify the center of the street.

Directional Pavement Markings (Non-standard treatment)Directional pavement markings (also known as bicycle boulevard mark-ings) lead cyclists along a boulevard and reinforce that they are on a des-ignated route. Markings can take a variety of forms, such as small bicycle symbols placed every 600-800 feet along a linear corridor, as previously used on Portland, Oregon’s boulevard network.

Recently, jurisdictions have been using larger, more visible pavement markings. Shared lane markings could be used as bicycle boulevard markings, as Portland, OR has moved towards using. See shared lane marking guidelines for additional information on this treatment.

In Berkeley, California, non-standard pavement markings include larger-scale lettering and stencils to clearly inform motorists and bicy-clists of a street’s function as a bicycle boulevard.

Guidance • Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and


lines. • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.• MUTCD.

Example of on-street parking delineation.

Shared lane markings also provide directional support for bicyclists.

Bicycle boulevard directional marker.

Appendices

1.6.3. Level 3: Bicycle Boulevards at Minor Unsignalized IntersectionsDesign Summary• To encourage use of the boulevard and improve cyclists’ safety, reduce

bicycle travel time by eliminating unnecessary stops and improving intersection crossings.

Discussion Stop Sign on Cross-Street Unmarked intersections are dangerous for bicyclists, because cross-traffic may not be watching for cyclists. Stop sign on cross streets require crossing motorists to stop and proceed when safe. Stop signs are a relatively inexpensive treatment that is quite effective at minimizing bicycle and cross-vehicle conflicts. However, placing stop signs at all intersections along bicycle boulevards may be unwarranted as a traffic control device.

The DPM specifies that, “Potential on-street bikeway locations should include no more than one stop sign or traffic signal per 1/4 mile. Local street stop control should be reassigned to facilitate through bicycle traffic on designated bikeways. Stop control reassignment requires an engineering study to determine additional measures necessary to mini-mize neighborhood impacts.”

Curb Extensions and High-Visibility Crosswalks This treatment is appropriate near activity centers with large amounts of pedestrian activity, such as schools or commercial areas. Curb exten-sions should only extend across the parking lane and not obstruct bicyclists’ path of travel or the travel lane. Curb extensions and high-visibility crosswalks both calm traffic and also increase the visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross the street, although they may impact on-street parking.

Bicycle Forward Stop Bar (Non-standard treatment)A second stop bar for cyclists placed closer to the centerline of the cross street than the first stop bar increases the visibility of cyclists waiting to cross a street. This treatment is typically used with other crossing treat-ments (i.e. curb extension) to encourage cyclists to take full advantage of crossing design. They are appropriate at unsignalized crossings where fewer than 25 percent of motorists make a right turn movement.

Guidance • Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and

Design Handbook. • City of Berkeley. (2000). Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines. • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.• MUTCD.

Stop signs effectively minimize conflicts along bicycle boulevards.

Curb extensions can be a good location for pedestrian amenities, including street trees.

Bicycle forward stop bars encourage cyclists to wait where they are more visible.

Appendices

1.6.4. Level 3: Bicycle Boulevards at Major Unsignalized IntersectionsDesign Summary• Increase crossing opportunities with medians and refuge islands

Discussion Medians/Refuge Islands A crossing island can be provided to allow cyclists to cross one direction of traffic at a time when gaps in traffic allow. The crossing island should be at least 8’ wide; narrower medians can accommodate bikes if the holding area is at an acute angle to the major roadway. Crossing islands can be placed in the middle of the intersection, prohibiting left and thru vehicle movements.

Guidance• Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook. • City of Berkeley. (2000). Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines. • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

1.6.5. Level 3: Bike Routes/Boulevards at Offset IntersectionsDesign Summary• Provide turning lanes or pockets at offset intersection , providing

cyclists with a refuge to make a two-step turn.• Bike turn pockets - 5’wide, with a total of 11’ required for both turn

pockets and center striping.

Discussion Offset intersection can be challenging for cyclists, who need to transi-tion onto the busier cross-street in order to continue along the boule-vard.

Bicycle Left-Turn Lane (Non-standard treatment)Bicycle left-turn lanes allow the crossing to be completed in two phases. The bicyclist executes a right-hand turn onto the cross-street, and then waits in a delineated left-turn lane if necessary. The bike turn pockets should be at least 5’ wide, total of 11’ for turn pockets and center strip-ing.

Bicycle Left Turn Pocket (Non-standard treatment)A bike-only left-turn pocket permits bicyclists to make left turns while restricting vehicle left turns. Signs should prohibit motorists from turn-ing. Because of the restriction on vehicle left-turning movements, this treatment also acts as traffic diversion.

Guidance • Alta and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook.• AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Medians on bicycle boulevards can provide space for a bicyclist to wait.

Example of a bicycle left-turn pocket.

This bike-only left-turn pocket guides cyclists along a popular bike route.

Appendices

1.6.6. Level 4: Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Calming Design Summary• Traffic calming treatments reduce vehicle speeds to the point where

they generally match cyclists’ operating speeds, enabling motorists and cyclists to safely co-exist on the same facility.

Discussion Chicanes (Non-standard treatment)Chicanes are a series of raised or delineated curb extensions on alternat-ing sides of a street forming an S-shaped curb, which reduce vehicle speeds through narrowed travel lanes. Chicanes can also be achieved by establishing on-street parking on alternate sides of the street. These treatments are most effective on streets with narrower cross-sections.

Mini Traffic CirclesMini traffic circles are raised or delineated islands placed at intersec-tions, reducing vehicle speeds through tighter turning radii and nar-rowed vehicle travel lanes (see right). These devices can effectively slow vehicle traffic while facilitating all turning movements at an intersec-tion. Mini traffic circles can also include a paved apron to accommo-date the turning radii of larger vehicles like fire trucks or school buses.

Speed HumpsShown right, speed humps are rounded raised areas of the pavement re-quiring approaching motor vehicles to reduce speed. These devices also discourage thru vehicle travel on a street when a parallel route exists.Speed humps should never be constructed so steep that they may cause a bicyclist to lose control of the bicycle or be distracted from traffic. In some cases, a gap could be provided, whereby a bicyclist could continue on the level roadway surface, while vehicles would slow down to cross the barrier. Guidance • Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and


lines. • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Chicanes require all vehicles to reduce their speeds.

Traffic circles provide an opportunity for landscaping, but visibility should be maintained.

Speed humps are a common traffic calming treatment, which should not be used on emergency routes.

Appendices

1.6.7. Level 5: Bicycle Boulevard Traffic DiversionDesign Summary• Traffic diversion treatments maintain thru-bicycle travel on a street

while physically restricting thru vehicle traffic. • Traffic diversion is most effective when higher-order streets can suf-

ficiently accommodate the diverted traffic associated with these treat-ments.

Discussion Choker Entrances (Non-standard treatment)Choker entrances are intersection curb extensions or raised islands allowing full bicycle passage while restricting vehicle access to and from a bicycle boulevard. When they approach a choker entrance at a cross-street, motorists on the bicycle boulevard must turn onto the cross-street while cyclists may continue forward. These devices can be designed to permit some vehicle turning movements from a cross-street onto the bicycle boulevard while restricting other movements.

Traffic Diverters (Non-standard treatment)Similar to choker entrances, traffic diverters are raised features directing vehicle traffic off the bicycle boulevard while permitting thru travel.

Advantages:• Provides safe refuge in the median of the major street so that bicy-

clists only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time; works well with signal-controlled traffic platoons coming from opposite direc-tions.

• Provides traffic calming and safety benefits by preventing left turns and/or thru traffic from using the intersection.

Disadvantages:• Potential motor vehicle impacts to major roadways, including lane narrowing, loss of some on-street parking and re-

stricted turning movements.• Crossing island may be difficult to maintain and may collect debris.

Guidance • Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook. www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.

php • City of Berkeley. (2000). Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines. • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Choker entrances prevent vehicular traffic from turning from a main street onto a traffic-calmed bicycle boulevard.

Traffic diverters prevent access to both directions of motor vehicle traffic.

Appendices

2. General Intersection Design GuidelinesA wide variety of intersection treatments exist, which provide safe crossing and turning movements of bicyclists on bikeways. Treatments specific to particular facility types were previously discussed; this section addresses general guidelines for crossings.

2.1. High-Visibility Crosswalk TechniquesDesign Summary• Additional treatments can be used to increase visibility of the cross-

walk at high-use locations and in locations with high use from school children, elderly pedestrians, or pedestrians with disabilities.

Discussion Flasher Warning SignFlashing warning signs increase the visibility of a crossing by calling attention to the pedestrian crossing location. They can be continu-ous, timed for rush hours, or activated by a pedestrian push-button. MUTCD Chapter 4L provides information about flashing beacons.

Raised Median (Non-standard treatment)A median can eliminate grade changes from the pedestrian path and give pedestrians greater prominence as they cross the street. Raised crosswalks should be used only in limited cases where a special emphasis on pedestri-ans is desired such as at a mid-block crossing; review on case-by-case basis.

Additional guidelines include:

• Use detectable warnings at the curb edges to alert vision-impaired pedestrians that they are entering the roadway.

• Approaches to the raised crosswalk may be designed to be similar to speed humps, or may be designed so they do not have a slowing ef-fect (such as on emergency response routes).

• Use post mounted pedestrian crosswalk signs placed on the median and on the right side of the roadway for each approach.

In-Street “Yield to Pedestrians” Signs and FlashersIn-street “Yield to Pedestrian” signs are flexible plastic ‘paddle’ signs installed in the center of a roadway to enhance a crosswalk at uncon-trolled crossing locations. In-pavement flashers may be appropriate on undivided roadways in densely developed areas that do not offer median refuges for crossing pedestrians. See MUTCD Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Signs.

In-Roadway LightsIn-roadway lights may be used at marked crosswalks to provide ad-ditional warning. They are actuated by the pedestrian and flash for a designated amount of time before turning off. See MUTCD Section 4N.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks for additional information.

Guidance• United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).• MUTCD

Flashing warning sign.

Raised medians require drivers to slow down.

In-street yield to pedestrian signage.

Appendices

2.2. Marked Crosswalks2.2.1. Minimizing Conflict with AutomobilesDesign Summary• Separating pedestrians and motor vehicles at intersections improves

safety and visibility. Discussion Parking Control • Parking control improves visibility in the vicinity of the crosswalk.

Parking is prohibited within all intersections and crosswalks unless otherwise signed. At “T” and offset intersections, where the boundar-ies of the intersection may not be obvious, this prohibition should be made clear with signage.

• In areas where there is high parking demand (as determined by a Traffic Engineer), parking for compact vehicles may be allowed within “T” or offset intersections and on either side of the crosswalk. At these locations, signs will be placed to prohibit parking within the designated crosswalk areas, and additional enforcement should be provided, particularly when the treatment is new.

• Parking shall not be allowed within any type of intersection adjacent to schools, school crosswalks, and parks. This includes “T” and offset intersections.

• Installation of parking signage to allow and/or prohibit parking within any given intersection will occur at the time that the Parking Control section is undertaking work at the intersection.

Advance Stop BarsAdvance stop bars increase pedestrian comfort and safety by stopping motor vehicles well in advance of marked crosswalks, allowing vehicle operators a better line of sight of pedestrians and giving inner lane motor vehicle traffic time to stop for pedestrians. Pedestrians feel more comfortable since motor vehicles are not stopped adjacent to the cross-walk. The multiple threat of motor vehicles is reduced, since vehicles in the inner travel lane have a clearer line of sight to pedestrians entering the sidewalk. Without an advance stop bar, the vehicle in the outer lane may stop for the pedestrian, but the vehicle in the inner lane proceeds, increasing the possibility of a vehicle-pedestrian conflict.

Advanced stop bars should be used:

• On streets with at least two travel lanes in each direction.• Prior to a marked crosswalk• In one or both directions of motor vehicle travel • Recommended 30 ft in advance of the crosswalk.• A “Stop Here for Pedestrians” sign must accompany the advance stop bar. Guidance• United States Access Board. (2007). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Crosswalks should always be kept clear of on-street parking.

Advance stop bars alert motorists of pedestrians.

Appendices

2.3. Pedestrian Hybrid BeaconDesign Summary

RR

Y

1. Dark Until Activated

RR

FY

2. Flashing YellowUpon Activation

RR

SY

3. Steady Yellow

SRSR

Y

4. Steady Red DuringPedestrian Walk Interval

RR

Y

5. Alternating Flashing Red DuringPedestrian Clearance Interval

6. Dark Again Until Activated

RFR

Y

FRR

Y

Legend

SY Steady yellowFY Flashing y ellowSR Steady redFR Flashing red

Sequence for a pedestrian hybrid beacon (MUTCD Figure 4F-3).

Guidance from the MUTCD Section 4F. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons:• The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100’ from

side streets or driveways that are controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign.

• Parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100’ in advance of and at least 20’ beyond the marked crosswalk, or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance.

• The installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.

• If installed within a signal system, the pedestrian hybrid beacon should be coordinated.

Discussion A pedestrian hybrid beacon may be considered for installation to facili-tate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants (see MUTCD Chapter 4C), or at a location that meets traffic signal warrants but a decision is made to not install a traffic control signal.

The beacon signal consists of a traffic signal head with a red-yellow-red lens. The unit is off until activated, then the signal phasing is:

• The signal flashes yellow to warn approaching drivers.• A solid yellow advises drivers to prepare to stop.• The signal changes to a solid red, and a WALK indicator is shown.

The beacon signal converts to an alternating flashing red, allowing the drivers to proceed after stopping at the crosswalk, while the bicyclist or pedestrian is shown the flashing DON’T WALK signal.

Scramble Signals (Non-standard treatment)Scramble signals can be used at intersections with frequent vehicle/bicycle conflicts, and/or intersections experiencing high bicycle turning movements (especially left turns that force bicyclists to cross vehicle traffic). Scramble signals provide

Pedestrian hybrid signal; also called HAWK signals (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk).

Scramble signals allow cyclists to cross a intersection diagonally.

Appendices

a simultaneous “All Red” phase for motorists and a green phase dedicated for bicycle/ pedestrian movements that enables non-motorized users to cross an intersection using their desired travel path (straight or diagonal).

Scramble signals have been used successfully in Davis, CA; Honolulu, HI; and Portland, OR.

Guidance • MUTCD Section 4F. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons• Bureau of Highway Operations (2010) HAWK Pedestrian Signals: A Survey of National Guidance, State Practice and

Related Research http://on.dot.wi.gov/wisdotresearch/database/tsrs/tsrhawksignals.pdf • National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2006). Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, Report

562, 2006. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf

Appendices

2.4. Accommodating Bicyclists at IntersectionsDesign SummaryAt signalized intersections, cyclists should be able to trigger signals when cars are not present. Requiring cyclists to dismount to press a pe-destrian button is inconvenient and requires the cyclist to merge in into traffic at an intersection. It is particularly important to provide bicycle actuation in a left-turn only lane where cyclists regularly make left turn movements.

DiscussionLoop Detectors • Bicycle-activated loop detectors are installed within the roadway to

allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in the traffic signal. This allows the cyclist to stay within the lane of travel and avoid ma-noeuvring to the side of the road to trigger a push button.

• Most demand-actuated signals in Albuquerque currently use loop detectors, which can be attuned to be sensitive enough to detect any type of metal, including steel and aluminum.

• Current and future loops that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles should have pavement markings to instruct cyclists how to trip them, as well as signage (see right).

Detection CamerasVideo detection cameras can also be used to determine when a vehicle is waiting for a signal. These systems use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at the location. Cameras can detect bi-cycles, although cyclists should wait in the center of the lane, where an automobile would usually wait, in order to be detected. Video camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection.

Detection cameras are currently used for cyclists in the City of San Luis Obisbo, CA, where the system has proven to detect pedestrians as well.

Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS) (Non-stan-dard treatment)RTMS is a system developed in China, which uses frequency modulat-ed continuous wave radio signals to detect objects in the roadway. This method is marked with a time code which gives information on how far away the object is. The RTMS system is unaffected by temperature and lighting, which can affect standard detection cameras.

Push ButtonsA pushbutton is a four-foot pedestal pole next to the curb for a cyclist to actuate the signal. Push buttons should only be used in locations without right turn bays and can be used with or without bike lanes.

Guidance• Additional technical information is available at: www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm• ITE Guidance for Bicycle—Sensitive Detection and Counters: http://www.ite.org/councils/Bike-Report-Ch4.pdf

6 inches

5 inches

24 inches

2 inches

6 inches

2inches

Recommended loop detector marking design.

R10-22Instructional Sign (MUTCD Sign R10-15).

Appendices

3. Off-Street Facility Design Guidelines Design SummaryShared-use paths can provide a desirable facility particularly for novice riders, recreational trips, and cyclists of all skill levels preferring separation from traffic. Shared-use paths should generally provide new travel opportunities.

The Albuquerque Development Process Manual defines a shared-use path/trail as, “A shared use path is a bikeway physi-cally separated from motorized vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier, and constructed within the street right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way including shared-use rights-of-way or utility or drainage easements.”

DiscussionShared-use paths serve bicyclists and pedestrians and provide additional width over a standard sidewalk. Facilities may be constructed adjacent to roads, through parks, or along linear corridors such as active or abandoned railroad lines or water-ways. Regardless of the type, paths constructed next to the road must have some type of vertical (e.g., curb or barrier) or horizontal (e.g., landscaped strip) buffer separating the path area from adjacent vehicle travel lanes.

Elements that enhance shared-use path design include:

• Providing frequent access points from the local road network; if access points are spaced too far apart, users will have to travel out of direction to enter or exit the path, which will discourage use.

• Placing directional signs to direct users to and from the path.• Building to a standard high enough to allow heavy maintenance

equipment to use the path without causing it to deteriorate.• Limiting the number of at-grade crossings with streets or driveways.• Terminating the path where it is easily accessible to and from the

street system, preferably at a controlled intersection or at the begin-ning of a dead-end street. If poorly designed, the point where the path joins the street system can put pedestrians and cyclists in a posi-tion where motor vehicle drivers do not expect them.

• Identifying and addressing potential safety and security issues up front.

• Whenever possible, and especially where heavy use can be expected, separate bicycle and pedestrian ways should be provided to reduce conflicts.

• Providing accessible parking space(s) at trailheads and access points. • Providing a soft surface shoulder adjacent to paved surfaces for use by

joggers and equestrians.

Additional GuidanceShared –use paths should be constructed according to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Where possible, shared-use paths should be designed according to ADA standards. Constructing trails may have limitations that make meeting ADA standards difficult and sometimes prohibitive. Prohibitive impacts include harm to significant cul-tural or natural resources, a significant change in the intended purpose of the trail, requirements of construction methods that are against federal, state or local regulations, or presence of terrain characteristics that prevent compliance.

Shared-use paths (also referred to as “trails” and “multi-use paths”) are often viewed as recreational facilities, but they are also important corridors for utilitarian trips.

Appendices

3.1. Shared-Use Path DesignDesign Summary

Recommended shared-use path design.

Width (DPM standards)• 10’ is the minimum allowed for a two-way shared-use path and is

only recommended for low traffic situations.• 12’ or greater is recommended for high-use areas, as identified in the

Long Range Bikeway System or in heavy use situations with high concentrations of multiple users such as joggers, bicyclists, in-line skaters and pedestrians.

Lateral Clearance• A 2’ or greater shoulder on both sides.

Overhead Clearance• Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 8’ minimum, with 10’

recommended.

Design Speed• The maximum design speed for bike paths is 20 miles per hour.

Speed bumps or other surface irregularities should never be used to slow bicycles.

Grade• The recommended maximum gradient is 5%. Steeper grades can be

tolerated for short distances (500 feet max). Discussion A hard surface should be used for multi-use trails. Concrete, while more expensive than asphalt, is the hardest of all trail surfaces and lasts the longest. However, joggers and runners prefer surfaces such as asphalt or decomposed granite due to its softness relative to concrete. While most asphalt is black, dyes (such as reddish pigments) can be added to increase the aesthetic value of the trail itself.

When concrete is used the trail should be designed and installed using the narrowest possible expansion joints to mini-mize the amount of ‘bumping’ cyclists experience on the trail. A soft surface shoulder can be added to adjacent to the hard surface trail to provide alternatives for joggers and equestrians. Guidance • U.S. Access Board, Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).• FHWA. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access.

The Cedar Lake Regional Trail in Minneapolis, MN has sufficient width to accommodate a variety of users.

Appendices

3.1.1. Shared-Use Equestrian Trail DesignDesign SummaryWidth• 5’-6’in low (rural) development• 8’-12’ in moderate to high development

Lateral Clearance• A 3’ or greater shoulder on both sides.

Overhead Clearance• Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 10’ minimum, with

12’ recommended. Discussion Walkers, hikers, and cyclists often share trail corridors with equestrians. Pedestrians and riders are often compatible on the same tread as they both accept unpaved surfaces and move at relatively slow speeds. How-ever, fast moving and quiet cyclists, approaching a horse from behind, are a valid concern for riders. In areas where conflicts seem likely, efforts are made to physically separate the different user groups.

For equestrian routes, trail tread or surface should be relatively stable. The trail surface should be solid, obstacle free and should stay in place. Appropriate trail surfaces include: compacted native soil, crusherfines, and decomposed granite. Hard surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete are not amenable to equestrians.

Trails that are comfortable for equestrians are ones that accommodate most trail users. While horses can easily negotiate grades up to 20% for short distances (up to 200’), steeper running grades result in faster water run-off and erosion problems. Following contours helps reduce erosion problems, minimize maintenance needs and increase comfort levels. A 2% cross slope or crowned tread and periodic grade reversals along running slopes will minimize standing surface water and will resolve most drainage issues on a multi-use path. An exception is cut sections where uphill water must be collected in a ditch and directed to a catch basin, where the water can be directed under the trail in a drainage pipe of suitable dimensions. Ad-ditionally, on running grades steeper than 5%, add 6 to 12 inches of extra tread width as a safety margin where possible. Guidance USDA/FHWA Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds.

Recommended design for a multi-use path that accommodates equestrians.

Example multi-use equestrian trail.

Appendices

3.1.2. Trail Accessibility

Design Summary• 3’ minimum clear width, where less than 5’, passing space should be

provided at least every 100’.• Cross slope should not exceed 5%.• Signs shall be provided indicating the length of the accessible trail

segment.• Curb ramps shall be provided at roadway crossings and curbs. Tactile

warning strips and auditory crossing signals are recommended. Discussion Slopes typically should not exceed 2%. However certain conditions may require the use of steeper slope. For conditions exceeding a 5% slope, the recommendations are as follows:

• -Up to an 8.33% slope for a 200’ max run, landings or resting inter-vals must be provided at minimum of 20’.

• -Up to a 10% slope for a 30’ maximum run, resting intervals spaced at 30’ minimum.

• -Up to 12.5 % slope for 10’maximum run, with resting intervals spaced at 10’ minimum.

The trail surface shall be firm and stable. The Forest Service Accessibil-ity Guidelines defines a firm surface as a trail surface that is not notice-ably distorted or compressed by the passage of a device that simulates a person who uses a wheelchair. Where rights-of-way are available, paths can be made more accessible by creating side paths that meander away from a roadway that exceeds a 5% slope.

Accessibility guidelines note that the natural environment may prohibit ADA compliance. In addition, the standards may be waived where compliance would cause “substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or characteristics.” Guidance General guidelines have been created in response to the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) for accessible trails.

• FHWA. (2001). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Chapter 14: Shared Use Path Design, Section 14.5.1: Grade. www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks212.htm#tra2

• Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report, (1999). http://www.access-board.gov/outdoor/outdoor-rec-rpt.htm

ADA clearance requirement.

Shared-use paths surfacing materials affects which types of users can benefit from the facility.

Appendices

3.1.3. Managing Multiple UsersDesign Summary• Stripe a centerline• Separate bicycle and pedestrian areas

º Barrier separation – vegetated buffers or barriers, elevation changes, walls, fences, railings and bollards.

º Distance separation – differing surfaces.• User behavior guidance signs.

DiscussionTrails that experience high levels of use, particularly by a variety of user types, may become overcrowded and unsafe for users. The City should consider widening a high-use trail where feasible; otherwise, treatments such as separating bicycle and pedestrian areas, pavement markings, and etiquette signs can improve sharing the trail.

Centerline striping can be used to encourage users to stay on a par-ticular side of the trail. AASHTO recommends a 4’ wide yellow stripe, which can be dashed where passing sight distance exists, and solid in other directions. This may be particularly beneficial in the following circumstances:

• For heavy volumes of bicycles and/or other users, • On curves with restricted sight distance, and • On unlighted paths where nighttime riding is expected.

Differing surfaces suitable to each user group foster visual separation and clarity of where each user group should be. A dirt track can draw runners and walkers to reduce conflicts with cyclists as a more joint-friendly option. When trail corridors are constrained, the approach is often to locate the two different trail surfaces side by side with no separation.

Informing trail users of acceptable trail etiquette is a common issue when multiple user types are anticipated. Yielding the right-of-way is a courtesy and yet a necessary part of a safe trail experience involving multiple trail users. Trail right-of-way information should be posted at trail access points and along the trail. The message must be clear and easy to understand. Where appropriate, trail etiquette systems should instruct trail users to the yielding of cyclists to pedestrians and equestri-ans and the yielding of pedestrians to equestrians.

GuidanceThe 2009 MUTCD contains additional information about centerline striping on a trail.

Centerline striping encourages trail users to provide space for other users to pass.

Albuquerque uses guidance signage to encourage multiple users to share trail facilities.

A commonly used multi-use trail etiquette sign.

Appendices

3.1.4. Trail Opportunities3.1.4.1. Rails-with-TrailsRails-with-Trails projects typically consist of paths adjacent to active railroads. Offering the same benefits as rail-to-trail projects, these facili-ties could be developed within active rail corridors in Albuquerque.It should be noted that some constraints could impact the feasibility of rail-with-trail projects. In some cases, space needs to be preserved for future planned freight, transit or commuter rail service. In other cases, limited right-of-way width, inadequate setbacks, concerns about trespassing, and numerous mid-block crossings may affect a project’s feasibility.

3.1.4.2. Utility and Arroyo Corridor TrailsSeveral utility and arroyo corridors in Albuquerque offer excellent trail development and bikeway gap closure opportunities. Utility corridors typically include powerlines, sewer corridors, and irrigation ditches while waterway corridors include canals, drainage ditches, rivers, and beaches. These corridors offer excellent transportation and recreation opportunities for cyclists of all ages and skills.

Trails along waterways such as drainage ditches should consider design to minimize access to the water. Fences can deter trail users from at-tempting to access to the water or from inadvertently falling.

The Springwater Corridor in Portland, Oregon runs next to an active rail line.

Albuquerque has significant opportunities to develop trails along drainage ditches.

Appendices

3.1.5. Trails Along RoadwaysDesign SummaryWhere a shared-use path must be adjacent to a roadway, a five foot minimum buffer should separate the path from the edge of the road-way, or a physical barrier of sufficient height should be installed.

Shared use paths may be considered along roadways under the follow-ing conditions:

• The path will generally be separated from all motor vehicle traffic.• Bicycle and pedestrian use is anticipated to be high.• To provide continuity with an existing path through a roadway cor-

ridor.• The path can be terminated at each end onto streets or trails with

good bicycle and pedestrian facilities.• There is adequate access to local cross-streets and other facilities along the route.• Any needed grade separation structures do not add substantial out-of-direction travel.

DiscussionConcerns about shared use paths directly adjacent to roadways (e.g., with minimal or no separation) are:

• Half of bicycle traffic may ride against the flow of vehicle traffic, contrary to the rules of the road.• When the path ends, cyclists riding against traffic tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street, as do cy-

clists who are accessing the path. Wrong-way bicycle travel is a major cause of crashes.• At intersections, motorists crossing the path often do not notice bicyclists approaching from certain directions, espe-

cially where sight distances are poor.• Bicyclists are required to stop or yield at cross-streets and driveways, unless otherwise posted.• Stopped vehicles on a cross-street or driveway may block the path.• Because of the closeness of vehicle traffic to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers are often necessary to separate motorists

from cyclists. These barriers serve as obstructions, complicate facility maintenance and waste available right-of-way.• Paths directly adjacent to high-volume roadways diminish users’ experience by placing them in an uncomfortable envi-

ronment.

As bicyclists gain experience and realize some of the advantages of riding on the roadway, some riders stop using paths adjacent to roadways. Bicyclists may also tend to prefer the roadway as pedestrian traffic on the shared use path increases due to its location next to an urban roadway. When designing a bikeway network, the presence of a nearby or parallel path should not be used as a reason to not provide adequate shoulder or bike lane width on the roadway, as the on-street bicycle facility will generally be superior to the “sidepath” for experienced cyclists and those who are cycling for transpor-tation purposes. Bike lanes should be provided as an alternate (more transportation-oriented) facility whenever possible.

GuidanceThe AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities generally recommends against the development of trails adjacent to roadways. The DPM similarly states that, “Bike Trails should be located to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide rights-of-way exist, permitting such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets.” The DPM also states, “The sidewalk may be designated as a legal trail for short distances of up to one-quarter mile to serve as a linkage within the bikeway network. Two-way bicycle traffic as well as pedestrian traffic should be expected on sidewalks under these conditions.”

Trails directly adjacent to roadways can be challenging for users at roadway intersections.

Appendices

3.2. Path/Roadway CrossingsDesign SummaryAt-grade path/roadway crossings generally will fit into one of four basic categories:

• Type 1: Marked/Unsignalized Unprotected crossings include trail crossings of residential, collector, and sometimes major arterial streets or railroad tracks.

• Type 1+: Marked/Enhanced – Unsignalized intersections can provide additional visibility with flashing beacons and other treatments.

• Type 2: Route Users to Existing Signalized Intersection - Trails that emerge near existing intersections may be routed to these locations, provided that sufficient protection is provided at the existing intersec-tion.

• Type 3: Signalized/Controlled - Trail crossings that require signals or other control measures due to traffic volumes, speeds, and trail usage.

• Type 4: Grade-separated crossings - Bridges or under-crossings provide the maximum level of safety but also generally are the most expensive and have right-of-way, maintenance, and other public safety considerations.

DiscussionWhile at-grade crossings create a potentially high level of conflict between path users and motorists, well-designed cross-ings have not historically posed a safety problem for path users. This is evidenced by the thousands of successful paths around the United States with at-grade crossings. In most cases, at-grade path crossings can be properly designed to a reasonable degree of safety and can meet existing traffic and safety standards.

Evaluation of path crossings involves analysis of vehicular and anticipated path user traffic patterns, including:

• Vehicle speeds • Traffic volumes (average daily traffic and peak hour traffic).• Street width • Path user profile (age distribution, destinations served)• Sight distance

Crossing features for all roadways include warning signs both for vehicles and path users.

Consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and line of sight, with visibility of any signing absolutely critical. Catching the attention of motorists jaded to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing light, roadway striping or changes in pavement texture. Signing for path users must include a “STOP” sign and pavement marking, sometimes combined with other features such as bollards.

GuidanceThe proposed intersection approach that follows is based on established standards, published technical reports1, and expe-riences from cities around the country.

1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Report, “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations.”

An offset crossing forces pedestrians to turn and face the traffic they are about to cross.

Appendices

Guidance (continued)Summary of Path/Roadway At-Grade Crossing Recommendations 2

Vehicle ADT ≤ 9,000Vehicle ADT > 9,000 to

12,000Vehicle ADT > 12,000 to

15,000 Vehicle ADT >>15,000

Speed Limit (mph)**

Roadway Type 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 402 Lanes 1 1 1/1+ 1 1 1/1+ 1 1 1+/3 1 1/1+ +/3

3 Lanes 1 1 1/1+ 1 1/1+ 1/1+ 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1+/3 1/3

Multi-Lane (4 +) w/ raised median*** 1 1 1/1+ 1 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3

Multi-Lane (4 +) w/o raised median 1 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3

*General Notes: Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding which treatment to use.

For each pathway-roadway crossing, an engineering study is needed to determine the proper location. For each engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites.

** Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mi/h marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.

*** The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft (1.2 m) wide and 6 ft (1.8 m) long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestrians in accordance with MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median.

1= Type 1 Crossings. Ladder-style crosswalks with appropriate signage should be used.

1/1+ = With the higher volumes and speeds, enhanced treatments should be used, including marked ladder style crosswalks, median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as sight distance.

1+/3 = Carefully analyze signal warrants using a combination of Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume or 5, School Crossing (depending on school presence) and Equivalent Adult Unit (EAU) factoring (see MUTCD, Chapter 4). Make sure to project pathway usage based on future potential demand. Consider Pelican, Puffin, or Hawk signals in lieu of full signals. For those intersections not meeting warrants or where engineering judgment or cost recommends against signalization, implement Type 1 enhanced crosswalk markings with marked ladder style crosswalks, median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as sight distance.

2 This table is based on information contained in the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Study, “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations,” February 2002.

Appendices

3.2.1. Type 1: Marked/Unsignalized CrossingsA marked/unsignalized crossing (Type 1) consists of a crosswalk, signage, and often no other devices to slow or stop traffic. The approach to designing crossings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, path traffic, use patterns, vehicle speed, road type and width, and other safety issues such as proximity to schools. The following thresholds recommend where unsignalized crossings may be acceptable:

Maximum traffic volumes:

• ≤9,000-12,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes.• Up to 15,000 ADT on two-lane roads, preferably with a median.• Up to 12,000 ADT on four-lane roads with median.

Maximum travel speed:

• 35 MPH.

Minimum line of sight:

• 25 MPH zone: 155 feet.• 35 MPH zone: 250 feet.• 45 MPH zone: 360 feet.

DiscussionIf well-designed, crossings of multi-lane higher-volume arterials over 15,000 ADT may be unsignalized with features such as a combina-tion of some or all of the following: excellent sight distance, sufficient crossing gaps (more than 60 per hour), median refuges, and/or active warning devices like flashing beacons or in-pavement flashers. These are referred to as “Type 1 Enhanced” (Type 1+). Such crossings would not be appropriate; however, if a significant number of schoolchildren used the path. Furthermore, both existing and potential future path usage volume should be taken into consideration.

On two-lane residential and collector roads below 15,000 ADT with average vehicle speeds of 35 MPH or less, crosswalks and warning signs (“Path Xing”) should be provided to warn motorists, and stop signs and slowing techniques (bollards/geometry) should be used on the path approach. Curves in paths that orient the path user toward oncoming traffic are helpful in slowing path users and making them aware of oncoming vehicles. Care should be taken to keep vegetation and other obstacles out of the sight line for motorists and path users. Engineering judgment should be used to determine the appropriate level of traffic control and design.

On roadways with low to moderate traffic volumes (<12,000 ADT) and a need to control traffic speeds, a raised cross-walk may be the most appropriate crossing design to improve pedestrian visibility and safety. These crosswalks are raised 3 inches above the roadway pavement (similar to speed humps) to an elevation that matches the adjacent sidewalk. The top of the crosswalk is flat and typically made of asphalt, patterned concrete, or brick pavers. Brick or unit pavers should be discouraged because of potential problems related to pedestrians, bicycles, and ADA requirements for a continuous, smooth, vibration-free surface. Detectable warning strips are needed at the sidewalk/street boundary so that visually im-paired pedestrians can identify the edge of the street.

Type 1 Crossing

Appendices

3.2.2. Type 2: Route Users to Existing Signalized IntersectionCrossings within 250 feet of an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks are typically diverted to the signalized intersec-tion for safety purposes. For this option to be effective, barriers and signing may be needed to direct shared-use path users to the signal-ized crossings. In most cases, signal modifications would be made to add pedestrian detection and to comply with ADA.

3.2.3. Type 3: Signalized/Controlled CrossingsNew signalized crossings may be recommended for crossings that meet pedestrian, school, or modified warrants, are located more than 250 feet from an existing signalized intersection and where 85th percentile travel speeds are 40 MPH and above and/or ADT exceeds 15,000 vehicles. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic progression, timing with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety.

Type 2 Crossing Treatment.

Type 3 Crossing.

Appendices

3.2.3.1. Mid-block CrosswalkMid-block crossings provide a crossing opportunity where there is no intersection. At controlled mid-block crossing locations, crosswalks are marked where there is a demand for crossing, and there are no nearby marked crosswalks. At uncontrolled crossing use FHWA report HRT-04-100 as guidance of when to mark a crosswalk. Mid-block crosswalks should always be accompanied with pavement markings and warning signs to inform drivers of the approaching crosswalk.

3.2.4. Type 4: Grade-separated CrossingsGrade-separated crossings may be needed where existing bicycle/pe-destrian crossings do not exist, where ADT exceeds 25,000 vehicles, and 85th percentile speeds exceed 45 MPH. Safety is a major concern with both overcrossings and undercrossings. In both cases, shared-use path users may be temporarily out of sight from public view and may have poor visibility themselves. Undercrossings, like parking garages, have the reputation of being places where crimes occur. Most crime on shared-use paths, however, appears to have more in common with the general crime rate of the community and the overall usage of the shared-use path than any specific design feature.

Design and operation measures are available which can address shared-use path user concerns. For example, an undercrossing can be de-signed to be spacious, well-lit, equipped with emergency cell phones at each end and completely visible for its entire length prior to entering. Undercrossings should include lighting, particularly where nighttime security is a potential issue. AASHTO recommends average maintained horizontal illumination levels of 5 lux to 22 lux, depending on the loca-tion.

Other potential problems with undercrossings include conflicts with utilities, drainage, flood control, and maintenance requirements. Over-crossings pose potential concerns about visual impact and functional appeal, as well as space requirements necessary to meet ADA guidelines for slope.

Mid-block crosswalk.

Type 4 Grade-Separated Undercrossing.

Type 4 Grade-Separated Overcrossing.

Appendices

3.3. AmenitiesA variety of amenities can make a path inviting to the user. The following table highlights some common items that make path systems complete facilities. Costs vary depending on the design and materials selected for each amenity. Ame-nities shall be designed and located so as not to impede accessibility.

3.3.1. Pedestrian-Scale LightingPedestrian-scale lighting improves safety and enables the facility to be used year-round, particularly on winter afternoons. Minimizing glare, not lighting the night sky, and protecting the light from vandalism are the three main issues neighborhood trail lighting design should con-sider.

Albuquerque has a Night Sky Protection Act, which limits the use of lights in the area. The Act requires all outdoor lighting fixtures to be shielded. The Act also states that, “No outdoor recreational facil-ity, whether public or private, shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m.” The New Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance has provided a com-prehensive guide to acceptable lighting under this Act. http://www.wetmtndarkskies.org/images/Lighting_Guide_NMHeritage.pdf

Some neighborhood-scale lighting options include:

• In-ground lighting – dim lights which indicate the extent of the path.• Bollards – low-level lighting, susceptible to vandalism.• Solar lighting – best used in situations where running power to the

trail would be costly or undesirable.

Pedestrian scale lighting can have screens to deter the glare from affect-ing neighbors. In addition, lights can be programmed to dim or turn off later in the night.

A guideline for a pedestrian way is illumination of between 0.5 foot-candle to 1 foot-candle.

3.3.2. BollardsBollards are posts that can be used to block vehicle access to the path and that can provide information such as mile markings, wayfinding for key destinations, or small area maps.

Where used, bollards should be high-visibility with reflective tape or paint, and should not be low enough to be unnoticed. Cyclists using the shared-use path can collide with a bollard, particularly in low light conditions. Bollards should be placed on either side of the trail entrance to discourage use by motor vehicles. Where bollards are placed in the middle of the path, sufficient space should be provided for path users of all abilities, using a variety of mobility devices, as well as tricycles, trailers, and other types of bicycles. Bollards can create bottlenecks with path users at intersections, and should be used with caution.

Bollards can also include small signs, mile markers, and path logos. This can reduce sign clutter and branding to the trail.

Recommended pedestrian-scale lighting.

Bollards deter motorists from driving on the trail, but they can be dangerous for cyclists, particularly on a busy trail.

Appendices

Guidelines for bollards can be found in MUTCD Figure 9C-8.

3.3.3. Edge Treatments3.3.3.1. FencingFencing is a means of assuring safety for both trail users and neighbor-ing residents by preventing unwanted access onto or off of the trail. However, fencing both sides of the trail right of way can result in a “tunnel” effect with the perception of being trapped, resulting in a det-rimental effect on the trail user experience. The narrow width of many corridors in compounds this tunnel effect. Additionally, fencing could inhibit community surveillance of the trail. Solid fencing that does not allow any visual access to the trail should therefore be discouraged.

Fencing should not be a barrier to wildlife passage across the corridor. For example, a small six inch gap between the bottom of the fence and the ground can allow wildlife passage while not allowing trail users to trespass on private property.Fencing that allows a balance between the need for privacy, while simultaneously allowing informal surveillance of the trail should be encouraged. If fencing is requested purely for privacy reasons, vegetative buffers should be considered. 3.3.3.2. Dense VegetationDense vegetation can be used to define the trail corridor and increase privacy, particularly in locations with preexisting plants. The major expense of this option is maintenance and upkeep, which includes watering and trimming vegetation semi-regularly to maintain adequate path clearance. 3.3.3.3. Open BoundaryIn locations without significant vegetation, it is an option to maintain an open boundary around the trail. Users will tend to walk through an open area, so this option is not practical for areas where privacy or trespassing is a concern of landowners. 3.3.4. LandscapingLandscape features, including street trees or trees along paths, can enhance the visual environment and improve the path user experience. Trees can also provide shade from heat and also provide protection from rain. Insert image: landscaping improves trail experience

Post and wire fence.

Open boundaries can be used where users may be entering or existing the trail.

Landscaping improves the walking and bicycling experience, and can deter vandalism.

Appendices

3.4. Path AmenitiesDesign SummaryA variety of amenities can make a path inviting to the user. Costs vary depending on the design and materials selected for each amenity. Ame-nities shall be designed and located so as not to impede accessibility.

DiscussionBenches Providing benches at key rest areas and viewpoints encourages people of all ages to use the trail by ensuring that they have a place to rest along the way. Benches can be simple (e.g., wood slates) or more ornate (e.g., stone, wrought iron, concrete).

RestroomsRestrooms benefit path users, especially in more remote areas where other facilities do not exist. Restrooms can be sited at trailheads along the path system.

Water FountainsWater fountains provide water for people (and pets, in some cases) and bicycle racks allow recreational users to safely park their bikes if they wish to stop along the way, particularly at parks and other desirable destinations.

Bicycle ParkingBicycle parking allows trail users to store their bicycles safely for a short time. Bicycle parking should be provided if a trail transitions to an unpaved pedestrian-only area.

Trash ReceptaclesLitter receptacles should be placed at access points. Litter should be picked up once a week and after any special events held on the trail, except where specially designed trash cans have been installed. If main-tenance funds are not available to meet trash removal needs, it is best to remove trash receptacles.

SignageInformational kiosks with maps at trailheads and signage for other destinations can provide information trail users. They are beneficial for areas with high out-of- area visitation rates as well as the local citizens.

Art Local artists can be commissioned to provide art for the pathway system, making it uniquely distinct. Many pathway art installations are functional as well as aesthetic, as they may provide places to sit and play on.

Guidance • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Benches and rest areas encourage trail use by seniors and families with children.

Bathrooms are recommended for longer trails and in more remote areas.

Art installations can provide a sense of place for the trail.

Appendices

3.5. Trail Safety and Security3.5.1. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)Safety and security concerns on a trail can be addressed through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines. The four principles of CPTED are:

• Natural surveillance – maintaining sight lines and visibility to deter criminal; activities.• Natural access control utilises fences, lighting, signage and landscape to clearly define where people and vehicles are

expected to be.• Territorial reinforcement – use physical designs such as pavement treatments, landscaping, and signage to develop a

sense of proprietorship over the trail.• Maintenance - if graffiti or vandalism occurs and is not repaired replaced right away, it can send the message that no

one is watching or that no one cares.

It is also recommended that law enforcement conduct a site visit of the proposed trail alignment during the planning and design phase to determine areas of concern, so that those areas can be addressed through the proposed design.

3.5.2. Trail Safety and Security Concerns3.5.2.1. Privacy of adjacent property owners• Encourage the use of neighborhood friendly fencing and also plant-

ing of landscape buffers. • Clearly mark path access points.• Post path rules that encourage respect for private property.• Strategically placed lighting.

3.5.2.2. Unwanted vehicle access• Utilize landscaping to define the corridor edge and path, including

earth berms or boulders. • Use bollards at intersections (see guidelines above)• Pass a motorized vehicle prohibited ordinance and sign the path.• Create a Path Watch Program and encourage citizens to photograph

report illegal vehicle use of the corridor.• Lay the shared-use path out with curves that allow bike/pedestrian

passage, but are uncomfortably tight for automobile passage

3.5.2.3. Litter and dumping• Post rules encouraging pack-it-out practices.• Place garbage receptacles at trailheads.• Strategically-placed lighting, utilizing light shields to minimize un-

wanted light in adjacent homes.• Manage vegetation to allow visual surveillance of the path from adja-

cent properties and from roadway/path intersections.• Encourage local residents to report incidents as soon as they occur.• Remove dumpsites as soon as possible.

3.5.2.4. Trespassing• Clearly distinguish public path right-of-way from private property through the use of vegetative buffers and the use of

good neighbor type fencing.• Post rules encouraging respect for property.

Neighborhood-friendly fencing deters trail users from disturbing private property.

Bollards and pavement change prevent motor vehicles from using the trail.

Appendices

3.5.2.5. Local on-street parking• Designate residential streets as parking for local residents only to

discourage user parking. • Place “no outlet” and “no parking” signs prior to path access points.• Accessible parking should be provided when feasible

3.5.2.6. Crime• Manage vegetation to ensure visibility from adjacent streets and

residences.• Place lights strategically and as necessary.• Place benches and other amenities at locations with good visual sur-

veillance and high activity.• Provide mileage markers every ¼ mile and clear directional signage

for orientation.• Create a “Path Watch Program” involving local residents.• Proactive law enforcement on the trail, with regular bicycle patrols. 3.5.2.7. Vandalism• Select benches, bollards, signage and other site amenities that are

durable, low maintenance and vandal resistant.• Respond through removal or replacement in rapid manner.• Keep a photo record of all vandalism and turn over to local law

enforcement.• Encourage local residents to report vandalism.• Create a Trail Watch Program; maintain good surveillance of the cor-

ridor.• Involve neighbors in path projects to build a sense of ownership.• Place amenities in well used and visible areas.

Rest stops should provide garbage receptacles to minimize littering.

Emergency call boxes improve users’ feelings of safety.

Surveillance from nearby buildings and pedestrian-scale lighting can increase shared-use path safety.

Appendices

3.5.3. Community Involvement with Safety on the TrailCreating a safe trail environment goes beyond design and law enforce-ment and should involve the entire community. The most effective and most visible deterrent to illegal activity on Albuquerque’s trail system will be the presence of legitimate path users. Getting as many “eyes on the corridor” as possible is a key deterrent to undesirable activity.

3.5.3.1. Good access to the pathAccess ranges from providing conveniently located trailheads along the trail, to encouraging the construction of sidewalks to accommodate access from private developments adjacent to the trail. Access points should be inviting and signed so as to welcome the public onto the trail.

3.5.3.2. Good visibility from neighborsNeighbors adjacent to the trail can potentially provide 24-hour surveil-lance of the trail and can become Albuquerque’s biggest ally. Though some screening and setback of the path is needed for privacy of adjacent neighbors, complete blocking out of the trail from neighborhood view should be discouraged. This eliminates the potential of neighbors’ “eyes on the trail,” and could result in a “tunnel effect” on the trail.

3.5.3.3. High level of maintenanceA well-maintained trail sends a message that the community cares about the public space. This message alone will discourage undesirable activity along the trail.

3.5.3.4. Programmed eventsCommunity events along the trail will help increase public awareness and thereby attract more people to use the trail. Neighbors and resi-dents can help organize numerous public events along the path which will increase support for the path. Events might include a day-long path clean up or a series of short interpretive walks led by long time residents or a park naturalist.

3.5.3.5. Adopt-a-Path ProgramNearby businesses, community institutions, and residential neighbors often see the benefit of their involvement in trail path development and maintenance. Businesses and developers may view the trail as an integral piece of their site planning and be willing to take on some level of responsibility for the trail.

3.5.3.6. Path Watch ProgramPartnering with local and county law enforcement, a path watch program would provide an opportunity for local residents to become actively involved in crime prevention along Albuquerque’s path sys-tem. Similar to Neighborhood Watch programs, residents are brought together to get to know their neighbors, and are educated on how to recognize and report suspicious activity.

Trails should provide frequent access points into neighborhoods.

‘Share the Path’ and other community programs raise awareness of safety and other shared-use path issues.

Vancouver, B.C. has a program where neighbors adopt a traffic circle, and an annual reward is given to the most beautiful one.

Appendices

3.5.4. TrailheadsDesign Summary• Major trailheads should include

automobile and bicycle parking, trail information (maps, user guidelines, wildlife information, etc.), garbage receptacles and restrooms.

• Minor trailheads can provide a subset of these amenities.

Discussion Good access to a path system is a key element for its success. Trail-heads (formalized parking areas) serve the local and regional popula-tion arriving to the path system by car, transit, bicycle or other modes. Trailheads provide essential access to the shared-use path system and include amenities like parking for vehicles and bicycles, restrooms (at major trailheads), and posted maps. All areas of newly designed or newly constructed and altered portions of existing trails connecting to desig-nated trailheads or accessible trails to comply with Section 16.1 of the accessibility standards. However, the guidelines do recognize that often the natural environment will prevent full compliance with certain techni-cal provisions. Guidance • AASHTO Guide for the Develop-

ment of Bicycle Facilities. • Regulatory Negotiation Commit-

tee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas.

Example major trailhead.

Example minor trailhead.

Appendices

4. WayfindingWayfinding needs of on-street and multi-use trail users are similar but the location identification infrastructure differs. On-street bikeways benefit from an existing street name, address and signing system, this type of system currently does not exist for the multi-use trail network. The City’s multi-use trails are named but a mile marker system means of location identification and signing needs to be established. This section will address the improvements for a wayfinding of the on-street and multi-use trail facilities.

The ability to navigate through a city is informed by landmarks, natural features, and other visual cues. Signs throughout the city can indicate to pedestrians and bicyclists their direction of travel, location of desti-nations, and travel time/distance to those destinations. Types of signage include:

• Regulatory signs indicate to cyclists the traffic regulations which ap-ply at a specific time or place on a bikeway.

• Warning signs indicate in advance conditions on or adjacent to a road or bikeway that will normally require caution and may require a reduction in vehicle speed.

Figure 4

Figure 1

Figure 3

Figure 2

Figure 5

Appendices

• Guide and information signs indicate information for route selection, for locating off-road facilities, or for iden-tifying geographical features or points of interest.

Regulatory and warning signs are dictated by the Manual on Unifrom Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD also provides guidance for wayfinding signs for trails and on-street bikeways, but allows for more leeway in design and information.

4.1 On-Street4.1.1. Bike RoutesBike routes should be identified using the bike route sign D11-1. Placement should be at the beginning and end of the bike routes, using the M4-14 and M4-6 plaques (Figure 1). Where routes split or shift to an intersecting street, advanced turn arrows (M4 series) and directional arrows (M5 series) shall be used to indicate the change in direction. The D11-1 sign can be placed occasionally along the bike route to help in wayfinding. Other signs that provide addition route iden-tity are the bicycle warning sign W11-1 with the Share-the-road plaque W16-1P (Figure 2) and bicycle may use full lane R4-11 (Figure 3). These signs can help remind motorists and cyclists of the presents of a bicycle facility.

Pavement markings can be used to provide awareness of the presence of the bicycle facility as well as wayfinding guidance.

Pavement markings Sharrows (Figure 4) and bike route “pavement direction indicators” or bike blazes (figure 5) can be effective and durable additions to help guide the cyclist along their route. The bike blaze can be used to indicate changes in direction of the bike route.

4.1.2. Bike LanesBike lanes are separate travel lanes for use by bicycles. The bike lanes are marked using a lane edge stripe between the mo-tor vehicle lane and the bike lane, and including bike lane symbols and bike lane signs (R3-17). Where bike lanes change direction or at the junction with another bike lane, directions arrow sign plaques (M4 and M5 series) should be included. These simple additions to the built environment can provide adequate guidance for the cyclist to aid in route identifica-tion.

Figure 9B-4 in chapter 9 of the MUTCD shows a selection of guide signs and plaques that can be used to inform bicy-clists of bicycle route direction changes and to confirm route direction, distance, and destination.

4.1.3. Bicycle BoulevardsBike Boulevards are roadways in which bicyclists share the pavement with motor vehicles, but the facility is optimized in favor of the bicycle. Bicycle boulevards are characteristi-cally slower than residential streets to the extent that posted speed limits are non-typical (18 mph vs. 25 mph). The non-typical speed limit is intended to call attention to the bike boulevard’s posted speed being dif-ferent from a normal roadway.

The City recently developed a series of signs and pavement markings to provide identification for the bicycle boulevards. The color and logo of these signs are unique to the Bicycle

Figure 6bFigure 6a

Appendices

Boulevard and provide identification, guidance and wayfinding for the cyclist alerting the motorist to the unique character and operations of the Bicycle Boulevard (Figure 6).

4.1.4. On-Street Signage GuidelinesSignage for on-street bikeways can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including:

• Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle network.• Helping users identify the best routes to destinations (Figure 7).• Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people who are not fre-

quent cyclists or pedestrians.• Visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and

should use caution.• Including mileage and travel time estimates minimize the tendency

to overestimate the amount of time it takes to travel by bicycle (Fig-ure 8).

Identifying Destinations for SignageDestinations for on-street signage can include:

• On-street bikeways (regional or local) • Commercial centers• Regional or local parks and trails• Public transit sites • Civic or community destinations, such as hospitals and schools• Area destinations (e.g., cities, downtowns, or neighborhoods) Placement Standards and TechniquesToo many road signs clutter the right-of-way. Signs should be placed at key locations to and along bicycle routes, including:

• Confirmation signs designate bikeways to bicyclists and drivers. • Turn signs indicate where a bikeway turns from one street onto

another street.• Decision signs mark the junction of two or more bikeways and in-

clude destinations and associated directional arrows.

Additional recommended guidelines include:

• Place the closest destination to each sign in the top slot, allowing the nearest destination to ‘fall off’ the sign and subsequent destinations to move up as the bicyclist approaches.

• Use pavement markings to help reinforce routes and directional sig-nage. Markings, such as those bicycle boulevard symbols (Figure 9), bike blaze and sharrow may be used in addition to signs along bike routes and can help cyclists navigate difficult turns in route.

Balloon Fiesta Park

Old Town

Paseo del Bosque Trail 0.2

1.2

5.8

Figure 7 - Wayfinding signage concept.

Paseo del Bosque Trail0.2 MI. 1 MIN.

Old Town1.2 MI. 7 MIN.

Balloon Fiesta Park2.1 MI. 12 MIN.

Figure 8 - Wayfinding that includes distance and time can address misperceptions about time and distance.

Figure 9 - Bicycle Boulevard pavement marking.

Appendices

4.2 Multi-use TrailsThere are 175 miles of formalized multi-use trail in the city. Wayfinding can be a challenge for most trail users. A system needs to be established to provide effective wayfinding for the trail users and location identification for emergency responders.

4.2.1. Trail identification Multi-use trails are typically identified by name, usually coinciding with the major feature which they parallel such as an arroyo, highway or geographical location. Examples of these are the Bear Canyon, I-40 trail and Paseo del Bosque multi-use trails. Knowing where you are on these trails can be difficult due to lack of an addressing system. A logical system needs to be established that provides the trail user with their location and direction of travel. Multi-use trails shall follow the following conventions with regards to direction and location.

1. Trail direction and mile marker

a. Multi-use trails that have a predominantly south/north alignment shall have a mile marker designation that begins at mile zero at the southern terminus of the trail. If there are plans to extend the trail towards the south the mile marker shall begin at the future southerner terminus of the planned extension. The mile markers shall increase along the trails alignment in the northerly direction.

b. Multi-use trail that have a predominantly west/east alignment shall have a mile marker designation that begins at mile zero the existing western terminus of the trail. If there are plans to extend the trail to the west the mile marker shall being at the future western terminus of the planned extension. The mile markers shall increase along the trails alignment in the easterly direction.

c. When posting mile marking information shall be shown to the nearest 1/10th of a mile in decimal format. Whole number mile marks shall use a decimal point followed by a zero.

2. Trail location

a. Locations on a trail shall be identified by the distance from the beginning terminus of the trail expressed in miles and tenths of miles.

It would be beneficial to the trail users to include on the City’s bike map multi-use trail mile markers at major locations such as trail heads, trail/trail intersections and trail/street intersections. Emergency responders should be aware of the multi-use trail identification system and incorporate it into their dispatching protocol.

Appendices

4.2.2. Trail markingTrail identification/location marking and wayfinding can be comprised of signs, trail heads, kiosks, maps and pavement markings. The type of location marking is dependent on the location and anticipated needs of the trail users.

Trail head Trail head identification should be used to indicate the terminus of the trail, thus informing users approaching the trail from an intersecting trail and when user are leaving a specific trial to use another trial. The trail head can be as simple as a sign identifying the trail by name or more informative by including additional information, such as, the City’s Bike Map, or a map emphasizing the trail and showing the trail length, major destinations and distances, and 911 emergency report-ing instructions. A kiosk can provide a good location to display this information in addition to trail etiquette educational information and pet waste cleanup stations. Trail appurtenances near the kiosk may also improve user satisfaction and aid in alerting quick moving commuters to the congested quality, which maybe present near the kiosk as shown in the figure at the right.

Mid-trail markingMid-trail markings should be placed at 0.5 mile intervals starting at the southern or western trail terminus and shall include the trail name and mile marker. A combination of pavement marking and sign can be used or pavement marking solely. Pavement markings showing the trail name and mile marker shall be placed on and parallel to the trail centerline using retroreflective pavement marking utilizing a 4-inch high white letters and numbers. When a sign is used, a single, double-sided sign shall be placed on

Figure 10b - Example informational signage from Albuquerque.

Figure 10 c- Example of a trail information kioskFigure 10b - Bike Facilities map

Figure 11

Appendices

the right side of the trail in the direction of increasing mileage. The sign shall be a flexible fiberglass composite extending 3 feet above ground displaying the mile marker and optionally the trail name. An example of the mid-trail pavement marking and sign is shown in figure 11.

Trail/street intersectionsWhere a multi-use trail intersects a street the trail name, trail mile marker and street name shall be displayed. In addition destination guide signs may be appropriate.

Intersection signA post mounted street name sign, similar to a D3-1 with 4-inch initial upper-case letters with 3-inch lower-case letters, shall be located on the right side of the trail near as particle to the edge of the street right-of-way. These signs shall display the trail name and street name. For trails with long names appropriate abbreviations can be used.

Intersection pavement markingThe street name shall be shown using retroreflective pavement marking in 6-inch high white letters placed perpendicular to the trails centerline approximately 10 feet from the intersection. The trail name and mile marker retroreflective pave-ment marking shall be placed on and parallel to the trail centerline using retroreflective pavement marking using 4-inch high white letters and numbers and should be placed approximately 25 feet before the intersection. Figure 12 shows the preferred layout for trail identification markings.

Trail/trail intersectionsWhere multi-use trails intersect the trail names and mile markers shall be shown using signs ans pavement markings.

Intersection signPost mounted signs displaying both trail names, similar to a D3-1 sign with 4-inch initial upper-case letters with 3-inch lower-case letters, shall be located at the intersection. For trail with long names appropriate abbreviations can be used.

Intersection pavement markingThe trail name, for each trail, shall be shown using retroreflective pave-ment marking in 4-inch high white letters and numbers. The multi-use trail name and mile marker shall be placed on and parallel to the center line of the trail approximately 25 feet before the intersection. Figure 13 shows the preferred layout for trail identification markings.

Figure 12

Figure 13

Appendices

5. Pedestrian and Cycling Supportive Site DesignThe DPM requires that “All new roadways which are legal for bicycle use should be designed and constructed under the assumption that they will be used by bicyclists.”

The DPM provides the following guidance for accommodating bicycles on new streets:

a) Development of Bike Lanes on New or Reconstructed Roadways

Bike lanes should be provided on all new or reconstructed arterial and collector roadways. Recommended minimum widths for bicycle lanes are as follows:

• 5 feet, measured from painted edgeline to edge of gutter, on roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or greater.• 4 feet, measured from painted edgeline to edge of gutter, on roadways with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less.

Bike lanes shall be flush with roadside gutters and should be marked in accordance with the MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines.

Future roadway improvements should retain existing bike lanes, including intersection approaches where additional turn-lanes may be constructed.

The DPM also states that, “In new residential or commercial developments adjacent to bikeways, contiguous walls or fences should provide breaks for paved bicycle access which link the development to the bikeway system. Access(es) should be delineated on the sketch plat, preliminary plat, and/or site development plan as appropriate.”

5.1.1. Bicycle Routes to TransitSafe and easy access to bicycle parking facilities is necessary to encourage commuters to access transit via bicycle. Bicycling to transit reduces the need to provide expensive car parking spaces, mitigates peak-hour congestion, and promotes active, healthy lifestyles.

Providing bicycle routes to transit helps combine the long-distance coverage of bus travel with the door-to-door service of bicycle riding. Transit use can overcome large obstacles to bicycling, including distance, hills, riding on busy streets, night riding, inclement weather, and breakdowns. Providing bicycle access to transit and space for bicycles on buses can increase the feasibility of transit in lower-density suburban areas, where transit stops are beyond walking distance of many resi-dences. People are often willing to walk only a quarter- to half-a-mile to a bus stop, while they might bike as much as two or more miles to reach the bus station. As the majority of bus stops do not provide long-term, secure parking options for bicycles, most people who ride to a bus stop will want to bring their bicycle with them on the transit portion of their trip.

The local bicycle network should connect to transit stations, particularly higher-volume hubs that provide bicycle parking. The TCRP report, Bicycle and Transit Integration also recommends bicycle paths from neighboring communities that are shorter in length than roadways, which is particularly important in areas with a disconnected street pattern. Signage on these routes should be clearly visible, using the bicycle symbol for bicycle routes and parking facilities.

High-visibility crosswalks and mid-block crossings are often appropriate treatments to provide safer bicycle and pedestrian access to bus stops, particularly at high-usage transit stops. If a bus stop is located mid-block, adequate crossing treatments should be provided, based on level of traffic on the roadway. All transit riders will need to cross the street to access or leave the bus stop.

Appendices

6. Bicycle ParkingBicycle parking can be broadly defined as either short-term or long-term parking:

• Short-term parking: parking meant to accommodate visitors, customers, messengers and others expected to depart within two hours; requires approved standard rack, appropriate location and placement, and weather protection.

• Long-term parking: parking meant to accommodate employees, students, residents, commuters, and others expected to park more than two hours. This parking is to be provided in a secure, weather-protected manner and location.

6.1. Short-Term Bicycle ParkingDesign SummaryLocation• 50’ maximum distance from main building entrance. • 2’ minimum from the curb face to avoid ‘dooring.’ • Avoid fire zones, loading zones, bus zones, etc.• Location should be highly visible from adjacent bicycle routes and

pedestrian traffic.

Additional Considerations• To allow ample pedestrian movement, a minimum clear distance of

6’ should be provided between the bicycle rack and the property line. A clear distance of 5’ is the minimum standard.

• If two racks are to be installed parallel to each other, a minimum of 2.5’ should be provided between the racks.

DiscussionBicycle racks are generally appropriate for commercial and retail areas, office buildings, healthcare and recreational facilities, and institutional developments such as libraries and universities. On-sidewalk racks should be placed adjacent to the curb in the utility strip, where other street furniture, utility poles, and trees are located. Racks should be ori-ented so that bicycles are positioned parallel to the curb, where neither the rack nor the bicycle in it impedes pedestrian traffic. Where a clear right-of-way for pedestrians cannot be maintained by installing the rack on the sidewalk, place bicycle racks in curb extensions or on-street (see next page). A certain number of bicycle racks should be weather protected. This may be achieved by simply locating the racks under awnings.

Custom racks using creative designs can double as public artwork or advertising space for local businesses. The “post and ring” style rack is an attractive alternative to the standard inverted-U, which requires only a single mounting point and can be customized to have the City’s name or emblem stamped into the rings. Where older-style parking meters have been replaced with newer models but have not been removed, it is possible to retrofit them to provide short-term parking. The meter head is removed, and the post remains. A loop may be attached to the pole, in order to accommodate cable locks and to formalize the meter as bicycle parking.

Standard bicycle rack.

Parking meter retrofitted to accommodate bicycle parking.

Appendices

Guidance

Bike parking standard rack

Bike parking recommended spacing

Design Issue Recommended Guidance

Minimum Rack Height To increase visibility to pedestrians, racks should have a minimum height of 33 inches or be indicated or cordoned off by visible markers.

Signing Where bicycle parking areas are not clearly visible to approaching cyclists, signs at least 12 inches square should direct them to the facility. The sign should include the name, phone number, and location of the person in charge of the facility, where applicable.

Lighting Lighting of not less than one foot-candle illumination at ground level should be provided in all bicycle parking areas.

Frequency of Racks on Streets

In popular retail areas, two or more racks should be installed on each side of each block. This does not eliminate the inclusion of requests from the public which do not fall in these areas. Areas officially designated or used as bicycle routes may warrant the consideration of more racks.

Location and Access Access to facilities should be convenient; where access is by sidewalk or walkway, ADA-compliant curb ramps should be provided where appropriate. Parking facilities intended for employees should be located near the employee entrance, and those for customers or visitors near main public entrances. (Convenience should be balanced against the need for security if the employee entrance is not in a well traveled area). Bicycle parking should be clustered in lots not to exceed 16 spaces each. Large expanses of bicycle parking make it easier for thieves to be undetected.

Locations within Buildings

Provide bike racks within 50 feet of the entrance. Where a security guard is present, provide racks behind or within view of a security guard. The location should be outside the normal flow of pedestrian traffic.

Locations near Transit Stops

To prevent bicyclists from locking bikes to bus stop poles - which can create access problems for transit users, particularly those who are disabled - racks should be placed in close proximity to transit stops where there is a demand for short-term bike parking.

Locations within a Campus-Type Setting

Racks are useful in a campus-type setting at locations where the user is likely to spend less than two hours, such as classroom buildings. Racks should be located near the entrance to each building. Where racks are clustered in a single location, they should be surrounded by a fence and watched by an attendant. The attendant can often share this duty with other duties to reduce or eliminate the cost of labor being applied to bike parking duties; a cheaper alternative to an attendant may be to site the fenced bicycle compound in a highly visible location on the campus. For long-term parking needs of employees and students, attendant parking and/or bike lockers are recommended.

Retrofit Program In established locations, such as schools, employment centers, and shopping centers, the City should conduct bicycle audits to assess bicycle parking availability and access, and add additional bicycle racks where necessary.

6.1.1. On-Street CorralsDesign Summary• See guidelines for sidewalk bicycle rack placement and clear zones.• Can be used with parallel or angeled parking.• Each motor vehicle parking space can be replaced with approximately

6-10 bicycle parking spaces. • Protect bicycles from motor vehicles with physical barriers such as

curbs, bollards, or fences or through the application of other unique surface treatments.

• Establish maintenance responsibility when facility is built, particu-larly street sweeping and snow removal.

On-street bicycle parking may be installed at intersection corners or at mid-block locations.

Appendices

• Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions are good candidates for bicycle corrals since the concrete extension serves as delimitation on one side.

• Cyclists should be able to access the corral from both the sidewalk and the roadway.• Cyclists should have an entrance width from roadway of 5 – 6’. DiscussionBicycle corrals (also known as “in-street” bicycle parking) consist of bicycle racks grouped together in a common area within the public right-of-way traditionally used for automobile parking. Bicycle corrals are reserved exclusively for bicycle parking and provide a relatively inexpensive solution to providing high-volume bicycle parking. Bicycle corrals can be implemented by converting one or two on-street motor vehicle parking spaces into on-street bicycle parking.

Bicycle corrals move bicycles off the sidewalks, leaving more space for pedestrians, sidewalk café tables, etc. Because bicycle parking does not block sightlines (as large motor vehicles would do), it may be possible to locate bicycle parking in ‘no-parking’ zones near intersections and crosswalks.

Bicycle corrals can be considered instead of other on-street bicycle parking facilities where:

• High pedestrian activity results in limited space for providing bicycle racks on sidewalks.• There is a moderate to high demand for short-term bicycle parking.• Sufficient on-street vehicular parking is provided• The business community is interested in sponsoring the bicycle corral.

In many communities, including Portland, the installation of bicycle corrals is driven by requests from adjacent business-es, and is not a city-driven initiative. In such cases, the City does not remove motor vehicle parking unless it is explicitly requested. In other areas, the City provides the facility and business associations take responsibility for the maintenance of the facility. Many communities, including the City of Portland, establish maintenance agreements with the requesting business.

The bicycle corral can be visually enhanced through the use of attractive planters and vegetation to act as buffers from the motor vehicle parking area as well as the use of creative demarcation elements to separate the corral for motor vehicle traffic.

Appendices

6.1.2. SheltersDesign Summary• See guidelines for sidewalk bicycle rack placement and clear zones.• To be located on-street or off-street, in areas of high potential de-

mand, such as areas in close proximity to major employment areas, schools, or community and recreational facilities.

• Recommended height: 8-12’. • Roof area: 12-15’.• If the bicycle racks are located perpendicular to a wall, 2’ minimum

clearance (single-side access); and 2.5 minimum (double-sided ac-cess).

• If the bicycle rack is located parallel to a wall, 8’ minimum clearance should be provided.

• A clear width of 3’ should be provided between rack ends to bal-ance the maximization of bicycle parking capacity with the need for adequate bicycle manoeuvrability.

DiscussionBicycle shelters consist of bicycle racks grouped together within struc-tures with a roof that provides weather protection. Bicycle shelters provide convenient short-term and long-term bicycle parking. They also offer extra protection against accidental damages by providing greater separation between the bicycles and the sidewalk or parking lane. Infor-mation boards and advertising space can also be incorporated onto the bicycle shelter which is often used to post cycling or bicycle related information. Bicycle shelters provide a high level of aesthetic adaptation as each of its components (shelter, racks, roof) may be enhanced with different shapes, colours and materials.

Bicycle shelters are warranted anywhere that bicycle racks may be located, particularly:

• Major commercial and retail areas, particularly in the major commercial nodes.• Areas with sufficient space on sidewalks, promenades or public plazas, or curb extensions, so that adequate sidewalk

width can be maintained. • Demand for bicycle parking is oriented more towards long-term parking.

The location chosen for the bicycle shelter should be central to all surrounding activities so cyclists can park and walk conveniently to their final destination.

Bicycle parking area signage should be provide to indicate to cyclists and pedestrians that the bicycle shelter is intended exclusively for bicycle use and to alert pedestrians and motorists that they can expect higher bicycle volumes in the area.

6.2. Long-Term ParkingLong-term facilities protect the entire bicycle, its components and accessories against theft and against inclement weather, including snow and wind-driven rain. Long-term parking facilities are more expensive to provide than short-term facili-ties, but are also significantly more secure. Potential locations for long-term bicycle parking include transit stations, large employers and institutions where people use their bikes for commuting, and not consistently throughout the day.

Bicycle parking shelter on a sidewalk.

Appendices

6.2.1. Bike LockersDesign Summary• Place in close proximity to building entrances or transit exchanges, or

on the first level of a parking garage.• Provide door locking mechanisms and systems.• A flat, level site is needed; concrete surfaces preferred.• Enclosure must be rigid.• Transparent panels are available on some models to allow surveillance

of locker contents.• Integrated solar panels have been added to certain models for re-

charging electric bicycles.• Minimum dimensions: width (opening) 2.5’; height 6’; depth 4’.• Stackable models can double bicycle parking capacity.

DiscussionAlthough bicycle lockers may be more expensive to install, they can make the difference for commuters who are deciding whether or not to cycle. Bicycle lockers are large metal or plastic stand-alone boxes and offer the highest level of bicycle parking security available.

Some lockers allow access to two users - a partition separating the two bicycles can help ensure users feel their bike is secure. Lockers can also be stacked, reducing the footprint of the area, although that makes them more difficult to use.Security requirements may require that locker contents be visible, introducing a tradeoff between security and perceived safety. Though these measures are designed to increase station security, bicyclists may perceive the contents of their locker to be less safe if they are visible and will be more reluctant to use them. Providing visibility into the locker also reduces unintended uses, such as use as homeless shelters, trash receptacles, or storage areas. Requiring that users procure a key or code to use the locker also reduces these unintended uses.

Traditionally, bicycle lockers have been available on a sign-up basis, whereby cyclists are given a key or a code to access a particular locker. Computerized on-demand systems allow users to check for available lockers or sign up online. Models from eLocker and CycleSafe allow keyless access to the locker with the use of a SmartCard or cell phone. With an internet connection, centralized computerized administration allows the transit agency to monitor and respond to demand for one-time use as well as reserved lockers.

Lockers available for one-time use have the advantage of serving multiple users a week. Monthly rentals, by contrast, ensure renters that their own personal locker will always be available. Bicycle lockers are most appropriate:

• Where demand is generally oriented towards long-term parking.• At transit exchanges and park-and-rides to help encourage multi-modal travel.• Medium-high density employment and commercial areas and universities.• Where additional security is required and other forms of covered storage are not possible.

Bike lockers at a transit station.

Appendices

6.2.2. Bicycle Compounds/CagesDesign Summary• See guidelines for bicycle rack placement and clear zones.• A cage of 18’ by 18’ can accommodate up to 20 bicycles and uses the

space of approximately two automobile parking spots. • Improve surveillance through public lighting and video cameras. • Bicycle compounds shall have an exterior structure consisting of

expanded metal mesh from floor to ceiling. • In an attended parking facility, locate within 100’ of an attendant or

security guard or must be visible by other users of the parking facility. • Entry doors must be steel and at least 2.5’ in width, with “tamper

proof” hinges. A window may be provided in the door to provide permanent visual access.

• Accommodate a maximum of 40 bicycles, or 120 if the room is com-partmentalized with expanded metal mesh with lockable industrial-grade doors into enclosures containing a maximum of 40 bicycles.

DiscussionBicycle compounds are fully enclosed, stand-alone bicycle parking structures. Compounds should not only have a locked gate but should also allow for the frame and both wheels to be locked to a rail, as other users also have access to the enclosure. Bicycle compounds are recom-mended for employment or residential bicycle parking areas, or for all-day parking at transit exchanges, workplaces and schools. They can be located at street level or in parking garages.

Bicycle Secure Parking Areas (SPAs) are a new concept implemented for TriMet (Portland, Oregon’s transit agency). They provide high capacity, secure parking areas for 80-100 bicycles at light rail and bus transit cen-tres. The Bicycle SPAs are semi-enclosed covered areas that are accessed by key cards and monitored by security cameras. The increased security measures provide an additional transportation option for those who may not be comfortable leav-ing their bicycle in an outdoor transit station exposed to weather and the threats of vandalism. They also include ameni-ties that make the Bicycle SPA more attractive and inviting for users such as benches, bicycle repair stations, bicycle tube and maintenance item vending machines, as well as hitching posts which allow people to leave their locks at the SPA.

This bike cage provides wave racks and uses a keypad for access.

Secure Parking Area (SPA) in Portland, OR use both inverted ‘u’ racks (right) and racks that stack bicycles.

Appendices

6.2.3. Bicycle RoomsDesign Summary• See guidelines for bicycle rack placement and clear zones.• Improve surveillance through public lighting and video cameras. • Walls should be solid and opaque from floor to ceiling. • Install a panic button so as to provide a direct line of security in the

event of an emergency. • Accommodate a maximum of 40 bicycles, or 120 if the room is com-

partmentalized with expanded metal mesh with lockable industrial-grade doors into enclosures containing a maximum of 40 bicycles.

DiscussionBicycle rooms are locked rooms or cages which are accessible only to cyclists, and which may contain bicycle racks to provide extra security against theft. Bicycle rooms are used where there is a moderate to high demand for parking, and where cyclist who would use the bicycle parking are from a defined group, such as a group of employees. Bicycle rooms are also popular for apartment buildings, particularly smaller ones in which residents are famil-iar with one another.The bicycle parking facilities shall be no further from the elevators or entrances than the closest motor vehicle parking space, and no more than 150’ from an elevator or building entrance. Buildings with more than one entrance should consider providing bicycle parking close to each entrance, and particularly near entrances that are accessible through the bicycle network. Whenever possible, bicycle parking facilities should allow 24-hour secure access.

Dedicated bicycle-only secure access points shall be provided through the use of security cards, non-duplicable keys, or passcode access. The downside is that bicyclists must have a key or know a code prior to using the parking facilities, which is a barrier to incidental use.

Bike rooms can be provided in office or apartment buildings.

Appendices

6.3 Innovative Bike Lane Treatments6.3.1 Bike BoxDesign SummaryBike Box Dimensions: • 14’ deep to allow for bicycle positioning.• Signage:• Appropriate signage as recommended by the MUTCD applies. Sig-

nage should be present to prohibit ‘right turn on red’ and to indicate where the motorist must stop.

DiscussionA bike box is generally a right angle extension of a bike lane at the head of a signalized intersection. The bike box allows bicyclists to move to the front of the traffic queue on a red light and proceed first when that signal turns green. Motor vehicles must stop behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box.

Bike boxes can be combined with dashed lines through the intersection for green light situations to remind right-turning motorists to be aware of bicyclists traveling straight, similar to the colored bike lane treatment described earlier. Bike boxes can be installed with striping only or with colored treatments to increase visibility. Use of coloration substantially increases costs of maintenance over uncolored (striping, bicycle symbol, and text only) treatments.

Bike boxes should be located at signalized intersections only, and right turns on red should be prohibited. Bike boxes should be used locations that have a large volume of cyclists, and are often utilized in central areas where traffic is usually moving slowly. Reducing right turns on red improves safety for cyclists and does not significantly impede motor vehicle travel.

On roadways with one travel lane in each direction, the bike box also facilitates left turning movements for cyclists. Guidance Evaluation of Innovative Bike‐Box Application in Eugene, Oregon, Author: Hunter, W.W., 2000

Recommended bike box design.

Bike boxes have been installed at several intersections in Portland, OR where right-turning motorists conflict with through bicyclists.

Appendices

6.3.2 Shared Bicycle/Bus LaneDesign Summary• Provide a standard width bike lane (minimum 4’) where possible.• Paint bicycle symbol or shared lane marking symbol to the left side

of the bus lane, to allow bicyclist to pass a bus that has turned in at a stop.

Discussion The shared bus/bicycle lane should be used where width is available for a bus lane, but not a bus and bike lane. The dedicated lane attempts to reduce conflicts between bicyclists, buses, and automobiles. Various cities have experimented with different designs and there is currently no evidence of one design being more effective than the others.

Shared bike/bus lanes can be appropriate in the following applications:• On auto-congested streets, moderate or long bus headways.• Moderate bus headways during peak hour.• No reasonable alternative route.

Minimum design: shared bicycle/bus lane.

Preferred design: separated bike lane and bus lane.

Appendices

6.3.3 Shared Bike/Right Turn LaneDesign SummaryWidth: • Shared turn lane – min. 12’width.• Bike lane pocket – min. 4’-5’ preferred.

Discussion This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate a standard bike lane and right turn lane. The shared bicycle/right turn lane places a standard-width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dashed strip delineates the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared lane. This treatment includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of proper positing within the lane.

Case studies cited by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center in-dicate that this treatment works best on streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less).

Advantages:• Aids in correct positioning of cyclists at intersections with a dedicated

right turn lane without adequate space for a dedicated bike lane.• Encourages motorists to yield to bicyclists when using the right turn

lane.• Reduces motor vehicle speed within the right turn lane.

Disadvantages/potential hazards:• May not be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with

long right turn lanes.• May not be appropriate for intersections with large percentages of

right-turning heavy vehicles. Guidance This treatment has coverage in the draft 2009 AASHTO Guide For the Development of Bicycle Facilities. It has been previously implemented in the Cities of San Francisco, CA and Eugene, OR.

Recommended shared bike/right turn lane design.

Shared bike-right turn lanes require warning signage as well as pavement markings.

Appendices

6.3.4 Colored Bike LanesDesign Summary• Bike lane pocket – min. 4’-5’ preferred.• Use colored pavement through entire merge area.• Dashed lines can be used to indicate that automobiles are crossing

the bike lane.• Signage reminds drivers to yield to cyclists in the bike lane.

Discussion Cyclists are especially vulnerable at locations where the volume of conflicting vehicle traffic is high, and where the vehicle/bicycle conflict area is long. Some cities are using colored bike lanes to guide cyclists through major vehicle/bicycle conflict points. These conflict areas are locations where motorists and cyclists must cross each other’s path (e.g., at intersections or merge areas). Colored bike lanes typically extend through the entire bicycle/vehicle conflict zone (e.g., through the entire intersection, or through the transition zone where motorists cross a bike lane to enter a dedicated right turn lane.

There are three colors commonly used in bike lanes: blue, green, and red. Several cities initially used blue; however, this color is associated with amenities for handicapped drivers or pedestrians. Green is the color recommended for use in Albuquerque.

Advantages of colored bike lanes at conflict points• Draws attention to conflict areas• Increases motorist yielding behavior• Emphasizes expectation of bicyclists on the road

Guidance Although colored bike lanes are not an official standard at this time, they continue to be successfully used in cities, including Portland, OR, Philadelphia, PA, Cambridge, MA, Toronto, Ontario, Vancouver, BC and Tempe, AZ. This treatment typically includes signage alerting motorists of vehicle/ bicycle conflict points. Portland’s Blue Bike Lane report found that significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the conflict area after the application of the colored pavement.

Additional information in Portland Office of Transportation (1999). Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes: Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility. Available: www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=58842

Recommended colored bike lane design.

Portland, OR has implemented colored bike lanes.

Appendices

6.3.5 Buffered Bike LanesDesign SummaryGuidelines for buffer width varies:• 2.6 feet/80 cm (London and Brussels)• 1.6-2.5 feet/50-75 cm (CROW Guide)• 6 feet (Portland, OR)

Discussion Bike lanes on high-volume or high-speed roadways can be dangerous or uncomfortable for cyclists, as automobiles pass or are parked too close to bicyclists. Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lanes and the travel lane or parked cars.

This treatment is appropriate on bike lanes with high automobile traffic volumes and speed, bike lanes adjacent to parked cars, and bike lanes with a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Frequency of right turns by motor vehicles at major intersections should determine whether continuous or truncated buffer striping should be used ap-proaching the intersection.

Advantages of buffered bike lanes:• Provides cushion of space to mitigate friction with motor vehicles on

streets with narrow bike lanes.• Provides space for cyclists to pass one another without encroaching

into the travel lane.• Provides space for cyclists to avoid potential obstacles in the bike

lanes, including drainage inlets, manholes, trash cans or debris.• Parking side buffer provides cyclists with space to avoid the ‘door

zone’ of parked cars.• Provides motorists greater shy distances from cyclists in the bike lane.Disadvantages / potential hazards• Requires additional roadway space.• Requires additional maintenance for the buffer striping.• Frequency of parking turnover should be considered prior to install-

ing buffered bike lanes.• Increases the debris collection in the bike lane.

Guidance This treatment is not currently present in any state or federal design standards.

The City of Portland, OR included this treatment in the Bikeway Design Best Practices for the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan. Buffered bike lanes are currently also used in Brussels & Bruges, Belgium, Budapest, Hungary, London, UK, Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, and New York, NY.

Recommended buffered bike lane design.

Buffered bike lanes protect cyclists from fast-moving traffic.

Appendices

6.3.6 Floating Bike LanesDesign SummaryIt is important to provide adequate space to minimize the risk of “doorings” when parking is permitted. The bicycle symbol may be used curbside or sharrow markings in lieu of bike lane striping.

In San Francisco, parking is permitted during off-peak times: 9am-3pm and 7pm to 7am.

Discussion This treatment maintains the bicycle facility when an extra travel lane (for automobiles) is added during peak hours. A single lane can function as a parking lane or an exclusive bike lane. During peak hours, park-ing is not allowed and cyclists use a curbside bike lane. During off-peak hours, cyclists travel in the space between the motorized traffic lane and parked cars.

This treatment can be used on primary bicycle routes during peak hours or on streets warranting bike lanes with high parking demand where there is insufficient space to provide both standard bike lane and parking.

Advantages of buffered bike lanes:• Can accommodate bicycles at all times, even when parking is permit-

ted.• Provides bicycle facilities on streets with constrained rights‐of‐way.

Disadvantages / potential hazards• Unorthodox design can be confusing to both cyclists and motorists.• Enforcement is required.

Guidance This treatment is not currently present in any state or federal design standards.

The City of Portland, OR included this treatment in the Bikeway Design Best Practices for the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan. Floating bike lanes are currently used in San Francisco, CA.

Recommended floating bike lane design.

Floating bike lane when parking is allowed on The Embaradero, San Francisco.Source: sfmta.org

Appendices

6.3.7 Contraflow Bike LaneDesign Summary• The contraflow lane should be 5.0 feet to 6.5 feet and

marked with a solid double yellow line and appropri-ate signage.

• Bike lane markings should be clearly visible to ensure that contraflow lane is exclusively for bicycles.

• Coloration should be considered on the bike lane.

Discussion Contraflow bike lanes provide bi-directional bicycle access along a roadway that is one-way for automobile traffic. This treatment can provide direct access and con-nectivity for bicyclists, avoiding detours and reducing travel distances for cyclists.

Advantages of contraflow bike lanes:• Provides direct access and connectivity for bicycles

traveling in both directions.• Influences motorist choice of routes without limiting

bicycle traffic.• Cyclists do not have to make detours as a result of

one-way traffic.

Disadvantages / potential hazards• Parking should not be provided on the far side of the contraflow bike

lane.• Space requirements may require reallocation of roadway space from

parking or travel lanes.• The lane could be illegally used by motorists for loading or parking.• Conversion from a two-way street requires elimination of one direc-

tion of automobile traffic• Public outreach should be conducted prior to implementation of this

treatment.

Guidance This treatment is a federally-recognized design standard, and present in some state DOT manuals, such as the Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook.

The City of Portland, OR included this treatment in the Bikeway Design Best Practices for the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan. Contraflow bike lanes are currently used in Olympia and Seattle, WAm as well as Madison, WI, Cambridge, MA, San Francisco, CA, and Portland, OR.

Recommended contraflow bike lane design.

This contraflow bike lane in Portland, OR (left) provides a key connection along a narrow one-way street.

Appendices

6.4 Cycle TracksDesign SummaryA cycle track is an exclusive bicycle facility that combines the user expe-rience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conven-tional bike lane. Recommended cycle track width:

• 7 foot minimum to allow passing.

Discussion Cycle tracks provide space that is intended to be exclusively or primar-ily for bicycles, and are separated from vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes and sidewalks. Cycle tracks can be either one-way or two-way, on one or both sides of a street, and are separated from vehicles and pedestrians by pavement markings or coloring, bollards, curbs/medians or a combination of these elements.

Cycle tracks provide:• Increased comfort for bicyclists.• Greater clarity about expected behaviour.• Fewer conflicts between bicycles and parked cars as cyclists ride inside

the parking lane.• Space to reduce the danger of ‘car dooring.’

Danish research has shown that cycle tracks can increase bicycle rider-ship 18-20%, compared with the 5-7% increase associated with bike lanes.

However, disadvantages of cycle tracks include:• Increased vulnerability at intersections.• Regular street sweeping trucks cannot maintain the cycle track;

requires smaller sweepers.• Conflicts with pedestrians and bus passengers can occur, particularly

on cycle tracks that are un-differentiated from the sidewalk or that are between the sidewalk and a transit stop.

Cycle tracks should be placed along slower speed urban/suburban streets with long blocks and few driveways or mid-block access points for vehicles. Cycle tracks located on one-way streets will have fewer potential conflicts than those on two-way streets. A two-way cycle track is desirable when there are more destinations on one side of a street or if the cycle track will connect to a shared-use path or bicycle facility on one side of the street. Guidance While only recently implemented in U.S. and Canadian cities, cycle tracks have been used in European countries for several decades. The cycle track design guidance was developed using best practices from European experience, as well as New York City, Montreal, and Portland, OR. Additional guidance: Cycle Tracks: Lessons Learned, Alta Planning + De-sign (2009). www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/Cycle%20Track%20lessons%20learned.pdf

Recommended cycle track design without parking, using striping and flexible bollard separation.

Recommended cycle track design with on-street parking.

Appendices

6.4.1 Cycle Track SeparationDesign SummaryCycle tracks can be separated from vehicle traffic by a barrier or through grade-separation. Physical barriers can include bollards, park-ing, a planter strip, an extruded curb, or parking. Cycle tracks using barrier separation typically share the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes. Pavement markings or other minimal separation should designate pedestrian space and discourage pedestrians from walking in the cycle track.

Openings in the barrier or curb are needed at driveways or other access points. Grade-separated cycle tracks should incorporate a rolled curb, which allows cyclists to enter or leave the cycle track at will, and enables motorists to cross the cycle track at intersections and crossings.

DiscussionParking PlacementWhere on-street parking exists, the cycle track should be placed be-tween the parking and the sidewalk. The cycle track should be placed with a 2’ buffer between parking and the sidewalk to minimize the hazard of ‘dooring’ cyclists. Drainage inlets should be provided adjacent to the sidewalk curb to facilitate run-off. This technique is common in Copenhagen, as pictured left.

ChannelizationCycle tracks can be at street-level, provided that there is a physical separation. The curb creates the separated space, as well as preventing passengers from opening doors into the cycle track and discouraging pedestrians from walking on the facility.

Mountable CurbCycle tracks can be grade-separated from the roadway. The cycle track should be two or three inches above street-level, and the sidewalk should be an additional two to three inches above that. Where cyclists may enter or leave the cycle track, or where motorists cross at a drive-way, the curb should be mountable with a small ramp, allowing cyclist turning movements.

Bollards and Pavement MarkingsIn addition to grade separation or channelization, the cycle track should have signage, pavement markings and/or different coloration or texture, to indicate that the facility is provided for bicycle use. Signage, in addition to flexible bollards, can add to the physical separation of the facility, shown in this example from Melbourne, Australia.

Guidance A buffer is not required of a cycle track wider than seven feet, but is recommended where possible. The CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic recommends that the buffer area inside built-up areas should be a minimum of 1.1 feet. If the buffer is a fence or other taller obstacle, a minimum of two feet shy distance is recommended on either side.

Cycle track with a parking buffer, Copenhagen.

Cycle track with curb separation, Amsterdam.

Mountable curb, Copenhagen.

Cycle track with bollard separation, New York City.

Appendices

6.4.2 Cycle Track Intersection TreatmentsCycle tracks separate cyclists and motor vehicles to a greater degree than bike lanes. This leads to added comfort for cyclists on the cycle track, but it creates additional considerations at intersections that must be addressed. A right-turning motorist conflicting with cycle track users represents the most common conflict. Both roadway users have to expand their visual scanning to see potential conflicts.

6.4.2.1 Cycle Track Treatments at Driveways and Minor Street Crossings

Design SummaryRecommendations for increasing bicyclist visibility at driveways and minor street crossings:• Maintain height level of cycle track, requiring automobiles to cross

over.• Remove parking 16 feet prior to the intersection.• Use colored pavement markings through the conflict area.• Place warning signage to identify the crossing (see page 5).

Discussion At driveways and crossings of minor streets, the majority of traffic will continue through intersections, while a small number of automobiles will cross the cycle track. At these locations, cyclist visibility is impor-tant, as a buffer of parked cars or vegetation can hide a cyclist travel-ing in the cycle track. Cyclists should not be expected to stop at these minor intersections if the major street does not stop, and markings and signage should be used to indicate that drivers should watch for cyclists.

Access management should be used to reduce the number of crossings of driveways on a cycle track. Guidance See the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic or Cycle Tracks: Les-sons Learned, Alta Planning + Design (2009) for additional guidance.

www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/Cycle%20Track%20lessons%20learned.pdf

Cycle tracks should be continued through driveway crossings, improving visibility.

Colored pavement informs bicyclists and drivers of a potential conflict area.

Bicycle markings at a driveway crossing.

Appendices

6.4.2.2 Cycle Track Treatments at Major Street Crossings

Design SummaryRecommendations for increasing bicyclist visibility at major street crossings:• Stripe stop line 16 feet back from the intersection.• Remove parking 16 feet prior to the intersection.• Drop cycle track to bike lane 16 feet back from intersection.• Use bike box treatments to move cyclists in front of traffic (see page

2).• Use colored pavement markings through the conflict area.

Discussion Protected phases at signals or ‘scramble signals’ separate automobile turning movements from conflicting thru-bicycle movements. Bicycle signal heads ensure that all users know which signals to follow. De-mand-only bicycle signals can require user actuation and reduce vehicle delay by preventing an empty signal phase from regularly occurring (see page Error! Bookmark not defined.).

Advanced signal phases can be set to provide cycle track users an advance green phase. This places cyclists in front of traffic and allows them to make their turning movements without merging into traffic.

An advanced warning allows bicyclists to prepare to move forward through the intersection. This warning can be accomplished through a pre-green interval, a yellow warning display two seconds before the green, or a bicycle countdown signal. Guidance The CROW guide states that, if the speed of the main street is 45 mph or less, the cycle track should turn inwards prior to crossing a side street. This is to improve visibility of cyclists to motorists in the main road turning right. If the speed is greater, the cycle track should bend away from the main road at intersections, so that vehicles leaving the main road can stack up on the cross street, between the cycle track and the main road. Signage should also warn motorists of the crossing.

Cycle track dropping to bike lane before an intersection.

Crossings should separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians.

At this unsignallized right turn, the cycle track has dropped to a bike lane with blue coloration and pavement markings through the conflict area.

Bike-specific signals are small and placed on the near-side of traffic.

Appendices

6.4.2.3 Left Turn Movements

Design SummaryLeft turn opportunities for cyclists can be provided in the following ways:• Copenhagen lefts are a two-stage crossing, which include a turning

and waiting area at the far side of the first intersection.• Box lefts are pockets where bicyclists can move to the right hand side

of the cycle track and wait for a crossing signal. This treatment can result in the cyclist being on the wrong side of the street, in a stan-dard four-way intersection.

• Scramble signals (see page Error! Bookmark not defined.). Discussion Bicyclists are often not allowed to make left-turn movements from the cycle track can be physically barred from moving into the roadway by the cycle track barrier.

The “Copenhagen Left” (also known as the “Melbourne Left,” the “jug-handle turn,” and the “two-stage left”) is a way of enabling a safe left-turn movement by bicyclists in a cycle track. Bicyclists approaching an intersection can make a right into the intersecting street from the cycle track, to position themselves in front of cars. Bicyclists can go straight across the road they were on during next signal phase. All movements in this process are guided by separate traffic signals – motorists are not allowed to make right turns on red signals. In addition, motorists have an exclusive left-turn phase, in order to make their movements distinct from the bicyclists’ Guidance See the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic or Cycle Tracks: Les-sons Learned, Alta Planning + Design (2009) for additional guidance.

www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/Cycle%20Track%20lessons%20learned.pdf

Left-turn from a cycle track on the right via bicycle-signal phase in Stockholm, Sweden.

“Copenhagen Left” application.

“Box left” turn in Troisdorf, Germany.

Appendices

2.4.3 Two-Way Cycle TracksDesign Summary• 12 foot minimum to allow passing, 14 foot recommended (New

York City).• Striped center line to separate traffic.• Pavement markings should indicate direction.

Discussion A two-way cycle track is desirable when more destinations are on one side of a street (therefore preventing additional crossings), if the facility connects to a path or other bicycle facility on one side of the street, or if there is not enough room for a cycle track on both sides of the road.

Bidirectional cycle tracks are acceptable in the following situations:• On a street with few intersections or without access on one side (e.g.,

along a waterway or rail line).• On a one-way street with fewer than one intersection every 100 feet.• On two-way streets where left-hand turns are prohibited, and with a

limited number of intersections and driveway entrances.

Parking should be banned along the street with the bike path to ensure adequate stopping sight distances for motorists crossing the path.

Two-way cycle tracks have many similar design characteristics as one-way tracks; they are physically divided from cars and pedestrians, and require similar amenities at driveway and side-street crossings.

Two-way cycle tracks require a higher level of control at intersections, to allow for a variety of turning movements. These movements should be guided by a separated signal for bicycles and for motor vehicles. Transitions onto bidirectional cycle tracks should be simple and easy to use, to deter bicyclists from continuing to ride against the flow of traffic.In addition, bicyclists riding against roadway traffic in two-way cycle tracks may surprise pedestrians and drivers at intersections. Guidance Vélo Québec Technical Handbook of Bikeway Design. (2003), CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic and Alta Planning + Design Cycle Tracks: Lessons Learned, (2009).

Two-way cycle track with dividing line.

Directional markings on cycle track.

Pavement markings indicate travel direction at a minor roadway crossing on this cycle track in Paris, France.

Appendix DBicycle Counts and Survey Responses

33

Needs Analysis

Appendix A – The Needs of Casual and Experienced CyclistsNeeds of Casual and Experienced CyclistsFor the purposes of this Plan, bicyclists are separated into two skill levels: casual and experienced. Casual bicyclists typically include youth, adults and seniors who are intermittent riders. Some casual bicyclists, such as youths under driving age, may be unfamiliar with operating a vehicle on roads and related laws. Experienced bicyclists typically include commuters, long-distance road bicyclists, racers, and those who use their bicycle as a primary means of trans-portation. Table A1 summarizes the needs of casual and experienced bicyclists.

Table A1. Characteristics of Casual and Experienced BicyclistsCasual Riders Experienced Riders

Prefer off-street shared-use paths or bike lanes along low-volume, low-speed streets

Prefer on-street or bicycle-only facilities as opposed to shared-use paths

May have difficulty gauging traffic and may be unfamiliar with the rules of the road. May walk bicycle across intersections

Comfortable riding with vehicles on streets. Negotiate streets like a motor vehicle, including “taking the lane” and using left-turn pockets

May use a less direct route to avoid Arterials with heavy traffic volumes

May prefer a more direct route

May ride on sidewalks and ride the wrong way on streets and sidewalks

Avoid riding on sidewalks or on shared-use paths. Rides with the flow of traffic on streets

May ride at speeds comparable to walking, or slightly faster than walking

Ride at speeds up to 20 MPH on flat ground, up to 40 mph on steep descents

Bicycle for shorter distances: up to 2 miles May cycle longer distances, sometimes more than 100 miles

The casual bicyclist will benefit from route markers, shared-use paths, bike lanes on lower-volume streets, traffic calm-ing, and educational programs. Casual bicyclists may also benefit from a connected network of marked routes leading to parks, schools, shopping areas, and other destinations. To encourage youth to ride, routes must be safe enough for parental permission. The experienced bicyclist will benefit from a connected network of bike lanes on higher-volume arterials, wider curb lanes and loop detectors at signals. The experienced bicyclist who is primarily interested in exer-cise will benefit from loop routes leading back to their point of origin. Due to many multi-use trails in Albuquerque such as the Paseo del Bosque, Tramway Trail and North Diversion Channel Trail there are increasing opportunities for casual bicyclists in the Albuquerque. In several locations, these multi-use trails are accessible from residential neighborhoods. Many experienced bicyclists, including those who bicycle longer distances to commute for exercise or training, also use these shared-use paths. This combination of fast-moving bicyclists on training rides with slower-moving casual bicyclists and pedestrians may result in user conflicts.

Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian TripsFor purposes of this Plan, bicycle trips are separated into two trip types: recreational and utilitarian. Recreational trips can range from a 50-mile weekend group ride out of the city to a short family outing to a local park, and all levels in between. Many utilitarian trips are made by commuter bicyclists, who are a primary focus of State and Federal bicycle funding, as well as bicyclists going to school, shopping or running other errands. Utilitarian cyclists include those who choose to live with one less car as well as those who have no other alternative transportation due to economic reasons.

Table A2 summarizes general characteristics of recreational and utilitarian bicycle trips.

34

Needs Analysis

Table A2. Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian Bicycle TripsRecreational Trips Utilitarian TripsDirectness of route not as important as visual interest, shade, protection from wind

Directness of route and connected, continuous facilities more important than visual interest, etc.

Loop trips may be preferred to backtracking Trips generally travel from residential to shopping or work areas and back

Trips may range from under a mile to over 50 miles Trips generally are 1-5 miles in lengthShort-term bicycle parking should be provided at recreational sites, parks, trailheads and other activity centers

Short-term and long-term bicycle parking should be provided at stores, transit stations, schools, workplaces

Varied topography may be desired, depending on the skill level of the cyclist

Flat topography is desired

Cyclists may be riding in a group Cyclists often ride aloneCyclists may drive with their bicycles to the starting point of a ride

Cyclists ride a bicycle as the primary transportation mode for the trip; may transfer to public transportation; may or may not have access to a car for the trip

Trips typically occur on the weekend or on weekdays before morning commute hours or after evening commute hours

Trips typically occur during morning and evening commute hours (commute to school and work); shopping trips also occur on weekends

Cyclists’ preferred type of facility varies, depending on the skill level of the cyclist

Generally use on-street facilities, may use shared-use paths if they provide easier access to destinations than on-street facilities

Recreational bicyclists’ needs vary depending on their skill level. Road bicyclists out for a 100-mile weekend ride may prefer well-maintained roads with wide shoulders and few intersections, with few stop signs or stop lights. Casual bicyclists out for a family trip may prefer a quiet shared-use path with adjacent parks, benches, and water fountains.

Utilitarian bicyclists have needs that are more straightforward. Key commuter needs are summarized below:•Commuter routes should be direct, continuous, and connected•Protected intersection crossing locations are needed for safe and efficient bicycle commuting•Bicycle commuters must have secure places to store their bicycles at their destinations•Bicycle facilities should be provided on major streets

Albuquerque is working to close the gaps in their multi-use trail system. When complete, this multi-use trail system will provide access to parks, schools, recreation areas, and downtown. Currently, some neighborhoods do not have easy bicycle access to employment centers, schools and shopping. For casual recreational riders, this may not be a serious deterrent, since they may be willing and able to drive their bicycle to the trailhead. However, this may not be an option for experienced recreational riders or commuters, as they generally would like to use their bicycle for the whole trip. Bicycle-friendly on-street connections between residential areas and shared-use paths and between resi-dential areas and shopping and commute centers would likely increase the prevalence of bicycle commuting, as well as increase the prevalence of recreational riding.

35

Needs Analysis

Appendix B – Raw 2010 Count Data

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 7/21/2010

No. Locations 1997 Count Weekday Weekend

1 Bear Canyon Trail @ Morris N X2 Bear Canyon Trail @ Wyoming Y X3 Pennsylvania @ Indian School N X4 Pennsylvania @ Embudo Trail N X X5 UNM - Yale @ Lomas Y X6 UNM - Campus @ Girard Y X7 UNM - MLK @ University Y X8 UNM - Paseo del Nordeste @ Tucker N X X9 UNM - Yale @ Central Y X

10 UNM - Stanford @ Central Y X11 UNM - Cornell @ Central N X12 Silver Ave @ Buena Vista Y X13 KAFB Wyoming Gate Y X14 KAFB Eubank Gate N X15 KAFB Louisiana Gate N X16 KAFB Carlisle Gate N X17 Tramway Blvd @ Central Ave N X X18 Tramway Blvd @ Spain N X19 Tramway Blvd @ Embudo Trail N X X20 Bosque Trail @ Central Ave Y X X21 Bosque Trail @ Montaño Y X X22 Bosque Trail @ Paseo del Norte N X X23 Bosque Trail @ Alameda N X X24 Bosque Trail @ Rio Bravo Blvd N X25 Paseo del Nordeste @ N Diversion Channel Trail N X X26 North Diversion Channel @ Paseo del Norte N X X27 Paseo del Nordeste @ East I-40 Trail N X X28 Atrisco Rd @ I-40 Overcrossing Y X X29 Unser Blvd @ I-40 Trail N X30 Coors Blvd @ Montaño Rd N X X31 Coors Blvd @ Eagle Ranch Rd N X32 Paradise Blvd @ Golf Course Rd N X33 Marquette @ 2nd St N X34 Bridge Blvd @ Isleta Blvd N X35 Arenal Rd @ Unser Blvd N X36 Alameda Blvd @ 4th St N X37 Candelaria Rd West of Edith N X38 Woodmont Ave @ Rainbow Blvd N X

Weekday Counts: 37Weekend Counts: 14

2010 Bicycle Counts

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Alameda WE

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Alameda Blvd Date/Day: Observer: NH

EB WB SL NL SL NL SL NL SL NL SL NL SL NL SL NL SL NL SL NL SL NL Totals Percents

9:00 AM 1 7 3 2 7 4 32 2 10 1 7 3Users 662

9:15 AM 3 7 1 15 8 2 2 10 1 4 1Cyclists 375 56.6%

9:30 AM 1 11 3 1 4 9 11 2 1 9 1 4 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 55 14.7%

9:45 AM 1 7 3 3 6 2 14 1 4 1 3 4Run/Jog 48 7.3%

10:00 AM 9 6 4 13 1 9 4 4 5Walkers 231 34.9%

10:15 AM 2 2 11 2 4 2 3 2 14 1 3 4 4 3 1Skaters 5 0.8%

10:30 AM 2 17 7 3 15 1 1 2 1 3 10Equestrians 3 0.5%

10:45 AM 3 1 3 2 5 12 1 8 3 1 5 3Pets 57 8.6%

11:00 AM 1 20 3 2 5 6 13 1 11 1 6 6

11:15 AM 3 18 2 12 20 1 7 5 1 10 5

11:30 AM 1 20 4 1 4 6 2 20 3 1 6 3 1 4 11

11:45 AM 1 2 15 1 2 8 3 14 1 4 1 2 3 4 5

SL - South of Parking Lot NL - North of Parking Lot Only

Begin Time

5/15/2010

Skater HorseSouthbound TrailNorthbound Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog Walker No HelmetPets

Bike Run/Jog WalkerAlameda Blvd

Bike Horse

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Paseo WE

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Paseo del Norte Date/Day: Observer: AG

LT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT Totals Percents

9:00 AM 1 3 4 4 18 3 1 3Users 575

9:15 AM 3 11 4 3 10 1 3 4Cyclists 427 74.3%

9:30 AM 4 5 5 1 8 2 3 3 5 6 1 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 78 18.3%

9:45 AM 1 5 1 1 2 13 4 3 3Run/Jog 65 11.3%

10:00 AM 1 6 2 3 1 14 4 2 7 3 5 1 2 9Walkers 78 13.6%

10:15 AM 9 7 1 6 6 3 4 4 9 1 1 1 9Skaters 5 0.9%

10:30 AM 4 10 5 17 4 1 2 1 1 1 4 7Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 4 9 2 5 4 13 1 1 1 8 3 3 5Pets 17 3.0%

11:00 AM 4 13 1 5 6 2 3 4 1 4 5

11:15 AM 3 24 4 2 14 5 2 2 2 2 3 2 8

11:30 AM 5 9 2 1 1 20 1 2 1 1 6 4 2 2 10

11:45 AM 7 20 4 5 21 6 2 1 1 1 5 2 17

Northbound Bosque TrailBike Run/Jog Walker Skater Horse WalkerHorseBike

5/15/2010

Run/Jog WalkerBegin Time Pets

No Helmet

Skater HorsePaseo del Norte ConnectorSouthbound Bosque Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Montaño WE

Intersection: I-40 Overcrossing @ Atrisco Rd Date/Day: Observer: RC

LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT LT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th Totals Percents

9:00 AM 4 3 7 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1Users 545

9:15 AM 4 14 7 2 2 8 2 1 6Cyclists 443 81.3%

9:30 AM 6 1 2 29 1 1 1 4 1 5Cyclists w/o Helmets 76 17.2%

9:45 AM 4 5 1 1 4 2 3 8 1 1 6Run/Jog 70 12.8%

10:00 AM 2 13 3 13 2 3 1 3 7 7Walkers 26 4.8%

10:15 AM 11 1 15 1 3 2 1 1 6Skaters 6 1.1%

10:30 AM 4 12 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 8Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 3 11 4 3 11 2 1 2 5 8 1 1 12Pets 2 0.4%

11:00 AM 6 20 3 4 1 19 2 2 1 1 9 5

11:15 AM 4 17 6 4 15 7 6 1 1 3 2 6

11:30 AM 6 20 15 3 4 6

11:45 AM 3 10 1 22 2 1 1 7 8

WalkerHorseSkater Horse

5/15/2010

Skater HorseMontaño ConnectorSouthbound Bosque Trail

Skater Bike Run/JogBegin Time Pets

No Helmet

Bike Run/Jog WalkerNorthbound Bosque Trail

Bike Run/Jog Walker

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Central WE

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Central Ave 5/15/2010 Observer: RG

E-W Street: Central Ave N-S Street: Bosque TrailNo

Bike Run/Jog Walk Skate Horse Bike Run/Jog Walk Skate Horse Pets Helmet Totals Percents

9:00 AM 13 2 9 4 2 1 Users 683

9:15 AM 3 5 10 5 1 3 1 Cyclists 261 38.2%

9:30 AM 7 3 149 8 1 3 1 1 Cyclists w/o Helmets 71 27.2%

9:45 AM 10 5 27 15 5 9 1 10 Run/Jog 42 6.1%

10:00 AM 5 4 2 6 4 18 2 Walkers 378 55.3%

10:15 AM 13 2 1 17 56 1 12 Skaters 5 0.7%

10:30 AM 11 1 1 14 6 36 7 Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 19 1 1 2 34 7 Pets 8 1.2%

11:00 AM 22 1 12 1 12 2 14

11:15 AM 10 14 1 2 4

11:30 AM 13 2 20 2 12

11:45 AM 7 1 1 7 1 2 2

Date/Day:

Northbound Bosque Trail Southbound Bosque TrailBegin Time

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Rio Bravo WE

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Rio Bravo Blvd 5/15/2010 Observer: JB

E-W Street: Ro Bravo Blvd N-S Street: Bosque TrailNo

Bike Run/Jog Walk Skate Horse Bike Run/Jog Walk Skate Horse Pets Helmet Totals Percents

9:00 AM 6 6 6 Users 207

9:15 AM 9 14 3 12 Cyclists 184 88.9%

9:30 AM 1 Cyclists w/o Helmets 123 66.8%

9:45 AM 6 1 4 5 1 4 2 8 Run/Jog 2 1.0%

10:00 AM 1 3 1 1 2 Walkers 21 10.1%

10:15 AM 9 1 12 1 11 Skaters 1 0.5%

10:30 AM 10 10 11 Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 14 2 12 2 2 18 Pets 6 2.9%

11:00 AM 6 1 6 1 9

11:15 AM 3 5 4

11:30 AM 5 2 7 10

11:45 AM 24 10 32

Date/Day:

Northbound Bosque Trail Southbound Bosque TrailBegin Time

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 I-40-Atrisco WE

Intersection: I-40 Overcrossing @ Atrisco Rd Date/Day: Observer: NH

Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th LT LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT Totals Percents

8:45 AM 2 1Users 19

9:00 AMCyclists 11 57.9%

9:15 AM 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 6 54.5%

9:30 AM 1 1 1 1 1Run/Jog 0 0.0%

9:45 AM 1 1 2Walkers 6 31.6%

10:00 AMSkaters 2 10.5%

10:15 AM 1Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:30 AM 3Pets 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 1 1

11:00 AM

11:15 AM 2 2

11:30 AM

11:45 AM 1 1

4 motocycles were recording using the bridge.

HorseBikeSkater Horse Skater HorseI-40 OvercrossingAlamogordo Connector

Skater Bike Run/Jog WalkerBegin Time Pets

No Helmet

5/22/2010

Run/Jog WalkerAtrisco Connector

Bike Run/Jog Walker

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Coors-Montaño-WE

Intersection: Coors Blvd @ Montaño Rd Observer: DZ

E-W Street: Montaño Rd N-S Street: Coors BlvdBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

9:00 AM 1 1Cyclists 46

9:15 AM 0Cyclists on Sidewalk 5 10.9%

9:30 AM 1 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 12 26.1%

9:45 AM 4 2 6Traffic Violations 0 0.0%

10:00 AM 3 1 2 6

10:15 AM 1 1 1 3

10:30 AM 1 1 1 1 4

10:45 AM 1 1

11:00 AM 2 2

11:15 AM 4 1 2 3 10

11:30 AM 1 2 2 1 6

11:45 AM 1 2 1 2 6

Date/Day: 5/15/2010

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 NDC-PdN WE

Intersection: North Diverison Channel Trail @ Paseo del Norte Date/Day: Saturday Observer: RC


9:00 AM 10 1 3Users 131

9:15 AM 2 5Cyclists 119 90.8%

9:30 AM 4 3 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 7 5.9%

9:45 AM 6 1Run/Jog 11 8.4%

10:00 AM 1Walkers 1 0.8%

10:15 AM 3 5 1 2 2 2Skaters 0 0.0%

10:30 AM 4 1 6 2Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 6 1 2 6Pets 1 0.8%

11:00 AM 2 1 3 4 2

11:15 AM 3 2 1 2 1

11:30 AM 1 3 2 1 7 3 1 1

11:45 AM 2 5 1 7 1 3

NB Diversion Channel TralBike Run/Jog Walker Skater Horse WalkerHorseBike

5/1/2010

Run/Jog WalkerBegin Pet

No Helmet

Skater HorseSB Paseo del Norte ConnectorSB Diversion Channel Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 NDC-Nordeste East WE

Intersection: Paseo del Nordeste @ North Diversion Channel Date/Day: Saturday Observer: NH


9:00 AM 1 2Users 208

9:15 AM 7 2 1 1 3Cyclists 179 86.1%

9:30 AM 6 3 1 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 25 14.0%

9:45 AM 1 1 4 1 1 1Run/Jog 12 5.8%

10:00 AM 7 2 1 2 3Walkers 17 8.2%

10:15 AM 2 1 1 3Skaters 0 0.0%

10:30 AM 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 8 2 1 1Pets 0 0.0%

11:00 AM 2 8 1 4 1 3 1 7

11:15 AM 5 1 3 7 1 2 1

11:30 AM 8 2 2 2 1 2 2

11:45 AM 4 2 1 9 2 1 3

12:00 PM 8 3 1 7 1

12:15 PM 2 1 9 1

12:30 PM 1 4 2 2

12:45 PM 4 1 1 1 1

Bikes puling children in carriers - 4

WalkerHorseSkater Horse

5/1/2010

Skater HorseWB Paseo del NordesteSB Diversion Channel Trail

Skater Bike Run/JogBegin Time Pet

No Helmet

Bike Run/Jog WalkerNB Paseo del Nordeste

Bike Run/Jog Walker

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 NDC-I-40 East WE

Intersection: Paseo del Nordeste @ East I-40 Trail Date/Day: Saturday Observer: MA


9:00 AM 6 3 4Users 140

9:15 AM 4 2Cyclists 105 75.0%

9:30 AM 6Cyclists w/o Helmets 30 28.6%

9:45 AM 1 6 1 1Run/Jog 33 23.6%

10:00 AM 4 1 1 1Walkers 2 1.4%

10:15 AM 2 1 2 1Skaters 0 0.0%

10:30 AM 2 1 2 2 1 1Equestrians 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 5 5 1 1Pets 0 0.0%

11:00 AM 8 10 1 6 4 7

11:15 AM 4 1 10 3

11:30 AM 12 5 2 1 1 4

11:45 AM 7 1 2 7 6

NB Paseo del NordesteBike Run/Jog Walker Skater Horse WalkerHorseBike

5/1/2010

Run/Jog WalkerBegin Time Pet

No Helmet

Skater HorseI-40 East TrailSB Paseo del Nordeste

Skater Bike Run/Jog

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 PdNordeste-Tucker WE

Intersection: Paseo del Nordeste @ Tucker Observer: MA

E-W Street: Tucker St N-S Street: Paseo del NordesteNo Riding on Traffic

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

9:00 AM 2 3 1 1 Cyclists 39

9:15 AM 5 1 Cyclists on Sidewalk 0 0.0%

9:30 AM 1 4 1 Cyclists w/o Helmets 7 17.9%

9:45 AM 2 Traffic Violations 1 2.6%

10:00 AM 1 1

10:15 AM 2 4

10:30 AM

10:45 AM 1 3 1

11:00 AM 3 2 1

11:15 AM

11:30 AM 3 1 3

11:45 AM

Begin Time

Date/Day: 5/8/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Pennsylvania-Embudo Arroyo WE

Intersection: Pennsylvania St @ Embudo Arroyo Date/Day: Observer: NH

NB SB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB Totals Percents

9:00 AM 1 1 2Users 56

9:15 AM 2 3 2Cyclists 42 75.0%

9:30 AM 1 1 1 1 1 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 2 4.8%

9:45 AM 1 1Ride on Sidewalk 0 0.0%

10:00 AM 3 1 1 3 1 1Run/Jog 7 12.5%

10:15 AM 2 1 2 1 1Walkers 7 12.5%

10:30 AM 1 2Skaters 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 1 2 1Pets 3 5.4%

11:00 AM 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

11:15 AM 2 1 1 1

11:30 AM 1

11:45 AM 3

Pennsylvania StBike Bike Run/Jog WalkerBike Run/Jog Walker

Begin TimePets Side-

walkViola-tion

No Helmet

5/8/2010

SkaterEast Leg Embudo ArroyoWest Leg Embudo Arroyo

Skater

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Tramway-Central WE

Intersection: Tramway @ Central Observer: RC

E-W StreetCentral Ave N-S Street Tramway BlvdBegin Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound No Riding on Traffic Bike Time LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Total Totals Percents

9:00 AM 1 1 8 212 Cyclists 56

9:15 AM 1 1 13 Cyclists on Sidewalk 2 3.6%


9:45 AM 1 1 1 1 13 Traffic Violations 1 1.8%

10:00 AM 1 12

10:15 AM 3 25

10:30 AM 1 1 3 1 15

10:45 AM 1 1 24

11:00 AM 1 1 13

11:15 AM 1 23

11:30 AM 1 4 3 1 1 19

11:45 AM 1 1 1 13

Date/Day: 5/8/2010

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Tramway-Embudo WE

Intersection: Tramway Trail @ Embudo Trail and Tramway Bl Observer: AG

Tramway Blvd Tramway BlvdNB SB

LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT LT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th Bikes Bikes Totals Percents

9:00 AM 2 1 1 9Users 154

9:15 AM 1 1 3 1 4 1Cyclists 102 66.2%

9:30 AM 1 3 3 2 6 5 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 4 3.9%

9:45 AM 2 1 1 7 2 2Ride on Trail 27 26.5%

10:00 AM 1 2 1 4 2Run/Jog 17 11.0%

10:15 AM 2 1 1 4 3 1 8 4 2Walkers 35 22.7%

10:30 AM 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 7 2 4 1Skaters 0 0.0%

10:45 AM 1 1 1 1 1 2 3Pets 24 15.6%

11:00 AM 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 1

11:15 AM 1 1 3 1

11:30 AM 1 2 1 2 4 3 2

11:45 AM 1 5 2

Date/Day: 5/8/2010

SkaterNB Tramway TrailSB Tramway Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog WalkerBike

Begin TimePets No

Helmet

Run/Jog WalkerEmbudo Trail

Bike Run/Jog Walker Skater

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Central

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Central Ave 5/11/2010 and 5/19/2010 Observer: RG

E-W Street: Central Ave N-S Street: Bosque TrailBegin NoTime Bike Run/Jog Walk Skate Horse Bike Run/Jog Walk Skate Horse Pets Helmet Totals Percents

7:00 AM 3 3 1 1 Users 152

7:15 AM 2 3 Cyclists 121 79.6%

7:30 AM 1 2 1 1 1 Cyclists w/o Helmets 20 16.5%

7:45 AM 2 4 3 Run/Jog 6 3.9%

8:00 AM 2 4 1 1 1 Walkers 25 16.4%

8:15 AM 5 1 3 1 1 1 Skaters 1 0.7%

8:30 AM 6 1 1 5 1 1 Equestrians 0 0.0%

8:45 AM 3 7 1 Pets 1 0.7%

4:00 AM 4 7 3

4:15 AM 2 4 1 2

4:30 AM 3 2

4:45 AM 6 2 2 3

5:00 AM 4 4 3

5:15 AM 5 1 4 3 1

5:30 AM 5 5 2 2

5:45 AM 8 1 2 5 2

Date/Day:

Northbound Bosque Trail Southbound Bosque Trail

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Montaño

Intersection: I-40 Overcrossing @ Atrisco Rd Date/Day: 5/11/10 and 5/19/10 Observer: RC


6:45 AMUsers 275

7:00 AM 1 4 3 1 1 2Cyclists 212 77.1%

7:15 AM 1 1 2 3 1 1 2Cyclists w/o Helmets 52 24.5%

7:30 AM 1 3 2 3 4Run/Jog 34 12.4%

7:45 AM 4 5 1 1 1 4Walkers 25 9.1%

8:00 AM 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 1Skaters 3 1.1%

8:15 AM 3 1 3 2 2Equestrians 1 0.4%

8:30 AM 1 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 3Pets 6 2.2%

8:45 AM 4 1 3 3 1 2 2

4:00 PM 1 2 3 2 1 4

4:15 PM 2 4 3 1 2 1

4:30 PM 4 1 3 3 1 2 1 5

4:45 PM 4 7 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 4

5:00 PM 6 1 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 4

5:15 PM 1 8 1 2 6 2 4 1 5

5:30 PM 8 6 1 2 1 6 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 4

5:45 PM 6 7 1 2 1 1 6 3 1 3 2 2 10

Horse WalkerHorseBike Run/Jog WalkerNorthbound Bosque Trail

Bike Run/Jog Walker SkaterBegin Time Pets

No Helmet

Skater HorseMontaño ConnectorSouthbound Bosque Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Paseo

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Paseo del Norte Date/Day: 5/11/10 and 5/19/10 Observer: AG


6:45 AMUsers 257

7:00 AM 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1Cyclists 188 73.2%

7:15 AM 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2Cyclists w/o Helmets 47 25.0%

7:30 AM 2 3 1 2 1 5Run/Jog 36 14.0%

7:45 AM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1Walkers 29 11.3%

8:00 AM 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1Skaters 1 0.4%

8:15 AM 2 1 3 2 2 1Equestrians 3 1.2%

8:30 AM 2 3 4 2 1 1 2 3Pets 6 2.3%

8:45 AM 1 9 2 5 4 2 1 1 2

4:00 PM 2 1 2 2 1

4:15 PM 1 3 2 2 1 1 1

4:30 PM 3 1 2 3 2 1

4:45 PM 2 4 1 2 1 2 2

5:00 PM 3 7 1 2 3 1 5 6

5:15 PM 2 10 1 6 5 3 1 1 9

5:30 PM 2 9 1 1 9 4 3 4 12

5:45 PM 1 6 3 3 1 3 2 4 3 1 2

BikeHorse Skater HorsePaseo del Norte ConnectorSouthbound Bosque Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog WalkerHorseBegin Time Pets

No Helmet

Run/Jog WalkerNorthbound Bosque Trail


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Alameda

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Alameda Blvd Date/Day: 5/19/10 Observer: NH


6:45 AM 3 2 2 10 1 4 1Users 315

7:00 AM 3 1 2 1 4 2Cyclists 206 65.4%


7:30 AM 1 2 2 3 1 1Run/Jog 13 4.1%

7:45 AM 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1Walkers 94 29.8%

8:00 AM 1 1 1 2 17 6 1 2 1Skaters 2 0.6%

8:15 AM 1 1 2 2 3 1 5 3Equestrians 0 0.0%

8:30 AM 1 1 6 5 2Pets 13 4.1%

8:45 AM 1 3 5 1 2 1 3

4:00 PM 4 1 4 3 5 1 2 2 2 1

4:15 PM 1 1 3 1 3 7 1 2 2

4:30 PM 1 1 4 1 8 1 1 3

4:45 PM 5 1 3 1 2 1

5:00 PM 1 1 5 1 4 2

5:15 PM 1 2 12 4 4 11 4 3 9

5:30 PM 3 13 6 1 2 4 7

5:45 PM 12 1 4 1 1 2 4 3 2

SL - South of Parking Lot NL - North of Parking Lot Only

Northbound TrailSkater Bike Run/Jog WalkerHorseBike No

Helmet

Run/Jog WalkerAlameda Blvd

Bike

Begin Time Pets

Skater HorseSouthbound Trail

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Alameda-4th

Intersection: Alameda Blvd @ 4th St 5/11/2010 and 5/19/2010 Observer: HH

Alameda Blvd 4th StBegin Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

7:00 AM2

Cyclists 32

7:15 AM1 1 1

Cyclists on Sidewalk 11 34.4%

7:30 AM Cyclists w/o Helmets 11 34.4%

7:45 AM1 1 1

Traffic Violations 0 0.0%

8:00 AM

8:15 AM2 2 2

8:30 AM4

8:45 AM1 1 2 2

4:00 PM2 1 1 1

4:15 PM1 1 1 1 1

4:30 PM1 1 1

4:45 PM1 1 1 1

5:00 PM1 1 1

5:15 PM

5:30 PM2 1 1 1

5:45 PM1 1 1 1 1

Date/Day:

E-W Street: N-S Street:

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Unser-I-40

Intersection: Unser Trail @ I-40 Trail, Unser Blvd Date/Day: Observer: RC

Unser Blvd Unser BlvdNB SB


7:00 AM 1Users 22

7:15 AM 1Cyclists 14 63.6%

7:30 AMCyclists w/o Helmets 5 35.7%

7:45 AM 1Ride on Trail 10 71.4%

8:00 AM 2 1 1 3Run/Jog 1 4.5%

8:15 AM 1Walkers 6 27.3%

8:30 AMSkaters 1 4.5%

8:45 AM 1Pets 3 13.6%

4:00 PM

4:15 PM

4:30 PM

4:45 PM 1 2 1 1 3

5:00 PM 1 1 2 2

5:15 PM

5:30 PM 1 2

5:45 PM 1

Place a "D" in the horse column if someone is walking a dog. This is in additon to counting them as a walker (or jogger, roller blader, etc.)

5/12/2010

SkaterI-40 TrailSouthbound Unser Blvd Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog WalkerBike Run/JogBegin Time

Pets No Helmet

WalkerNorthbound Unser Blvd Trail


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 I-40-Atrisco

Intersection: I-40 Overcrossing @ Atrisco Rd Date/Day: Observer: AG

Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th RT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th LT Th LT LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT Totals Percents

6:45 AMUsers 56

7:00 AM 1 1 1Cyclists 13 23.2%

7:15 AM 1 2Cyclists w/o Helmets 8 61.5%

7:30 AM 1 4Run/Jog 0 0.0%

7:45 AM 3 1 2 1Walkers 42 75.0%

8:00 AM 2 1 3Skaters 1 1.8%

8:15 AM 1 5 1Equestrians 0 0.0%

8:30 AM 1 2 1 2Pets 2 3.6%

8:45 AM 1 1 1 1

4:00 PM 2 1

4:15 PM 2

4:30 PM 1 1

4:45 PM 2 1 1

5:00 PM 2

5:15 PM 1 1

5:30 PM 2 2 1 1 2

5:45 PM 1 1

Atrisco ConnectorBike Run/Jog Walker Skater Horse WalkerHorseBike

5/12/2010

Run/Jog WalkerBegin Time Pets

No Helmet

Skater HorseI-40 OvercrossingAlamogordo Connector

Skater Bike Run/Jog

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Coors-Montaño

Intersection: Coors-Montaño Observer: RG

Montaño Rd Coors BlvdBegin Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

7:00 AM 2 1 1 Cyclists 39



7:45 AM 1 2 1 Traffic Violations 0 0.0%

8:00 AM 1

8:15 AM 1

8:30 AM 1

8:45 AM 1 1 1

4:00 PM 2 1 1

4:15 PM 1 1 1

4:30 PM 1 2 1 2 2

4:45 PM 2 3 1 3 1

5:00 PM 1 1 1

5:15 PM 3 1 2

5:30 PM 1

5:45 PM 1 1 1

Date/Day: 5/12/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Coors-Eagle Ranch

Intersection: Coors-Eagle Ranch Observer: NH

Eagle Ranch Rd Coors BlvdBegin Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

7:00 AM 1 1 1 1 1 Cyclists 34


7:30 AM 2 1 1 1 Cyclists w/o Helmets 10 29.4%


8:00 AM 1

8:15 AM

8:30 AM 1 1 1 1

8:45 AM

4:00 PM 1

4:15 PM 2 2

4:30 PM 2 2 1 2 2

4:45 PM 1 1 2

5:00 PM 1 1 3 1 4

5:15 PM 1 1

5:30 PM 1 2 2 2

5:45 PM 1 1 3 2 2

Date/Day: 5/12/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Golf Course-Paradise

Intersection: Golf Course Rd @ Paradise Observer: HH

Paradise Blvd Golf Course RdBegin Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

7:00 AM Cyclists 17

7:15 AM 1 Cyclists on Sidewalk 10 58.8%


7:45 AM 1 1 1 1 Traffic Violations 1 5.9%

8:00 AM

8:15 AM 1 1

8:30 AM

8:45 AM

4:00 PM 1 1 1 1

4:15 PM

4:30 PM 1 1

4:45 PM 2 3 3 3

5:00 PM 1

5:15 PM 1 1 1

5:30 PM 1 1 1 2 3 1

5:45 PM

Date/Day: 5/12/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Tramway-Central

Intersection: Tramway @ Central Observer: RG

E-W StreetCentral Ave N-S Street Tramway BlvdBegin Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

7:00 AM 1 2 1 1 1 Cyclists 92

7:15 AM 1 1 4 2 Cyclists on Sidewalk 24 26.1%


7:45 AM 7 1 Traffic Violations 1 1.1%

8:00 AM 5 2

8:15 AM 2 1 1

8:30 AM 3 1 1 2 3

8:45 AM 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2

4:00 PM 2

4:15 PM 1 1 1 1 2

4:30 PM 1 5 1

4:45 PM 7 1 2

5:00 PM 5 1 1

5:15 PM 4 1

5:30 PM 2 1 2 2 2

5:45 PM 1 5 2 2 3

Date/Day: 5/6/2010

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Tramway-Embudo

Intersection: Tramway Trail @ Embudo Trail and Tramway Bl Date/Day: Observer: AG

Tramway Blvd Tramway BlvdNB SB


7:00 AM 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Users 146

7:15 AM 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 4 Cyclists 84 57.5%

7:30 AM 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 Cyclists w/o Helmets 20 23.8%

7:45 AM 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 Ride on Trail 41 48.8%

8:00 AM 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Run/Jog 16 11.0%

8:15 AM 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 Walkers 46 31.5%

8:30 AM 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 Skaters 0 0.0%

8:45 AM 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 Pets 18 12.3%

4:00 PM 1 2 1 1 2 2 1

4:15 PM 1 1 1 1 1 1

4:30 PM 1 1 1 1

4:45 PM 1 1 3 1 2

5:00 PM 1 3 1 2 2 2 2

5:15 PM 3 1 2 1

5:30 PM 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 4 1 5

5:45 PM 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1Place a "D" in the horse column if someone is walking a dog. This is in additon to counting them as a walker (or jogger, roller blader, etc.)

WalkerBike Run/Jog WalkerEmbudo Trail Trail

Bike Run/Jog Walker SkaterBegin Time Pets

No Helmet

5/6/2010

SkaterNB Tramway TrailTrailSB Tramway TrailTrail

Skater Bike Run/Jog

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Tramway-Spain

Intersection: Tramway @ Spain Observer: HH

E-W Street: Spain Rd N-S Street: Tramway BlvdBegin No Traffic BikeTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Bike Jog/Run Walk Skate Bike Jog/Run Walk Skate Pets Helmet Violation Total Totals Percents

7:00 AM1 1 1 1 2 5 2 5 2 1 1

6 Users 257

7:15 AM1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

5 Cyclists 185 72.0%

7:30 AM1 3 4 1 1

8 Cyclists w/o Helmets 23 12.4%

7:45 AM4 1 2 1 2 1

9 Ride on Trail 88 47.6%

8:00 AM2 2 1 4 1 1 7 2 1

16 Run/Jog 34 13.2%

8:15 AM3 2 5 1 7 1 4 1 6

22 Walkers 33 12.8%

8:30 AM2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 Skaters 5 1.9%

8:45 AM2 4 6 2 7 2 4 9 1 6 3

30 Pets 5 1.9%

4:00 PM1 1 2 1 2 4 1 4 1 1

15

4:15 PM2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1

12

4:30 PM1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2

11

4:45 PM1 3 2 2 2 1

6

5:00 PM2 1 4 1 4 1 3

11

5:15 PM1 4 1 3 1 1 1 1

11

5:30 PM1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2

7

5:45 PM1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1

11

Place a "D" in the Skate column if someone is walking a dog. This is in additon to counting them as a walker (or jogger, roller blader, etc.)

Trail North of Spain Trail South of Spain

Date/Day: 5/6/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls BearArroyo-Morris

Intersection: Bear Canyon Arroyo Trail @ Morris St Date/Day: Observer: RC

BikeTotal

LT Th RT Thru Turn Thru Turn Th Tu LT Th RT Thru Turn Thru Turn Th Tu LT Th RT LT Th RT Totals Percents

7:00 AM 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2Users 133

7:15 AM 2 2 1 1 1 4Cyclists 70 52.6%


7:45 AM 2 2 2 1 3 1 4 3Ride on Sidewalk 2 2.9%

8:00 AM 1 2 2 1 2 1Run/Jog 19 14.3%

8:15 AM 1 6 2 1 1 4 3Walkers 44 33.1%

8:30 AM 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2Skaters 0 0.0%

8:45 AM 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 4Pets 28 21.1%

4:00 PM 1 1 12 13

4:15 PM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

4:30 PM 13 2 2 1 1 1 15

4:45 PM 1 1 1 1 3 1 2

5:00 PM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5

5:15 PM 3 2 1 2 3

5:30 PM 1 1 2 1 1 1 3

5:45 PM 1 1 2 1 3

Place a "D" in the Skater column if someone is walking a dog. This is in additon to counting them as a walker (or jogger, roller blader, etc.)

Walker SkaterNorthbound Morris

5/6/2010

Bear Canyon Trail WestSkaterBike Run/Jog Walker

Sidewalk

Southbound MorrisBikes Only Bikes OnlyBegin

Time PetsNo

Helmet

Bear Canyon Trail EastBike Run/Jog

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Wyoming-Bear Arroyo

Intersection: Wyoming Blvd @ Bear Canyon Arroyo Date/Day: Observer: RC

NB SB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB Totals Percents

7:00 AM 1 1 1 1 2 1Users 68

7:15 AM 1 1 1 1Cyclists 37 54.4%


7:45 AM 1Ride on Sidewalk 18 48.6%

8:00 AM 1 1Run/Jog 7 10.3%

8:15 AM 1 1 1 1 1Walkers 24 35.3%

8:30 AM 1 1 1 1Skaters 0 0.0%

8:45 AM 1 1 2 1 1 1Equestrians 0 0.0%

Pets 9 13.2%

4:00 PM 1 1 1 1

4:15 PM 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2

4:30 PM 1 1 1 1

4:45 PM 1 1 1 1

5:00 PM 2 1 1

5:15 PM 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3

5:30 PM 1 1 1 2 1 1

5:45 PM 4 1 3 2 2 4 2

Wyoming BlvdBike

4/27/2010

Run/Jog WalkerHorseBike Run/Jog Walker

Begin Time PetsSide-walk

No Helmet

Skater HorseEast Leg Bear Canyon ArroyoWest Leg Bear Canyon Arroyo

Skater Bike

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Pennsylvania-Indian School

Intersection: Pennsylvania St @ Indian School Rd Observer: HH

E-W Street: Indian School N-S Street: PennsylvaniaBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

7:00 AM 1 3 Cyclists 61




8:00 AM 1 2 1 1 3 2 2

8:15 AM 1 1 1 1 1

8:30 AM 1 1 1 1

8:45 AM

4:00 PM 1 1 2 2 1

4:15 PM

4:30 PM 2 1 1

4:45 PM 2 3 1

5:00 PM 1 2 1 3 2 1

5:15 PM 1 4 1 1

5:30 PM 2 2 1

5:45 PM 1

Date/Day: 4/27/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Pennsylvania-Embudo Arroyo

Intersection: Pennsylvania St @ Embudo Arroyo Date/Day: Observer: NH

NB SB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB Totals Percents

7:00 AM 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 1Users 248

7:15 AM 2 3 2 3 2Cyclists 181 73.0%

7:30 AM 4 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 18 9.9%

7:45 AM 2 2 4 3Ride on Sidewalk 4 2.2%

8:00 AM 2 5 1 6 3 1Run/Jog 17 6.9%

8:15 AM 2 2 1 1 1 1 2Walkers 50 20.2%

8:30 AM 1 3 4 1 1 1 1Skaters 0 0.0%

8:45 AM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Equestrians 0 0.0%

Pets 5 2.0%

4:00 PM 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1

4:15 PM 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1

4:30 PM 3 3 3 2 1 3 2

4:45 PM 1 4 6 2 4 1 2 1

5:00 PM 2 5 7 2 1 6 1 1 5

5:15 PM 5 7 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1

5:30 PM 1 4 3 3 2 3 4 2 2 1 3

5:45 PM 5 1 3 3 4 1 3 3 1 1

Pennsylvania StBike

Begin Time

4/27/2010

Skater HorseEast Leg Embudo ArroyoWest Leg Embudo Arroyo

Skater Bike

PetsSide-walk

Viola-tion

No Helmet

Bike Run/Jog Walker Run/Jog WalkerHorse

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Carlisle Gate

Intersection: Carlisle Gate Observer: HH

E-W Street: N-S Street:Begin No Riding on TrafficTime Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

6:30 AM 1 Cyclists 21

6:45 AM Cyclists on Sidewalk 1 4.8%



7:30 AM

7:45 AM 4 1

8:00 AM

8:15 AM

8:30 AM

8:45 AM

3:30 PM

3:45 PM 1

4:00 PM 2 1

4:15 PM 6

4:30 PM 1

4:45 PM

5:00 PM 2

5:15 PM

5:30 PM

5:45 PM

Date/Day: 5/5/2010

Enter Exit

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Louisiana Gate

Intersection: Louisiana Gate Observer: RG




7:00 AM 1 1 Cyclists w/o Helmets 1 33.3%

7:15 AM Traffic Violations 0 0.0%

7:30 AM

7:45 AM

8:00 AM

8:15 AM

8:30 AM

8:45 AM

3:30 PM

3:45 PM

4:00 PM

4:15 PM

4:30 PM 1

4:45 PM

5:00 PM

5:15 PM

5:30 PM

5:45 PM

Date/Day: 5/5/2010

Enter Exit

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Wyoming Gate

Intersection: Wyoming Gate Observer: AG



6:45 AM 2 Cyclists on Sidewalk 14 46.7%



7:30 AM 2 2

7:45 AM 1 1

8:00 AM 1 1

8:15 AM 2

8:30 AM

8:45 AM

3:30 PM

3:45 PM 2 2

4:00 PM 1 1

4:15 PM

4:30 PM 2 1

4:45 PM 2

5:00 PM 3 1

5:15 PM 4 1

5:30 PM

5:45 PM

Date/Day: 5/5/2010

Enter Exit

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Eubank Gate

Intersection: Eubank Gate Observer: NH

E-W Street: N-S Street:Begin No Riding on TrafficTime Main Gate Bike Gate Main Gate Bike Gate Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

6:30 AM 10 5 Cyclists 186




7:30 AM 8 4 1

7:45 AM 10 4 1 1

8:00 AM 3 8

8:15 AM 1 1

8:30 AM

8:45 AM

3:30 PM 4 1 1

3:45 PM 5

4:00 PM 8 1

4:15 PM 8 1

4:30 PM 12 1 2

4:45 PM 13 1 1

5:00 PM 2 1 15 3

5:15 PM 14 2

5:30 PM

5:45 PM

Date/Day: 5/5/2010

Enter Exit

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 MLK-University

Intersection: Martin Luther King @ University Observer: HH

E-W Street: Martin Luther King Blvd N-S Street: Univeristy BlvdBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

6:30 AM Cyclists 116




7:30 AM 5 1 1 3 1 1

7:45 AM 2 1 2 1 2

8:00 AM 7 2 1 2 1

8:15 AM 5 1 1 1 4 4

8:30 AM 3 3 1 3 3 1

8:45 AM 4 2 2 2 2

4:00 PM 2 5 1 5 2

4:15 PM 3 1 1 1 4 2

4:30 PM 2 1 2 1 2 1

4:45 PM 2 1 1 1

5:00 PM 1 7 1 4 2

5:15 PM 1 5 1 1 6 2 2

5:30 PM 7 4 1 7 6 1

5:45 PM 7 6 8 2 3

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/4/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Girard-Campus

Intersection: Girard @ Campus Observer: AG

E-W Street: Campus Blvd N-S Street: Girard BlvdBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents


6:45 AM 1 4 2 2 Cyclists on Sidewalk 10 3.7%



7:30 AM 3 8 1 3 2

7:45 AM 1 1 20 1 4 13 2 2

8:00 AM 1 8 1 4 6 2 1

8:15 AM 2 10 1 1 5 1 2

8:30 AM 8 1 3 1 2

8:45 AM 1 14 2 10 4

4:00 PM 12 3 1 1 8 1

4:15 PM 7 8 1 1 10 1 2

4:30 PM 11 1 1 1 1 9 1 4

4:45 PM 15 1 7 1 1 8 1

5:00 PM 1 14 1 3 1 1 6 1

5:15 PM 1 14 2 1 2 8

5:30 PM 1 10 1 2 4 2

5:45 PM 1 13 9 3 10 4

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/4/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Lomas-Yale

Intersection: Lomas @ Yale Observer: NH

E-W Street: Lomas Blvd N-S Street: Yale BlvdBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents



7:00 AM 1 2 2 2 1 1 Cyclists w/o Helmets 74 36.6%


7:30 AM 1 2 3 3 1 1

7:45 AM 7 7 8

8:00 AM 6 4 3 1

8:15 AM 1 5 9 8

8:30 AM 1 3 4 1

8:45 AM 1 3 11 1 6 2

4:00 PM 1 1 9 3 6 2

4:15 PM 1 1 1 6 4 5 2 1

4:30 PM 1 7 5 5

4:45 PM 1 9 1 4 3 3 2

5:00 PM 1 1 9 1 11 9 4 1

5:15 PM 10 1 2 6 2 1

5:30 PM 11 1 5 4 2 1

5:45 PM 1 1 1 6 5 5 2 2

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/4/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Central-Yale

Intersection: Central @ Yale Observer: NH

E-W Street: Central Ave N-S Street: Yale BlvdBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents




7:15 AM 3 2 1 4 3 3 Traffic Violations 19 8.1%

7:30 AM 1 1 1 3 4 2 1

7:45 AM 1 1 1 4 1 7 4 1

8:00 AM 6 1 2 5 3 1

8:15 AM 1 2 1 4

8:30 AM 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 4

8:45 AM 1 1 1 2 5 22 1 1 1 27 22 3

4:00 PM 3 5 1 3 9 2 19 15 2

4:15 PM 2 4 4 10 4 2

4:30 PM 2 4 1 7 9 14 10

4:45 PM 2 3 2 1 1 7 15 11 1

5:00 PM 2 1 1 2 7 2 6 16 12

5:15 PM 5 1 7 1 2 11 23 18 1

5:30 PM 3 1 2 1 4 4 9 8 1

5:45 PM 3 3 1 2 11 1 12 13 1

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/3/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Central-Cornell

Intersection: Central Ave @ Cornell Observer: HH

E-W Street: Central Ave N-S Street: Cornell DrBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents





7:30 AM 1 2 2

7:45 AM 1 1 2 3 1 6 2 1

8:00 AM 1 1 4 4 1

8:15 AM 1 1 1 1 6 1 1

8:30 AM 1 2 3 2 3 5 5

8:45 AM 1 3 1 1 10 2 1 13 1

4:00 PM 3 1 2 7 1 1 10 2 16 5 3

4:15 PM 2 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 3 15 3 1

4:30 PM 1 2 3 2 1 4 2 13 5

4:45 PM 1 4 1 1 4 8 1 7 23 9 1

5:00 PM 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 9 4 24 11

5:15 PM 2 3 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 5 1 20 8 2

5:30 PM 1 2 1 7 1 2 4 13 5

5:45 PM 1 3 1 2 4 5 1 5 3 18 11

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/3/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Central-Stanford

Intersection: Central @ Stanford Observer: RG

E-W Street: Central Ave N-S Street: Stanford DrBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents





7:30 AM 1 3 4 1

7:45 AM 1 2 7 7

8:00 AM 1 1 5 4 1 1

8:15 AM 2 1 1 1

8:30 AM 1 1 5 1 5 1

8:45 AM 1 2 1 6 1 8 4

4:00 PM 1 3 1 4 2 8 8 5

4:15 PM 2 1 2 2 2 3 9 4

4:30 PM 1 4 1 4 7 2

4:45 PM 4 4 1 2 9 5

5:00 PM 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 7 17 7

5:15 PM 8 1 2 2 5 3 18 6

5:30 PM 1 3 3 4 3 1 1 3 12 5

5:45 PM 2 3 3 1 2 6 9 1

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/3/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Silver-Buena Vista

Intersection: Silver @ Buena Vista Observer: RC

E-W Street: Silver Ave N-S Street: Buena Vista DrBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents





7:30 AM 1 3 2 1 3 4

7:45 AM 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 Intersection All Way Stop

8:00 AM 2 1 2 2 2

8:15 AM 4 1 1 5 4

8:30 AM 1 1 1 3 1 2 8 5

8:45 AM 2 1 7 1 5 1 11 5

4:00 PM 5 6 1 8 14 6

4:15 PM 1 1 5 2 7 7 4

4:30 PM 1 2 6 1 5 2

4:45 PM 4 1 3 4 1

5:00 PM 3 2 3 1 4 3 3 10 1 2

5:15 PM 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 1

5:30 PM 1 2 1 2 1 3 7 3

5:45 PM 4 1 1 3 6 2

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/5/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 PdN-Tucker

Intersection: Paseo del Nordeste @ Tucker Observer: RC

E-W Street: Tucker St N-S Street: Paseo del NordesteBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents





7:30 AM 3 3 4 3 4

7:45 AM 1 1 2 1 5 2

8:00 AM 1 1 1 2 1 4 3

8:15 AM 1 1 2 5 6

8:30 AM 1 1 1 1 2

8:45 AM 1 1 4 1

4:00 PM 2 4 2

4:15 PM 6 2 1 2 1 2 1

4:30 PM 10 5 1 1 4 2

4:45 PM 6 8 1 4 2

5:00 PM 1 3 5 1 4 5

5:15 PM 1 8 6 2 1 5 1

5:30 PM 5 5 4 3 5

5:45 PM 6 4 1 3 2 1

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 5/4/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 NDC-I-40 East

Intersection: Paseo del Nordeste @ I-40 East Trail Date/Day: Observer: HH


6:45 AM 1 1 5 1Users 196

7:00 AM 2 1 5 1 1 1Cyclists 180 91.8%

7:15 AM 8 3 1 1 2Cyclists w/o Helmets 38 21.1%

7:30 AM 5 5 2Run/Jog 9 4.6%

7:45 AM 3 7 1 2Walkers 7 3.6%

8:00 AM 4 6 1 1 3 1Skaters 0 0.0%

8:15 AM 2 3 1 1 1 2Equestrians 0 0.0%

8:30 AM 5 8 1 3Pets 0 0.0%

8:45 AM 7 1 2 5 3

4:00 PM 3 2 1 1

4:15 PM 1 3 1 2 2

4:30 PM 1 6 2 2 1

4:45 PM 1 2 8 2 3

5:00 PM 5 1 2

5:15 PM 7 5 4 1 2 4

5:30 PM 1 12 2 1 1 1 3

5:45 PM 4 2 4 3 5

HorseBikeSkater Horse Skater HorseI-40 East TrailSB Paseo del Nordeste


No Helmet

4/28/2010

Run/Jog WalkerNB Paseo del Nordeste

Bike Run/Jog Walker

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 NDC-Nordeste East

Intersection: Paseo del Nordeste @ North Diversion Channel Date/Day: Observer: NH


6:45 AM 1 1 1 1 1Users 244

7:00 AM 4 3 2 1Cyclists 182 74.6%

7:15 AM 7 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 28 15.4%

7:30 AM 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1Run/Jog 12 4.9%

7:45 AM 3 1 3 1 3 1 1Walkers 47 19.3%

8:00 AM 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 2 1 2Skaters 3 1.2%

8:15 AM 4 1 2 1 2 1 3Equestrians 0 0.0%

8:30 AM 5 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1Pets 7 2.9%

8:45 AM 6 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 4

4:00 PM 2 2 2

4:15 PM 3 1 1 1 2 1 1

4:30 PM 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 2

4:45 PM 2 2 1 1 2 3

5:00 PM 5 4 2 1 1 6 5 1 2 4

5:15 PM 1 3 2 3 4 1 1 3 2 3 3

5:30 PM 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 2

5:45 PM 5 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1

NB Paseo del NordesteBike Run/Jog Walker Skater Horse Run/Jog WalkerHorseBike Run/Jog WalkerBegin

Time PetsNo

Helmet

4/28/2010

Skater HorseWB Paseo del NordesteSB Diversion Channel Trail

Skater Bike

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 NDC-PdN

Intersection: North Diversion Channel @ Paseo del Norte Date/Day: Observer: RC


6:45 AM 1 1 1Users 118

7:00 AM 1 1 1 1Cyclists 98 83.1%


7:30 AM 3 1 1 1 5 1 1Run/Jog 10 8.5%

7:45 AM 1 1 2 3 1Walkers 10 8.5%

8:00 AM 1Skaters 0 0.0%

8:15 AM 1 1 1 2 1Equestrians 0 0.0%

8:30 AM 4 1 2Pets 3 2.5%

8:45 AM

4:00 PM 1 1 1 1 1

4:15 PM 2 2

4:30 PM 3 1 1 1 1

4:45 PM 4 1 3 1 1

5:00 PM 3 1 1 3 1 1

5:15 PM 6 3 2 1 2 1

5:30 PM 1 1 1 4 1

5:45 PM 1 1 1 1 1

HorseBikeSkater Horse Skater HorseSB Paseo del Norte ConnectorSB Diversion Channel Trail


No Helmet

4/28/2010

Run/Jog WalkerNB Diversion Channel Tral

Bike Run/Jog Walker

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 2nd-Marquette

Intersection: 2nd St-Marquette/2nd St-Tijeras Observer: RC

E-W Street: Marquette/Tijeras Ave N-S Street: Second StBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

6:30 AM Cyclists 25




7:30 AM 1 1 1

7:45 AM 1 3

8:00 AM 2 1 2

8:15 AM 2

8:30 AM 1 1

8:45 AM 1 1

4:00 PM

4:15 PM 1 1

4:30 PM

4:45 PM

5:00 PM 2 1 1

5:15 PM 1 1 1

5:30 PM 3 1

5:45 PM 1

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Marquette - AM, Tijeras - PM

Date/Day: 4/29/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Arenal-Unser

Intersection: Unser Blvd @ Arenal Rd Observer: HH

E-W Street: Arenal Rd N-S Street: Unser BlvdBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

6:30 AM Cyclists 1




7:30 AM

7:45 AM

8:00 AM 1 1

8:15 AM

8:30 AM

8:45 AM

4:00 PM

4:15 PM

4:30 PM

4:45 PM

5:00 PM

5:15 PM

5:30 PM

5:45 PM

6:00 PM

6:15 PM

Date/Day: 4/29/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bridge-Isleta

Intersection: Bridge Blvd @ Isleta Blvd Observer: NH

E-W Street: Bridge Blvd N-S Street: Isleta BlvdBegin No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

6:30 AM Cyclists 27




7:30 AM 1 2 1 3

7:45 AM 2 1

8:00 AM 1

8:15 AM

8:30 AM 1 1 1 2

8:45 AM 1 1 1

3:45 PM 2 1 3 2

4:00 PM

4:15 PM

4:30 PM 1 2 1 3 2

4:45 PM 1 1 2 2

5:00 PM 1 1 1

5:15 PM 1 1 1

5:30 PM

5:45 PM 1 1 2 2

6:00 PM

Date/Day: 4/29/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls Rainbow-Woodmont

Intersection: Rainbow Blvd @ Woodmont Ave Observer: NH

Woodmont Ave Rainbow BlvdBegin Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound No Riding on TrafficTime LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

7:00 AM Cyclists 307:15 AM Cyclists on Sidewalk 25 83.3%7:30 AM Cyclists w/o Helmets 20 66.7%7:45 AM 8 6 8 5 Traffic Violations 11 36.7%8:00 AM 4 1 4 5 28:15 AM8:30 AM8:45 AM9:00 AM9:15 AM 19:30 AM9:45 AM

10:00 AM10:15 AM10:30 AM10:45 AM11:00 AM 111:15 AM11:30 AM11:45 AM12:00 PM12:15 PM12:30 PM12:45 PM1:00 PM1:15 PM1:30 PM1:45 PM2:00 PM2:15 PM2:30 PM2:45 PM3:00 PM 3 2 3 33:15 PM 8 8 8 13:30 PM3:45 PM4:00 PM4:15 PM 14:30 PM4:45 PM 15:00 PM5:15 PM 15:30 PM5:45 PM 1 1

This location was near a school and most of the cyclists were school children.

Date/Day: 5/13/2010


Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Candelaria

Intersection: Candelaria Rd west of Edith Blvd Observer: NH

Begin No Riding on TrafficTime Helmet Sidewalk Violation Totals Percents

6:30 AM Cyclists 17




7:30 AM

7:45 AM 2 2

8:00 AM 1 1 1

8:15 AM

4:00 AM 1

4:15 AM

4:30 AM 2 2 2

4:45 AM 2 2 2

5:00 AM 3 2 2

5:15 AM 2 1 1 1 1

5:30 AM 1 1 1

5:45 AM

The traffic violation was riding eastbound in the westbound bike lane.

Date/Day: 5/25/2010

Eastbound Westbound

Appendix B - VolCounts-Data.xls 1 Bosque-Alameda-1

Intersection: Bosque Trail @ Alameda Blvd Date/Day: Observer: NH


6:45 AMUsers 106

7:00 AM 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2Cyclists 65 61.3%

7:15 AM 2 2 2 1 1Cyclists w/o Helmets 7 10.8%

7:30 AM 1 1 1 5 1Run/Jog 7 6.6%

7:45 AM 1 1 4 1Walkers 34 32.1%

8:00 AM 1 1 2 1 4 5 5 2Skaters 0 0.0%

8:15 AM 1 2 1 2 6 3 1 4Equestrians 0 0.0%

8:30 AM 2 1 1 4 2 3 2Pets 9 8.5%

8:45 AM 2 9 1 2 5 2 1 2 2 1

4:00 PM

4:15 PM

4:30 PM

4:45 PM

5:00 PM

5:15 PM

5:30 PM

5:45 PM

SL - South of Parking Lot NL - North of Parking Lot Only Morning Only - Recounted on 5/19/2010

SkaterHorseBike

5/11/2010

Run/Jog WalkerAlameda Blvd

Bike

Begin Time PetsNo

Helmet

HorseSouthbound TrailNorthbound Trail

Skater Bike Run/Jog Walker

90

Needs Analysis

Appendix C – Raw Survey Results

1 of 21

Albuquerque Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Survey

1. Are you a current bicycle rider?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 91.4% 1,141

No 8.6% 107

answered question 1,248

skipped question 0

2. Which of these phrases best describes you as a cyclist?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

An advanced, confident rider

who is comfortable riding in

most traffic situations

53.0% 575

An intermediate rider who is

somewhat comfortable riding in

some traffic situations

37.2% 403

A beginner rider who prefers to

stick to the bike path9.8% 106


skipped question 164

2 of 21

3. On which type of roads do you prefer riding on for your level of comfort?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Major Roadways (most direct, high

traffic)9.3% 101

Collectors (not very direct,

medium traffic)48.2% 521

Local/Residential (least direct, low

traffic)42.5% 459



4. On which type of roads do you need to ride to reach your destinations?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Major Boulevards (most direct,

high traffic)44.7% 480

Collectors (not very direct,

medium traffic)63.3% 680

Local/Residential (least direct, low

traffic)39.2% 421



3 of 21

5. What type of facility do you prefer to ride on?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Multi-Use Trail 55.4% 585

Bike Lane on Major Boulevard 25.1% 265

Bike Route on Major Boulevard 4.8% 51

Bike Route on Local Street 13.4% 142

Sidewalks 1.2% 13

Other (please specify) 63



6. How often do you ride your bike?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

1-2 days a week 22.4% 242

3-4 days a week 37.8% 409

5-7 days a week 28.7% 310

1-3 times a month 8.6% 93

Less than once a month 2.4% 26

Not at all 0.1% 1



4 of 21

7. Has the increase in gasoline price changed your bicycling habits?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes, and my automobile use has

decreased26.0% 276

Yes, and my automobile use has

stayed the same1.9% 20

I ride about the same amount, and

my automobile use has decreased16.7% 177

I ride about the same amount and

my automobile use has stayed the

same

18.0% 191

No, there has been no change in

my bicycle use, but my automobile

use has decreased

11.7% 124

No, there has been no change in

either my bicycle or automobile use25.7% 272




8. Where do you live? (Address Optional)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

City: 80.1% 755

Zip: 87.6% 826

Or please list the closest

intersection:42.3% 399

answered question 943


5 of 21

9. Where do you work, go to school, or travel to frequently by bike? (Address Optional)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

City: 74.3% 661

Zip: 63.7% 567

Or please list the closest

intersection:49.0% 436



10. In general, what type of riding do you tend to do? (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Recreation/fitness 87.8% 897

Commuting to work/school 57.7% 590

Errands or other local destinations 38.2% 390




6 of 21

11. If you checked Recreation/fitness, how often do you tend to ride?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

1-2 days a week 35.1% 321

3-4 days a week 33.8% 309

5-7 days a week 18.1% 166



Not at all 0.2% 2



12. If you checked Commuting to work/school, how often do you ride?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

1-2 days a week 26.5% 177

3-4 days a week 34.7% 232

5-7 days a week 21.9% 146



Not at all 7.6% 51



7 of 21

13. If you checked Errands or other local destinations, how often do you tend to ride?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

1-2 days a week 39.6% 201

3-4 days a week 17.3% 88

5-7 days a week 12.6% 64



Not at all 13.8% 70



14. If you checked 'other', how often do you tend to ride for other purposes?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

1-2 days a week 16.9% 29

3-4 days a week 9.9% 17

5-7 days a week 16.9% 29



Not at all 40.7% 70


skipped question 1,076

8 of 21

15. Please check the seasons in which you ride a bike. (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Year round 63.0% 644

Winter 3.0% 31

Spring 37.9% 388

Summer 38.0% 389

Fall 37.1% 380



16. Where would you like to see more bike racks or bike lockers? (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Work Sites 57.9% 518

Government Centers 36.5% 326

Libraries 42.2% 377

Parking Garages 29.4% 263

Apartment Buildings 15.9% 142

Shopping Centers 66.0% 590

Grocery Stores 70.2% 628

Restaurants 57.0% 510

Schools 35.8% 320

Community Centers 35.3% 316

Parks, Swimming Pool, Recreation

Areas55.3% 494




9 of 21

17. Are there any specific locations where you think bicycle racks are needed? In order to provide the best service

to the public please specify a location(s) for any of the areas you selected above: (Business Name, Address, Cross

Street and Zip Code):

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Location 1 100.0% 216

Location 2 41.7% 90

Location 3 21.8% 47

Location 4 9.3% 20



18. Do you consider yourself to be a multi-use trail user?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes - I bike, walk, jog, skate or

ride a horse on the trails in and

around Albuquerque

86.8% 982

No 13.2% 149



19. How do you use the trails? (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

I bike 91.0% 885

I walk or jog 74.6% 726

I roller skate or rollerblade 9.2% 90

I ride a horse 2.5% 24



10 of 21

20. How frequently do you use the trails?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Daily or almost daily 26.2% 255

1-3 times per week 42.9% 417

Several times a month 26.6% 259

Rarely 4.2% 41

Not at all 0.0% 0



21. Why do you walk, skate or ride? (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Exercise/fitness 91.6% 885

Commuting to work/school 40.5% 391

Errands or other transportation 27.2% 263

Recreational activities with a pet

and/or child39.8% 384

Recreation or fun 60.2% 582



11 of 21

22. Please check the seasons in which you use the trail system. (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

All year 78.4% 761

Winter 3.1% 30

Spring 23.1% 224

Summer 22.6% 219

Fall 21.8% 212



23. If you do not use the trail system all year, please indicate why. (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Temperature/weather 100.0% 214




12 of 21

24. Traffic and Safety Concerns (Please check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Too many cars on the streets 45.9% 429

Motorists drive too fast 53.5% 500

Motorists are not considerate of

cyclists80.3% 751

Traffic signals are not set for

bicycles31.3% 293

I don’t feel safe biking on roads

(crime, personal safety)36.6% 342

I don’t feel safe biking on paths

(crime, personal safety)8.3% 78



13 of 21

25. Infrastructure (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Bike lanes are in poor condition or

poorly maintained (broken glass,

road debris, bad pavement)

51.3% 489

Multi-use trails are in poor condition

or poorly maintained (broken glass,

road debris, bad pavement)

25.6% 244

Not enough bike lanes/multi-use

trails to my destinations66.5% 634

No direct bike lanes/multi-use trails

to my destinations49.5% 472

No mountain bike trails 6.8% 65

Destinations are too far away 17.4% 166

Not enough lighting (on road or

multi-use trail or lane)19.1% 182

No bike parking 18.9% 180

No showers, lockers 19.6% 187



14 of 21

26. Personal Concerns (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

I am afraid of getting lost 1.8% 11

I travel with small children 18.2% 109

I have to carry things 47.8% 286

I don’t have enough time 40.5% 242

I am not physically able to bike 2.0% 12

I don’t own a bicycle 3.7% 22

Terrain / hills 8.5% 51

Bicycling gives me helmet hair 7.7% 46

I am concerned about riding in the

rain18.7% 112

I have to dress up for work 30.6% 183




15 of 21

27. Are there any reasons that you don't use the trails more frequently? (check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Trails are in poor condition 19.6% 121

There are no multi-use trails in

areas where I want to go40.8% 252

Destinations are too far away 21.0% 130

I am not physically able to walk,

skate or ride0.5% 3

Not enough lighting 15.4% 95

I don't have enough time 29.4% 182

Weather concerns 20.9% 129

I don't feel safe on the multi-use

trails (crime/personal safety)13.9% 86




16 of 21

28. Would the following improvements influence you to bike and/or use the multi-use trail system more often? Please

rate each improvement by likelihood of influencing you to bike and use the multi-use trail system more often.

Very

LikelyLikely

Somewhat

Likely

Somewhat

UnlikelyUnlikely

Very

Unlikely

Not

Sure

Response

Count

More Paved (off-street) Mulit-Use

Trails65.0%

(673)

20.5%

(212)8.7% (90) 1.6% (17)

2.5%

(26)

1.4%

(15)

0.3%

(3)1,036

More Amenities Along Multi-Use

Trails (e.g., mile markers, trash

receptacles and lighting)

27.6%

(268)

18.3%

(178)

25.7%

(250)7.7% (75)

11.7%

(114)

7.2%

(70)

1.6%

(16)971

Create Mountain Bike Trails22.2%

(210)

14.4%

(136)

20.9%

(197)

10.6%

(100)

14.2%

(134)

12.1%

(114)

5.6%

(53)944

Increased Maintenance

(sweeping/repairs to bike lanes,

routes, paths, and landscape

trimming, etc.)

42.0%

(420)

25.1%

(251)

20.3%

(203)4.9% (49)

4.1%

(41)

1.9%

(19)

1.6%

(16)999

More Bike Lanes (Separate Lanes

for bikes) on Major Streets58.7%

(595)

21.2%

(215)

11.7%

(119)2.2% (22)

3.1%

(31)

2.2%

(22)

1.0%

(10)1,014

More Bike Routes55.7%

(558)

23.0%

(230)

13.5%

(135)2.9% (29)

1.8%

(18)

2.1%

(21)

1.1%

(11)1,002

More Bike Boulevards (Bike Priority

Streets) on Smaller Streets49.2%

(486)

19.5%

(193)

18.2%

(180)5.7% (56)

3.1%

(31)

2.5%

(25)

1.7%

(17)988

Widen Outside/Curb Lanes on Major

Streets (easier to share lanes with

cars)

42.7%

(415)

21.2%

(206)

17.3%

(168)5.8% (56)

4.8%

(47)

3.7%

(36)

4.4%

(43)971

Narrow Outside/Curb Lanes on

Major Streets (easier to control

lane)

16.1%

(142)

9.6%

(85)18.7%

(165)

16.7%

(148)

12.7%

(112)

11.0%

(97)

15.3%

(135)884

Implement Shared Use Lane

Pavement Markings for Bicyclist

Positioning in Traffic Lanes

(“Sharrow”)

28.5%

(272)

20.0%

(191)

23.2%

(221)9.4% (90)

6.5%

(62)

5.3%

(51)

7.0%

(67)954

More On-Road Bike Signage30.6%

(294)

20.7%

(199)

22.8%

(219)

10.8%

(104)

6.6%

(63)

3.7%

(36)

4.8%

(46)961

Bicycle Signs Indicating Major

Attractions

14.8%

(132)

12.2%

(109)19.1%

(170)

18.7%

(166)

16.1%

(143)

10.8%

(96)

8.3%

(74)890

More Bicycle Parking19.1%

(175)

19.4%

(178)30.7%

(281)

13.0%

(119)

8.3%

(76)

4.8%

(44)

4.7%

(43)916

17 of 21

Education or Promotional Programs

for Drivers41.8%

(403)

22.0%

(212)

16.5%

(159)8.2% (79)

4.5%

(43)

4.0%

(39)

3.0%

(29)964

Education or Promotional Programs

for Cyclists32.1%

(302)

22.7%

(213)

19.5%

(183)

11.8%

(111)

5.9%

(55)

5.0%

(47)

3.1%

(29)940

Projects to Reduce Motor Vehicle

Speed34.5%

(328)

22.4%

(213)

18.6%

(177)

10.5%

(100)

5.7%

(54)

5.0%

(48)

3.3%

(31)951

More Recreational

Programs/Events for Bicyclists24.5%

(226)

21.6%

(199)

23.6%

(217)

12.8%

(118)

7.5%

(69)

6.2%

(57)

3.8%

(35)921

Increase Enforcement of Traffic

Violations for Motor Vehicles (e.g.

speeding, red light running, parking

violations)

48.0%

(470)

20.4%

(200)

15.1%

(148)6.0% (59)

4.3%

(42)

3.2%

(31)

3.1%

(30)980

Increase Enforcement of Traffic

Violations by Bicyclists (e.g. red

light running, riding against traffic)

30.4%

(288)

16.5%

(156)

17.5%

(166)

13.2%

(125)

7.9%

(75)

9.7%

(92)

4.9%

(46)948




29. What is your age?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

12 – 15 0.2% 2

16 – 18 0.1% 1

19 – 22 0.8% 9

23 – 30 10.9% 117

31 – 40 21.3% 228

41 – 50 27.9% 298

51 – 60 27.0% 289

61 and above 11.8% 126



18 of 21

30. What is the highest level of education you completed?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Elementary School 0.1% 1

High School 2.6% 28

Some College 11.6% 124

College 42.1% 451

Post Graduate Degree 43.6% 466



31. What is your profession?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Student (6-12) 0.3% 3

Student (College) 3.7% 38

Non-profit 2.3% 24

Government 16.1% 166

Private Business 16.3% 168

Professional 44.8% 461

Self–employed 7.1% 73

Not currently employed 1.7% 17

Retired 7.6% 78




19 of 21

32. Are you?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Male 63.7% 678

Female 36.3% 387



33. Do you belong to any bicycle clubs or bicycle advocacy groups in the region?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 27.8% 295

No 72.2% 766



34. Do you belong to any pedestrian or equestrian club or advocacy group in the area?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 5.7% 59

No 94.3% 985



20 of 21

35. Do you own car?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 96.1% 1,022

No 3.9% 42



36. What is your primary mode of transportation?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Drive Alone in a Car 70.8% 728

Carpool / Vanpool 5.0% 51

Take Public Transit 2.6% 27

Ride a Bicycle 20.5% 211

Walk 1.1% 11




37. Would you like to receive information about future public meetings for the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

No thanks 47.3% 496

Yes 52.7% 553



21 of 21

38. Would you like to receive information from the City of Albuquerque Bicycle Program?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

No thanks 45.2% 475

Yes 54.8% 577



39. If you checked yes to question 8 or 9, please provide the following information:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

First Name 97.0% 585

Last Name 96.4% 581

Email 99.5% 600



40. Do you have any ideas, comments or suggestions for the City of Albuquerque? (500 Characters Maximum)

Response

Count

457



Appendix ESafe Routes to School

1

What is Safe Routes to School?

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) refers to a variety of multi-disciplinary programs aimed at increasing the number of students walking and bicycling to school. SRTS programs and projects improve traffic safety and air quality around school areas through education, encouragement, increased law enforcement, and engineering measures.

Safe Routes to School programs typically involve partnerships among municipalities, school districts, community members, parent volunteers, and law enforcement agencies. Comprehensive Safe Routes to School programs are developed using five complementary strategies, referred to as the “Five E’s”:

• Engineering – Design, implementation and maintenance of signage, striping, and

infrastructure improvements designed to improve the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists along school commute routes.

• Enforcement – Strategies to deter the unsafe behavior of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and encourage all road users to obey traffic laws and share the road.

• Education – Educational programs that teach students bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety skills, and teach drivers how to share the road safely.

• Encouragement – Special events, clubs, contests and ongoing activities that encourage more walking, bicycling, or carpooling through fun activities and incentives.

• Evaluation – Evaluating the projects and programs is fundamental to assessing successes of each of the “E’s” above and helps to determine which programs were most effective and helps to identify ways to improve programs.

Why is a Safe Routes to School Program Important?

Although most students in the United States walked or biked to school pre-1980’s, the number of students walking or bicycling to school has sharply declined. Statistics show that 42 percent of students between 5 and 18 years of age walked or bicycled to school in 1969, with 87 percent walking or bicycling within a mile of school. In 2001, fewer than 16 percent of students walked or bicycled any distance to get to school.

This decline is due to a number of factors, including urban growth patterns and school siting requirements that result in school development in outlying areas, increased traffic, and parental concerns about safety. The situation is self-perpetuating: As more parents drive their children to school, there is increased traffic at the school site, resulting in more parents becoming concerned about traffic and driving their children to school.

According to a 2005 survey by the Center for Disease Control, parents whose children did not walk or bike to school cited the following barriers:

• Distance to school: 61.5%

• Traffic-related danger: 30.4%

2

• Weather: 18.6%

• Crime danger: 11.7 %

• Prohibitive school policy: 6.0%

• Other reasons (not identified): 15.0%

A comprehensive Safe Routes to School program in Albuquerque will address the reasons for reductions in walking and biking through a multi-pronged approach that uses education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement efforts to develop attitudes, behaviors and physical infrastructure that improve the walking and biking environment.

Benefits of a Safe Routes to School Program

A Safe Routes to School program in Albuquerque will directly benefit schoolchildren, parents, and teachers by creating a safer travel environment near schools and reducing motor vehicle congestion at school drop-off and pick-up zones. Students that choose to walk or bike to school will be rewarded with the health benefits of a more active lifestyle, responsibility and independence that comes from being in charge of the way they travel, and will learn at an early age that walking and biking can be safe, enjoyable and good for the environment. Safe Routes to School programs will offer additional benefits to neighborhoods by helping to slow traffic and provide infrastructure improvements that facilitate walking and biking for everyone. Identifying and improving routes for students to safely walk and bicycle to school is one of the most cost-effective means of reducing weekday morning traffic congestion and can help reduce auto-related pollution.

In addition to safety and traffic improvements, an Albuquerque Safe Routes to School program will help to integrate physical activity into the everyday routine of school children. Since the mid 1970s ,the number of children who are overweight has roughly tripled from five percent to almost 17 percent. Health concerns related to sedentary lifestyles have become the focus of statewide and national efforts to reduce health risks associated with being overweight. Children who walk or bike to school have an overall higher activity level than those who are driven to school, even though the journey to school makes only a small contribution to activity levels.

Program Recommendations

The following Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program recommendations have been selected based on their effectiveness at improving walking and bicycling conditions near schools and their likelihood of increasing walking and bicycling among school-aged children. The recommended programs are intended to serve as a flexible, scalable menu from which new and expanded programs can be implemented as resources and community engagement grow. It is important that any new Safe Routes to School program build on existing efforts. Strengthening and expanding the existing City of Albuquerque Bicycle Safety Education program and the pilot SRTS programs at Monte Vista Elementary School, Emerson Elementary School, and Wilson Middle School are top priorities as the SRTS program grows.

3

SRTS Task Force There is great interest in Safe Routes to School in the Albuquerque area and numerous individuals and organizations with knowledge to contribute in this arena. At present, though, there is no central clearinghouse for sharing information, coordinating efforts and developing a common vision for the rollout of SRTS efforts.

The City of Albuquerque should coordinate a quarterly Safe Routes to School Task Force to bring together representatives from Albuquerque Public Schools, law enforcement and Parks and Recreation. Other possible partners include the Greater Albuquerque Bicycle Advisory Committee (GABAC), the Greater Albuquerque Regional Trails Committee (GARTC), Bike ABQ, and the Albuquerque Community Bike Recycling Program.

The Safe Routes to School Task Force will would be charged with:

• Reporting on the infrastructure projects that affect school travel

• Developing a strategic plan for implementing the city-wide SRTS efforts

• Securing and expanding long-term, stable funding for SRTS efforts in Albuquerque, including applying for funding through the NMDOT Safe Routes to School program

• Developing an evaluation strategy and collecting data for evaluation

School Action Plan The key to changing conditions at an individual school is to complete a SRTS Action Plan for each school. The Action Plan should identify key information about each school that is relevant to student transportation and summarize barriers and opportunities for walking and bicycling. The Action Plan should then set out goals and actions for addressing student transportation issues.

The SRTS Action Plan should contain the following elements:

• Overview of school: location, number of students, school district, parties responsible for SRTS

• Baseline student travel data: Summary of in-class hand tally results and parent survey results; any additional data about student travel patterns such as bicycle/pedestrian user counts or hazardous busing areas

• Existing school facilities: Map, photographs and description of school and immediate surroundings, including presence of bicycling and walking facilities, bus arrival/departure areas, all schoolyard entrances, bike parking locations, parking and driveway access, etc.

• Summary of barriers and opportunities: Map, photographs and description of challenges and opportunities for student walking and bicycling. This data should come from the walkabout (see below) as well as input from stakeholders and the technical team.

• Goals and actions: Goals related to student active transportation, followed by specific action items with cost estimates and funding sources, assignments, and timelines.

4

School Walkabouts A school walkabout, sometimes called a site audit, is an evaluation of the pedestrian and bicycling conditions around the school environment. It is an important step in completing a SRTS Action Plan, though completing a school walkabout as a stand-alone exercise can also be valuable. Typically school walkabouts are conducted by the local SRTS task force on foot, by walking the routes that the students use to get to school. A walkabout could also be conducted on bicycle in order to better evaluate bicycling conditions.

The goal of a walkabout is to document conditions that may discourage walking and bicycling to school, and to identify solutions to improve those conditions. The walkabout should involve identification of the built environment around a school (e.g., streets, sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks and intersections, bike routes, traffic controls), the drop-off and pick-up operations (e.g. presence of designated loading areas), as well as behaviors of students, parents, and motorists that could contribute to unsafe conditions for bicyclists or pedestrians (e.g. speeding, jaywalking, failure to yield to pedestrians).

A sample School Walkabout checklist can be found on the National Center for Safe Routes to School website (http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/education_walkability-checklist.cfm). It asks for detailed information related to: 1) Student Drop-Off and Pick-Up Areas; 2) Bus Loading Zones; 3) Sidewalks and Bicycle Routes; 4) Intersections Near the School Property; 5) Sight Distance; and 6) Traffic Signs, Speed Controls and Pavement Markings. The Albuquerque SRTS Task Force should use the School Walkabout checklist as a basis for conducting individual school walkabouts.

Along with the checklist, an aerial map of the school area is an essential part of the walkabout. The City of Albuquerque Geographic Information Systems department may be able to assist in creating maps for walkabouts. Each walkabout group will be provided with an aerial map of the school area that should be marked up with identified issues and suggested improvements. The marked-up aerials, along with the information from the checklist form, will be forwarded to the SRTS Task Force and used to develop the SRTS Action Plan.

School Traffic Safety Handbook The SRTS Task Force should work with Albuquerque Public Schools as well as local volunteer groups (e.g. the Greater Albuquerque Bicycle Advisory Committee (GABAC), the Greater Albuquerque Regional Trails Committee (GARTC), and Bike ABQ to develop a standard safety handbook that is provided to parents at the beginning of the school year. The handbook should include school specific information regarding:

• A school area pick-up/drop-off circulation map of the campus and immediate environs, preferred pick-up, drop-off and parking patterns and text explaining the reason behind the recommendations.

• Map showing recommended walking and biking routes, including bike parking locations on campus

• Basic rules of the road (brief, using images as much as possible)

• List of the most dangerous driving behaviors (and how parents can help)

http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/education_walkability-checklist.cfm�

5

• School traffic safety contact names and numbers

• Explanation of the Safe Routes to School program (goals, strategies, and benefits)

• Volunteer opportunities for Safe Routes to School program (e.g. crossing guards, leaders for walking school bus and bike trains)

• Calendar of Safe Routes to School events for the school year

Bicycle Safety Education Classes City of Albuquerque Parks and Recreation currently offers 150 – 200 bicycle safety education rodeos annually for elementary school students. Since 1996, the program has hosted over 15,000 bike rodeos. The program is aimed at grades 3, 4 and 5, and the program consists of a presentation for the whole grade level followed by individual classes practicing on a skills course. The program brings bikes and all supplies to schools.

The city is fortunate to have a robust bicycle education program already in place. The SRTS Task Force should consider one of their primary responsibilities to be supporting and expanding this program, by promoting it to schools, seeking additional and ongoing funding, and linking this program to new SRTS programs.

Pedestrian Safety Education Program The City of Albuquerque should lead an effort to create a pedestrian safety education program to complement the existing bicycle safety education program. The Pedestrian Safety Education curriculum should cover:

• Where and when to cross a street

• Crossing at intersections

• Sign identification

• Understanding traffic signals

• Crossing the street with an adult

• Walking at night

• Using sidewalks

• Walking where no sidewalks exist

• How to walk near driveways and cars backing up

There are many ways to do this, but one recommended model uses the following strategies:

• Target second grade students and provide training annually

• Teach one module in fall and one in spring

• Cover the same material in a variety of ways to accommodate different learning styles (e.g. movement, writing, songs)

6

Classroom learning should be followed by physical practice (e.g. on simulated street, grading adults’ modeled behavior, and/or group crossing drills).

A Pedestrian Safety Training curriculum should be developed and offered as a pilot in one Albuquerque Public Schools school. It may be strategic to select one of the three existing SRTS schools (Monte Vista Elementary School, Emerson Elementary School, or Wilson Middle School). Based on feedback received from the pilot, the curriculum may be modified for future instruction. There are many possible approaches to hiring and training staff; this decision should be made in conversation with the City, Albuquerque Public Schools, the Safe Routes to School Taskforce, and interested community volunteers (such as Bike ABQ volunteers). A trainer may be City staff, a school employee (such as an interested PE teacher), or a community group member. The trainer can be hired or be a volunteer.

International Walk and Bike to School Day Event International Walk to School Day is held annually on the first Wednesday in October. This event can serve as a kick-off event to generate awareness and enthusiasm for an Albuquerque Safe Routes to School program. Events may include a special Walking School Bus lead by local politicians or school administrators, school assembly, and contest. Schools may find additional information and register for the event at www.walktoschool.org. Events such as these tend to attract increased attention, including media coverage, and excitement that can be tapped to attract volunteers to maintain efforts year-round.

Classroom Lessons and Activities A variety of curricula and classroom activities are available to help teach students about walking, bicycling, health and traffic safety. These may include lessons given by law enforcement officers or other trained professional or as a lesson plan developed by teachers. Example topic lessons are: Safe Street Crossing; Helmet Safety; Rules of the Road for Bicycles; and Health and Environmental Benefits of Walking and Biking. The lessons should be grade appropriate and can be incorporated into the subjects of health, environment, social science, math, and physics.

Stop and Walk An Albuquerque SRTS Stop and Walk campaign would encourage parents to stop several blocks from school and walk the rest of the way when they drive to school. Not all students are able to walk or bike to school because of limitations beyond their control. Students may live too far away from school to walk or their route to school be include hazardous traffic situations such as a major arterial road. This type of campaign allows students who are unable to walk or bike to school a chance to participate in the school based encouragement activities that support walking and biking to school. An additional benefit to implementing a “Stop and Walk” program is reduced traffic volume directly surrounding a school. Reducing the number of motor vehicles in the school environment leads to an environment with fewer hazards that students must face when walking or biking to school. A park or community center would be an ideal meeting place if it is located near the school at an appropriate distance.

7

Walking School Buses or Bike Trains Parents and guardians often cite distrust of strangers and the dangers of traffic as reasons why they do not allow their students to walk to school. Walking School Buses are a group of children that walk together to school and are accompanied by one or two adults (usually parents or guardians of the children on the “bus”). As the walking school bus continues on the route to school they pick up students at designated meeting locations. Walking school buses can be informal events that happen between neighbors with children attending the same school or elaborate school-wide endeavors with a dedicated collection of volunteers and structured meeting points with a pick-up timetable. Walking school buses provide adult supervision to the walk to school, reducing the apprehension caused by a student walking to school without the presence of a trusted adult.

A bicycle train is very similar to a walking school bus because it consists of groups of students accompanied by adults that bicycle a pre-planned route to school. Routes can originate from a particular neighborhood or, in order to include children who live too far to bicycle, begin from a parking lot. They may operate daily, weekly or monthly. Bike trains help address parents’ concerns about traffic and personal safety while providing a chance for parents and children to socialize.

The Albuquerque SRTS Task Force should create a Walking School Bus/Bike Train outreach and training program for interested parent volunteers. The City can support Walking School Buses and Bike Trains by providing incentive prizes and necessary forms. Albuquerque Public Schools can support this effort by helping to promote the program to potential participants and parent volunteers.

Friendly Walking/Biking Competitions (incentive programs) Contests and incentives activities reward students who track the number of times they walk or bike to school. To build on this type of program, contests can be individual, classroom competition, or interschool competitions. Local businesses will often provide incentives and prizes for these activities. Students and classrooms with the highest percentage of students walking, biking, or carpooling compete for prizes and bragging rights (such as a Golden Sneaker award). Small incentives such as shoelaces, stickers, and bike helmets are used to increase participation.

There are many viable models of incentive programs that could be effective in Albuquerque. The SRTS Task Force should examine possible programs and decide which approach is appropriate given their resources and goals. Examples of Walking and Biking Competitions include:

On-campus walking clubs (mileage clubs) - Children are issued tally cards to keep track of “points” for the each time they walk, bike, bus or carpool to or from school. When they earn a specified number of points they get a small prize and are entered in a raffle for a larger prize. At the end of the school year, there is a drawing for major prizes.

Walk and Bike Challenge Week/Month - This month-long encouragement event is generally held in conjunction with National Bike Month in May. Students are asked to record the number of times they walk and bike during the program. The results are tallied and the challenge comes from comparing the results with a competing school or classroom. Students who are unable to walk or bike to school can participate by either walking during a lunch or gym period or get dropped off further away from the school and walking the last several blocks.

8

Golden Sneaker Award - Each class keeps track of the number of times the students walk or bike to school and compiles these figures monthly. The class that has the most participation gets the Golden Sneaker Award. (The award is created by taking a sneaker and spray-painting it gold.)

Walk Across America/New Mexico - This is a year-round program and is designed to encourage school children to track the number of miles they walk throughout the year. Students can be taught how to track their own mileage and will also learn about places in the United States on their way. Teacher or volunteer support is required.

Program evaluation There are many different education, encouragement, and enforcement programs that can be implemented in Albuquerque Public Schools to help increase the number of students walking and biking to school. Not every program is the correct fit for every school. It is important to evaluate programs in the context of the school environment prior to deciding what would be a good choice for each school. Once the programs have been implemented it is necessary determine whether or not it was a good choice for your school and what about the program worked and what did not work quite as well. Below are some suggested steps for proceeding with the program evaluation process.

Program evaluation can be administered by following these steps:

1. Survey local traffic conditions and issues (much of this information can be found from the school site audit)

2. Compare outcomes to goals set in the SRTS Action Plan 3. Determine success benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of the program efforts 4. Interview program administrators (teachers, volunteers) and participants (students) to

discuss what worked and what didn’t

The National Center for Safe Routes to School has created a national standard evaluation methodology for annual hand tallies and parent surveys. It is strongly recommended that the Albuquerque SRTS program follow the national guidelines.

Perform Annual Hand Tally and Parent Surveys

The National Center for Safe Routes to School has developed a recommended methodology, survey and count forms, and reporting forms (http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/). Teachers administer the hand tally survey to the students in their classroom. The parent surveys are either mailed or sent home to the parents (or guardians) with the students. Parent surveys can be sent to the National Center for SRTS for automated data entry.

Appendix FEnd-of-Trip Facility Evaluation

Appendices

End-of-Trip Facility EvaluationEnd-of-trip facilities, including bicycle parking and other facilities such as showers and clothing lockers, can be a deter-mining factor in whether someone decides to make a bicycle trip. They enhance the bicycling experience by providing cyclists with somewhere to park and somewhere to refresh themselves following their trip. Numerous studies have shown the value of these facilities in attracting cyclists to employment and activity centers and in supporting multi-modal trips. In fact, in the online survey conducted earlier in this planning process, nearly 70% of the people who responded indi-cated that more bicycle parking would likely influence them to bike and/or use the multi-use trail system more often (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1 – Question 28 - Would more bicycle parking influence you to bike and/or use the multi-use trail system more often? (916 responses)

Bicycle parking includes both long-term (often referred to as Class A or Class I) and short-term (often referred to as Class B of Class II) parking. These cater to different cycling groups depending largely on their trip duration and desired level of protection from weather and/or theft. Table 1 compares the typical characteristics of short- and long-term bicycle park-ing.

Other end-of-trip facilities enable cyclists to freshen up following a trip and can include showers, washrooms, and cloth-ing lockers, but may also include other services such as a laundry or dry-cleaning and bike-related services.

Table 1. Characteristics of short- and long-term bicycle parking

Criteria Short-Term (Class B) Bicycle Parking Long-Term (Class A) Bicycle ParkingParking Duration Less than two hours More than two hours

Typical Fixture Types Bicycle racks Lockers, or racks provided in a secured area

Weather Protection Unsheltered Sheltered or enclosed

Security High reliance on personal locking devices and passive surveillance (i.e. eyes on the street)

Restricted access and / or active surveillance / supervisionUnsupervised: “Individual-secure”, e.g. bicycle lockers“Shared-secure”, e.g. bicycle room or cageSupervised:Valet bicycle parkingVideo, CCTV or other surveillance

Typical Land Uses Commercial or retail, medical/healthcare, parks and recreation areas, community centres

Residential, workplace, transit, schools

End-of-trip facilities for bicycles are currently found throughout Albuquerque. Short-term parking is provided using bicycle racks in many public places as well as outside private buildings, while long-term parking and other end-of-trip facilities are provided at some publically accessible sites but mostly on private property (e.g., as part of an office building). The provision, design, and placement bicycle parking facilities varies widely. Local and national best practices can be used to encourage a more consistent approach to end of trip facilities to maximize the usefulness of these facilities and mini-mize maintenance costs.

Appendices

Summary of RecommendationsThis section provides recommendations for improving end-of-trip facilities in Albuquerque. Recommendations in-clude sample policies, incentives, programs and design guidelines. In general, the City of Albuquerque should:

• Require bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities in both newly constructed buildings and redevelopment.• Consider both long-term and short-term parking requirements. • Provide incentives to encourage bicycle parking facilities beyond the minimum requirements.• Provide guidance on the design and placement of these facilities.• Establish a bike rack program that assists in the location, design and funding of bicycle racks to stimulate retrofitting

short-term bicycle parking in the existing network.• Consider placement of enahcned bicycle facilities (e.g., a bicycle depot) at key transit exchanges, such as the Alvarado

Transit Center, if demand analysis indicates adequate potential for facility use.

Bicycle Parking CodeAlbuquerque’s existing bicycle parking standards are elegant in their simplicity. However, they also lack certain desirable elements:

• First, the existing standards do not contain requirements for long-term bicycle parking. While the City clearly under-stands the importance of secure bicycle facilities, as exemplified by its Bicycle Locker Program, more extensive long-term bicycle parking facilities could encourage more bicycle commuting.

• Second, given the wide range of non-residential land uses that are technically required to provide a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces, it appears that compliance with the bicycle parking requirements is low. The code also lacks a compliance trigger for installing bicycle parking at existing developments.

• Third, it could be highly beneficial if the City provided additional site planning recommendations to ensure proper placement and spacing of bicycle parking facilities to maximize their usability.

• Finally, and for a similar reason as above, the City should also provide guidance on the different types of bicycle racks, as rack types vary in their functionality.

City ProgramsThe City of Albuquerque has several programs that support bicycling, including the maintenance of a website dedicated to bicycling and the production of a comprehensive bicycle map. The city has installed over 300 bicycle lockers at 23 loca-tions, installing approximately 50 lockers each year. Several major employers have taken advantage of the Bicycle Locker Program, which is designed to encourage bicycle commuting through the provision of secure bicycle parking.

• Bicycle Rack Program - The City does not currently have a bike rack installation program, which would be an excellent way to encourage utilitarian bicycle trips to retail and other destinations.

Recommended Locations for Additional Bicycle Parking FacilitiesThe online survey, which had over 1200 responses, contained two questions related to the location of additional bicycle parking facilities. The top responses to the question of which types of places should have more bike racks or lockers were grocery stores, shopping centers, work sites, restaurants and parks. Respondents provided specific locations for additional bicycle parking, including throughout the downtown and Nob Hill areas as well as along Central Avenue. Grocery stores (including Albertsons and Whole Foods) and transit stops were other common responses. The University of New Mexico Hospital was the single most common suggestion. The most effective way for the City to increase parking at these and other locations would be through a Bicycle Rack Program. The City could kick off such a program by conducting out-reach to businesses in the areas of town and to the types of businesses identified above.

Appendices

Bicycle Parking CodeExisting CodeBicycle parking standards are found in section 14-16-3-1 of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances (Off-Street Parking Regulations). Section B identifies parking requirements for three types of land uses: 1) Residential, 2) Dormitory, frater-nity or sorority house and 3) Non-residential . Four standards for the installation of bicycle parking spaces and lockers are provided in Section G.

The code requires one space per two dwelling units for multi-family units having five or more dwelling units. All non-res-idential units are required to provide one bicycle space per each 20 parking spaces required and not less than two bicycle spaces per premise. Certain land uses, such as mortuaries or motels, are exempted while separate standards are provided for schools.

The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) recommend that bicycle parking standards do several things, which are presented in Table 2 below:

Table 2 – APBP Bicycle Parking Standard Recommendations

APBP Recommendation Albuquerque bicycle parking standardsSpecify number of bicycle spaces by land use Specs by land use are specified, but distinguish between far fewer land uses than those in APBP’s

sample code

Require long-term parking for all workplaces, transit stations and multi-unit residential Do not require long term parking

Require adequate short-term parking for other land uses Technically require short-term parking for most land uses, though its standards require the same amount of parking for very different land uses that may warrant different requirements.

Provide site planning requirements Provide limited site design requirements.

Provide rack and locker design requirements Provide limited rack and locker design requirements.

Recommended Update to Bicycle Parking CodeAs discussed in the previous section, the existing bicycle parking code does not distinguish between non-residential land uses and does not include requirements for long-term parking. The following rates are provided for consideration from the 2010 Bicycle Parking Guidelines produced by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.

Table 3 – APBP Sample Bicycle Parking Code

Type of Activity Long-Term Bicycle Parking Short-Term Bicycle ParkingResidential

Single family dwelling No spaces required No spaces required

Multi-family dwelling

a) With private garage for each unit No spaces required 0.05 spaces / unit, minimum 2 spaces

b) Without private garage for each unit 0.5 spaces / unit, minimum 2 spaces 0.05 spaces / unit, minimum 2 spaces

c) Senior housing 0.5 spaces / unit, minimum 2 spaces 0.05 spaces / unit, minimum 2 spaces

Civic / Cultural

Non-assembly cultural (library, government buildings, etc.) 1 space for each 10 employees. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces.

1 space for each 10,000 s.f. of floor area. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces.

Assembly (church, theatre, stadium, park, beach, etc.) 1 space for each 20 employees. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces.

Spaces for 2% of maximum expected daily attendance

Health care/hospital 1 space for each 20 employees or one space for each 70,000 s.f. of floor area, whichever is greater. Minimum is 2 spaces

1 space for each 20,000 s.f. of floor area. Minimum is 2 spaces.

Education

a) Public, parochial, and private day-care centers for 15 or more children

1 space for each 20 employees. Minimum is 2 spaces. 1 space for each 20 students of planned capacity. Minimum is 2 spaces.

b) Public, parochial, and private nursery schools, kindergartens, and elementary schools (1-3)

1 space for each 10 employees. Minimum is requirement is 2 spaces.

1 space for each 20 students of planned capacity. Minimum is 2 spaces.

Appendices

Table 3 – APBP Sample Bicycle Parking Code

Type of Activity Long-Term Bicycle Parking Short-Term Bicycle Parkingc) Public, parochial, and elementary (4-6), junior high and high schools

1 space for each 10 employees plus 1 space for each 20 students of planned capacity. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces.


d) Colleges and universities 1 space for each 10 employees plus 1 space for each 10 students of planned capacity; or 1 space for each 20,000 s.f. of floor area, whichever is greater.


Transit

Rail/bus terminals and stations/airports Spaces for 5% of projected a.m. peak period daily ridership Spaces for 1.5% of projected a.m. peak period daily ridership

Retail

General food sales or groceries 1 space for each 12,000 s.f. of floor area. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces

1 space for each 2,000 s.f. of floor area. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces

General retail 1 space for each 12,000 s.f. of floor area. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces


Office 1 space for each 10,000 s.f. of floor area. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces


Auto Related

Automotive sales, rental and delivery, automotive servicing, automotive repair and cleaning



Off-street parking lots and garages available to the general public either without charge or on a fee basis

1 space for each 20 automobile spaces, minimum 2 spaces – unattended surface parking lots excepted

Minimum of 6 spaces or 1 per 20 auto spaces – unattended surface parking lots excepted

Industrial/Manufacturing

Manufacturing and Production 1 space for each 15,000 s.f. of floor area. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces

Number of spaces to be prescribed by the Director of City Planning. Consider minimum of 2 spaces at each public building entrance.

Design PrinciplesIn addition to updating the bicycle parking requirements, the following design principles can be incorporated into the parking code to provide guidance on the placement of bicycle racks.

Space Requirements• Bicycle parking spaces should be at least 6 ft long and 2 ft wide. A common installation error is to leave insufficient

space (less than 2 feet) between the rack and a building or other obstacle (see Figure 2). • A 5 ft aisle for bicycle maneuvering should be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking.• Bicycle racks should be securely anchored to the surface or a structure.• Overhead clearance in covered spaces should be at least 7 ft.

Figure 2 -Bicycle Rack Space Guidelines

PlacementIn order to encourage bicycle use, bicycle parking must be as convenient, if not more so, than motor vehicle parking. The facilities must be located in close proximity to building entrances and elevators. General placement guidelines are provided in section 6.3 of the recommended Design Guidelines document. These guidelines can be incorporated into the existing parking code.

Appendices

Recommended City ProgramsBicycle Rack ProgramIt is recommended that the City of Albuquerque develop and implement a Bicycle Rack Program that, similar to its Bi-cycle Locker Program, distributes racks across the city through a request system. By working with interested land owners to supplement the existing supply of bicycle parking, the City would effectively increase both the quantity and quality of bicycle parking throughout Albuquerque. The City can utilize preferred rack designs and ensure proper rack placement following the bike parking guidelines laid out in existing code or the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan.

Increased AwarenessThe City could raise awareness of the benefits of short- and long-term bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities to devel-opers, owners, and managers of privately-owned commercial properties. The 2010 report, Bike Corrals: Local Business Impacts, Benefits, and Attitudes found widespread support for bike corrals from local businesses. The Employer Guide to Bicycle Commuting: Establishing a Bike-Friendly Workplace for your Baltimore Region Employees is a good example of information that the City could make available to employers interested in encouraging cycling to work. The document compares the initial cost of 12 automobile parking spaces ($40,000 to $100,000 USD) to the cost of 12 bike rack spaces and one automobile space ($4,600 - $9,600 USD).

IncentivesThere are a number of incentives that can be used to encourage improved bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities. These include:

• Providing motor vehicle parking relaxations where bicycle parking is provided beyond the minimum requirements.• Providing motor vehicle parking relaxations where complete end-of-trip facilities are provided, i.e. long- and short-term

parking coupled with showers, washrooms, and clothing lockers.• In space constrained applications, such as redevelopment of an existing building, allow for the conversion of motor

vehicle parking spaces into long-term bicycle parking to meet the bylaw requirement (typically 5 bicycle parking spaces can be achieved per motor vehicle parking space).

• Extending or introducing payment-in-lieu of parking programs to allow funds to be collected in-lieu of vehicle parking and placed in a sustainable transportation infrastructure fund to fund active transportation projects, which may include a centralized bicycle parking and end-of-trip facility (e.g. a bike station). Note: this should not replace bicycle parking and end-of-trip facility requirements.

Bicycle Parking Standards at Transit ExchangesEnd-of-trip facilities create connections with transit and increase the reach of these services by making cycling attractive for the “first and last mile” of the journey.

New Mexico Rail Runner ExpressThe New Mexico Rail Runner Express has a friendly attitude towards bicycles. Their website says ‘Bicycles Welcome’ indicates that ‘Trains come equipped with bicycle racks so you can ride your bike to and from each station. Each train will have space for at least two bicycles, and bike racks can be found at each station.’ Bicycle parking provided at each station is typically composed of uncovered bicycle parking for approximately 10-12 bicycles. The Rail Runner Express will also soon offer bicycle lockers at each station. There will be room for 6 to 16 bikes, depending on the station. Lockers will be administered similar to the City’s locker program, using a subscription system rather than having lockers for on demand use. A nominal fee will be charged to cover the administration of the locker program.

Appendices

Bicycle parking at a Rail Runner station Two bicycles in the designated space aboard a Rail Runner train

ABQ RideBicycle racks are available on all buses, with a capacity of two to three bicycles depending on the bus. Bicycle parking is typically not provided at ABQ Ride stops. Two recently developed park n ride facilities have been equipped with wave style bicycle racks with a capacity of approximately 20 bicycles. ABQ Ride also installed 8 lockers at each park n ride facility. Because these lockers were installed as a pilot project, half of the lockers are allocated on a subscription basis and the other half on a first come, first served basis. Thus far, the lockers do not appear to be very well used and there have been security concerns with the first come, first served basis as people have utilized the lockers for purposes other than for which they were intended.

Anticipating Demand at Transit StationsProviding parking at transit stations is particularly important. The City has expressed interest in placing enhanced bicycle parking facilities at locations with potential high demand, such as the Alamosa Transit Center. Generally, the amount of parking needs to exceed the average demand, as users should be able to depend on facilities being available. Demand determines not only the amount of parking, but the type of facility provided as well.

The following are examples of guidelines used by other agencies around the world:

• Bicycle parking at stops should be between one space per 150 entrants and one space per 1,000 entrants, depending on station type and use. (The London Underground)

• Bicycle parking should be 50-80% occupied on average. If parking is at a location that is likely to experience consider-able growth or if there are regular overflow periods (i.e. the station would be popular for use during a large event), it should be closer to 50% occupied and built with the ability to expand easily. (The CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic)

• The number of lockers provided should exceed the current demand for lockers (measured by counts of bikes parked at racks and the current usage and wait list for locker at a station) by 10% to allow for fluctuations and growth. (Bay Area Rapid Transit [BART])

• Bike stations should be considered when the demand for long-term parking exceeds 100 bicycles. (BART)

Other factors to consider when estimating demand for a new station or for providing long-term parking where it previ-ously did not exist include:

• Demographics of the service area• The extent of the bicycle network in the area surrounding the station• Current ridership capacity• Mode share• Trip destination• Planning goals for the area

Appendices

• Current parking use at the station• Current use of bike-on-bus racks• Type of transit service (bus, light rail or commuter rail)• Presence of employment and/or major employer near stop• Projected regional growth • Projected bicycle ridership levels

Table 4. Recommended Adjustment Factors for Estimating Bicycle Parking at Transit

Factor Adjustment

Based on a parking demand model:How many bicyclists are estimated to park at the site? Facility should provide parking for at least 20% more bicycles than estimated to regularly use the

facility.

Will a particular segment of potential market demand be emphasized over others due to the location? (e.g. Near a University, industrial park etc.)

Hours of parking availability should be convenient for likley users in proximity to the site; marketing efforts should be targeted to potential users.

For each station, how reliable is it to find space for bikes at rush hour? Quantity of parking should be sufficient to meet bicycle-on-bus or -train capacity.

How much does the demand for park-and-ride spaces exceed supply? In areas where Park and Ride lots are at capacity, improved bicycle parking can capture a proportion of would-be drivers.

Is there evidence of current bike activity (e.g. parked bikes) at the site? Facility should provide parking for at least 20% more bicycles than regularly use the facility, and more if demand is estimated to increase.

Public transportationDoes the station connect to a bus route? Parking should be provided to accommodate riders who may not find space for a bike on their

connecting bus.

Does the transit short-cut a hill or other barrier to bicycling? People are more likely to take transit with their bicycles if they can avoid a large hill, or if transit is significantly faster than bicycling. Increased parking facilities should be provided. In addition, the transit agency may want to work with the responsible agency to remedy the barrier.

Does the transit line offer a time savings as compared with bicycling (e.g., connecting distant destinations with few stops)?

Transit lines offering travel time savings over bicycling should provide more long-term parking.

Surrounding employment and commercial densityHow many jobs fall within biking distance of the site? Accommodate transit users who may be interested in storing an additional bicycle at the non-home

trip-end.

Will the number of jobs within biking distance of the site grow in the future? Ensure that there is space for expansion in locations that are likely to be close to future employment.

Potential to generate operating revenueIs there a need for bicycle repair and accessory sales in the immediate vicinity? People will use the resources available at the bicycle parking if the community does not have them

available otherwise; this is likely to increase the use of bicycle parking and bike-to-transit trips.

Is there a need for some other complementary business activity in the immediate vicinity? It is possible to recoup some of the expenses of providing bicycle parking by linking complimentary uses, such as bicycle rentals/fleets and food sales.

Bicycle Parking Standards at SchoolsAccording to a representative, Albuquerque Public Schools installs bike racks at new schools and existing schools when they are remodelled. Within the next 6 years, all schools will have bicycle racks.

Review of Existing ParkingBicycle parking racks have been installed by various agencies and businesses throughout the City of Albuquerque. The different types of bicycle racks found in Albuquerque are reviewed below.

Inverted U and Inverted U SeriesThe ‘inverted U’ type rack can be installed individually or in a connected series. Examples of both are provided in the photos below. The inverted U type rack and the U series rack are both recommended in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Bicycle Parking Guidelines. These racks are typically secured to a concrete base, support the bicycle in two places, and are easy to park a bicycle in when they are adequately spaced.

Appendices

University of New Mexico Library Bank

Post and RingThe ‘post and ring’ style rack is the third style of bicycle rack recommended in the APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Like the inverted U and inverted U series rack, the post and ring style are intuitive, support the bicycle in two places, and are easy to park. This style of rack can and be retrofitted to unused parking meters, which has been done in Albuquerque.

Retail Retail

Undulating or ‘Wave’ Style RackThe wave style rack is a very common rack type and is present at many locations throughout Albuquerque. This type of rack is not endorsed by the ABPB Bicycle Parking Guidelines for a couple of reasons. First, to properly use this rack the cyclist places the bicycle through the ‘wave’ pattern where it is only supported at one point. Bicycles parked in these racks are unstable and frequently tip over. Second, many cyclists park their bicycle sideways in this rack to gain stability, thereby reducing the capacity by 60-80 percent. Furthermore, due to the narrow space between ‘waves,’ it is difficult to accommo-date the stated rack capacity (two per ‘wave’) even when bicycles are parked properly. This does not mean that these racks should be replaced, but the City could work to educate businesses or institutions looking to install bike racks on the pros and cons of different rack types and could recommend the installation of either the inverted U or the ring and post style racks.

Appendices

Restaurant Library City Park

Other Rack TypesThe first rack type presented in the photo below only holds the bicycle’s wheel and does not support the use of a U-shaped lock. They can also cause damage to the bicycle wheels. The second two photos show examples of what are known as comb racks or toaster racks. Designed to roll bicycles into wheel slots, these types of racks also lack stable support and can cause damage to the bicycle wheels. For these reasons, these rack types are not recommended.

University of New Mexico Elementary School Parking Garage

Artistic RacksArtistic racks, like the ones shown below, can add interest the urban environment. Artistic racks are appropriate, provided that they support the bicycle in two places.

Apartment Restaurant Restaurant

Appendices

VisibilityThe location of the bicycle rack impacts the actual and perceived security of the bicycle. Several online survey respon-dents expressed concern about the possibility of their bicycle being stolen. Regarding visibility, ABPB suggests that short term bicycle parking should be:

• Visible from the destination to reassure cyclists about the security of the rack.• Located in a high traffic area with passive surveillance or eyes on the street.

The photo on the left shows bicycle parking located where parked bicycles are not visible from the adjacent building. Compare this to the photo on the right, where the bicycle parking has been provided directly in front of a large window near the library entrance.

Church Library

Informal Bicycle ParkingWhen bicycle parking is not provided, people will park/lock their bicycles to other objects such as parking meters, railings or sign posts. Providing bicycle parking is beneficial not only to bicyclists, but can improve the pedestrian environment by consolidating the bikes and keeping them off of rails and signs which potentially block sidewalks and ramps.

University of New Mexico University of New Mexico

Lockers and Bike CoversBicycle lockers are large metal or plastic stand-alone boxes that offer a high level of bicycle parking security. Over 300 bicycle lockers have been installed in Albuquerque as part of the City’s Bicycle Locker Program.

Appendices

An array of bike lockers on UNM campus. Individual “Bike Lid” bike locker near Downtown Albuquerque.

Review of Online SurveySeveral questions in the online survey relate to end-of-trip facilities and are reviewed below. Questions 16 and 17 explicit-ly asked respondents about locations where they would like to see more bicycle parking and locker facilities. Question 28 asked respondents to indicate whether additional bicycle parking would influence them to bicycle or use the trail system more often. Three other questions contained select responses relevant to bicycle end-of-trip facilities.

Question 16 - Where would you like to see more bike racks or bike lockers? (check all that apply)

The top responses to question 16 are presented in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 - Question 16 - Where would you like to see more bike racks or bike lockers? (check all that apply)

Appendices

Question 17 - Are there any specific locations where you think bicycle racks are needed?

The next survey question followed up on Question 16, asking respondents to provide specific locations in where they thought more bicycle racks were needed. The top responses are found in Table 5:

Table 5 –Question 17 - Are there any specific locations where you think bicycle racks are needed?

Location Number of Responses Location Number of ResponsesDowntown 31 Rail Runner 4

Nob Hill 30 Whole Foods 4

Central Ave 24 Transit stops 3

UNM Hospital 10 Government buildings 3

Grocery 9 City Hall 3

Albertsons 9 Malls 3

Bus 7 Cottonwood Mall 2

Old Town 7 Winrock Mall 2

UNM 7 Coronado Mall 2

Movie Theaters 7 Costco 2

Uptown 7 Zoo 2

Trails 6 Airport 2

4th Ave 5 Heart Hospital 2

Post office 4 Civic Plaza 2

Question 25 - InfrastructureWhen asked to indicate infrastructure concerns, 20% of respondents indicated ‘no showers, lockers’ while 19% indicated ‘no bike parking.’ As indicated in Figure 4 below, these were the 5th and 7th most common infrastructure concerns, respectively.

Figure 4- Question 25 – Infrastructure Concerns

Appendices

Question 26 - Personal ConcernsWhile question 26 (Personal concerns) did not include a choice related to end of trip facilities, seven respondents selected ‘other’ and indicated a concern for the security of their bicycle.

• Not a safe place to store my $1000 bike.• Many bikes have been stolen from the hospital• Need safe locker for nice bike• Don’t have a safe place to leave my bike• Don’t want my bicycle to get stolen• My bicycle was stolen last fall and I haven’t replaced it.• Concerned with bike security

Question 40 - Ideas, comments or suggestions for the City of AlbuquerqueIn response to the final survey question which asked respondents for ‘ideas, comments or suggestions for the City of Albuquerque’, two people provided suggestions related to end of trip facilities:

• Encourage new business construction to include bike parking/shower/locker room facilities!!• Secure indoor parking

Appendix GStreet Plan

1

Streetplan Analysis

A critical component of the bike lane analysis was the use of Alta Planning + Design’s ‘StreetPlan’ model. StreetPlan is an analysis tool that excels at quickly identifying corridors with the greatest potential for striping bike lanes. It does not make recommendations for other commonly utilized bikeway treatments such as shared lane markings, bicycle boulevards, or signed bike routes. Assuming acceptable minimum widths for each roadway element, the model analyzes a number of roadway characteristics to retrofit bike lanes on each surveyed roadway segment. Factors used in this analysis include:

• Current roadway width

• Raised or painted median

• Number and width of travel lanes

• Presence and number of turn lanes and

medians

• Location and utilization of on-street parking

• Presence of roadway shoulder

In some cases, the retrofit is simple and only requires the addition of a bike lane in readily available roadway space. Other corridors may be more challenging and require a tradeoff to stripe bike lanes. Though the model makes recommendations for bike lanes, its outcomes should not be considered a replacement for a striping plan. The model is useful in its ability to clearly illustrate locations where projects can be completed easily and locations where adding bike lanes may be more difficult. The decision to narrow or eliminate a travel lane, or remove on-street parking should be considered in conjunction with engineering judgment and traffic impact studies. However, if there is a need for bicycle lanes on a corridor, the difficulty of implementation should not preclude development. It may simply indicate the need to explore alternative options, such as a parallel bicycle boulevard, or the need to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian travel in a corridor and consider alteration of existing motor vehicle prioritization. The City of Albuquerque will need identify the impacts of altering the roadway’s existing condition and, as with any roadway retrofit, conduct careful field analyses and detailed engineering studies prior to striping bike lanes. Retaining a uniform roadway configuration throughout a corridor can simplify travel for motorists and cyclists alike, creating a safer and more comfortable experience for all users. It is recognized that acceptable lane widths vary by functional classification, for example 10 foot travel lanes may be acceptable for a local street, but higher speed arterials may require 11 feet as the minimum lane width. For the purposes of the model, acceptable minimum roadway dimensions were set at the following:

• Travel lane width: 11 feet

• Right turn lane width: 10 feet

• Left or Center Turn Lane width: 10 feet

• Parking lane width: 7.5 feet

2

StreetPlan Outcomes

Analysis corridors were developed based on previously proposed facilities, a review of existing conditions, field work and discussions with city staff. Street plan results were used in combination with existing conditions analysis, speed and volume information, public feedback, stakeholder interviews, and conversations with city staff to develop the proposed citywide bikeway network. In many instances the StreetPlan model recommends multiple treatments for a given roadway segment. To determine the appropriate treatment, the model organizes its recommendations in order of the most preferred facility type. The order uses the first strategy (below) for a given segment of roadway and is given priority over succeeding strategies. Not all of the below options were possible strategies for all segments, but on many segments multiple strategies could be used to implement bike lanes. Each of the specific treatment recommendations is defined in detail below. Bike Lanes Fit With Existing Roadway Configuration – In this option, enough surplus road space exists to simply add the bike lane stripes and stencils without impacting the number of lanes or configuration of the roadway. This is by far the most desirable and easily implemented option available.

3

Reconfigure Travel Lanes and/or Parking Lanes – In this option, bike lanes can be added by simply adjusting wide travel lanes or parking lanes within the established minimums presented above. No reduction to the number of travel lanes is needed. Remove Underused Parking – In this option, underused on-street parking on one side of the street is removed to create space for bike lanes. Acceptable situations for this scenario include collector or arterial roadways that pass by back fences of homes rather than the front sides, or areas that have large surface parking lots adjacent to existing on-street parking. A parking utilization study

should be conducted prior to removal of on-street parking. Consider ‘4 to 3’ Road Diet – In this option, a reconfiguration of the existing travel lanes may be necessary. In areas with two travel lanes in either direction, it may make sense to remove two travel lanes and use the spare roadway width to stripe a center turn lane and two 5’ bike lanes. This treatment may not be appropriate on roads with high ADT.

4

Add Additional Pavement Width and Stripe Bike Lanes – In this option, it was determined that additional right-of-way was available along the corridor. Where no curbs exist along the segment it may be possible to pave a new roadway shoulder and stripe bike lanes Remove On-Street Parking – In this option, on-street parking may be removed on one side of the road. However this on-street parking configuration may currently be utilized in residential or commercial areas. This option is seen as a less desirable option and may only be considered as a last resort in short sections to maintain bike lane continuity. A full parking study should be conducted to determine if excess parking capacity exists before making changes to the roadway configuration. Bike Lanes Will Not Fit – In this last case, the existing roadway geometry will not allow for the addition of bike lanes. Either a bike route or major reconstruction of the roadway may be necessary for bikeway continuity.

General Outcomes

Northwest The NW quadrant of Albuquerque shows a fairly extensive network of existing bike lanes. Bike lane facilities exist on many of the collector and arterial roadways. Some significant do gaps exist however. For bicyclists traveling east to west, Paseo Del Norte presents a challenge, as does Coors Blvd and Golf Course Rd for northbound and southbound bicyclists. StreetPlan indicates that there is existing roadway width for striping bike lanes, but that some reorganization of travel and parking lanes may be necessary. Southwest In the SW quadrant there are similar existing conditions to that of the NW quadrant. A network of bike lanes provides access to many local parks and schools, with few major gaps in the network. Of those portions requiring closer examination, Bridge Blvd west of Coors Blvd is the most obvious. r. Southeast The SE quadrant poses some more serious constraints for the development of bike lanes. Existing conditions along Zuni Rd, a principal east/west arterial, are a challenge for implementing bike lanes. Recommendations for this segment includes a 4 to 3 road diet with a more complicated engineering solution needed in some areas. Roadways that can more easily accommodate bike lane facilities include some portions of 5th St and 6th St, and the entirety of Lomas Blvd west of 6th St. Northeast The more grid-oriented urban form in much of the NE quadrant, combined with the existing bike lane network, makes this area quite bike accessible. The few treatment recommendations are primarily located west of I-25 and east of the Rio Grande River Osuna Rd/NW 2nd St should both be analyzed to determine if a reconfiguration of travel and parking lanes can be accomplished to stripe bike lanes. Doing so would help to connect communities west and east of I-25.

Appendix HBicycle Friendly Communities Action Plan

Appendices

Bicycle Friendly Community Action Plan ReferenceAction Plan Point Plan Reference Section1. Adopt a target level of bicycle use (e.g. percent of trips) and safety to be achieved within a specific timeframe, and improve data collection necessary to monitor progress.

Chapter 3 3.2.1,

Chapter 6 6.1.3.2

Chapter 7 7.1, 7.5.1

Appendix D

2. Provide safe and convenient bicycle access to all parts of the community through a signed network of on and off-street facilities, low-speed streets, and secure parking. Local cyclists should be involved in identifying maintenance needs and ongoing improvements.

Chapter 3 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.9

Chapter 6 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6

Chapter 7 7.6, 7.7.3

Appendix C, Appendix F

3. Establish information programs to promote bicycling for all purposes, and to communicate the many benefits of bicycling to residents and businesses (e.g. with bicycle maps, public relations campaigns, neighborhood rides, a ride with the Mayor)

Chapter 3 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7

Chapter 6 6.1.1.3, 6.1.3.2

Chapter 7 7.2, 7.3, 7.4

4. Make the City a model employer by encouraging bicycle use among its employees (e.g. by providing parking, showers and lockers, and establishing a city bicycle fleet).

Chapter 6 6.1.1.3

Appendix F

5. Ensure all city policies, plans, codes, and programs are updated and implemented to take advantage of every opportunity to create a more bicycle-friendly community. Staff in all departments should be offered training to better enable them to complete this task.

Chapter 3 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.9

Chapter 6 6.5, 6.6

Chapter 7 7.2,7.4

6. Educate all road users to share the road and interact safely. Road design and education programs should combine to increase the confidence of bicyclists.

Chapter 3 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8,

Chapter 6 6.1.3.1, 6.1.3.2, 6.5, 6.6

Chapter 7 7.2

7. Enforce traffic laws to improve the safety and comfort of all road users, with a particular focus on behaviors and attitudes that cause may contribute to motor vehicle/bicycle crashes.

Chapter 3 3.3.6, 3.3.8, 3.3.9

Chapter 6 6.1.3.1, 6.1.3.2, 6.5, 6.6

Chapter 7 7.2, 7.3, 7.4

8. Develop special programs to encourage bicycle use in communities where significant segments of the population do not drive (e.g. through Safe Routes to Schools programs) and where short trips are most common.

Chapter 3 3.3.2, 3.3.7

Chapter 6 6.1.3.1, 6.1.3.2

Chapter 7 7.2, 7.3

Appendix E

9. Promote intermodal travel between public transport and bicycles, e.g. by putting bike racks on buses, improving parking at transit, and improving access to rail and public transport vehicles.

Chapter 6 6.1.1.3, 6.2

Appendix C, Appendix F

10. Establish a citywide, multi-disciplinary committee for nonmotorized mobility to submit to the Mayor/Council a regular evaluation and action plan for completing the items in this Charter.

Chapter 3 3.3

Chapter 6 6.1.3.1, 6.1.3.2

Chapter 7

Appendix IPublic Meetings

Bikeway and Trails Master Plan Update • Summary Report on the May Open Houses

Gannett Fleming West • Alta Planning + Design • Consensus Builder 1

Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update

Summary Report on the May Open Houses

Introduction

In May 2010, the City of Albuquerque sponsored a series of public open houses designed

to give residents an opportunity to comment on the existing conditions of the city’s

bikeways and trails. The open houses were part of the process for updating the City’s

Bikeways and Trails Master Plan. Overall, attendance at the open houses compared well

to similar events in the past, and the participants contributed information that will be

useful in planning improvements in the system.

This report describes the design and organization of the open houses, explains how they

were advertised, lists the comments participants wrote on flip charts, gives the results of

several exercises, and provides feedback from the participants on their satisfaction with

the workshop design. The report concludes with recommendations for the second series

of open houses, which are scheduled for November 2010.

Design and Organization of the Open Houses

The open houses took place at the dates, times, and locations listed below:

Tuesday May 18th

, 4-7pm

Cesar Chavez Community Center

7505 Kathryn SE

Wednesday, May 19th

, 6-7:30pm

Erna Fergusson Public Library

3700 San Mateo Blvd. NE

Thursday, May 20th

, 6-7:30pm

Taylor Ranch Community Center

4900 Kachina Street NW

A total of 80 people attended the three open houses according to the sign-in sheets. The

Wednesday open house was the best attended; 46 people signed the registration sheet.

The Monday and Thursday events drew approximately the same number of people with

18 and 16 people respectively attending those evenings.

The design for the open houses centered on four “stations” that the participants could

visit in any order. At each station, members of the team were available to talk with the

participants, answer questions, and record comments and concerns. The stations included:



• A “Welcome” station, where participants

o Signed the registration sheets, noting how they learned about the

open houses

o Placed adhesive dots on two maps, indicating where they live and

several destinations they frequent

o Picked up a card on how to take the online survey, a handout on

preliminary survey results, a project schedule, and a comment form

• An “Education and Encouragement” station where participants

o Reviewed a board showing possible education and encouragement

strategies

o Indicated which of the strategies they felt are most promising

• An “Opportunities and Constraints” station where participants

o Identified and discussed opportunities and constraints with the

team; typical opportunities and constraints addressed the

following:

� Where connections should be improved

� Where other improvements should be made

� Where there are maintenance problems

� Where the bikeways and trails are often congested

• A “Design Safety and Way Finding” station where participants

o Identified and discussed preferences related to

� Safety and way-finding measures

� Existing facilities for on-street cyclists and off-street trail

users

Attachment 1 gives greater detail about the design of each station. In addition,

Attachment 2 provides the blank boards for several participant exercises.

Publicity

The City and consultant team used a combination of publicity methods to advertise the

open houses. There was paid advertisements in the Albuquerque Journal. In addition, the

team produced a flier distributed through the bicycle shops, bicycle clubs, community

centers, and public libraries. An electronic version of the flier was emailed to the bike

and trail user clubs; the clubs then forwarded it to their members. The project web site

and project facebook page were used to promote the open houses as well as the NMTS

and BikeABQ web sites. A press release was prepared for release by the City.

When attendance was light at the first open house, the City of Albuquerque sent the flier

to the presidents of the neighborhood associations, and BikeABQ sent a “blast” to its

members re-advertising the opportunity to attend the second or third open houses.

Attendance increased significantly the next day.



Results of Dot Exercises In addition to the stations, there were four exercises where participants responded to

specific questions by placing an adhesive dot in a space corresponding to their answer.

Three of the questions were designed to elicit information about the participants, and the

results were as follows:

What kind of trip do you take?

Social and recreational – 46 (dots)

Community and utilitarian – 48

I’m unlikely to use on-street bikeway/multi-use trail system – 3

Link to transit – 12

Who bikes in Albuquerque?

Strong and fearless – 26

Enthused and confident – 8

Interested but concerned – 25

No way, no how – 0

What type of multi-trail user are you?

Cyclist – 56

Walker or jogger – 32

Rollerblader or skater – 1

Equestrian – 2

A fourth board described in text and photographs eight education and encouragement

activities that the consultant team is considering. Participants used adhesive dots to

record their preferences among these activities, and the results were as follows:

Summer streets – 20 (dots)

Albuquerque bike central website – 10

Law enforcement partnership – 16

Safe routes to school – 17

Share the road/share the path campaign – 36

Annual bicycle and trail counts – 17

Drivers’ education – 43

Bike month events – 10

Comments from Flip Charts and Comment Sheets Three participants completed comment sheets. The comments they communicated in this

way were as follows:

• 911 dispatch has discontinuity with locating without cross streets. Possible

solutions: triangulate/ask for supervisor; in-pavement marker with ID number

and route indicator

• Bicycle yield to pedestrian signs needed

• Literature on traffic rules for bicyclists needed

• Start one process with radiating/variety of facilities from activity centers



• Serve the schools – circuit lanes near schools, especially elementary and

middle schools

Participants also had the opportunity to write comments and suggestions on flipcharts.

The following list is a record of the comments written on the flipcharts:

Written Comments at the Education and Encouragement Station

• APS should create incentive and educational programs for students to ride

bicycles to school

• Cyclist Education – How to drive your bike as though it is an automobile –

Traffic Skills 101 – League of American bicyclists

• Have clear “rules of the road” for cyclists and automobile drivers

• Air pumps on bike trails

• More signage and way finding on paths and bike lanes that provide

information on bicycling

• Bicycle education programs

• Encourage winter cycling

• Paid participant Bicycling 101 classes – e.g. pay bicyclists to take the

Bicycling 101 course

• Advertise bike rides or street closures associated with “bike fiestas” well in

advance so that driver will be aware that they are happening

• Change Bike Blvd from Silver to Copper in the University area

• Repave and restripe the Bosque trail

• Make available “packets” of laws and regulations that govern and protect the

rights of bicyclists and pedestrians

• Enforce the speed limit on the bike Boulevards!!!

• Map out scenic routes for substantial rides (25+ miles) with roads closed to

motor vehicular traffic

• Engage school district PE programs to teach bike safety education

• Institute an advertising and education program about Transit/bike connections

• Bridges on north diversion channel – wooden bridges are tough; suggest using

a thin concrete surface

• Replace wooden slats on bridges with recycled “plastic Imitation” wood look-

alike planks

• Either keep dividing posts at trail entrances and maintain them so they are

keep in place, or get rid of them

• Keep road shoulders clean of debris

• Put concrete barrier up along remaining section of Paseo del Norte that is

adjacent to the bike path where cyclist was killed

• Keep bike paths free of broken glass

• Promote the “Complete the Streets” initiative (see completethestreets.org or

Google the name)

• Support teachers that want to start bike clubs (middle school) or become

involved in safe routes to school

• Promote these projects and programs. How much promotion will they get?



Written Comments about Citywide Infrastructure Comments

• Better east/west trail connections especially in south Albuquerque area (this

comment was repeated at least four times)

• More painted bike lanes – everywhere

• Citywide beltway/perimeter route

• Improve safety, e.g., wide shoulders on Paseo de Vulcan

• Close the gaps, connect the dots, in Los Ranchos

• Address the gaps in the system!

• Wayfinding signs are needed

• Choose one east-west route from North Valley (Bosque Trail) to NE Heights

(N/S Diversion Channel) so recreational rider/commuters have one safe route

between I-40 and Paseo del Norte. And then build it.

• Bear Canyon Bike bridge must happen (near I-25)

• No asphalt trail in Bear Canyon between Juan Tabo and Tramway

• Commuting – need north-south on-street routes (San Pedro, Bike path at

diversion channel, Pennsylvania)

• Commuting – east-wide streets for shared use – Constitution, Indian School,

Comanche, Osuna, etc.

• Need underpass at Comanche, Menaul, Candelaria

• Connect eastside to far South Valley – more direct than Rio Bravo; less scary

than Coors

• Need hard surface trail for bikes and wheelchairs from North Diversion

Channel Trail to Tramway trail along Bear Canyon even in open space

• Need bike lanes on N-S routes an West Side – Golf Course Road, Unser

Blvd., Eagle Ranch Road, and Paseo del Volcan

• Poles in center of trails – Make sure pole is over metal ring. If there is no post,

then it is more dangerous than possible motorbike.

• When using city trails, when you get to the end, there are almost no signs

telling you the nearest place to pick up trails.

• If you cover the Albuquerque bike map with a clear piece of plastic and with a

sharpie trace the bike paths, lanes, there are still a lot of gaps. Imagine

motorists who do not rely on muscle power coming to the end of the road.

They wouldn’t tolerate it. Continuous bikeways will make bikes more realistic

transportation.

• Connections in SE portion of the city are very difficult in comparison to the

rest of the city

• Second previous comment.

• South Valley cyclists have to go far out of their way to gain access to

downtown, zoo, Bosque trail, etc. A safe bridge along the Central Avenue

Bridge is essential. Biking in the South Valley is already discouraging for

many reasons. This lack of a bridge need not be another.

• No connections near Paseo del Norte east of Jefferson to get to Northeast

Heights areas



• Need bike lanes from two lane reductions on Paseo del Norte to Ventana

Ranch. There is literally no shoulder in this area, and the Double Eagle Ranch

ride from Ventana Ranch to I-40 is very popular with a large segment of the

cycling population.

• There are many very hazardous sections/bumps in the Bosque path south of

Bridge Street. These are primarily related to roots from trees and the issue has

become more hazardous within the last year.

• Better signage and street paint markings at intersections

• Love the “bike boxes”

• Need a bike trail in Bear Canyon Park to get to Tramway from CNM

• Continue to expand bus routes with bike racks

Written Comments about Design, Safety and Wayfinding

• Wayfinding – Like the “mushroom” style signs, like minutes on directional

signs

• Bike boxes – need driver education

• Lanes – like colored lanes

• Bike boulevards not really working

• Bike lanes – people park in lanes

• Prefer multiuse trail midblock crossing – OK if gaps exist

• Corner sight distance for cars important

• Tunnels can be dangerous

• Sight distance around “notch” curves

• Overpasses work well, although could be lighter

• Bollards need to be light colors with reflective tape or paint

• Center lines and fog lines on multiuse trails – white or reflective

• Location markers on all trails

• Tunnels – paint them white

• Midblock crossings – no need for flashing lights; crosswalk, signs and median

are enough

• Like stair step routes around stop signs

• Mark bike lane through intersection

• Bike boxes seem confusing

• Interpretive signs for bike safety/education

• Interpretation of bicycle history in Albuquerque; create a bike tour of

landmarks

• Too many signs on bike boulevard

• People park in bike lanes

• Gates at Balloon Park and Diversion Channel often locked

• Cars travel too fast on bike blvd. Speed limit needs to be enforced.

• Southeast Heights needs to have bike routes signed

• Signs to educate users how to use boxes

• North-south at Indian School and Washington doesn’t have a no right sign

• More sharrows on bike routes



• Consider moving bike boulevard to Copper

• More bike boxes

• Elena Gallegos trails – alternate days for hiking and biking

• Alvarado – fewer stop signs

• Make pedestrian lights automatic at every red light

• On-street parking and bike lanes – parking area needs to be wide enough to

avoid opening door into the bike lane

• Sight distance – can’t see around the CMU block walls on corners

• Tunnels/underpasses – very dark

• T-Intersections need crosswalks and push buttons on both sides of dead-end

streets (Harper/Barstow); traffic sensors don’t always “see” bikes

• Install bike lanes or pave all sidewalks on eastbound Alameda between

Balloon Park and Jefferson/I-25

• Bike box – needs more education for autos

• Thank you for addressing the under-crossings for east-west roads on the North

Diversion path

• Try to connect bike path paralleling I-40 so it is continuous

• Missing bollards are a danger

• Keep tunnels clean

• No marked lane is better than a narrow lane

• Parking on street next to bike lanes is a hazard to cyclists (opening doors)

• Quick curb at start and stop of bike lane

• More mountain biking trails/maps/signage

• Crosswalk awareness

Informal Feedback from the Participants

As the participants were leaving the open houses, the consultant team engaged many of

them in conversation about the design of the open houses. The team made the most

concerted effort to solicit feedback the first evening to gather ideas about how to boost

attendance and to ascertain whether any changes in the design of the event might be

warranted.

In general, participants liked the design for the open houses. A typical comment was, “I

liked the informality [of the open house] and that there are a number of ways to give

comments.” The only concern was the attendance the first evening. Participants made the

following suggestions about how to increase attendance at future public events associated

with the Master Plan:

• Advertise through major bicycling events (such as national bike races)

• Time the open houses to coincide with community bicycling events (such as

Ride-to-Work Day)

• Post signs at major bike and trail destinations (such as popular trailheads)

• Hold open houses at places of employment with larger cycling populations

(such as the University of New Mexico, Sandia Lab and Kirkland Air Force

Base)

• Advertise through the listserv at Kirkland Air Force Base.



Possible Connections to Other Bikeways and Trails Plans A representative of the University of New Mexico expressed an interest in coordinating

UNM bikeways and trails planning with the City Master Plan Update. A representative of

the City of Rio Rancho expressed a similar interest. They gave their business cards to the

consultant team.

Recommendations for the Second Round of Open Houses

Based on the experience of organizing open houses and on feedback from participants,

the consultant team offers the following recommendations on how to promote the second

round of open houses to be held in November:

• Hold some of the open houses at UNM, CNM, Sandia Labs, Kirtland Air

Force Base or other places of employment with large cycling populations

• Hold at least one open house in concert with a bicycling event

• Connect with leaders, organizers and promoters of bike-to-work programs at

Sandia, UNM and Journal Center, etc.

• Connect with APS to get the word to middle and high school students as well

as teachers interested in biking and safe routes to schools

• Develop better connections with college/university students and other young

adults

• Make more concerted effort to promote open houses through bike shops and

Bike ABQ

• Recruit participants through personal invitations; develop a list of people to

contact by asking interviewees and gathering names during bike events



Attachment 1

PLAN FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF OPEN HOUSES

Station #1 – Welcome The purposes of this station are to a) welcome participants, b) gather information about

where participants live and go (destinations), c) summarize the project purpose and

schedule, and describe the other stations.

• Welcome

o Sign-in and name tags

o Ask how participants found out about the open house, and record on sign-in sheet

o Distribute packet of handouts containing

� Project schedule (condensed version)

� Fliers encouraging people to take survey on website (quarter or half

page)

� Summary of initial survey findings (e.g., connections, barriers and how

often respondents bike)

o Copies of Working Paper #1 – 5 copies marked “Open House Copy, Available on

Website” (with the website address)

• Dot Exercise (using the City 2010 Bikeways and Trails map)

o Where do you live? (1 dot per participant.)

o What are the 3-4 destinations you cycle, walk or ride to most often? (4 dots per

participant.)

• Project Purpose, Schedule, and the Other Stations

o Review board on project purpose and project schedule

o Describe the other stations

o Answer questions (recording them on flipcharts along with any concerns

participants express)

Station #2 – Education and Encouragement The purpose of this station is to explore priorities for education and encouraging use of

bikeways and trails.

• Dot Exercise (3 dots per participant)

o One set of boards will explain existing education and encouragement activities as

well as possible enhancements. Examples of activities include Bike to Work Day

and Safe Routes to Schools.

o The other set of boards will have space for participants to place dots showing

their priorities.

• Prompts for People Staffing this Station (Take notes on flipcharts)

o What program ideas should we be considering?

o What people or groups should we be talking to?



Station #3 – Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints

The purposes of Station 3 are to: a) find out from open house participants how they use

the trails and from the cyclists among them what kind of cyclists they are; and b) identify

opportunities and constraints.

• Dot exercise:

Who bikes in Albuquerque? (Matrix with space for dots)

o Strong and Fearless

o Enthused and Confident

o Interested but Concerned

o No Way, No How

What type of multi-use trail user are you? (Matrix)

o Cyclist

o Walker or jogger

o Rollerblader or skater

o Equestrian

What sort of trip do you take? (Matrix)

o Social and recreational trips

o Commuting and utilitarian trips

o I’m unlikely to use on-street bikeways/multi-use trail system. (Please tell us why

by writing your answer on one of the available note pads.)

• Identification of opportunities and constraints (Opportunities and Constraints maps at city

and quadrant scales)

Mark responses on a map:

o Where should connections be improved?

o What other improvements should be made?

Mark responses on a second map:

o What locations have maintenance problems?

o What locations are often congested?

Station #4 – On-Street and Off-Street Design Safety and Way-finding The purposes of Station 4 are to a) get feedback on design preferences and design

guidelines, and b) tell participants about the next steps in the project. This station will

have two tables—one on on-street design and the other on off-street design. The

discussions at both tables will address design preferences and design guidelines as well as

next steps for the project.



• Design preferences

o Safety – Use pictures to identify design preferences for mid-block crossings and

other safety measures.

o Way-finding – Use pictures of signage to identify preferences.

• Design techniques and guidelines

o Use photos to illustrate typical existing facilities, and then ask participants which

facilities they like or don’t like or which are missing.

� On-Street Cyclists: Photos show bike boulevards, bike lanes, bike routes,

bike boxes, etc.

� Off-Street Trail Users: Photos show facilities at trailheads (e.g., signs

and restrooms), midblock crossings, etc.

• Next Steps

o Describe next steps for the project, and review the project schedule board (as per

board described by Kim)

o Talk about future opportunities to participate in the project.

o Explain what will happen to the information from this open house.

Flipcharts, Boards and Maps Each station will have comment sheets. The chart below identifies boards, maps,

documents, and other materials that are specific to each station.



BOARDS AND MAPS

Station Boards Maps Documents/Props

#1 – Welcome • Project purpose and

schedule

• City 2010 Bike

Map for dot

exercises

• Handout packets

• 5 copies of

Working Paper #1

• Flipchart

#2 – Education

and

Encouragement

• Education-

encouragement

programs &

enhancements

• Same with space

for dots

• 2 flipcharts for

responses to

discussion

questions

#3 –

Opportunities

and Constraints

• Who bikes in

ABQ?

• What type of multi-

trail user are you?

• What sort of trip do

you take?

O&C map to record

• Connection & other

improvements

• Locations of

maintenance &

congestion

problems

• Flipchart

#4 – On-Street

and Off-Street

Design

Preferences

• Types of safety

measures

• Types of way-

finding

• Types of on-street

bike and multi-use

trail facilities

• Next steps &

schedule

• Project schedule

• 2 flipcharts for

notes on design

preferences and

design guidelines


Gannett Fleming West • Alta

Dot Exercises


Alta Planning + Design • Consensus Builder

Attachment 2

Dot Exercises and Education Board


13






14






15






16

Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update • Report on December Open Houses



Summary Report on December Open Houses

Introduction

In December 2010, the City of Albuquerque held a series of open houses to gather

comments from the public about recommended improvements in the city’s bikeways and

trails. The comments will be considered in creating the final draft of the master plan,

which will be presented to the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and the City

Council in early 2011.

This report describes the design and organization of the open houses, explains how they

were advertised, lists comments participants wrote on flip charts and includes comments

submitted in writing and on the project website.

Design and Organization of the Open Houses

The open houses took place at the dates, times and locations listed below:

Manzano Mesa Multigenerational Center

501 Elizabeth St SE

December 7, 2010, 5:30-7:30pm

West Mesa Community Center

5500 Glenrio NW

December 8, 2010, 6-8pm

Alamosa Community Center

6900 Gonzales Rd SW

December 9, 2010, 6-8pm

A total of 47 people attended the three open houses. The Tuesday open house was best

attended; 31 people signed the registration sheet. The Wednesday and Thursday events

drew 12 and 4 people respectively.

Each open house started with a 20-minute presentation that gave the project overview and

schedule, summarized existing conditions, and presented provisional recommendations

for bikeways improvements.

Five “stations” provided opportunities for participants to obtain additional information,

talk with members of the consultant team, and give verbal and written comments about

proposed system improvements. The stations included:



1. A Welcome Station: Provided sign-in sheet, nametags, comment sheets and

complementary copies of the 2010 bikeways and trails map.

2. An Existing Conditions Analysis Station: Displayed boards that summarized the

“cycle zone analysis” (CZA) and the “bikeway quality index” (BQI). The CZA

analyzed different zones in Albuquerque for “bikeability,” and the BQI identified

specific facilities that should be addressed.

3. A Design Treatments Station: Showed design options and treatments for bikeways,

trails, intersections, transit connections, and end-of-trip facilities.

4. An Existing and Proposed Facilities Station: Provided maps showing existing

facilities as well as recommended network improvements. Participants drew or wrote

on the maps to communicate their comments and suggestions.

5. An Education and Safety Programs Station: Displayed pictures and descriptions of

recommended programs including Safe Routes to Schools.

Finally, there was a display at each open house of the reports the project has generated

such as reports on existing conditions and analyses of needed improvements.

Publicity

A combination of publicity methods notified participants and the public of the open

houses. There were legal ads and paid advertisements in the Albuquerque Journal. In

addition, the team produced a flier distributed through the bicycle shops and bicycle

clubs. An electronic version of the flier was emailed to the bicycle clubs (Bike ABQ and

NM Touring Society), which the clubs forwarded to their members.

Participant Notes on Flipcharts

With the exception of the welcome station, each station had a flipchart where participants

could write comments. The following bullets provide their comments.

Existing Conditions Analysis

• Signalized intersections need to have better bike detection capabilities

o Going eastbound on Copper across Tramway is a good example. I can

start when it turns green (it’s uphill) and not cross before the cross traffic

gets a green light)

• Poor E-W connectivity over I-25

• Get rid of all substandard (AASHTO) bike lanes. If lane is too narrow, get rid of paint

and put in sharrows

• Sweeping needed regularly

• Long drainage grates across street (such as on Copper east of Juan Tabo) are hard to

cross and can be slippery

• Better lighting and signage on existing bike routes (e.g., Southern west of Eubank)



• Debris in trails – dangerous

• Repave trails broken along river, I-40 to Central; Bridge to Rio Bravo; Alameda to

Rio Bravo

o A lot of large cracks across bike trail due to tree roots. Very dangerous!

• All I-25 crossings are problematic. Increase lighting in these underpasses.

Design Treatments

• 4’ ribbon rack does not accommodate 4 bikes

• Bollards must accommodate tricycles and wheelchairs, and bikes with trailers for kids

• Fix broken bollards!

• Channelized right turn unsafe for bikes using opposing through

• Do not use gutter pan width in 4’ bike lane width

• Prefer sharrows

• Replace missing signage on bike routes through residential areas

• Find the right people with the right experience to repair gap and cracks in bikeways—

poorly repaired bikeways are often dangerous

• Leave Griegos Drain “dirt”

• Width of striping increase citywide to 4” on boulevards and 6” on arterials or

roadways with 40+ mph

• Adopt European “Sign up for the Bike.” Adopt Netherlands criteria for bicycle

separation from auto traffic based on speed and traffic volumes

• No free right turns at bike lanes at four-way intersection

• Like the color pavement. Is red better than green?

• Pet friendly bike parking (near restaurant porches)

• Comprehensive sign plan

o Height

o Motif – iconography

o Type size

o Consistent color

o Easily maintained

Existing and Proposed Facilities

• To Bernalillo through or pass by Corrales

• Disallow parking and garbage cans in bike lanes—unsafe, and angers motorists when

cyclists enter street, e.g., Copper

• Make wider use of the newly approved “Bikes May Use Full Lane” sign and less use

of the ambiguous “Share the Road” signs

• New infrastructure needs to meet standards—please don’t design more 4’ bike lanes

where ½ the lane is gutter

• Bike Boulevards need to be practical (not stop signs every block), and they need to be

continuous

• Adding a dirt track beside a paved multiuse trail can draw runners and walkers off the

paved section and reduce conflict with cyclists (See Chatham County section of

American Tobacco trail in NC for example)



• Continue Bike Boulevard across San Mateo! Ends abruptly after Silver Bike Blvd.

eastbound. There’s nowhere safe to go! San Mateo is 40+ MPH.

Programs

• Promote high visibility garments for low light riders

• Improve bike education at UNM—on campus and nearby. Bikes are everywhere—no

lights, dark attire, lousy bike manners, unaware of others

• Educate police about bike/car accident investigation. Add 10 mandatory questions to

the driver’s license exam with no license if fail any question.

• Enforce 5’ bike passing (cite motorists after accident)

• Educate motorists about required 5’ distance, perhaps through Public Service

Announcements

• Educate about cyclists’ right to use full lane if unsafe to ride on right/in bike lane

• ABQ-sponsored (online/print) publication with bike laws and bicycle/motorist

responsibilities for bicyclists and motorists

• Cite people who ride on the wrong side of the road and require them to attend bike

safety education program

• Educate cyclists to wear highly visible clothing at dusk and when it is dark

• Institute more bike to work days

• Have a law enforcement blitz for drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians and bikes

crossing intersections

• Revamp the City’s website to consolidate information on bikeways and trails on a

single page with links to other local websites with related information; encourage the

owners of those websites to include the same links.



Appendix

Participant Submissions

Additional methods for gathering comments included comments written on forms

distributed at the open houses and comments submitted through the project website.

(Members of the consultant team encouraged website submission by handing out cards

with the website address.) This appendix provides the comments collected in these ways.

• Improve Rio Grande Boulevard for bikes. Support reduction to 2 lanes with wide bike

lanes and sidewalks between Indian School and Griegos; currently being proposed in

update to Rio Grande Boulevard Corridor Plan.

• I live in the Mid Town/UNM area and use the bike paths all the time. I can go from

UNM to the Balloon Park using just the paths which are great! From the Balloon

Park I can see Tramway & I25 about 1/4 mile away, BUT I could not get there. I

spent an hour in the Balloon Park last week trying to find a way, but did not have any

luck. Is there a paved road from the Balloon Park to 4th Street/Tramway & I25? I

can get to the Frontage Road from the Balloon Park and could just about "spit" to

Tramway, BUT I would not go the wrong way on the west side Frontage Road.

I have been taking Alameda east to the Frontage Road on the east side of I25.

Alameda can be busy and a bit dangerous. It would be terrific to get that last 1/4 mile

piece of paved road from the Balloon Park to 4th Street/Tramway, then going from

UNM to Tramway would be 100% bike/pedestrian paths.

Any information you can give me so I don't have to ride on Alameda would be much

appreciated.

• [A separate comment from the person who submitted the prior bulleted comment] I

live in the Mid Town area and trying to get to Tramway going north on the Diversion

Channel paths. I can get to the Balloon Park and just about "spit" to Tramway, BUT I

can't get there. I have had a couple of close calls going up Alameda to I25. Any

suggestions on how to get that last little piece done?

• Will or can you incorporate a bike lane to connect the Caesar Chavez bridge over at

least to the Langham Road intersection, so that people from the Valley can get across

safely to CNM, and UNM? Look at the attached presentation (speaker's notes), but

right now that segment of Caesar Chavez is listed as a bike route, but it's horribly

dangerous. In fact, we just had a cyclist hit-and-run within a few feet of where that

first picture was taken. There's plenty of space for a bike lane on Caesar Chavez, with

three lanes either side there, and a wide median. Most of that road is two lanes each

way anyway, so where it widens to three between Broadway and the freeway, drivers

use it as a drag strip in order to queue up for the freeway entrance (nuts).



The other issues regard Gibson, which is inadequately marked, the bike lanes are too

narrow, etc., and Broadway, which has only short lengths of marked bike lanes, that

connect nothing, and that people use as free parking. Since Broadway is only two

blocks from the bike route on Edith, and Edith is a low-traffic street that goes

through, then we'd be better to remove the signs and paint from Broadway, and make

Edith a Bike boulevard.

Finally, the southbound freeway exit at Martin Luther King looks too much like a

freeway, and drivers don't slow down enough to stop or turn at the intersection. We

have a lot of wrecks there, and when I'm bicycling up MLK, I always wait after that

light turns green to see if a speeding truck is going to blow the light (or wreck)

because he is unable to stop. Some rumble strips on the exit would solve the problem,

just by waking drivers from highway hypnosis.

Anyway, this has all been blessed by GABAC, my local city councilman (Benton),

bike coalition of New Mexico, et al, and I'll be happy to answer questions if you have

any.

• Please build more multi-use trails faster. Bike routes - calling a street by a name on a

bike map is of much less value per dollar (even if it is much cheaper). Please link

existing multi-use trails together (perhaps by turning a sidewalk and a bike lane into a

multi-use trail separated from cars by a barrier, or perhaps using railroad right of

ways – there are several downtown). Also, please find a way to link multi-use trails

so it's possible to cross the freeways, that stops many people from ridding their bike

when they otherwise might. Thanks!

• The most concern with my commute is finding the safest way to get to the west side

of I-25 to downtown. Unlike I-40 which has several pedestrian/bike crossovers. I-25

has none and is a big concern. There used to be an I-25 pedestrian/bike crossover

between Coal and Caesar Chavez but was knocked down several years ago. Too bad.

Lastly, there are several railroad spurs that have been inactive and would make for

great trails.

• I am concerned about safety on the bike lanes. Obviously where Mr. Vollman was

killed is not a safe lane. The rear wheels of that big garbage truck don't necessarily

match the path of the front wheels. The garbage truck was not five feet away from

him as the law stipulates the driver's vehicle should have been.

• Unser blvd’s bike line ends abruptly and should be extended all the way to central

blvd. Unser Blvd has about the same bike traffic as Tramway which Parallels the

cities furthest high traffic and bicycle usage traveling north to south or Vise Versa.

On the Maintenance side the existing trail and especially the bike lane could use

shorter time periods of waiting for sweeping intervals. The upkeep in the west side by

City normally entails cutting weeds then leaving all the goatheads in the streets bike

lane. When cutting or as I request more often sweeping with the sweepers would



really be a plus for cyclists using existing bike lanes. Use the same courtesies on

Unser blvd that is given for Maintenance on Tramway blvd.

• The stop sign at Silver and Stanford needs to be turned to slow traffic crossing the

bike boulevard.

• I would like to comment on the master plan, but none of the sessions are located on

bike routes. Mr. Grush, I welcome you to meet with Bike ABQ at one of our monthly

meetings if you would really like to know what cyclists would like to see in your

plan.

We can put you on the agenda and give your slot priority during the meeting. Please

visit our website at bikeabq.org and let the President or the Secretary add you to the

meeting agenda.

• I looked at some of your project documents and wanted to add something for you to

consider when analyzing the current and future state of cycling in Albuquerque. The

amount of debris on the roads and trails is a real problem--and occasionally a hazard--

and as near as I can tell from what I read in your documents, it's not even considered

as an issue with respect to cycling.

I commute to work at Sandia Labs three days/week, plus a recreational/training ride at

least once on the weekend. The majority of my riding is on the east side of

Albuquerque and in the East Mountains. I appreciate the bike lanes and trails that

exist, but if I could change one thing, I'd like to see some effort going into keeping

those lanes and trails free of debris. Granted, some things like broken glass is harder

to control, but I hate to see City workers out performing landscape maintenance along

trails and road because when they're done, they end up leaving thorns, stickers, and

other tire-flattening material on the roads/trails.

The work that's being done to improve cycling in this community is admirable, but

unless maintenance (which should include cleaning/sweeping) is also factored into

consideration, all that's being created is an ultimately unusable product.

• Are you all following all the comments on Vollman’s death on the stories on

kob.com? My suggestion to you is for more street sweeping so cyclists might ride in

the bike lanes where they are less of a hazard than if they ride on the white line

between the bike lane and the traffic lane. If the city is serious about more people

commuting by bike to reduce air pollution and congestion do it! Also warn cyclists to

obey traffic laws and not to do anything obnoxious to avoid pissing the motoring

public off. I have had cyclists swerve right in front of me for no reason. Some of the

traffic engineering "improvements" are also a hazard to cyclist not leaving enough

space in spots for a bike but forces them into the traffic lane. Smart, real smart.


Gannett Fleming West • Alta Planning + Design •


Gannett Fleming West • Alta Planning + Design • Consensus Builder


8



Comments on Albuquerque Bikeways and Trails Master Plan

http://www.cabqbikewaysandtrails.com/

Diane E. Albert GABAC member, BCNM President

AASHTO Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities

The standards in the City of ABQ Development Process Manual- Design Guidelines: do

not currently follow AASHTO Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities and, when the AASHTO

guidelines are silent, the best practices followed by Platinum Bicycle Friendly

Communities such as Boulder, CO, Davis CA, and Portland OR.

See inadequate Development Process Manual Design Guidelines here:

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New

%20Mexico/albuqwin/cityofalbuquerquenewmexicocodeofordinanc?

f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:albuquerque_nm_mc

The Albuquerque Department of Municipal Development

http://www.cabq.gov/municipaldev/ must be required to communicate with any

developers who come to the city with plans for subdivisions and streets leading to the

housing developments. Currently, sidewalks and streets get built without being reviewed

in the larger context as to whether bike lanes or other facilities should be included. There

must be a review of developers' plans by dedicated bicycle planners and professional

engineers in order to ensure that bicyclists interests are represented from the very start of

a project. All projects must be reviewed by an expert in bicycle facilities prior to the PE

stamping off the final approval.

I recommend that the DMD follow the newest edition of the AASHTO AASHTO Guide

for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities as its guide. I recommend

that DMD “Do it right or don't do it at all.” Example: Comanche Road at I-25 where

Timothy Vollmann died after falling over and being crushed by a city garbage truck. The

lanes there do NOT follow AASHTO guidelines.

Here is a link to the 2010 draft of the AASHTO Bike Guidelines:

http://design.transportation.org/Documents/DraftBikeGuideFeb2010.pdf

In many instances, the AASHTO guidelines don't go far enough in providing guidance.

Signage city wide is significantly lacking when it comes to any type of

uniformity/standards/positioning, etc., which really increases confusion and conflict

across all user groups including motorized vehicle users.

When it comes to intersections the key is going to be striping and sharrows. Sharrows

will also work on some streets where the roadway travel lanes are too narrow for a bike

lane yet we need some method of connectivity (Unser from I40 to Ouray as an example).

Bike lane width throughout the city is a mess. There is no inventory of lanes less than 5'.

Reduced width lanes need to be marked as such and should only be implemented when



there is no impact on safety. No parking in any bike lanes anywhere (or post office trucks

or garbage pick-up, etc.) should be allowed.

Avenues of Communication

Currently, GABAC and GARTC have very little power to effect change. GABAC's

function is to advise the Mayor and City Council but members rarely are listened to. In

order to make GABAC/GARTC effective and more worth the time volunteers are putting

into the committees, they must be empowered and listened to! Regarding cycling and

multimodal transportation in the greater Albuquerque area, what we have had is really

just a low level administrative function with no clear/clean line of communication,

funding, or formal pipeline into the technical and political infrastructure. That's why

things have always been done catch as catch can with no opportunity for input and

adjustment. The result is that bicycling has became a PR tool, with the Mayor excitedly

announcing that Albuquerque is a Bronze City! With no high level administrative

resource truly dedicated to safe bicycling in Albuquerque, cyclists have been 'spinning

our wheels' to get someone to listen to our concerns and act on them.

Communication between bicyclists, city planners, and Neighborhood Associations need

to be improved. A one-stop website for all non-vehicle transportation is mandatory. At

least one staff member must be given the resources required to design, create, and

maintain the website. Currently, there is little information about bicycles on any city

website. GABAC and GARTC have no website presence because there is currently no

funding for personnel to create and maintain the website. The website must work

efficiently and be one that people use. Perhaps the city should share the cost with

MRCOG.

Albuquerque should use www.SeeClickFix.com to report problems to the appropriate

agency so safety can be improved.

The city needs to start funding some of BikeABQ's and BCNM's efforts in return for

members' expertise and hard work.

Motorist Education Needed

I would like to investigate why the number of bicyclists have remained stagnant the past

20 years in Albuquerque, yet there are increased bicycle facilities. Could it be because the

major focus has been on engineering concerns and the built environment, and what is

really needed is education of both motorists and bicyclists. The League of American

Bicyclists has created Smart cycling educational materials for both motorists and

bicyclists. Courses are available in New Mexico at

http://www.bikenm.org/education/smart-cycling--bicycling-123-courses-in-new-mexico

Motorists, pedestrians, public transit users, bicyclists, and neighborhoods all are integral

to the planning process if Albuquerque truly wants to be a multi-modal city adhering to

the Complete Streets concept. Motorists are a large part of the solution yet are excluded

from the process.



Safety

Safety of all roadway users should be the top concern of Albuquerque's Mayor and every

other public servant. Currently, due to lack of enforcement of cell phone bans, motorist

speeding, the 5' passing law, bicycles without lights, and other laws, the streets are

dangerous for bicyclists and motorists. All laws must be strictly enforced.

As gasoline prices rise to $3.00, 4.00 or even $5.00/gallon how will the City DMD,

Albuquerque Police Department, NMDOT, the Transit Department handle the evolving

needs of a rapidly changing community? Gas is expected to coast $3.75/gallon by late

2011. More and more people will bicycle to work as motorized travel becomes

prohibitively expensive. The bicycling community needs to take the lead, and

Albuquerque politicians and staff need to listen and follow. More conflicts are sure to

come due to uneducated and unsafe motorists and bicyclists take to the road.

Erika Wilson has tried, but the 911 Call Center still doesn't respond to crashes on trails.

Responders still have no idea where the trails are located, what they are named, and how

to deal with calls emanating from the trails.

Albuquerque Police Department (APD) promised to come to GABAC meetings

whenever there is a crash resulting in serious bodily harm or death to inform us of the

facts surrounding crashes, but have not done so. APD needs to work more closely with

bicyclists to engender trust.

Currently, there is no law to prevent motorized vehicles from parking in bike lanes,

unless signs proclaim so. Currently, USPS mail delivery trucks and other kinds of

vehicles routinely park in marked bike lanes and there is nothing we can do about it. This

must be changed, a law must be passed and enforced.

Safety on the multi-use trails is a concern. Prompt informed response of the 911 call

center to users of the off-road trails is a concern.

Sweeping bike lanes is imperative. Los Ranchos Mayor Larry Abraham has funded

sweeping the bike lanes on Rio Grande Blvd. every Friday.

Gaps in Bicycle Network.

You need to prioritize the projects better. There are way too many “high priority”

projects now on the List of Project Priorities: 244 projects are ranked high and 170

projects are ranked medium. There's no way the city staffers can handle 244 highly

ranked projects. I suggest ranking 100 high, 100 medium high, 34 very high and list the

'top 10' desperately needed projects. I am curious what is the criteria used to rank and

who is making the ranking decisions? And, what resources are available (realistically,

staff and funding) to implement the top-ranked projects.

It is imperative that adequate funding be found and applied to the bicycle network in

order to build at least the top 10 projects within the next 5 to 10 years.



Continue Current Education, Encouragement, Enforcement Programs

As listed on page 32 of Working Paper #5 Existing and Recommended Bicycle Education

and Outreach Programs, the current education encouragement, and enforcement programs

are pathetic and need to be adequately funded, improved, enhanced, and beefed up. It's

embarrassing that you list BCNM's non- profits work here. Albuquerque doesn't give us a

dime for our efforts!

Current programs and efforts are deficient; volunteer groups do not have resources to get

the job done and they need funding from Albuquerque to hire paid staff; Chuck

Malagodi's staff has been slashed the past few years. It's a fact that 0.5 paid ABQ staff

time is spent on bicycle programs.

Innovative Design Treatments and Design Toolbox

Facilities such as bike boxes, bike blvds, etc are dangerous when the city installs these by

putting paint on pavement and signs up, but doesn't educate motorists. The needs to be an

intensive education campaign if these Innovative Design Treatments are implemented.

These designs are way too advanced for ABQ motorists and bicyclists as of now, with no

training or education. There are so many other ways to spend money on basic bicycle

facilities, bridging the gaps, etc. It appears that installing these innovative designed

facilities are a PR tool at the expense of bicyclist safety.

However, it would be great if city planners and engineers would address the problem of

bike lane markings ending one block to 1⁄4 mile before major intersections: this is a

practice that needs to be stopped. Many local drivers now expect cyclists to be in a bike

lane instead of taking a traffic lane since there are so many painted lanes and so little

motorist education, and when a cyclist is not in a bike lane or where they are expected to

be, some drivers can get pretty testy. Obviously, education is needed and because things

have changed over the last few decades, it needs to be comprehensive. To be honest, at

some intersections, I'm no longer sure what is expected or the safest option when dealing

with routing design, motor vehicle patterns, pedestrians and all the other things that seem

to surround major ABQ traffic intersections. I know that what makes me most

uncomfortable now is that I feel there is less margin for error than there used to be. We

need to update traffic engineering and management philosophies and plan for both motor

vehicle and cyclist error while increasing the safety margins when the inevitable crashes

do occur.

Dealing with NMDOT

The City of Albuquerque must demand that NMDOT adhere to AASHTO Guidelines for

Bicycle Facilities for all bicycle facilities, including shoulders, for all state roads that lie

within city boundaries.

BCNM's activities continued to focus on state highway paving policy and practices per

BCNM’s June 2009 letter to Gov. Richardson (see

www.bikenm.org/images/BCNM_letter_govrich_2009.pdf).

BCNM continued to communicate with NMDOT upper management and districts on the



need for edge- to-edge pavement overlays rather than the routine practice of “partial

paving,” which leaves abrupt pavement edges in or near the shoulder area needed by

cyclists.

Efforts by BCNM Board members led to a few small victories on individual projects in

2010. Just as significant as these small successes is the indication that NMDOT design

and operations staff understand the issues, are sensitive to cyclists’ needs, and are

prepared to improve practices at the District level once they are given clear direction

from upper-level management.

Tramway Blvd after NMDOT fully paved shoulder between Central Avenue and Menaul,

looking north Tramway Blvd with NMDOT's partial paving or 'lips' evident, looking

north, north of Spain.

Coordination with other Governmental entities.

How does this master plan integrate with the 2035 MRCOG Metropolitan Transportation

Plan (MTP)? http://www.mrcog-nm.gov/more-news-showallnews-210/399-results-of-transportation-study

How does this master plan integrate with the transportation plans of Rio Rancho,

Valencia County, Bernalillo County, Sandoval County?

Thank you for considering my comments. Diane Albert, GABAC member and President,

BCNM 505.235.2277, [email protected], I AM SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF

HEREIN.

Appendix JStakeholder Workshops

BikewayandTrailsMasterPlanUpdate•SummaryReportonWorkshop#1

1

BikewaysandTrailsMasterPlanUpdate

SummaryReportonWorkshop#1

IntroductionOn June 29, 2010, the City of Albuquerque sponsored a stakeholder workshop focused on the City’s Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update. The participants included 16 representatives from advocacy organizations and agencies from the city, county, region, and state. The workshop was a forum for participants to give reactions and offer ideas in response to the Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper (Working Paper #1), which was available through the project website. It was also a forum for responding to the results of three project Open Houses held in May. After the introduction, the workshop began with a presentation summarizing Working Paper #1 and the results of the Open Houses. Then the workshop participants developed a list of the physical and programmatic assets of the bikeways and trials system. Next, they identified potential improvements that could be made in the system’s physical facilities as well as potential improvements in programs and policies that support the bikeways and trails system. After that, the participants assessed the opportunities for taking action on the potential improvements, which resulted in a list of areas where it may be relatively easy or difficult to take action. Finally, they discussed ways to collaborate on making improvements and identified specific initiatives that could be taken by an individual agency or organization. (See Appendix A for a photograph of the workshop, Appendix B for the agenda and Appendix C for the presentation.)

PhysicalAssetsThe physical assets identified by the participants reflected how much the bikeway and trail system is appreciated. In addition to acknowledging the value of the overall system—miles of multiuse trails, bike routes, and bike lanes—they mentioned specific attributes such as the arroyo trail system, the Paseo del Bosque trail and the Hahn Arroyo project, which is under construction. Although this part of the discussion emphasized the trails and bicycle network, the participants also recognized the importance of the growing number of support facilities such as bike racks, bike lockers and designated bike parking. The specific physical assets identify by the group included the following: • Miles and miles of trails, bike routes, and bike lanes • Great arroyo trail system • New bicycle boulevards • Paseo del Bosque trail, the North Diversion Channel trail, other multiuse trails, and

the potential of the irrigation network • Trails in the foothills • Great weather for outdoor activities


2

• Bus bike racks • Rail Runner accommodation of bikes • UNM Hydraulic Laboratory, which does testing for wave action in bikeway notches • Hahn Arroyo project • Gail Ryba Memorial Bridge over the Rio Grande • Increase in bike racks in public places including schools • Increase bike parking facilities including bike lockers • Perimeter trails around city parks • Bosque revitalization in collaboration with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy

District (MRGCD) and the Corps of Engineers starting at Route 66 on the West Side and proceeding north

ProgrammaticAssetsThe discussion about programmatic assets acknowledged the support that the Greater Albuquerque Bicycling Advisory Committee (GABAC), the Greater Albuquerque Recreational Trails Committee (GARTC) and Bike Albuquerque (Bike ABQ) give to the agencies responsible for building and maintaining the system. The group commended the City for its range of bicycle safety education programs and recognized the reservoir of bicycling instructors, especially those from the League of American Bicyclists. The group also identified the value of City and County projects that are under construction or in the capital improvements pipeline as well as master licenses with AMAFCA. The individual programmatic assets they identified included the following: • Parks and Recreation program for kids on bike/pedestrian safety at the K-5 level • Built-in teachers with the League of American Bicyclists cycling instructors • Good Albuquerque Police Department bike patrols • The range of cyclists and other users who have different needs and preferences • UNM’s bike shop, which makes low-cost repairs and disseminates information • ABQ Bike Recycling program, which rehabilitates and repairs bikes for continued use • City and County projects that are on the books and moving forward based on the last

plan and the Capital Improvements program • Master trail licenses that exist between AMAFCA and the City as well as AMAFCA

and the County • GABAC, GARTC, and Bike ABQ – 3 active, strong committees! • Increased visibility due to parades and interest of local media • Recreational clubs that promote cycling like the NM Touring Society and the NM

Coalition • Annual bike swap, which is a great forum for buying/selling and information

exchange • Bike valet program at major cultural events • Companies (e.g., REI) that offer workshops and space for events

PotentialPhysicalImprovementsReflecting many of the opportunities to improve the system described in the Working Paper and in the Open Houses, the group identified a wide range of physical


3

improvements that may be made to the system. More than half of the suggestions focused on making better connections to important destinations such as Uptown and Cottonwood shopping centers, UNM, Mesa del Sol and APS’s emerging education corridors in Northwest and Southwest Albuquerque. The discussion also identified the importance of improving the bikeways and trails network with key connections, enhanced maintenance, and revitalization of the Paseo del Bosque trail. The specific physical improvements suggested by the group included the following: • Make Uptown and Cottonwood shopping centers more bike friendly • Improve UNM connection to south campus at Buena Vista

o Could add a bike lane on Buena Vista or turn it into a bike blvd. o Add signage to alert drivers o Could be relocated to University Blvd. in long run

• Improve planning for bikeways in Mesa del Sol o Improve biking on University Blvd. o Improve access to Journal Pavilion, UNM film school and film studios

• Improve the crossing at Lomas and Vassar in light of the 5 million sq. ft. of new space UNM is planning for the North Campus

• Continue the City-County collaborative work to revitalize Bosque del Paseo by widening the trail and addressing tree roots and pathway interruptions

• Strengthen connectivity to and within the APS northwest and southwest education corridors through planning and trail construction

• Build on the Safe routes to School pilot program with Monte Vista Elementary, Emerson Elementary, and Wilson Middle School

• Pass a City ordinance defining bicycle boulevards and related infrastructure improvements

• Upgrade the existing bike boulevards to include traffic calming schemes, stop-sign turning, and better signage

• Consider converting Campus Drive to a bicycle boulevard • Consider constructing a separate bike lane on all new streets • Install additional bike lockers, particularly at UNM, where there is a 250-person

waiting list; 1 locker = 1 less driver on UNM campus • Consider creating another multiuse trail at 2nd and 4th Street along the drain • Connect bikeways to Rail Runner stations • Improve the way finding system • Address the lack of connections to the Bosque from housing situated north of

Alameda • Develop a consistent/single set of standards for bollard spacing and “design” • Have consistent standards for trails • Work with City to put in a bike lane on Yale between Lomas and Las Lomas south to

Duck Pond • Reduce hazard created by lights at midblock crossings, perhaps by removing them or

by adding a red light, as “hawk lights” can be confusing for motorists and dangerous for cyclists

• Increase funding for physical improvements


4

PotentialProgrammaticImprovementsTwo themes running through the discussion about potential programmatic improvements were to improve coordination between the agencies responsible for building and improve maintenance of the bikeway and trails system. An additional theme was to reinforce and expand education and safety programs. The discussion also revealed the need to fund capital improvements and secure additional funding sources for bikeway and trail construction and maintenance. The individual ideas for programmatic improvements included the following: • Create a 2% tax for bikeway/trail maintenance • Complete street policies and ordinances to incorporate bikeways/trails • Work with state and local officials to make sure priorities and plans are explicit • Increase education to make cyclists and pedestrian more consistent and predictable in

way they operate bikes and walk in traffic • Strengthen coordination between City, County, AMAFCA, MRGCD, MRCOG,

DOT, UNM, CNM, and Rio Rancho • Take advantage of the League of Cycling Instructors (LCI) grant money, which

supports bike safety classes that make students better drivers as well as cyclists. (The League works with teachers, APS, and employers to offer the classes.)

• Expand Parks and Recreation classes to high schools at 9th grade level and also to UNM students, perhaps during freshman orientation

• Offer incentives to increase cycling including: o Create incentives tied to Bike to Work Day o Offer UNM students free bikes in exchange for taking safety course and

keeping car off campus o Install bike lockers at UNM and at Rail Runner o Continue the City program that distributes free bike lights through A o Create incentives based on a comprehensive evaluation of inducements to

get people to leave cars at home (e.g., tax break or UNM tuition break) • Work with City and APS to promote Safe Routes to Schools and change attitudes of

parents and students about walking or biking to school • Pass a gas tax to support implementation of this plan • Hire more city planners—research shows that it will increase the percentage of

commuting cyclists in the community • Consider bike lanes whenever a street is being redone • Educate cycling public that it is safer to ride in traffic than to separate bikes from

traffic • Consider changing the City traffic ordinance to require 3’ distance from cyclist rather

than 5’ • Change priorities and policies to accommodate multimodal transportation • Fund capital improvements to implement planning • Promote the use of the bike maps available through Google Maps, and report

inaccuracies to Google • Encourage collaboration across jurisdictions to support trails on drains in the North

Valley and elsewhere in the City


5

AreasforActionAfter reviewing the potential physical and programmatic improvements, the group identified opportunities for and challenges to taking action. There were eight ideas where it may be opportune to take action on physical improvements and seven ideas about programmatic improvements that seemed to be prime for implementation. In contrast, two of the physical improvements seemed by be hard to implement and three of the programmatic improvements seemed to be impractical to pursue. The chart below reviews the key opportunities and difficult ideas. Easy to Implement Hard to Implement Physical Improvements

• Improve UNM north and central campus connection to south campus at Buena Vista

• Improve crossing at Lomas and Vassar • Revitalize and widen Bosque del Paseo;

address route interruptions and tree roots • Learn from and expand the Safe Route to

Schools pilots • Have a consistent/single set of standards

for bollard spacing and “design” • Improve the connection between Lomas

and Las Lomas on Yale to Duck Pond, perhaps creating a bike boulevard with signage at parking garage

• Difficult to convert maintenance road to multiuse trail at 2nd & 4th streets

• Difficult to address lack of connection to the Bosque from housing situated north of Alameda

Programmatic Improvements

• Strengthen coordination between City, County, AMAFCA, MRGCD, MRCOG, DOT, UNM, CNM, and Rio Rancho

• Use LCI grant money (work with teachers, APS, and employers) to offer more classes and strengthen student recruitment

• Expand Parks and Recreation classes to high schools at 9th grade level and also to UNM students

• Install bike lockers at UNM and Rail Runner

• Consider bike lanes whenever a street is being redone

• Collaborate across jurisdictions to support trails on drains in North Valley and throughout City

• Pass a 2% tax for bikeway/trail maintenance

• Pass a gas tax to support implementation of this plan

• Hire more city planners

RolesoftheAgenciesandAdvocacyOrganizationsAs the workshop concluded, the group identified areas where the agencies and advocacy organizations may be able to support one another to implement ideas or take individual initiative. For example, UNM plans to improve connectivity to and within its campus,


6

and the League of American Bicyclists will continue to offer and promote its bicycle education program. Finally, the discussion clarified that the Master Plan Update will mesh together the existing trails and on-street comprehensive plans, add new information about conditions and opportunities, and reassess priorities for funding. The group noted the following ideas about the role of agencies and advocacy organizations: • UNM will continue to locate bike lockers • UNM will strengthen the connectivity between South Campus and Main Campus as

well as between Lomas and Central • City should make sure to brief AMAFCA Board on Master Plan Update

o Work is underway to amend the license agreement between City and AMAFCA

o AMAFCA will keep access available for multiuse trails • League of American Bicyclists can continue to provide League Cycling Instruction • Efforts should be made to build support for this plan among the City Councilors • MRGCD can give input on trail standards • How much of the old plan needs to be redone? Is the new plan going to make a

difference? What needs to be updated and why? The list of issues and opportunities is the same as identified in 1994

• We are meshing together 2 plans (the trails plan and the on-street comprehensive trails plan)

o This update is an opportunity to assess where we are compared to where we were when the old plan was passed

o We’re using the process to reassess priorities for funding o Most of the goals and objectives are the same as the prior plan


7

AppendixA

Workshop #1

Identifying Physical and Programmatic Improvements


8

AppendixB

BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP JUNE 29, 2010, 2-4:30PM

Agenda

Agenda 2:00-2:20 Welcome, Introductions and Overview 2:20-2:45 Highlights from the Open Houses and Existing Conditions, Opportunities

and Constraints Report (Working Paper #1) 2:45-3:30 Network Assets and Concerns 3:30-3:45 Break 3:45-4:15 Roles of Agencies 4:15-4:30 Closing Comments Welcome, Introductions and Overview Matt Grush will welcome the participants to the workshop and introduce Kate Hildebrand and Ric Richardson, who will serve as the workshop facilitators. Matt will also review the goals and objectives for the project as well as the project timeline. The facilitators will review the workshop agenda and ask the participants to introduce themselves and identify their agency’s/organization’s mission as it relates to bikeways and trails. Highlights from the Open Houses and Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints Report The facilitators will summarize the highlights from the open house and the first working paper. Network Assets and Concerns The first part of the facilitated discussion will focus on physical and programmatic assets of the bikeway and trail network. The discussion of physical assets will include both on-street and trail facilities, and the discussion of programmatic assets will include the City’s education and encouragement program. Similarly, the discussion will explore concerns related to physical and programmatic aspects of the network that need improvements. Role of Agencies After the break, the participants will discuss ways the agencies/organizations can bring support to the plan as well as concerns about implementation of the plan. The facilitators will ask them to identify projects that are high priorities for their agencies in the next 3-5 years. Closing Comments At the end of the workshop, there will be an opportunity to reflect on the conversation for a few minutes.


9

AppendixC

WORKSHOP PRESENTATION Highlights of Report on Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints

and Highlights from the May Open Houses

EXISTING CONDITIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Facilities Analysis • System gap analysis

o Sport gaps o Connection gaps o Lineal gaps o Corridor gaps o System gaps

• Intersection improvement measures • Arterial bike lane retrofit measures • Alternative routing measures • Off-street gap measures Opportunities • NE and SE quadrants

o Connection to rail runner stations o Bicycle access to Journal Center and Balloon Fiesta Business Park o Multiuse trail along Tramway between I-25 and County line o Connections to trailheads in Cibola National Forest – mountain biking o Potential bicycle boulevards—Cutler Avenue and Claremont Avenue o Improved access to Expo NM, Sandia National Labs, UNM/CNM o Crossings of I-25 o Arroyo and drain alignments

• NW and SW Quadrants

o Connections to Petroglyph National Monument o Potential bicycle Boulevard – Frontage road north side of Central between Unser and

98th Street o Bike lanes along West Central o Connectivity into Rio Rancho o Denser bikeways network south of Bridge Blvd. o Crossing of I-40 o Arroyo and drain alignments

• Citywide and Metro

o Population growth o Land use and demand regional bikeway connections and key destinations o Network coverage – ½ mile goal o Encouragement, education and safety City website, City safety program, youth

bicycle and bicycling 101


10

o Multimodal connections – bike and ride, Rail Runner express o Connections to schools – Safe Routes to Schools, APS new campus schools, higher

education Constraints • Major Features and Facilities

o Rio Grande River o I-40 and I-25 o Railroad tracks o Golf courses o Private neighborhoods o Military base o Indian pueblos o Drainage and irrigation easements o West Mesa escarpment o Major arterials o Open space

• System-wide Features

o Topography 4,950’ at the Rio Grande 6,100’ at the Foothills 5,750’ at the West Mesa

o Geography

City area – 181 square miles Metro area – 1,000 square miles

o Way Finding

Signage Destination way finding

o Discontinuous multiuse trail system

East-west connections Trails in Northwest region

MAY OPEN HOUSES Public Participation Events and Activities • 3 open houses in May and 3 planned for fall • 1 workshop today and 1 in the fall • 12 stakeholder interviews underway of agency representatives, users and advocates • Online survey conducted between May 1st and June 14th – 1,248 respondents

Who is Involved in Events and Activities? • Open Houses – 56 cyclists, 32 walker/joggers, 3 other users • Agency representatives – City, County, APS, and state and regional institutions Participant Comments Recorded on Flipcharts at Open Houses


11

• Education and Encouragement o Encourage education for cyclists and drivers – Traffic Skills 101 o Have “Rules of the Road” disseminated more broadly o Institute publicity program about transit/bike connections o Engage school district P.E. programs to teach bike safety o Educate cyclists and drivers about bike boxes o Map and promote scenic routes for substantial rides o Create a bike tour of historic Albuquerque landmarks

• Citywide Infrastructure Improvements

o Repave and restripe Bosque Trail o Keep road shoulders and bike paths free of debris and broken glass o Better East-west trail connections o Citywide beltway/perimeter route o Construct a safe, continuous route from North Valley to Northeast Heights o Underpasses needed at I-25 o West Side and South Valley not as well served as Northeast Heights o Put concrete barrier along Paseo del Norte at site of recent fatality

• Design, Safety and Way Finding

o Drivers park in bike lanes o Sight distances around notch curves and at intersections important to safety o Underpass safety and lighting o Missing bollards are hazardous o Bollards need to be highly visible and meet spacing standards o Bike lanes should be marked through intersections o Enforce speed limit on bike boulevards o More signage and way finding on paths and bikeways that give information on

bicycling o Way finding a real concern for 911 dispatch – need to be able to identify exact

locations

Bikeway and Trails Master Plan Update • Summary Report on Workshop #2

1


Summary Report on Workshop #2

Introduction

On December 15, 2010, the City of Albuquerque sponsored a stakeholder workshop

focused on the City’s Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update. The participants

included 14 representatives from advocacy organizations and agencies from the city,

county, region, and state. The primary objective of the workshop was to review and seek

comments on provisional recommendations for improvements in the bikeways and trails

network; the secondary objective was to build support for interagency cooperation to

implement the plan.

After the workshop introduction, the consultant team gave a presentation summarizing

proposed bikeways and trails improvements, which included examples of recommended

network improvements that would require interagency cooperation. The participants

commented on the recommended improvements and made additional suggestions during

a facilitated discussion. The meeting concluded with reflections about ways to increase

interagency cooperation and reactions about priorities to be established through the

master plan. As the meeting ended, the consultant team distributed CDs of all the work

that has been generated by the project.

The Appendices provide: a) the workshop agenda, b) a comment submitted by a

representative unable to be present, and c) a list of participants.

Workshop Presentation

Most comments about the presentation focused on the examples of potential

improvements, all of which would require interagency action. The first example would

provide a continuous bikeway in the vicinity to the west of Coors, north and south of

Montano Road. A number of participants said that better connections in this location are

needed and that there are several alternative ways to make the connections.

The second potential project is creation of a bikeway and trail in the drainage right-of-

way on North 2nd

Street. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District would have to

look at the easement width to determine if this potential improvement is feasible. The

street is designated as a state highway, and the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo

County have maintenance responsibility for the segments that lie within their respective

jurisdictional boundaries. Representatives from Bernalillo County said the Public Works

Department has requested funds for improvements along 2nd

Street from Paseo north to

Alameda and Roy. There was agreement that this improvement would “create a great

north-south spine in the North Valley” and benefit the Griegos and La Luz Schools.


2

The third potential project is aimed at creating a new east-west connection in the far

southeast area of Albuquerque near Elizabeth and Eubank. The participants strongly

supported this improvement, and one participant pointed out the need for a better

detection mechanism for the light at the Southern and Eubank intersection.

The fourth potential project is completion of the trail through the “Big I” connecting I-40

6th

Street to University. It would complete the east-west connection from the mountains

to the freeway. The City has started a study of the alignments and right-of-way

restrictions as well as an environmental analysis.

Discussion about Recommended and Needed Improvements

The presentation also identified hundreds of improvements that could be made to the

bikeways and trails system. The participants spent the balance of the time discussing

reactions to the options and ideas. The discussion elicited comments in the following

areas:

• Priorities,

• Intersections and crossings,

• Network connectivity,

• Design standards,

• Aesthetic improvements, and

• Education.

Priorities

The participants were impressed with the amount and quality of work as well as the

number and range of improvements that the project has produced. As one person said,

“The list of potential projects includes almost every street in the city.”

However, one participant questioned the feasibility to carrying out 244 high priority

projects in the next five years. He suggested estimating the cost of the projects designated

as high priorities and then ranking them according to the impact they would have on the

bikeways and trails network as well as the availability of funding.

Another participant urged the group to “take the long view and to work across agencies

and disciplines” to implement priority projects where agencies could work together. The

City has over 500 miles of bikeways, although it has only been working on it for 20

years. Based on the applications for federal funds reviewed through MRCOG, he noted

the trend is to incorporate more bikeways into roadway and infrastructure projects.

Additional comments about project priorities included the following:

• It is critical to find ways to increase funding for bikeways and trails and expand the

percentage of transportation funds allocated to alternative modes.

• The City intends to redo the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan every 10 years, which

will provide an opportunity to amend the priorities and other elements of the plan.


3

Intersections and Road-Trail Crossings

Some of the recommendations designated as high priority involve intersection projects—

such as Comanche and I-25 as well as Martin Luther King and I-25. There was

considerable interest in intersection design and safety of these intersections.

One participant said that most bike lanes in Albuquerque disappear at intersections in

contrast to Silver and Gold-rated cities, which provide striping to direct bicycle traffic

through their intersections. Although the absence of striping encourages cyclists to

merge with the traffic, drivers are generally unaware that cyclists are about to merge.

Another participant responded that the City’s treatment of intersections is highly

inconsistent. Some bike lanes end at intersections, while others go through them.

Commenting that cyclists are most vulnerable at intersections, a third participant

recommended installing lights and/or signs where the bike lane ends to alert cyclists and

drivers.

A fourth participant, who happens to be an equestrian, agreed that intersection treatment

and education are both “crucial.” The bikeways and trails network would be safer with

better indicators to equestrians, cyclists, and motorists about where to go in traversing an

intersection or at road-ditch crossings. Additional participants also mentioned safety at

road-ditch crossings is an important issue.

A representative of the City said each intersection has to be independently assessed for

the best solution. Given existing roadway constraints at MLK, for example, “the best we

can do is to have bikes merge into traffic.” He agreed with prior comments suggesting the

need for education for drivers and bikers on safe practices for intersection safety.

Network Connectivity

Several participants suggested that the master plan increase the connectivity between

bikeways and trails as well as between the network and roads. One participant

specifically mentioned that connectivity is particularly in need of improvement in the

northeast quadrant of the city.

Signage can help with network connectivity. For example, there is a need for signs along

Tramway informing cyclists that Spain is a good east-west route.

A participant suggested building trails that would connect to the pedestrian bridge that

crosses I-40 between San Mateo and San Pedro. Noting the importance of the bridge as a

way for cyclists to cross the freeway, another participant noted that it connects grid-like

streets that are not easy to follow but relatively safe for cyclists on either side of I-40.

Design Standards

The new Master Plan creates the opportunity to create consistent design standards. As

one participant pointed out, the greater the consistency in standards the better people will

be aware of and understand the resulting design treatments. The discussion surfaced the

following suggestions about this topic:


4

• The master plan should include standards for bike boxes (described as “experimental

and invisible”) and bicycle boulevards.

• Consistent intersection standards, including signage, through-lanes, and merging,

should be instituted.

• The City should assess the benefit of widening some trails (such as the Bosque Trail

at Tingley to make it possible for cyclists to ride two abreast).

• Road and street improvements should improve pedestrian and bicycle access

including compliance with ADA accessibility.

Aesthetic Improvements

Several participants recommended an emphasis in the plan on bikeway and trail

beautification—including weed removal and other aesthetic improvements.

Education

There was consensus that the master plan should be a means of increasing education of

drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. Participants said the plan should “bring

education into the limelight to increase safety,” “be a voice for biker and driver

education” and “take a … stance for mutual communication, respect, and awareness.”

They praised existing educational programs offered by the City and Bike ABQ and

indicated that far more drivers and network users should be taking advantage of those

educational opportunities.

A major theme in this discussion was that better communication between drivers,

cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians is a key to safety. Along with traditional practices

such as using hand signals, communication with drivers and other network users should

be taught to people as part of the instruction in how to cross intersections safely. A

participant noted that it is especially difficult for equestrians to communicate with

drivers.

Several participants suggested using legal means to increase participation in education

classes. As a matter of fact, Bike ABQ is working to build a coalition to advocate with

the Legislature. One participant suggested finding a legislator to sponsor legislation to

create an auto registration discount for drivers who take a bicycle safety course. Another

participant proposed that questions about bicycle safety should be included on the NM

driver’s license exam. A third said that law enforcement officers should be used as a

resource for finding safety solutions.

Interagency Support for Master Plan Implementation

The participants focused discussion on ways to enhance interagency support and

collaboration, which they saw as an important means for improving the overall system.

The creation of trails along rights-of-way (which involve interagency agreements) is a

primary reason the network is as good as it is. Representatives from Albuquerque

Metropolitan Area Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA) and the Middle Rio Grande

Conservancy District (MRGCD) spoke about ways their agencies contribute to the

creation of bikeways and trails when it is feasible. They mentioned a number of


5

cooperative projects that have been carried out, and the AMAFCA representative

described an innovative water harvest and landscaping pilot project being developed from

Alameda to Comanche.

Priorities among the Recommendations

As the session closed, participants said that “tremendous progress” has been

accomplished over the years in the development and expansion of the bikeways and trails

network. That fact should be emphasized in presenting the master plan to the community

and key decision-makers.

When asked which among the many recommendations identified for inclusion in the plan

should be designated as most important, the participants’ greatest concern was to build a

case for greater investment in the bikeways and trails system. They identified three

arguments for making that case:

a) Investment in the network is consistent with the national trend toward

alternative transportation modes,

b) It will produce energy, climate/environmental, and health benefits, and

c) It may produce infrastructure savings through decreased use of roadways and

other infrastructure.

Finally, the group felt that education and safety should be top priorities for the master

plan.


6

Appendix A

BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

DECEMBER 15, 2010

Agenda

2:00-2:20 Welcome, Introductions and Overview

2:20-2:45 Recommended Bikeways and Trails Improvements

2:45-3:30 Discussion and Feedback on the Recommendations

3:30-3:45 Break

3:45-4:15 Implementation of the Bikeways and Trails Plan Update

4:15-4:30 Closing Comments

Welcome, Introductions, and Overview

Matt Grush (Gannett Fleming West, Inc.) will welcome the participants to the workshop

and introduce the workshop facilitators. The facilitators will review the workshop agenda

and ask the participants to introduce themselves.

Recommended Bikeways and Trails Improvements

Matt Grush will give a short power point presentation on recommended bikeways and

trails improvements that are being considered for inclusion in the update of the Bikeways

and Trails Master Plan. The presentation will summarize major recommended

improvements and identify their locations on maps.

Discussion and Feedback on the Recommendations The participants will have an opportunity to ask questions after the presentation. They

will also discuss the recommendations and give specific feedback and suggestions.

Implementation of the Plan Update After a short break, the participants will discuss ways to build support for the plan. What

are the most effective ways to involve agencies in implementing the plan?

Next Steps and Closing Comments At the end of the workshop, there will be an opportunity for closing comments and

reflections on the discussion.


7

Appendix B

Participant Comment Submitted by Email

As a minimum UNM would like to see on the prioritization of future projects:

1. Safer crossing of Lomas at Vassar Drive.

2. Uphill bike lane stripe with two signs on Yale between Lomas and Las Lomas.

3. Upgrades of signs for bike route or Bicycle Boulevard on Buena Vista between

Central and Cesar Chavez.

4. Safer crossing of Central at Yale and/or Buena Vista with improved crosswalk, and

possible island refuge area.


8

Appendix C

List of Participants

Partricia Apt, Albuquerque Public Schools

Jim Arrowsmith, City Department of Municipal Development

Theresa Baca, City Parks and Recreation Department

Jackie Bouker, GABAC

Gran Brodehl, Bernalillo County Parks and Recreation Department

Julian Paul Butt, Bike ABQ

Clay Campbell, Bernalillo Country Parks and Recreation Department

Ray Gomez, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District

Matt Grush, Gannett Fleming West, Inc. (project consultant team)

Pat A. Hernandez, City Open Space Division

Loren Hines, Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Flood Control Authority

Kate Hildebrand, Consensus Builder (project consultant team)

Julie Luna, Mid-Region Council of Governments

Steve Mathias

Yasmeen Najni, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District

Ric Richardson, Consensus Builder (project consultant team)

Appendix KInterviews

Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update • Summary Report on User and Agency Interviews

1


Summary Report on User and Agency Interviews

Introduction

Background As part of the public participation process for development of the City’s Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update, Consensus Builder conducted a series of interviews of users

and agency representatives. The purpose of the interviews was to gather in-depth

information from people who use the bikeways and trails on a regular basis or who work

for agencies with responsibility for access, maintenance, or management of the system. A

total of thirteen interviews took place over one month (June-July 2010) that involved

nineteen individuals.

Design of User and Agency Representative Interviews

Two separate interview guides were developed to focus the conversations, one designed

for bikeways and trails users and the other for agency representatives. In the user

interview, the first series of questions asked users to identify popular trails and

destinations as well as dangerous places. The next group of questions asked them to

identify gaps in the network where a connection or facility could make a significant

improvement in the system as a whole. The last group of questions asked for suggestions

about ways to encourage biking, walking, and horseback riding.

The interview for agency representatives started with questions about existing programs

and promotions aimed at increasing the use of the bikeways and trails network. A second

group of questions, which concerned gaps in the network, were similar to those posed to

users. The balance of the agency interview focused on maintenance, safety and

enforcement. The appendix to this report provides both interview guides.

The interviewers pretested the questions before carrying out the interviews. In the

interview design phase, they also gathered comments and suggestions from other

members of the consultant team as well as City of Albuquerque staff. The revised

questions reflect the results of the pretest and comments from the other consultants and

City staff.

Interviewees

Six users were interviewed, and seven interviews were conducted with agency

representatives. The users included four bicyclists, one equestrian, and one person who

was both a cyclist and pedestrian. The users included members of advocacy groups and

bikeways and trails advisory committees as well as people who bicycle extensively


2

throughout the community but are unaffiliated with such groups. The advocacy groups

and committees included the following entities:

• Bike Albuquerque (Bike ABQ)

• Greater Albuquerque Bicycling Advisory Committee (GABAC)

• Greater Albuquerque Recreational Trails Committee (GARTC)

• Walk Albuquerque (Walk ABQ)

Representatives from seven agencies were interviewed. The agencies were chosen

because they have a direct stake in access, maintenance, or management of the bikeways

and trails network. Some of the agency representatives are also regular users of the

network. The following agencies and organizations participated in the interviews:

• City of Albuquerque Parks and Recreation Department

• Bernalillo County Parks and Recreation Department

• New Mexico Department of Transportation

• Mid Region Council of Governments

• Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District

• Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA)

• Albuquerque Public Schools

Four of the agencies (City Parks and Recreation Department, Bernalillo County Parks

and Recreation Department, Albuquerque Public Schools, and the New Mexico

Department of Transportation) chose to involve two or three staff members in a group

interview session.

Interview Methods On average, the interviews lasted about 90 minutes. The interviewers took notes during

the interview and encouraged the interviewees to draw and take notes on a map. (A fresh

map was used for each interview.)


3

Results of the User Interviews

“There have been more people on bikes in the last year or two. Maybe we’re getting a

backbone of facilities, so more people are willing to ride.”

“The existing recreational trails are extraordinary.”

“The City’s focus on trails is making us a nationally known bike place.”

“The … multiuse trails and equestrian parks [are] the biggest encouragement to ride a

horse.”

The above quotations illustrate how deeply users value the existing network of bikeways

and trails. They had insightful suggestions about how to make the network better, more

accessible, and safer. This section of the report summarizes the user interviews.

Popular Trails and Destinations

The first two questions in the user interview dealt with popular trails and destinations.

1. Where are the most popular trails in Albuquerque for walking/bicycling/riding

horses?

The Paseo del Bosque Recreational Trail (Bosque Trail) is certainly the most popular trail

in the bikeways and trails network. It is the only facility mentioned by every interviewee.

Avid bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrians, and rollerbladers—as well as more casual users

such as adults pushing baby strollers—enjoy this trail bordering the Rio Grande.

Additional components of the network that are extremely popular include the following:

• North Diversion Channel

• South Diversion Channel

• Tramway Trail and shoulder

• Tramway to the freeway and across to Roy and 2nd

and 4th

Streets

• Paseo del Norte/Bear Canyon Arroyo

• Paseo del Nordeste Trail

• The loop from the South Diversion Channel to Rio Bravo

• Silver Avenue Bicycle Boulevard

The following bikeways and trails were also mentioned:

• Paseo de las Montanas Trail

• Mariposa/Riverview Trail

• Osuna to Bear Canyon Arroyo


4

• Central in Nob Hill

• Constitution bike lane from Girard to Louisiana

• Claremont bike route from Girard to Tramway

• Embudo Canyon Trail

• Rio Grande Boulevard bike lane

• 50-mile loop from UNM to the North Diversion Channel, across Paseo del Norte,

along the Bosque Trail, around to the South Diversion Channel and back to the

River

• The ditches for equestrians

The most popular routes for equestrians differ from those that are popular with cyclists

and pedestrians. Many equestrians like to ride along ditches, which have soft surfaces and

are removed from vehicular traffic. The relative isolation of the ditches is important to

some equestrians because of the potential hazards posed by the unpredictability of riding

horses near other users or in traffic. The equestrian interviewed for the project identified

the following routes as especially popular for horseback riding:

• Bosque Trail

• East along Montano from Bosque Trail to connect with ditches going south

• Alameda Drain

• 2nd

Street north to Roy/Tramway

2. What are the most popular destinations for pedestrians/bicyclists/equestrians in

Albuquerque?

The two most frequently mentioned destinations were, first, UNM and, second,

downtown Albuquerque. Additional destinations identified multiple times included Nob

Hill, Sandia National Lab, and Kirtland Air Force Base.

Users also identified the following locations:

• Balloon Fiesta Park

• Bio Park complex

• North Alameda on the west side of the River

• Individual schools

• Senior Old Town

• Downtown

• Grocery and specialty stores

The interviewees noted that the major destinations for commuters are UNM, Sandia and

Kirtland followed by schools and senior centers. One interviewee commented that those

who are “destination oriented” either use on-street bikeways or a combination of on-street

bikeways and multiuse trails. According to another interviewee, the most concentrated

areas for cyclists are the Bosque Trail, Silver Bike Boulevard, Tramway, and Central in


5

Nob Hill. The Nob Hill stretch of Central is well used not only because of the shopping

and proximity to UNM but also because the street is flat and has wide shoulders.

Several interviewees pointed out, however, that many bikeway and trail users are

recreational walkers, bicycle riders and equestrians rather than focused on reaching a

specific destination. In fact, several interviewees stated that fewer people use the network

to reach a destination than to take part in an activity they enjoy.

Equestrians may be particularly apt to ride for enjoyment rather than to reach a

destination. In part, this pattern is due to the paucity of parking facilities that can

accommodate a truck with a horse trailer. The equestrian interviewee identified the

following destinations that are popular with horseback riders:

• Los Poblanos Fields

• Shining River at Paseo and Alameda

• Vista Sandia Equestrian Park in the Northeast Heights

Dangerous or Difficult Areas

The next series of questions asked users to identify places that are dangerous or difficult

to walk, bike, or ride a horse and to explain what makes these places dangerous or

difficult. The interviewers also asked if there are any places where bikeway and trail

facilities are inappropriate.

3. In your opinion, where are the most dangerous or difficult areas to

walk/bicycle/ride a horse in the city?

• The freeways are barriers.

• Tramway Trail is dangerous because the trail intersects cross-streets several yards

beyond the Tramway intersection; after turning off of Tramway Boulevard,

drivers accelerate where the path intersects the street.

• The shoulder on Tramway Boulevard is dangerous because of the lip at the

juncture between the road and the shoulder.

• Streets with significant slopes that have bike lanes are dangerous because drivers

going downhill often turn right into a cyclist, who tends to be going fast because

of the change in grade. Examples of such streets include Lead, Dr. Martin Luther

King Avenue (MLK), and Indian School (between University and Broadway)

going east to west.

• More generally, on streets with bike lanes, cars turn right into cyclists as well as

nose out into the bike lane.

• While the conversion of Silver Avenue into a bicycle boulevard makes it a

popular bikeway, parking along it as well as the cross-streets restricts visibility for

both cyclists and motorists.

• It is difficult to travel east from downtown because the crossings at freeway

ramps are hard to negotiate on a bicycle or on foot. These locations include


6

Comanche, Candelaria, MLK, Central, Lead and Coal and I-25. An especially

difficult stretch is Martin Luther King between University and I-25 and on to

downtown.

• Additional places that are hard to negotiate include Paseo and I-40, Alameda and

Coors, and Paseo del Norte Trail at Coors.

• Although Coors is a good road from Paseo south (even though there are a lot of

cars), Coors north of Paseo is really difficult.

• In general, railroad crossings are difficult because of poor surface maintenance.

• Major arterials that have on-ramps to the freeway are dangerous where the turn

lanes that don’t require the driver to stop. Examples include Rio Grande at I-25

and San Mateo at I-40.

• Trail crossings at arterials are dangerous. Drivers often don’t see cyclists despite

numerous interventions (such as flashing lights).

• Where the North Diversion Channel goes under I-40, there is a drop in both

directions, so bicycles pick up speed, and the underpass curve is dangerous.

• Although the City website say that arterials are the best place for bicycles, there

are many arterials without accommodations for them such as San Mateo, Menaul,

Carlisle, Lomas, Montgomery, and Center (except in Nob Hill).

• 12th

and Menaul south through the Indian School is dangerous!

• Lead and Coal are dangerous for bike traffic, yet are important connections that

should be improved.

• Where there are narrow bike lanes and vehicular speed is high, “There can be a

terrible accident with the slightest misstep” by the cyclist or motorist.” These

conditions may be found on portions of Comanche and Candelaria.

• Every intersection where the bike lane ends before the intersection is dangerous.

Many drivers turn right into cyclists going straight. Better intersections have a

dotted line indicating where bikers should go.

• Make a cut-through for bicycles between Central and New York. The cut-through

design should be the same as the one on the northwest corner of Yale and Silver.

• The bikeway path divider lights at the Central and Bridge bikeway are facing the

wrong direction.

• Placement of trashcans in the bike lane is hazardous.

• Cars should not be able to park in the bike lane, especially along Lead between

University and I-25.

• It is difficult to go west from downtown on streets north of Central Avenue

because the streets that provide west access don’t have bike lanes.

• The I-25 underpasses at Bridge/Caesar Chavez and Lead/Coal should be

redesigned with cyclists and pedestrians in mind.

• The underpasses along the Bosque Trail at Paseo del Norte and Montano Road are

dangerous. Equestrians have to merge with cyclists, pedestrians, rollerbladers,

people pushing baby strollers, and other user traffic. It is often difficult to merge,

especially when cyclists or rollerbladers are moving fast.

• There is a line of sight problem where the traffic has to merge at the box culvert

located at the Bosque Trail and Paseo del Norte. Signs direct the bikers to stop if

there is a horse, but they don't see the signs. Accidents occur there including


7

accidents that only involve cyclists.


8

3a. What makes those areas dangerous?

The interviewees identified five general causes of dangerous conditions. The chart below

lists the causes and gives examples.

Causes of Danger Examples

Maintenance issues • Poor bikeway and trail maintenance (including street

sweeping), especially where cars and bicycles share roads

• Poor maintenance at railroad crossings.

Absence of needed

facilities • The absence of bike lanes that provide west access from

downtown.

• Bike lanes that end before the intersection.

Design issues • Poor intersection design—such as Tramway Trail where

bikeway crossing cross street well to the east of Tramway

Boulevard.

• Poor surface—such as Tramway Boulevard where the edge of

the street and the edge of the shoulder form a lip.

• Bike lanes that are too narrow and abut streets with fast

traffic.

• Line of sight problems at the box culvert located at the

Bosque Trail and Paseo del Norte.

Traffic and parking

regulation • Crossings of major arterials at freeway on-ramps where

drivers have a yield rather than a stop sign.

• Bikeway and trail crossings at major arterials despite flashing

lights and other interventions.

• Traffic in freeway underpasses, which is hard to negotiate.

• Merging pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian traffic at the

underpasses along the Bosque Trail at both Paseo del Norte

and Montano Road.

• Parking along the Silver bicycle boulevard and adjoining

cross streets impede the view of oncoming traffic.

• Parking in bike lanes generally.

• Trashcans placed in bike lanes


9

3b. Are there any roads or places in our community where you feel that pedestrian/

bicycle/equestrian facilities do not belong? Why?

“Bike trails are not suitable for equestrians.”

“I believe in fully integrated network that gets people where they need to go…. The number one way to increase bike safety is to increase the number of cyclists on the road.

Then drivers will expect them.”

“More important than the trail system is that bikes are common and acceptable on the roadway system.”

“Bikes and pedestrians should be able to go everywhere with priority.”

Important Connections and Facilities

The next series of questions asked interviewees to identify places where connections

could be improved within the bikeways and trails network as well as to public transit and

schools. These questions also asked for suggestions about facilities that are important to

increasing use of the bikeways and trails network.

4a. Where are places in which connections could be improved to create a continuous

pathway?

A consistent theme in response to this question was that east-west connections are

challenging for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. Less prominent themes included the

need for improved connections at the freeways, the North Diversion Channel, and at the

north edge of the city from Tramway to the Bosque Trail via Roy, 4th

Street, and Paseo

del Norte; the latter route should have a connection to the North Diversion Channel.

Additional comments included the following:

• Create access to the fairgrounds along Copper.

• Connect Silver to Copper before San Mateo. (Washington works, but the bike

boulevard should go further east.)

• Connect from the fairground to Phil Chacon Park. Fairground to Southern past

Zuni. Need to cross Central and Zuni.

• Connect bike lane on San Pedro from Zuni north to Claremont.

• Fully connect the bikeway along Constitution from the UNM campus to

Louisiana Boulevard. Many commuters to and from the campus use this route,

and there is a missing segment immediately to the west of Louisiana.

• Make a better connection back to the Bosque Trail from Tramway and Central

and I-40.

• Extend the bike lane along Alameda to I-25 with access to the North Diversion

Channel and the Balloon Fiesta Park. The bike lanes from 2nd

to the North

Diversion Channel are “almost non-existent,” and the traffic is fast. This

improvement would facilitate commuting between I-25 and Corrales and Rio

Rancho.


10

• Create a better connection between Osuna on east and Bear Arroyo on the west of

I-25.

• Create a connection between the Bear Canyon Arroyo Trail where it ends at Juan

Tabo and the Bear Canyon Open Space and the bike lanes in High Desert that are

located west of Tramway.

• Avoid making bikeways that don’t connect to anything, which is particularly

common on the West Side (such as the bike facilities between Ladera and I-40).

• Connect the gaps in the bikeway bordering I-40, creating a continuous east-west

pathway. There are gaps Los Altos Golf Course and Paseo de las Montanas, Paseo

de las Montanas and Carlisle, and the Bosque Trail going west across the River to

the bikeways connecting to Alamagordo Road.

• Close the gaps at the Big I as well as I-40 and the River and I-40 and Rio Grande

Boulevard.

• Construct a connection on Paseo del Norte between the North Diversion Channel

and I-25. This improvement would increase the number of east-west commuters

on bicycles.

• Make connections from the North Valley to the North Diversion Channel. Good

places for connections include the stretch between Paseo del Norte and Osuna

Road as well as the stretch between Osuna Road and Montano. Many equestrians

live or board their horses in the North Valley and ride along the North Diversion

Channel, but it is hard to get to.

• Extend the Alameda multiuse trail from 2nd

Street to the North Diversion Channel

at the northwest edge of the Balloon Fiesta Park.

• Provide better east-west connections in the North Valley that is designed with

equestrian use in mind.

• Create a connection between the Elena Gallegos Picnic Grounds and the Vista

Sandia Equestrian Park (horse arena near Tramway and Paseo del Norte).

• Designate and stripe many more bike lanes in the Southeast Heights, where many

people use bicycles as a mode of transportation.

• Install small signs, especially along the Rio Grande Trail, that indicate the

locations of food, parking, water, and bicycle repair. After all, “Rio Grande is the

jewel of the system.”

4b. Where are places in which connections could be improved to make linkages

between on-street bikeways and the multiuse trails system?

• Poor trail to bus connection at Louisiana and Central.

• There is a gap at Montano Road and the North Diversion Channel. It will be

critical to access to the proposed Railrunner station to be located at 2nd

and

Montano.

• The Bear Canyon Arroyo Trail leaves bikers at Juan Tabo, which is not a “bike-

worthy street.” The trail should be continued east, cross Tramway and connect to

the foothills. This improvement would make it possible for people to commute to

work from the foothills community.


11

• More generally, there should be more connections west of Tramway to the

foothills.

• Connect Claremont and the North Diversion Channel. With that connection,

Claremont would make a great east-west bicycle boulevard.

• Access from the Village of Los Ranchos and the Bosque Trail.

4c. Where are places in which connections could be improved to connect with public

transit?

• Many pedestrians and cyclists connect to the bus at Louisiana and Central, an

intersection that is not pedestrian friendly. It is difficult to make the bike to bus

connection. Fast car traffic should be separated from pedestrians and bicyclists or

the traffic should be as slowed (as it is downtown).

• The Railrunner has space for 5-6 bikes per car. It is not clear if that is enough

capacity or not.

• Many of the most popular bus routes are not adjacent to a viable bikeway.

Examples include the Carlisle-Montgomery and the Lomas bus routes.

• The availability of bike racks on buses is a problem. Integration of bikes and

buses is essential, and it’s important to be able to put a bike on the front of the

bus.

• The Valley is underserved with buses and bikeways. (The North 4th

Street bus

route is the only major route.)

• The City and State should site bikeways at places where there are services or that

are popular community destinations.

4d. Which connections would you recommend addressing first?

• Make more midblock crossings!

• Create a safe way to go from downtown to UNM.

o There should be good connections from Campus Boulevard at UNM

east along Lomas to the downtown and along Mountain all the way to

Old Town.

o In addition, MLK should be redesigned to become a good bikeway.

• Address the gaps in the system—it is most critical!

• Concentrate on underserved areas without convenient routes to destinations. That

would increase the number of cyclists.

• Improve the connection between the North Diversion Channel and the North

Valley.

5. What are the priority locations for pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian facilities to

support a Safe Routes to Schools network? Most of the interviewees were not knowledgeable about the Safe Routes to Schools

program. Several of them indicated their support for the concept, saying that the program

“should be implemented” or suggesting that APS “appoint a staff person to find out what


12

would work.” The equestrian commented that it is infeasible for students and teachers to

ride to schools because there are no facilities for keeping a horse.

The one individual with direct knowledge of the Safe Routes to Schools program made

the following comments.

• Campus Boulevard (at Monte Vista Elementary School) is designated as a bike

lane, but parking occurs in the lane. The parking makes it difficult for elementary

school students to bicycle safely to school. It is also a high-traffic area for cyclists

and pedestrians going and leaving the UNM campus.

• The City should consider making Campus Boulevard a bicycle boulevard.

• At a minimum, the conflict between the bike lane and parking should be resolved.

6. Besides sidewalks, bike lanes and horse paths, what other facilities are important to

encouraging walking, bicycling, and riding horses in our community?

• Trees to provide shade along the paths. In the words of one interviewee, “Shade is

a valuable commodity.”

• Shade structures.

• Benches, according to one user, although another specifically said to use

resources for other facilities.

• Better trail markings and way finding system.

• Bike boxes with the necessary “no right turn” signs and driver education to make

them work. A simple explanatory sign could help.

• Traffic calming and other measures to make the bicycle boulevards function as

envisioned. “ It requires more than signs and paint.”

• Dedicated equestrian parking suitable for a truck with a horse trailer at trailheads

and other locations suitable for horseback riding. Many equestrians start and end

outings where they can park a truck and trailer.

6a. What end- of-trip facilities are important to encouraging walking, bicycling, and

riding horses in our community (such as bike lockers and showers)? The most frequent response to this question was that bike racks should be much more

prevalent throughout the community. Typical comments were that bike racks should be

well designed and convenient to grocery stores, strip malls, movie theaters, restaurants,

and government services. Additional suggestions included the following:

• Bike lockers and other secured parking facilities (e.g., at CNM, cyclists can use a

“bike bank” that secures their bicycle has storage for a helmet, backpack, and

clothing).

• Employer-provided end-of-trip facilities. One user said the City, UNM, and

Sandia do a good job of supporting this.

• Changing facilities at UNM in addition to those at Johnson Gym.


13

Ways to Encourage Walking, Bicycling, and Riding Horses

Questions 7 and 8 explored ways to encourage increased use of the bikeways and trails,

and Question 9 queried the impact of higher gas prices on use of the facilities.

7. In your view, what is the City doing well to encourage walking, bicycling, and riding

horses?

In general, the interviewees feel that the City does a good job of encouraging walk,

biking, and horseback riding. As one person said, “The City’s focus on trails is making us

a nationally known bike place.” Another interviewee said, “The existing recreational

trails are extraordinary.”

• The Albuquerque Bike Map is great including the printed information.

• The City works to make curbs and sidewalks ADA compatible, and almost every

corner in the City is ADA compliant, giving cyclists a way to get off the road

safely.

• The education and encouragement programs offered through the Parks and

Recreation Department are excellent. For example, there is a program to teach 5th

and 7th

graders to ride bicycles safely, and an educational program taught through

driving schools.

• The 311 program is a good thing. It gives people a central number to call when

they are on a trail and see something that should be reported, and it forces City

agencies to respond.

• The Police Department is supportive of memorial rides, which are beneficial

because they increase awareness and respect for cyclists.

• The bike racks on the front of the buses are great.

• The City supports and works with bicycle activists.

• Promotional and recreational events (such as Bike to Work Day and bicycle

rodeos) are effective.

• Cooperation is essential between the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, Rio

Rancho, and Corrales. These entities should work to coordinate their bikeways

and trails plans and participate in the Greater Albuquerque Bicycle Advisory

Committee (GABAC).

• “The … multiuse trails and equestrian parks [are] the biggest encouragement to

ride a horse.”


14

8. What improvements could the City make to further encourage walking, bicycling,

and riding horses (such as programs, policies, and infrastructure improvements)?

The most frequent response to this question was to recommend that the City allocate

more resources to planning, designing, constructing and maintaining the network.

Clearly, the users who participated in the interview view the existing bikeways and trails

as a wonderful community asset. They also emphasized the critical importance of

continuing the expand the maintain the network. The following comments illustrate how

these points were made:

“Bikeway construction is one of the best ways to encourage people to use bikes.”

“The biggest [way to further encourage walking, bicycling, and riding horses] is to create

a connected network of bikeways and trails.”

It is in the City’s interest to build bikeways because it improves the quality of life,

attracts people to the city, lowers street construction and maintenance costs, and improves

air quality.

The users made the following suggestions about potential improvements that would

encourage use of the network:

• Simple road, bikeway and trail maintenance is really important. It is more

important to do good general maintenance than big-ticket items like the I-40

Bridge across the Rio Grande.

• Close gaps in the system to create more continuous pathways.

• Make sure the City engineers have had personal on-the-ground experience of the

bikeways and trails network, so they have a first-hand understanding of what

needs to be improved. Invite City Councilors to experience it as well.

• Install signs and billboards that advertise the bike right-of-way law (5’) modeled

after the signage program in Louisiana.

• Provide better signage, education and enforcement to support the bike boulevard

program.

• Instruct non-equestrian trail users that when they see a horse, they should ask the

rider how to proceed. “Bikers need to know that horses have to be respected.

Bikes can surprise horses.”

• Disseminate more widely and thoroughly the information that is on the back of

the City bicycle map. Multiple methods should be used to of get the information

to the community.

• Encourage the creation of a bike rental program. Downtown would be a good

location.

• Consider construction of trails that provide an equestrian path that is separated

from the pathway for other users.

• Designate reserved parking for horse trucks and trailers in more locations where

equestrians want to ride.


15

• Make the connections to buses and other transit convenient. These connections

are critical to encouraging people to use bicycles as a means of transportation, not

just a form of recreation.

9. What effect has increased gas prices had on your use of bicycling as a means of

transportation?

Probably because they are already avid cyclists, most of the users said that increased gas

prices had had no effect on their cycling habits. The exception was that one user tries to

use the bicycle for short trips. However, there was a clear perception among the

interviewees that while prices were high, more people rode bicycles to get around the

community. The following quotations illustrate these comments:

“When gas was $4/gallon, there was a surge of interest. At $2.50 it becomes ho-hum.”

“Where gas was $4/gallon, there were more cyclists than I ever saw before. When prices

went back down, everyone got back in their cars…. Perhaps a ¼ cent gas tax could be instituted with the revenue funneled to the bikeway network.”

There should be public education to let people know that the automobile is heavily

subsidized.

Additional Comments

Finally, the users had an opportunity at the end of the interview to make additional

comments and suggestions. Several of the suggestions dealt with the bicycle boulevards:

“I would like to see more bicycle boulevards. There is an opportunity for a bike

boulevard on Claremont, which is an underserved part of town.”

“The Silver bike boulevard is a great facility, but it is not fully realized. It should [provide] continuous [through traffic] for cyclists, and that could be accomplished

through placement and orientation of stop signs and traffic calming. A tunnel under I-25 would give cyclists a continuous stretch all the way to the railroad tracks.”

Additional suggestions were as follows:

• Ask GARTC for input on the design and installation of facilities as they are being

planned and built by the City.

• Increase bicycle access to Los Poblanos.

• Consider creating equestrian trails that are separated from trails for other users, at

least in some locations. One of the reasons the Bosque Trail is popular with

equestrians is that they ride on the soft ground next to the hard surface of the trail.

• Work on cross-jurisdictional communication and fill the positions on GABAC

reserved for non-City entities (e.g., Bernalillo County and the EPC).


16

Results of the Agency Representative Interviews

Background

1. As background, what are your agency’s concerns about the pedestrian, bicycle, and

equestrian network in Albuquerque?

City of Albuquerque, Parks and Recreation Department

• The City Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for building and

maintaining trails that will connect the open space network across the city.

(e.g. Parks Open Space Trails = POST)

• It is a challenge to have trees along the trails because they are difficult and

expensive to care for. The staff prefers shade structures.

• Parks and Recreation needs to tap into volunteer base to create a “Trail

Corps,” which would promote “eyes and ears” on the trails.

Bernalillo County Parks and Recreation Department

• The Bernalillo County Parks and Recreation Department reviews proposed

projects against existing bikeway plans. However, so much of the network is

under the purview of other departments or jurisdictions that it is difficult to

achieve uniform standards.

• There should be a singe agency or group that is responsible for the overall

network including maintenance, design and construction. The recent accident

on Paseo is a reflection of the problem of setting and enforcing overall design

and maintenance standards.

• Many projects are assigned to engineers who are unfamiliar with trails and

bikeways and take a roadways perspective. They may choose the lowest

ASHTO standard even when it is inappropriate for the trail width and

conditions. Agencies with control over the right-of-way need to recognize

bikes as transportation. For example:

o Maintenance responsibility of the proposed connector on Rio

Bravo between the South Diversion Channel and University

Boulevard is not well coordinated among DOT, Bernalillo Parks

and Recreation, and Bernalillo County Maintenance in the Public

Works Department.

o There is a disconnect between the policies set by the State DOT

Governing Board and how the policies are reflected in design,

construction and maintenance.

o Paradise Blvd. was widened, but a bike lane was not installed in

the Bernalillo County portion even though there was room.


17

Mid-Region Council of Government (MRCOG)

• MRCOG is responsible for developing a long-range bike system (LRBS),

which plans bike facilities for full build-out and which is updated every 2

years.

• MRCOG has a Pedestrian Bicycle Technical Advisory Committee (PBTAC)

composed of staff from various Albuquerque metro area planning agencies. It

works on long-range transportation planning include the bike system.

• MRCOG has a system for prioritizing areas for pedestrian improvements,

called the pedestrian composite index. It looks at the relationship between

factors that cause people to walk and those that deter walking.

New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT)

• The NMDOT District Office takes the lead on highway infrastructure in

Sandoval, Bernalillo, and Valencia Counties. When building, improving, and

maintaining highways, DOT accommodates routes for bicycling and makes

sure improvements work for all users.

• When building new facilities, DOT includes all transportation modes and uses

a multimodal vision. When the ICETEA federal legislation passed, it set

standards requiring that greater expenditures on buses, bike racks and train

accommodations for bicycles.

• DOT is a member of key regional bikeway and trails planning committees to

make us aware of problems on DOT facilities.

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo and Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA)

• AMAFCA licenses trails and requires the City or County to assume all

liability for recreational uses.

• AMAFCA works only with trails where there is an arroyo or where

construction will occur (e.g., Carlisle Boulevard).

Albuquerque Public Schools (APS)

• Albuquerque Public Schools runs the Safe Routes to Schools program.

Programs and Promotion

2. What public education programs does your agency have for pedestrians, bicyclists,

and equestrians and members of the public?

• The City of Albuquerque goes into 4th

grade classes to deliver the bicycle

safety program and also offers Biking 101 to teens. The City is also

developing an adult bike safety course, which may be offered through the

DMV.

• Bernalillo County does not have a bike education program. The County has a

“Prescription Trail program,” which is an open space program. It consists of


18

mile markers on open space trails accompanied by a booklet about the trails

and health. The booklet is publicly available placed in Doctor’s offices.

• The Department of Transportation is producing brochures on pedestrian,

bicycle, and equestrian safety and disseminates information to law

enforcement officers. DOT also plans to produce bilingual PSAs on sharing

the road, which will be modeled after the program in Pima County AZ.

• AMAFCA doesn’t officially promote trails or provide education programs. Its

focus is on flood control projects. It has a ditch safety program, and to

promote safety, the agency feels bike trails should be built on top of arroyos

and ditches and should be designed to keep people out of the arroyos.

• Although the MRGCD has a Ditch Safety Task Force on the dangers of

arroyos and ditches (composed of representatives from AMAFCA, Bernalillo

County, APS and local communities), it doesn’t have specific education

programs for or equestrians, bicyclists or pedestrians.

• APS has three pilot Safe Routes to Schools programs at Monte Vista

Elementary, Wilson Middle School, and Emerson Elementary. The Safe

Routes program is designed for area in a ½ mile radius around the school and

includes promotion and education.

3. Which of your agency’s policies and programs are most important for encouraging

walking/bicycling/riding horses in the community? (e.g., Comprehensive Plan,

ordinances, policies, and development requirements)

• First, the City of Albuquerque has its bike safety and education program.

Second, there is a program to provide education to pedestrians and equestrians

using City Open Spaces. Third, the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update

will enable the City to get federal funding through ICETEA.

• Bernalillo County dedicates 5% of Public Works bond issue funding to

bikeways and trails.

• The most important activity of MRCOG is the planning that goes into the

Long Range Bicycle System (LRBS), which includes looking at average

bicycle and pedestrian commutes. MRCOG also has a project to identify

facilities that support long-distance riding (commuting).

• As a matter of standard design policy, the DOT takes bicycle activity into

account when developing or improving a facility. DOT is making

infrastructure changes to accommodate the growing number of bicycles on the

Railrunner.


19

• MRGCD has walking trails along the Bosque—north of Central to Bridge on

the west side of the River. It is part of the Bosque revitalization Route 66

project with the Corps of Engineers, which will ultimately go from the Sandia

Pueblo to the Isleta Pueblo. MRGCD also has authorized trail use under an

agreement with the City and Bernalillo County. The agreement states the City

and/or County does the construction, maintenance, and signage and accepts

liability. MRGCD allows the City/Bernalillo County to have use of the

property. In addition, the MRGCD recently negotiated an agreement with the

City on a 25-year lease for a trail from Bridge to Campbell Road.

• The most important policies of APS are the Safe Routes to Schools program

and installation of bike racks in at all schools. In siting new schools, APS

plans for locations within walking and biking distance of the school

population. In addition, APS is promoting walking and biking through the

PTAs.

4. What could your agency do to further promote walking/bicycling/riding horses

(e.g., programs, policies, infrastructure improvements, etc.)?

• The City Parks and Recreation Department intends to continue to market the

trail facilities as contributing to a healthy lifestyle.

• Bernalillo County’s promotion and encouragement programs are implemented

through the open space program, which manages trails internal to open spaces

(not connected to the larger network). The county is not able to do more

because of staff limitations.

• MRCOG does bicycle and pedestrian counts to justify resource allocations,

communicate needs and future trends, and inform decision makers. MRCOG

also does research and produces other data to convince policymakers that

there is a demand and that goals be set. Its research includes investigating

programs from other communities (e.g., Houston, Portland, LA). There must

be a multimodal, regional approach, and the Railrunner (which is run by

MRCOG) is important in shifting people away from single vehicle occupancy.

• DOT participates on a steering committee managed by MRCOG that produces

a 25-year update of the long-range transportation plan. The Plan lays out a

suite of projects to accommodate land use patterns and multimodal solutions.

• APS will continue to support Safe Routes to School.


20

Connections and Facilities

5. Where are places in which connections could be improved to…

5a. …Create a continuous pathway?

City of Albuquerque Parks and Recreation

• The City policy is all parks, trails and open space should be a connected

series of links.

Bernalillo County Parks and Recreation

• Connect Alameda between 2nd

Street and the North Diversion Channel,

which is a major E/W link.

• In Paradise Hills there are several gaps in the bikeways such as the gap

between Golf Course and Paradise Blvd.

• Ditches could be used to improve connections especially in the South

Valley.

• The Isleta Drain (a major MRGCD facility) could be paved like the

Bosque Trail.

• Access to the River and the Bosque Trail from Rio Grande Blvd. could be

improved, but the platting pattern makes it difficult to achieve.

• Trails on the west side of the River have poor east-west connections, and

the Bosque Trail at Bridge is not a good connection.

• There is a gap on Alameda Blvd. from the North Diversion Channel to 4th

Street, which is critical to improving east/west connections.

o

Mid-Rio Grande Council of Government (MRCOG)

• There is a need for a multiuse bridge at I-25 and Osuna.

• 2nd

Street should be connected to the new Railrunner Station at Montano.

• The Montano crossing at the River is too narrow now that the bridge

accommodates 4 lanes of traffic.

• The two bike boulevards should be connected through the downtown.

• Paseo del Norte at Coors needs to be improved because cyclists have to

circle around to avoid the intersection, which has a design that is similar to

a freeway intersection.

• Paseo del Norte should be connected to Paradise Blvd. Without that

connection, a cyclist has to go south on Coors to connect with a

multiuse pathway and travel north to Paradise Blvd.

NMDOT

• Improve the connection to the Bosque Trail from Corrales.

• Improve the crossing and connection at Paseo del Norte and I-25 and the

Paseo stretch to the North Diversion Channel.

AMAFCA

• AMAFCA always tries to retain ROW for multiuse trails.


21

MRGCD

• The North side of the I-40 pedestrian/bike bridge should connect to the

Bosque Trail.

• Alameda should also connect to the Bosque Trail.

• The agency could potentially participate in construction of a bicycle and

pedestrian bridge at Rio Bravo

5b. …Make linkages between on-street bikeways and the multiuse trail system (i.e.,

routes marked with green on the map)?

City of Albuquerque Parks and Recreation

• The trail at the Balloon Fiesta Park is heavily used for walks and bike

rides. There could be a “Balloon to River” marathon that would go from

the park along Paseo to the Bosque trail and south. There could also be 5K

and 10K races. These events would celebrate the trails and attract a lot of

people.

Bernalillo County

• On-street and multiuse trail system connections should be made at grade

and have bollards. A good example is Yale and Silver, where the

connection is clear and easy for pedestrians and cyclists, and there are

bollards and a good sight line.

• Unser has a bike lane with a trail next to it. That’s an excellent design for

a major arterial or collectors where there is a need for bikeways as well as

fast moving commuters.

• The multiuse trails on the extension to University Blvd. and the South

Diversion Channel are not well connected.

• The roadway along Rio Bravo is not designed for bikes, and it is a critical

connection.

• There is poor access between the river and the Bosque trail and the

adjoining neighborhoods in the South Valley.

MRCOG

• The best multiuse trails have few street crossings, and this is true of the

most popular trails including the Bosque trail and the North Diversion

Channel. Where there are major roadways, an overpass or underpass

should be constructed.

5c. …Connect with public transit?

Albuquerque Park and Recreation

• Have more bike racks especially at common destinations.

• There are no pedestrian connections between the Rio Bravo Railrunner

station and the area north of the station.


22


23

Bernalillo County

• Employment centers and education facilities are key points to make

connections, and the bus system generally does a good job here.

• Connections between transit centers and nearby neighborhoods are key for

those who will only ride a bicycle for short distances.

• At major park-and-ride facilities, bike connections typically need to be

improved. It is hard to get from Rio Rancho to the Coors park-and-ride,

for example.

• The Barelas Railrunner station is not conducive for bikers and walkers.

MRCOG

• There should be a better connection to the Railrunner station at Rio Bravo.

• At the Railrunner stations, MRCOG is working on getting more bike

lockers.

• Bicycle rental programs should be encouraged at major

destinations/centers (such as train stations).

New Mexico Dept of Transportation

• The downtown Railrunner station is not directly connected to a bikeway,

and there are no bike lockers for commuters.

• There are no bike lockers along the Silver Bike Blvd. NMDOT

Albuquerque Public Schools

• Transit can be combined with Safe Routes to Schools by placing stops

within 1 mile of the school.

• Schools within 5 miles of a transit route should connect to transit and the

bikeways and trails network.

• Infrastructure requirements in the Form Based Code are enhancing the

environments for biking and walking.

• Bikeways and transit connections should be made at nodes such as

shopping, recreation & open space, and educational institutions.

6. Besides multiuse trails, on-street bicycle facilities and horse paths, what facilities

are important to encouraging walking/bicycling/riding horses in our community (e.g., benches, shade structures, bike lockers, or showers)?

Albuquerque Parks and Recreation

• Shade structures

• Crosswalks with refuge in areas with heavy traffic.

• Midblock crossings with signs, paint, lights, and push buttons for

pedestrians.

• Businesses should have showers to make it realistic to use a bike for

commuting.

• Bike lockers and racks.

• Valet parking for big events like the Balloon Fiesta.


24

• Bicycle lights purchased by the Parks and Recreation Department and

given away by police.


• Long-term parking facilities for bicycles that are well planned and secure.

(At the Coors facility, all the bike lockers are rented out.)

MRCOG

• Wayfinding signage indicating destinations and other information

especially for events like Run for the Zoo.

• Bike stations with a monitored bicycle parking lot, air pumps, and

showers.

NMDOT

• Tramway is bike-friendly because of the wide shoulder and the multiuse

trail. People can get started biking on the trail, and some move onto the

road shoulder. That combination (bike lane and trail) is great.

• Provide showers at work.

AMAFCA

• AMAFCA advocates keeping trees along proposed routes, and

maintenance crews occasionally pull logs into position to provide a place

to sit.

• All agencies should plant low water, arid climate friendly, regional trees.

APS

• APS installs bike racks in new schools and old schools being remodeled.

Within the next 6 years, all schools will have them. APS

7. What are the priority locations for pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian facilities to support

safe connections to schools?


• Higher education campuses.

• Schools surrounded by residential development are conducive to

commuting on foot or by bicycle. If a high school is outside of a

neighborhood, distances become long and it is hard to build good Safe

Routes to Schools connections.

• Bernalillo County put funding into sidewalks at North Star Elementary

School in Albuquerque Acres. Although the school is surrounded on all

four sides by residential development, there were no sidewalks at to the

school. (APS Safe Routes to Schools policy apparently was not aligned

with the decision not to install sidewalks.)


25

MRCOG

• Research indicates that priority should be given to projects that are within

½ mile of a school.

• Encourage businesses to have a “tie through.” Examples: Flying Star and

Village Pizza in North Valley.

NMDOT

• NMDOT has a Safe Routes to Schools coordinator. The community is

responsible for determining locations and applying for federal funds to

support the program.

APS

• Encouraging walking and biking to school requires supporting

infrastructure such as stoplights, overpasses and fences to prevent

jaywalking (like at Jefferson Middle School).

• A priority location for Safe Routes to Schools is the international district.

8. What bicycle facilities might your agency construct and maintain?


• Facilities that the Open Space Division of this department constructs and

maintains such as the bike trails system with associated signage, shade

structures, lighting, racks, etc.

• Bike lockers are planning for installation in Civic Plaza.

• The department is doing an inventory of bridges that connect to the trail

system.


• Bernalillo County can construct all types of facilities shown on the ABQ

bicycle map—except for bicycle boulevards.

MRCOG

• MRCOG may construct wayfinding (signage) on large facilities, but

maintenance would be done by another entity.

NMDOT

• DOT equipment is for roadways, and trail maintenance requires

specialized equipment. Consequently, DOT might engineer and construct

a trail, which would then be maintained by the City or the County. For

instance, DOT constructed the Rail Trail in Santa Fe, which the City of

Santa Fe maintains.


26

Maintenance

9. What responsibility does your agency have for maintenance of the network?


• The Park Management Division maintains all the medians, off-street bike

trails, and multiuse trails.

• As part of the bridge inventory, the department is looking at the resources

needed to maintain the bridges and identifying which jurisdiction is

responsible for maintenance. (The new bike bridge over the Rio Grande

along Central was built with federal stimulus money, but it is unclear

which jurisdiction will maintain it.)

• We want to develop a “Trail Advocacy Support Group.” If the community

wants a quality trail system, we need advocates to make the case that more

funding is needed for maintenance.

• AMAFCA is putting in improvements at the Hahn Arroyo at Montgomery

Park. Instead of putting in a standard trail along a drainage corridor, it will

be a linear park with cisterns in the arroyo to store water for a sustainable

landscape system. It will meet new EPA requirements to ensure the water

is clean before it goes back into the river. Although it will involve higher

maintenance, the City is willing to support the effort because of

sustainability.


• The Public Works Department maintains hard surfaces and infrastructure

(e.g., drainage) and uses people from the Community Corrections program

to pick up trash.

• The Parks and Recreation Department has responsibility for trails,

shoulders, and paved facilities internal to parks or open space.

MRCOG

• MRCOG has no responsibility for network maintenance—it generates and

maintains data and maps.

New Mexico Department of Transportation

• NMDOT’s policy is to have the local jurisdiction take over maintenance

responsibilities for off-street trails.

• DOT maintains a few segments of the trails network. If it is a shoulder or

other on-street facility attached to a road, DOT will maintain it. For

instance, the Tramway Trail is a DOT responsibility.

• The cycling community is great about reporting potholes, broken glass,

and debris, and DOT addresses it right away. But DOT is more reactive

than proactive on maintenance.

• DOT becomes aware of the need for bike signs through meetings with

other entities.


27

AMAFCA

• The City maintains trails as per the licensing agreement. When we do

facility maintenance, we accommodate bicyclists.

• We work with PTAs/PTOs to do education and support Safe Routes to

Schools. That way, the parents and advocates “own it.”

10. What challenges do you see related to maintenance?


• The City does not allocate sufficient funding for adequate maintenance.

• Multiuse trails are hardest to maintain because of conflicts between

pedestrians, cyclists and other users. Trail etiquette, and signage to support

it, is not yet sufficient.

• Removable bollards are a problem; the collar sticks up 4-5 inches, and if

the bollard is not replaced and someone crashes and gets hurt, there are

lawsuits.

• There are design challenges related to underpasses. Sometimes ASHTO

design standards are not well understood or followed, or may be a

secondary consideration when an agency is trying to respond to

community outcry.

• Maintenance is a special challenge when it involves communication and

respect between City departments and other jurisdictions.


• Responsibility for maintenance is determined on a case-by-case basis

within our jurisdiction and others. It is never defined but handled with

“gentlemen’s agreements.”

• Manpower for maintenance is never commensurate with the responsibility.

NMDOT

• The biggest challenge is having smaller, specialized equipment and

dedicated manpower for bikeway maintenance.

11. What suggestions do you have about addressing the maintenance challenges?


• Get clear leadership from the top (e.g., Governor, Mayor, County

Commission) in directing agencies to resolve issues over responsibilities

for maintenance.

• Have adequate appropriations to address maintenance challenges.

• Ideally, establish a multi-jurisdictional regional authority for trails and

non-vehicular transportation. It would be charged with operation and

maintenance on land owned by ABQ, Rio Rancho, Bernalillo County, the

State, and other jurisdictions. That would help to resolve management,

boundary and accountability issues.


28

Safety and Enforcement

12. In your view, where are the most dangerous or difficult areas to walk/bicycle/ride a

horse in the city? What makes those areas dangerous? (e.g., maintenance, busy

street, doesn’t meet ADA requirements, etc.) Are these problems throughout the

system?


• The most dangerous areas are on-street bikeways, especially on narrow

streets without room on shoulders and marked bike lanes.

• Inadequate snow removal on bridges crossing the river is a problem,

especially when there is a slope.


• For pedestrians: Wide intersections with high traffic volumes and a

pedestrian crossing that doesn’t have a refuge (e.g., Montgomery and San

Mateo).

MRCOG

• The West Side, in general, is a dangerous place to ride a bicycle because

so much of the area has no sidewalks.

• It difficult to get to some destinations in the North Valley on a bicycle

because of the vehicular traffic.

• Major intersections are often dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians

because of traffic making left and right turns often (e.g., San

Mateo/Central and Central/Rio Grande).

• Some major arterials are poorly designed for pedestrians (e.g.,

Montgomery, Eubank, Juan Tabo, Lomas, and Menaul).

NMDOT

• Getting from Corrales to and across I-25.

• DOT wanted to improve the bridges on Tramway but didn’t have data to

justify the investment. Photographs, anecdotal information, and the

professional opinion of an engineer should be sufficient to justify the

investments.

• Low reporting of bicycle accidents. Without data, the needed investments

can’t be justified.

MRGCD

• There is always a risk but nothing out of the ordinary. That is why

MRGCD has agreements. The licensee is responsible for all maintenance

and liability.

• Recreation is unofficial. Any future trails have to be authorized by the

MRGCD Board.


29


30

AMAFCA

• The most dangerous place in our system is the North Diversion Channel

loop by Sandia Pueblo. There is an opportunity to put notches on the

underside of the North Diversion Channel at the street crossing.

• There is often danger in making connections to local streets from the

trails.

• AMAFCA occasionally accommodates ADA slopes on maintenance roads

by looking at the trail thickness and where there are turning and crossing

points, increasing thickness from 4 inches to 6 inches.

APS

• We plan and engineer streets and access in master plans for new schools

so there is a separation of bus, bike, drop-off and pickup, and pedestrian

access.

13. What are the biggest enforcement challenges with…

13a. …Traffic safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians?


• Traffic safety for pedestrians is a low priority for APD because of funding

pressures.

• Educating more people about bike safety. It could be accomplished

through insurance company incentives for bike education; by

incorporating a component on bike education into MVD test and training

for drivers on what to do when they encounter cyclists; and by instituting a

City defensive driving course for employees.


• Motor vehicle intrusion along bikeways and trails. We have to put up a lot

of bollards.

MRCOG

• Riding a bicycle against traffic; walking while intoxicated.

AMAFCA

• Scooters and motorized bicycles on trails. Anything motorized is not

allowed, but 50cc scooters do not have to be licensed. The City has

enforcement responsibility. The master license is only for bicyclists.

13b. …Crime and personal security on trails?


• Off-street trails are remote. That is where we need eyes and ears; the

greater the use of the facility, the safer it is.


31

Bernalillo Parks and Recreation

• Long gaps without connections on the Bosque Trail.

MRCOG

• The trails are generally safe.

13c. …Vandalism on trails?


• Graffiti is a vandalism problem, and benches are defaced (carved) in the

Bosque.


• Unless the perpetrator is caught in the act, Bernalillo County doesn’t have

the resources to deal with it.

MRCOG

• Perhaps graffiti can be addressed through a public arts program.

14. What is your agency doing to address these challenges?


• The County tries to engineer its way out of these challenges.

• The Parks and Recreation Department could develop better relationships

with law enforcement agencies.

• The department could do a better job at education.

15. What does your agency need to be more effective at enforcement?


• We used to have Open Space Police who were like park rangers. Then

they were transferred to APD, and they have more of a police orientation.

We should have more visible open space and park police.

• The system needs someone to champion enforcement and place external

pressures on law enforcement to make a serious effort.

APS

• Good design

Additional Comments

• It is important to encourage user groups—including those organizing events—to work

together to lessen conflict.

• Education and encouragement programs should be easily available to all users.


32

• There has been opposition to the Bear Canyon trail to connect the trail from Juan

Tabo to Tramway. Drainage easements should be dedicated as a public access

easement, so the neighbors won’t fence them out.

• When the Clean Air Act is reauthorized, it will probably require significant planning

and funding for multimodal transportation in response to concern about greenhouse

gases.


33

INTERVIEW – USERS

ALBUQUERQUE BIKEWAY AND TRAILS MASTERPLAN

Name: _________________________________

Phone: _________________________________

Interviewer: _____________________________

Location of Interview: ___________________________________

Date: ___________ Time: ________________ email: _________________________

Introduction Hello. My name is _____________________. I am a member of a consulting team that is

working with the City of Albuquerque to update the Bikeway and Trails Masterplan. The

first step in the project is to learn about perceptions and ideas about the network of

bikeways and trails. Your name was given to us as someone who is interested in this

topic.

We are interviewing agency representatives and other stakeholders to gain insights into

ways to improve bikeway and trail design, street crossings, and bike and trail facilities.

I’m calling to request a meeting when I can interview you. I have about a dozen open-

ended questions that I’m using to guide the interview. Our conversation will be

confidential and last about an hour. Would you be willing to participate?

Interview Questions

(Review the 2008 map of the existing bicycle and trails network with the interviewee. Use the map to mark answers to the following questions.)

1. Where are the most popular trails in Albuquerque for walking/bicycling/riding

horses?

2. What are the most popular destinations for pedestrians/bicyclists/equestrians in

Albuquerque?


34

The next three questions ask about difficult or dangerous aspects of the bike and trail network. After we discuss those questions, I’m going to ask you about connections within the network.

3. In your opinion, where are the most dangerous or difficult areas to

walk/bicycle/ride a horse in the city?

Walk ____________________________________________________________

Bike _____________________________________________________________

Ride Horses _______________________________________________________

a) What makes those areas dangerous? (e.g., maintenance, busy street, doesn’t

meet ADA requirements, etc.)

b) Are there any roads or places in our community where you feel that

pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian facilities do not belong? Why?

The next four questions ask about important connections and facilities.

4. Where are places in which connections could be improved to

a) Create a continuous pathway?

b) Make linkages between on-street bikeways and the multi-use trail system?

c) Connect with public transit?

d) Which connections would you recommend addressing first?

5. What are the priority locations for pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian facilities to

support a Safe Routes to Schools network?

6. Besides sidewalks, bike lanes and horse paths, what other facilities are important

to encouraging walking/bicycling/riding horses in our community (such as

benches, shade structures, bike lockers, or showers)?

a) What about end of trip facilities (such as bike lockers, showers, etc.)?

The next few questions ask for your insights into ways to encourage more walking/bicycling/riding horses in the community.

7. In your view, what is the City doing well to encourage walking/bicycling/riding

horses?

Walk ___________________________________________________________


35

Bike ____________________________________________________________

Ride horses ______________________________________________________

8. What improvements could the City make to further encourage

walking/bicycling/riding horses (such as programs, policies, infrastructure

improvements, etc.)?

Walk ___________________________________________________________

Bike ____________________________________________________________

Ride horses ______________________________________________________

9. What effect has increased gas prices had on your use of bicycling as a means of

transportation?

That’s the end of the substantive questions.

10. What additional comments do you have (if any)?

11. What is the best way for you to provide feedback to us as the project moves

along?

Thank you very much for participating in this interview.


36

INTERVIEW – AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES

ALBUQUERQUE BIKEWAY AND TRAILS MASTERPLAN

Name: _________________________________

Phone: _________________________________

Interviewer: _____________________________

Location of Interview: ___________________________________

Date: ___________ Time: ________________ email: _________________________

Introduction Hello. My name is _____________________. I am a member of a consulting team that is

working with the City of Albuquerque to update the Bikeway and Trails Masterplan. The

first step in the project is to learn about ideas and perceptions about the network of

bikeways and trails. Your name was given to us as someone who is interested in this

topic.

We are interviewing agency representatives and other stakeholders to gain insights into

ways to improve bikeway and trail design, street crossings, and bike and trail facilities.

I’m calling to request a meeting when I can interview you. I have about a dozen open-

ended questions that I’m using to guide the interview. Our conversation will be

confidential and last about an hour. Would you be willing to participate?

Interview Questions

(Review the 2009 map of the existing bicycle and trails network with the interviewee. Use the map to mark answers to the following questions.)

I’d like to start by learning a little bit about your agency.

1. As background, what are your agency’s concerns about the pedestrian, bicycle,

and equestrian network in Albuquerque?


37

Programs and Promotion

2. What public education programs does your agency have for pedestrians,

bicyclists, and equestrians and members of the public?

3. Which of your agency’s policies and programs are most important for

encouraging walking/bicycling/riding horses in the community? (e.g.,

Comprehensive Plan, ordinances, policies, and development requirements)

Walk ___________________________________________________________

Bike ___________________________________________________________

Ride horses _____________________________________________________

4. What could your agency do to further promote walking/bicycling/riding horses

(e.g., programs, policies, infrastructure improvements, etc.)?

Walk ___________________________________________________________

Bike ____________________________________________________________

Ride horses ______________________________________________________

Connections and Facilities

5. Where are places in which connections could be improved to

• Create a continuous pathway?

• Make linkages between on-street bikeways and the multi-use trail system

(i.e., routes marked with green on the map)?

• Connect with public transit?

6. Besides multi-use trails, on-street bicycle facilities and horse paths, what facilities

are important to encouraging walking/bicycling/riding horses in our community

(e.g., benches, shade structures, bike lockers, or showers)?

Walk ___________________________________________________________

Bike ____________________________________________________________

Ride horses ______________________________________________________

7. What are the priority locations for pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian facilities to

support safe connections to schools?

8. What bicycle facilities might your agency construct and maintain?


38

Maintenance

9. What responsibility does your agency have for maintenance of the network?

10. What challenges do you see related to maintenance?

11. What suggestions do you have about addressing the maintenance challenges?

Safety and Enforcement

12. In your view, where are the most dangerous or difficult areas to walk/bicycle/ride

a horse in the city? What makes those areas dangerous? (e.g., maintenance, busy

street, doesn’t meet ADA requirements, etc.) Are these problems throughout the

system?

Walk ____________________________________________________________

Bike _____________________________________________________________

Ride Horses _______________________________________________________

13. What are the biggest enforcement challenges with

• Traffic safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians?

• Crime and personal security on trails?

• Vandalism on trails?

14. What is your agency doing to address these challenges?

15. What does your agency need to be more effective at enforcement?

Thank you very much for participating in this interview.

Bikeways & Trails Master Plan Appendices 05-31-2011

Documents

Transcript of Bikeways & Trails Master Plan Appendices 05-31-2011