Connect: Central Iowa Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan 2020

7/28/2019 Connect: Central Iowa Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan 2020

1/154

An Action PlAn or Projects, ProgrAms, And Policies

Central Iowa BICyCle and PedestrIan transPortatIon aCtIon Plan 2020

CONNECT


2/154

FINAL REPORT

AUGUST 2009

Cv Ph: wu s, b Zc Biig.a phgph hi ci m MPo chiv.

t cpi h CONNECT: Central Iowa Bicycle andPedestrian Transportation Action Plan 2020, p cc:

des MoInes area MetroPolItan PlannInG orGanIZatIonM H C | 6200 au avu, sui 300w | Ub, Ia 50322t: 515-334-0075 | F: 515-334-0098

th CONNECT: Central Iowa Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation ActionPlan 2020 i p h MPo bi: hp://.mmp.g

2009 d Mi a Mpi Pig ogizi

An Action PlAn or Projects, ProgrAms, And Policies

Central Iowa BICyCle and PedestrIan transPortatIon aCtIon Plan 2020

CONNECT

th d Mi a Mpi Pig ogizi (MPo) pp hi p ih pi uig m h Ui sdpm tpi F High amiii F ti amiii, i p hugh c mchigu pvi b h d Mi a MPo mmb gvm. th c h pibii h d Mi a MPo.th Ui s Gvm i gci um ibii h c hi p h u i c. th dMi a MPo ppv hi p augu 20, 2009. P c (515) 334-0075 bi pmii u.


3/154

CONNECTcentrAl iowA bicycle And PedestriAn trAnsPortAtion Action PlAn 2020

connect Project stA

P maa

Za b

d Mi a Mpi Pig ogizi

ca ia b a Pa ra Pa s

la H, ChiI nu Hig Fui

rh raa

Ci Ci

ga sCi w d Mi

t r

Ci ak

ca wa

s Cu Cvi

Aa cha

I nu Hig Fui

mPo mAnAgement stA

ca ia b a Pa ra

j la, ChiCi nk rpiv

t Ka, ecuiv dicd Mi a Mpi Pig ogizi

tapa P c

t oha, ChiCi w d Mi Cuci Mmb

tapa tha c

Kaa ta, ChiCi w d Mi P


4/154

DISCLAIMER

thi cum ciu , pcici gui. I i i pc iig c Igvm/gc m vi , h ci giig jugm b ic pi.

th cum i imp gui, hich cmpi imi, ccp, b pcic m viu gci gizi c ih imi bicc pi pi iu. th C I Bicc-Pirub ckg h ic h pcic pvi hi cum gui h pib mkig pi cii.

CONNECTcentrAl iowA bicycle And PedestriAn trAnsPortAtion Action PlAn 2020

Central Iowa Biccle and Pedestrian Roundtablecha j la, Ci nk

ma Avaz, Ci w d Mirha b, Ci d Mi

ja b, G d Mi PhipK ca, Ci Civ

Aa cha, I nu Hig Fuij ch, Jp Cu

mha ca, Ui s am Cp egidaa c, tpi Mgm acii

g ca, Ci IiAa da, Ciiz

ta m Ha, Bik wk wk Cira Ha, C I ti acii

jh H, Ci wi Highla H, I nu Hig Fui

ja Hk, Ci Ubmh Hz, Ci Gim/F egiig

jh la, Ci Hut lva, Bk lm egiigl l, Pk Cu Cvi

bh nh, Ci PPh o, G d Mi Vkp acii

m oz, I dpm tpij P, w Cu Cvi

rh raa, Ci Cit r, Ci akn r, Ci Ci

ga s, Ci w d Mica V, ti G Cmmimk waa, d Cu Cvi

r wa, Ci Jhna w, G d Mi Vkp acii

V w ii, Ci aca wa, s Cu Cvi

ga la w, Ciiz

mk Za, B & w egiig


5/154

The

CIRTPACenTRAl IowA RegIonAl TRAnsPoRTATIon PlAnnIng AllIAnCe

Gig,

I m p p u c I bicc pi ci p CONNECT: Central IowaBicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan 2020 (Connect). thi p i gui pjc, pgm,

pici bicc pi pi i h upcmig .

th d Mi a Mpi Pig ogizi C I Bicc-Pi rub k hi p i cmp h pjc. Ciiz u c I pvi ii hp big iigh, uggi, ci uig h vpm hi p. w hv b ig buu cc hik hv h cc i hi p, mkig i b pucbcu u ivvm.

Connecti ci p h i gui u hikig h c mk bicc pi civii jb iiviu, gup, mii. Jiig bik pii ii, uch chuivii, mpm c, hppig ii, i p imp cciConnect i bu bihig hmiu i b bicc pi civii. w biv

h ucc hi p i p g cpiv ih c gvm, gci, -p gizi, vu, vc, ciiz.

w cug u k g k hi p k p b cmpig ci ihi h pw hv cmp v imp p i vpig h c I bicc pi cip, bu v h , i b viig mig i, igig i ih h p.

wih v kig gh ccmpih h g, bjciv ci hi p, c I ibcm m hh vib pc k iv.

s cc,

Jim l, ChiC I Bicc-Pi rub

a a ak Bu B B Cu Ci Civ d Cu d Mi Gim Ii Jp CuJh Kvi Mi Cu Mi Cu Michvi nv n nk P P P Hi Pk Ci

Pk Cu s Ci s Cu Ub w Cu wuk w d Mi wi High wi


6/154

Tis page lef blank intentionally.


7/154

exeCUtIVe sUMMary ........................................................

IntrodUCtIon ......................................................................

Chapter 1:systeM .....................................................................................

Chapter 2:

PedestrIan ............................................................................

Chapter 3:

BIKeway ................... .................... .................... ................... .....

Chapter 4:

traIl .................... ................... .................... .................... ...........

Chapter 5:saFety ......................................................................................

Chapter 6:

ProMotIon & adVoCaCy ..............................................

Chapter 7:

IMPleMentatIon ...............................................................

reFerenCes ...........................................................................

Index ................... ................... .................... .................... ...........

Appendix 1:

Glossary ................................................................................

Appendix 2:

sIx es ........................................................................................

Appendix 3:

tIMelIne .................. .................... .................... ................... .....

Appendix 3:

FUndInG oPPortUnItIes .............................................1

Appendix 4:

CoMPlete streets PolICy ..........................................1

Appendix 5:

CrasH data .........................................................................1

Appendix 6:

laws and ordInanCes ................................................1

CONTENTS

Photo:BikesBelong


8/154

Map 1:

Central Iowa exIstInG andPlanned FaCIlItIes ..............................................................9

Map 2:

des MoInes Metro area exIstInGand PlannInG FaCIlItIes ................................................ 10

Map 3:

des MoInes area reGIonal transItaUtHorIty BIKe & rIde roUtes ....................................16

Map 4:

exIstInG sIdewalK CoVeraGealonG MaJor CorrIdors .............................................. 24

Map 5:

PerCentaGe oF CoMMUterswalKInG to worK, 2000 ................................................... 25

Map 6:

PerCentaGe oF CoMMUtersBIKInG to worK, 2000.........................................................31

Map 7:

Central Iowa statewIde and

reGIonal traIls ..................................................................40

Map 8:

exIstInG BICyCle andPedestrIan FaCIlItIes wItH

transIt ConneCtIons ................... ................... ............... 56

Table 1:

BIKe & rIde UsaGe By MontH ...........................................15

Table 2:

BIKe & rIde UsaGe By roUte .............................................15

MAPS AND TABLES

Phot

o:

BikesBelong


9/154

CONNECT | i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

executiVe summArythi p, i Connect, v ci p mkc I gi h upp biccig kighughu v h pi m. I pvih mk c I vp bicc pi i vim. Connectim hpig gui c I piiv h bicc pi i m pc umbi. Biccig kigpvi vib m pi pp g cicmic v. F biccig

kig m b hi m chic pi.Pviig ik, bicc , ig bicc u, i cu cug m pp bicc k.

C I cu h ppim 550 mi i,hich ppu ci bicci cmmu, icu I v s sigic (lv 1) ici. th amic dicv ti ci icu hH I nu ti, h ak w ti,h n smih ti, h Jh P di ti, h Piciprivk ti, h Mih ti, h Bi ri ti, h wuCk ti, h Cb Pk ti, h Civ Gb ti, h rcc riv V ti. th C I ti lp

ci icu h H I nu ti, h akw ti, h G l wi ti, h ChichV ti.

C I i hm i ig nrci ti: h d Mi riv ti (Jhdi ti), 1990; h n smih ti, 1990; h rcriv V ti, 2006; h Chichqu V ti, 2007G w ti, 2008; , h summ ti, 2008

Connecth h cpbii :

Fcii h vpm gi, ccmphiv, , cvi biccpi pi m;

Ic ug pi m;

supp pm b pi m h cug civ, hi;

ecug buiig gi m bicc

Photo: Iowa Natural Heritage Fo


10/154

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii | CONNECT

pi ciii;

dc h umb cci ijui bpcig h igh bicci mi;,

sv mk cmphiv,ci, ciuig pig pc gci, cui, c gvmi pig vpig bicc pi

ciii.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

h C I Bicc Pi rubrub) Pig subcmmi (Pigubcmmi) bg h pc vpig Connect vuig zig i b pcic miig gi c bicc / pi. th Pig subcmmi i viu

hm ii hugh cmm p pubic

mig. Fm hi, cmm g bjciv Connectmiiz. whi g bjciv qu

i i pi, mj pc bcm cmmi. Cciv, h Pig subcmmiu g bjciv cu pimi ,icc pi i u vpm,mii, ccib ii, cui, ivpi, uci, ccivi, ccibii,mpmi, mic.

h Pig subcmmi c Connect hpchiv h F High amiii (FHwa)icc pi pic g. th :

ga 1:

ia a pa apa a

a 15% a p aa, a;

ga 2:

sa h a

pa k af ah a

a 10% aa.1

aii, Connect h v chp, ch ih pcic g. Connect ph i h FHwa v e Iuci) i: bchmk ccmpih u

im-m, ci pm, bjciv m, chiv.

ch chp h ii pcic bjciv ccmpih h chp v g, v h 11 .h Pig subcmmi ii 111 ci, ih

mub bchmk, impm h bjciv mi Connects pg v im. Pvi b

vi ch chp g. P h u p m i imi bjciv, ci, chmk.

Sstem.Expand and improve bicycle and pedestrian riendly

acilities to connect to all travel modes.

a bc bicc pi i m i b hh, pi, cmic, vim,ci qui, qui i iu. a bc mcc i, bicc , bicc u, ik bu p, i civii, ch, ighbh,mpm c, c mj phic pi bi. thi chp cug p gi u h b vib hm pgiv chg h vpig h bicc pi m.

Pedestrian.

Develop a cohesive, connected, and continuous walkable

pedestrian environment or all users, including persons

with disabilities, children, and the elderly.

a kb vim hu hv picci, v ci chc, uchc. K pi cci ci icuik ccig i, cig, bu p, ccib hicp impvm. tv cichc ci icu icpig pig ipb h ik, qu kigpc, pi c ighig. l u chcci pc mphi buiig pi-ivpm, ic cvi u, kbii ui.

Bikewa.

Provide sae, accessible, and comprehensive bicycle

riendly acilities throughout central Iowa.

ecugig biccig bgi ih ccibpc i. Connect pp vpig biccm h cc iig i ih bicc, ig bicc u, h mkig, h. Bik pii ii, icuig ch,uivii, i i, imp. FHwaguic ugg givig u cii biccii h pig, ig, cuci, mic big h ciii bcmbi biccig.

Trail.Create a connected regional multimodal trail system

oering convenience, mobility, and eciency.

th C I ti sm i v 500 mi g.Pig, uig, ccig i h p mkig c I h ti Cpi h w.K i ci icu vpig uig uc,iiuig mic pcu, uppig icu i m, viizig g pig, ccig gp mk uiup i m.


11/154

CONNECT | ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Saet.

Ensure bicyclist, pedestrian, and motorist rights and saety

through eective education and law enorcement.

a h bicc pi m g cugm pp bicc k, pgm i uc bicci, pi, mi h h. K ci icu zig h cicumc bicc pi cci hp pv hicuc, kig ih c cm p biccig pi iu, iig bicci pi igh, impmig gi iemgc 911 m.

Promotion and Advocac.

Empower individuals to increase bicycle and pedestrian

trips by promoting the benefts o bicycling and walking

through concentrated education, awareness, and marketing

campaigns.

dvpig bicc pi ki mg pi u i civ . Mkig

biccig kig hh, u, cvi m pi u cug u. tchig mi h h ih bicci pi, vpigmp, hig v civii, vpig igigg, vcig qu bicc piigh cu cug u.

Implementation.

Monitor and evaluate progress in creating a premier bicycle

and pedestrian system in central Iowa.

Impmig Connect i qui gvm gci icu bicc pi ccmmi

i uu pi u p ig, cuci pjc. Impvm i cuuig, pici, cii ih c fci,gvm/gc , vu, vc, hi pi mk hi p civ. th chivm Connect, mu hugh iic i, pubicipu, cmp bchmk, c u c Iuu buiig c bicc pi ivim.

Biccig kig m ig,

muim pi m. Cucig ik,iig bicc pkig i ci, chigchi i k , iig cub cu mp hchi, ipig bik , buiig i cibu i pig , mbii, cmic gh ,hcm cmmuii u vim, i cui.

Photo: Andr


12/154



13/154

CONNECT |

InTRodUCTIo

introduction

Toda, biccling and walking are becoming

more accepted transportation alternatives.

ov h p c, c I gvm

gci cu m hi bicc piimpvm vpig i. I c, c Iiig i cup ih vpm p i ih mpi gi pi impvmpgm u u i 100-mi p, 90-mip, 70-mi p, 50-mi p, h gh,p igh cui 36 cmmuii c c I.

th g i pv i i c I, m hcmmui J, I, Big Ck s Pk Pk Ci, I, i ppim 95 mi g.1

F 2007-2008, m bicc pi impvmi c I icu:

dvpm v 25 mi i;

dvpm 0.5 mi bicc ii p c hMi luh Kig, J Pk CgGv avu ici;

Ii v 250 bicc pkigciii i d Mi;

opig bicc c-p i d Mi;

opig bicc cii hB skig Pz i d Mi;

Cici i lgu Ccig Iuc

b h lgu amic Bicci;

Ci bicc vi cmmi ih Ci w d Mi;

Picipi v 2,000 cmmuuig Bik wk wk 2008;

Bgiig h Kim w ri Ccig sh, c-i i (Kxno) k h ic biccig;

Cuci cmp i cI cii, ,

U d Mi a rgi tiauhi (dart) Bik & ri (bu ck bu) pgm b m h 54,000i.

th impvm, ih i ucchp mv c I c bcmig biccpi i gi b h lgu amBicci . Hv, h m chgbiccig kig i c I h mi. Coni impv c I bicc pm.


14/154

vhic mii pib 30% cbii, 80% cb mi, 50% igi i h Ui s.3 sh v ipm b biccig kig uc i pui (hu ip puc m pui p mi h gip).4 rucig u ip c miig ghug, gu-v i pui, mg, ci i, i

pui.

Qualit o Lie Benefts. Bicc pi ipi m iic cmmuiivbii. aciv ih bicci pi h mbic cui , ih h hciv i pc iv vii.

th c hv impc cig bui,mp, uim.5

Economic Benefts. th umbi i h c-highhuh p, huig i.6 th c pig i ppim $6,217 $9,997 cmp vg u c $120 mii bicc.7 I im high g pic, biccig kig b m pi.

rc ui iic h i g chv piiv c h vu b ppi. au pp vu i eug, og, mi hc h suh rigi ti h pp vu b hm. th u u h ic h ih igic i h pic hm mi h, v c h hm ih, h vu h hm ic $6.77.8

Health Benefts. thi miu bic ci

, uch biccig (v-mi i) kig ( h-mi k), c hp iv g hhi.9o u qui h b m p ivpm m hh pi, ccuig h v $1.00 ivm i i phic civi $2.94 i ic mic b.10 a ni Pksvic u, hich cmp pp h i h h ci gu, mh piiv b ci. th ci 14% hhc cim, p 30% i hhpi, h 41% cim g h $5,000.11

InTRodUCTIon

2 | CONNECT

BENEFITS

iccig kig big m b u -u c I bicc pi m.

a m pi, bicci pi mk vg h m vi fc cgi pkig, v m, b civ ci.

ii, biccig kig imp i h

v iv h h hv cc mhic.

h piiv b biccig kig civm pi, pu ci civii,p c m pc ivih. Mkig ip biccig kig u hv m h igpcic b:

Transportation Benefts. accig h FHwa 2001National Household Travel Survey, m 50% iv ip k h mi i gh v 5% i v ip k h mi.2h d Mi a Mpi Pig ogizi

MPo) 2001 National Household Travel Survey Add-on im v 50% d Mi mpi v ip k h mi i gh v5% v ip k h mi. thpi b biccig kig cucu h ic v mbii, uci fcgi, hcm bicci,i, mi.

nvironmental Benefts. Biccig kig i g h vim pp iv i. th m v i i, pui, cgi. M

PRECEDENT PLANS

Connect v up up h 1974Metropolitan Bike Trails p h 1981 Metropolitan

ikeways Study, pp b h C I rgiacii lc Gvm. th 1974 p, h

icc p h g d Mi mpi ,vi vvi h m bik,uiv guii, mp bicc ciii,

mk h ici h c gci h vpm h mpi bik m.

h 1981 u up h 1974 p imi pc. th u mi gi cii ig m p bicc ciii m h 1974 i icc mk ciuu u

hugh h ubiz . Fuhm, h 1981p i p cc bu g

cumpi. simi, m h m cci ih vim. M pp , iu , biccig ipiv, -puigiv g cumpi vib cmp

muim pi m.


15/154

Social Justice Benefts. appim -hi amic iv. thi icu p v h g 65, chi u h g 16, ib p, h h ub h c ig pig vhic.12 B pviig bicc piciii, cmmuii pp ch h h v k, hppig, hm, ci ip.wihu pvii, bicci pi ih i h pi m gg i u biccig

kig cii. th ck chic i pim c icvi ci ub bi mbii.

CONNECT |

InTRodUCTIo

SIX Es

Connect h FHwa ig ppch bicc pi pi pig ivvig h ve ppch: giig, cm, cugm,uci, vui. rc iu uggig ih e h ppch: qui.13 th,

Connect pp h i e (euci, ecugm,ecm, egiig, evui, equi)ppch h chg ppuii ihih c I bicc pi m.

Education. th uci cg cu chigbicci pi g h mv i , m i ik cg , hichig mi h h h ih u.euci m icu pviig vib biccig kig uci u chi, hvig lguCcig Iuc ch i h cmmui, iibuig imi bicci, pi, mi vi

mp, ip h, p iv uci mu cu.

Encouragement. th cugm c pcimpc h pmi cugm bicc pi civii i c I. I c, c Igvm/gci pm cugpicipi hugh h u d Mi Mri, Bik wk wk v, ti dz, h G dMi ti Mp, umu cmmui chibicc i. aii, cugm pjc cuicu ii u ig igg, s ru sch pgm, cmmu iciv pgm, c

biccig kig cub, uch Fi C Iti (FoCIt), G d Mi Vkp acii, dMi Cc Cub, C I ti acii.

Enorcement. th cm m mu hcci b h biccig, pi, cm cmmuii. ecm hh h cm cmmui h iiihi h biccig pi cmmui, hhh bicc ivii h cm pubic cmmuii, hh cmmuii u gcm civii cug bicci mi

h h , hh bicc- p i.

Engineering. th giig cmp cu phic pi impvm h pm h ccmm bicc pegiig h ic cc bicc m p pi ci pccmmi pi hugh ccib ii, ck ig imig, ccmmibicci hugh -ig bicc h mkig, i ui . egi pviig cu bicc pkig ciiiccig - - bicc piucu.

Evaluation. evui jug h iig bicc pi m, iig pgm pici, pig uu impvm. th bihm bicc pi p i h p. Muh mu kig biccig kig pc icmmui, zig ch i , h cmmuii k impv h , m vuig h p.

Equalit. th qui m ivv hvig c bicci pi h m u hugh qu , qu u cii i pig igig biccpi iucu.

CHAPTER ORGANIZATION

a pviu, h Pig subcmmi vCc b ghig, zig, iig ipu h pubic, h rub, h MPo , h ipi uig h pig pc. Fuh ipu ich vi i b pcic m h biccpi p ig guii. M ipu icpic uch cmp , igg uci, bicc , i, pic cm, fci ivvm, cci b ciiimii.

th Pig subcmmi ig Cc c u i h cum b iiv

chp. ech chp b iiig h ch ppuii p hugh pviu pubic imig icui. ech chp gii pcic bjciv ccmpih h chp vg, v h 11 . th Pig subcmmiii 111 ci, ih mub bchmk. bchmk h i impmi gig 2009-2020. I m c, h ci ii i hi qui ii i kh ivvm u pp impmi.

Cc ii phip ic vp mii h bicc pi ci


16/154

InTRodUCTIon

4 | CONNECT

Highwa Construction and

the League o American Wheelmen

duig h 1880, i i high vivi h Ui sth m cm mbicci h cu mib , lgu amic whm (law),

bicc i gup m i 1880, h cmpig u c cuci 1888. I h i ucc,hv, bcu ppii m m,h h impvm h i-ichub cci m high pp . Ip hi imp, h whm bg uci cmpig h b b , hich bih h bi h g mvm h qucu. I pmph, k bui, , 1892, h mgzi G r, h law

cim h g high u i vu, p mk, pvi cc mucu g, u pv, icpiic picipi b m, impvuci.

Photo: Bikeiowa.com

upp uci bicci, pi, mi, cug m pp bicc k pi pup. th phip i hpu h h ci bchmk cmp.

a m ik, i, bicc ciii c , c gvm/gc iiiiv ic. I i ik h cmmui i qui i cmbii ci p bjciv hh impm uccu bicc pigm h chiv Connects g. wihu h

c , h civ hi p i b imi, h ucc p g cpiv ih c gvm/gci, pgizi, vu, vc, ciiz.

Connecti vii p! Connectc hp gui c h p bcmig bicc pi-i gi. Connect, p, i h p. th c p bgi ih impmigh bchmk hugh c hum ciuc. a ivig cum, i i b imp

mu pg, piii, iv impv hicc pi m c I impm

Connect.

MAINSTREAMING NONMOTORIZED

TRANSPORTATION

2005, hSae Accountable, Flexible, Efcient Transportationquity Act: a Legacy or Users (saFetea-lU) cm iu h picip h v gvm hi h ccmmi miz u

uig h pig, vpm, cuci F-i pi pjc pgm. th

saFetea-lU i p, ig, cuc impv pi ciii ih bicci pi i mi:

Bicc pi ciii pik h b ci, h pppi,i cjuci ih cuci cuci pi ciii,cp h bicc pi u pmi. (23 U.s.C. 217(g)(1))

tpi p pjc h pviu cii ciguu u bicci pi. (23 U.s.C. 217(g)(2))

I c h high big ck i bigpc hbii ih F cipicipi, bicci pmi ciii ch uch big, h ccmmi bicci c b pvi b c p uch pcm hbiii, h uch big h b pc hbii pvi uch ccmmi. (23 U.s.C. 217())

whi h ci p h quiig bicc pi ccmmi i v pi pjc,Cg ii h bicci pi hv , cvi cc h pim v pi impvm ppui hc h cvic h m. du cii bicc pi hu icu, miimum, pumpi h i ccmm bicci pi i h

ig impv pi ciii. lcgvm hu icu bicci pii h pig, ig, pi piciii m ui, h cii ccmm hm hu b h cpi h hh u.14

Source: Seely, Bruce E. 1987. Building the American HighwaySystem: Engineers as Policy Makers. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press, pg. 11-12.


17/154

Chapter 1:

SystemChallenges and Opportunities. a cmbii pubic ipu, p vi, iucu vui ii h rvi cu i pvm ig , i pimiz pvm ubii;

Ic uci , b, pip, pi gi, cii mk;

accmm bicci pi c big;

Ig bicc pi ccmmi hbgiig pig ig pc;

dvp m ig bicc pi ciimic pcu ig , pimizigubii cig c;

Pvi bic mii g bicc pi ciii,

uch , m, bicc pkig, mgc h;

Impm cmp h ig p b cc u, icuig pbicci, mi, i u g b

C bicc pi m h i ic

ih ii, cmmci, i u ;Pvi qu ici fc ig cim u, icuig p ih ibiii, ch ; ,

Impv pig cpi b i pbicc pi ci.

Photo: Bikeiowa.com


18/154

SYSTEM

6 | CONNECT

GOAL:

Expand and improve bicycle and pedestrian

riendly acilities to connect to all travel

modes.


19/154

CONNECT |

SYSTE

s p ak h

a fa a

ak:

1) walking is an excellent indicator o

quality o lie in the neighborhood;

2) a vital, walkable downtown

neighborhood center with attra

places to walk and shop contribut

the local economy and attracts or k

businesses in the community;

3) a walkable community also h

sense o place where people know

care about one another;

4) children, senior citizens, and pe

with disabilities can get around on

own;

5) as new housing developments

renewal projects are designed

walking in mind, as gaps in the side

system are lled, and as street cross

are made saer, more short car trips

and will be made on oot;

6) a shit to more walking reduce

pollution, trac congestion, and par

demands.

Objective 1Establish communication and educate decision makers on the benefits

of bicycle and pedestrian activities.

Actions:1.1. Build coalitions and alliances with local organizations and advocates to help support and provide

resources toward common eorts. Coalitions and alliances are groups that orm or mutual benet. Partnerships

are relationships between individuals or groups characterized by cooperation and responsibility. Groups should orm

in central Iowa to achieve shared goals and should band together to pursue common eorts.

1.1.1. Benchmark: Identiy and list existing local organizations and advocates, with the goal o coordinating eorts

and encouraging involvement in local bicycle and pedestrian issues, beginning in 2009.

1.1.2. Benchmark: Send bulletin updates semiannually, beginning in 2010.

Partner: Roundtable

Roundtable Subcommittee: Communications

1.2. Inorm elected ocials about the benets, challenges, and opportunities inherent to bicycle and

pedestrian acilities. Contact city council members and county supervisors directly, sign petitions, send letters via

U.S. mail, and send messages via e-mail to ensure elected ocials know the importance o bicycle and pedestrian

interests. Since 2005, such activities resulted in bus bicycle racks on DART buses, led to the purchase o 200 bicycle

racks or the City o Des Moines, and integrated the rst bicycle lane on a collector roadway in the metropolitan area

(East Walnut Street, Des Moines, Iowa).

1.2.1. Benchmark: Plan events and activities to encourage elected ocials to walk with an escort that can point out

challenges and potential solutions, beginning in 2009.

1.2.2. Benchmark: Compile and distribute to elected ocials inormational material on health, economic, quality o

lie, and transportation benets o bicycling and walking, by 2010.

1.2.3. Benchmark: Present an annual report to elected ocials, beginning in 2010.

Partner: Roundtable - Advocates - Volunteer Groups


1.3. Promote participation in educational workshops and the annual Iowa Bicycle Summit or elected

ocials and other policy and decision makers. Key decision makers in each community should designate oneor more decision makers to participate in bicycle and pedestrian educational programs. Participating in workshops

and witnessing demonstrations make concepts more memorable and could gain decision makers endorsements o

bicycling and walking.

1.3.1. Benchmark: Encourage each government/agency in central Iowa to send one participant to the annual Iowa

Bicycle Summit, beginning in 2010.

Partner: Roundtable - Government/Agency - FOCIT

Roundtable Subcommittee: Planning, Policy, and Funding - Communications

1.2

Source: Pedestrian Federation o Am

Photo: Bikes Belong


20/154

SYSTEM

8 | CONNECT

Objective 2Increase the number of Connection points between JURISDICTIons,

ACTIVITY NODES, and travel modes.

Actions:2.1. Eliminate gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian system. A gap is a missing section between

two existing acilities. Existing acilities include on-street accommodations, trails, and pedestrian acilities where

dierent jurisdictions may operate those acilities. A gaps study identies barriers to bicycle and pedestrian

travel and proposes strategies to connect sections on local, county, and regional levels. Future planning eorts

should ocus on identiying, prioritizing, and creating inrastructure to ll in known gaps.

2.1.1. Benchmark: Identiy and map regional bicycle and pedestrian acility gaps annually, or as determined,

beginning in 2009.

2.1.2. Benchmark: Develop an implementation schedule and a gap prioritization methodology, beginning in

2009.

2.1.3. Benchmark: Connect two to our priority gaps per year, beginning in 2011.

Partner: Roundtable - Government/Agency

Roundtable Subcommittee: Technical

2.2. Connect trails to the on-street bicycle system. Trail users need to be able to transition to and rom

the on-street bicycle system and onto the trail system saely and conveniently. Facilities that end, where theonly option is to turn around, are dead-ends. One solution is to provide on-street accommodations where

trails begin and end. (See Map 1, page 9 and Map 2, page 10, or Existing and Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian

Facilities).

2.2.1. Benchmark: Identiy dead-end bicycle acilities, by 2010.

2.2.2. Benchmark: Connect one trail to an on-street bicycle acility every year, beginning in 2010.

Partner: Government/Agency


2.3. Provide access across transportation barriers. Central Iowa has a mixture o transportation

connectivity barriers to bicycling and walking, including Interstate highways, major highways, major arterial

roadways, rivers, rail lines, gravel roads, and property sites. Such barriers can orce bicyclists or pedestriansto travel miles out o the way to nd adequate crossings. Providing bicycle and pedestrian access across these

barriers should be a standard component o roadway and bridge planning and design, regardless o a roadways

ederal unctional classication.

2.3.1. Benchmark: Identiy and prioritize all major barriers to bicyclists and pedestrians, by 2011.

2.3.2. Benchmark: Build three to ve new crossings over major barriers, by 2016.



When a highway bridge deck,

on which bicyclists are permitted

or may operate at each end o

the bridge, is being replaced or

rehabilitated with Federal unds,

sae accommodation o bicycles

is required unless the Secretary o

Transportation determines that

this cannot be done at a reasonable

cost.

.3

Source: 23 USC Section 217 (e)


21/154

CONNECT |

SYSTE

MARIONWARRENMADISON

POLK JASPER

STORY

BOONE

DALLAS

M 0 9 184.5 Mi 2008 D Mi Ara Mtrpita Pai oraizati.Pa ca (515) 334-0075 fr prmii t u.

Trai

Bicyc la

Bicyc Rut

Pad Trai

Pad Bicyc la

Pad Bicyc Rut

Prpd Trai

Map 1: Central Iowa Existing and Planned Facilities


22/154

SYSTEM

10 | CONNECT

WARRENMADISON

POLK

DALLAS

STORYBOONE

JASPER

M 0 4 82 Mi 2008 D Mi Ara Mtrpita Pai oraizati.Pa ca (515) 334-0075 fr prmii t u.

Trai

Bicyc la

Bicyc Rut

Pad Trai

Pad Bicyc la

Pad Bicyc Rut

Prpd Trai

Map 2: Des Moines Metropolitan Area Existing and Planned Facilities


23/154

CONNECT |

SYSTE

Objective 3Link activity nodes, neighborhoods, schools, employment centers,

and recreational sites with non-automobile infrastructure.

Actions:3.1. Assist central Iowa cities and counties in adopting a complete street policy in which each road

improved or constructed incorporates bicycle, pedestrian, and transit acilities. Examples across the United

States show complete streets result in improved saety, encouragement o more walking and bicycling, easing o

transportation woes, saer routes to school, improvement to air quality and health, and reduction o congestion/

capacity.1 In January 2008, the MPO hosted a complete streets workshop or MPO Transportation Technical Committee

and Transportation Policy Committee representatives. The January 2008 workshop addressed physical design o

complete streets, complete streets making livable communities, overcoming resistance to complete streets, and

unding or complete street programs.

3.1.1. Benchmark: Provide elected ocials, engineers, and planners in central Iowa with act sheets highlighting

complete street benets or saety, children, people with disabilities, older people, health, transit, climate change,

economic development, air quality, congestion, transportation investment costs, and livable communities, beginning

in 2009.

3.1.2. Benchmark: Oer complete street workshops and training sessions, beginning in 2009.

3.1.3. Benchmark: Have the MPO and the Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning Alliance (CIRTPA adopt

complete street policies, by 2011.

3.1.4. Benchmark: Have all central Iowa cities and counties adopt complete street policies, by 2012.

Partner: Roundtable

Roundtable Subcommittee: Technical - Complete Streets

To modiy the roadway and integbike lanes without signic

aecting the saety or operation o

roadway, the Oregon Departmen

Transportation considers these op

in their guidelines: reduction o t

lane width; reduction o the num

o travel lanes; removal, narrowin

reconguration o parking; and, o

design options.

3.1

Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestri

Plan. 1995. Oregon Department oTransportation: Salem, OR


24/154

SYSTEM

12 | CONNECT

Actions:4.1. Use the best available bicycle and pedestrian design standards or road planning and designing.

Designing acilities or bicyclists and pedestrians should ollow guidelines and standards commonly used, such

as the American Association o State Highway and Transportation Ocials (AASHTO) Guide or the Development

o Bicycle Facilities,2 AASHTOsA Policy on Geometric Design o Highways and Streets,3 AASHTOs Guide or Planning,

Design, and Operation o Pedestrian Facilities,4 and the Institute o Transportation Engineers RecommendedPractice Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughares or Walkable Communities.5

4.1.1. Benchmark: Review and monitor city, county, and state road and bridge construction projects to ensure

accommodation or all users, beginning in 2009.

4.1.2. Benchmark: Have central Iowa governments/agencies present design plans to the Central Iowa Bicycle-

Pedestrian Roundtable, beore and ater public input, or urther regional proessional perspectives, beginning

in 2009.

Partner: Roundtable


4.2. Improve statewide and regionally signicant trails to the best available standards. Maintaining

statewide and regionally signicant trails is important to state agencies, local governments, and non-prot

organizations. These trails orm the backbone to many individual bicycle and pedestrian systems. State

agencies, local governments, and non-prot organizations should cooperate and undertake a program to widen

or improve trails not meeting todays general trail design guidelines.

4.2.1. Benchmark: Periodically review trail design guidelines and recommend updating the Iowa Statewide

Urban Design and Specications,6 when necessary, beginning in 2010.

4.2.2. Benchmark: Identiy problem areas along statewide and regionally signicant trails, beginning in 2010.

4.2.3. Benchmark: Upgrade one existing trail to national design standards per year, beginning in 2011.

Partner: Roundtable - Government/Agency


Actions:5.1. Improve trac signal enhancements that benet pedestrians and bic yclists. Trac signals allow

pedestrians to cross streets saely by creating gaps in the trac fow. Pedestrian signal phase timing (with

timing calculated with a three and a hal eet per second pedestrian walk speed)7 should allow or sucient

crossing time or most pedestrians. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission mentions in its Online Saety

Toolboxthat detecting bicyclists at signalized intersections improves eciency, decreases delay, and discouragesred light running by bicyclists.8 The most widely used bicycle detectors are loop detectors (in pavement) and

video detectors.

5.1.1. Benchmark: Identiy, prioritize, add, and/or modiy needed trac signal improvements near schools, in

central business districts, at employment centers, at major intersections, on arterial and collector roadways, and

on bikeways, beginning in 2010.



5.2. Encourage compact, mixed-use development policies to create zoning and design guidelines

or pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented development. Regional travel studies have ound that most compact

Objective 5Increase the usage of Modern and progressive technology when

developing and improving the bicycle and pedestrian system.

Objective 4Adopt consistent bicycle and pedestrian design and construction

standards between all central Iowa governments/agencies.

.1

american association

of state highway and

transportation officials

1999

.1

ource: AASHTO


25/154

CONNECT |

SYSTE

development patterns produce less vehicle travel.9 I bicycling and walking are to become comortable and convenient

transportation alternatives, local land use patterns must integrate these modes into local transportation systems.

Past and current land use practices provided segregated, low-density developments and resulted in trip distances

refective o motorists over bicyclists. The MPOs 2001 National Household Travel Survey Add-on data estimates the

average length o all MPO Planning Area trips is 8.3 miles in the Des Moines metro area, a distance a bicyclist could

travel in 33.2-49.8 minutes (assumes 10-15 mph).

5.2.1. Benchmark: Encourage revising local government comprehensive plans to promote pedestrian-, bicycle-, and

transit-oriented development, by 2012.

Partner: Elected Ocials - Government/Agency

Roundtable Subcommittee: Planning, Policy, and Funding - Technical

5.3. Establish policies or site and building design that support bicyclist and pedestrian activity,

regardless o land use densities and intensities. For instance, a checklist might include the evaluation o

pedestrian and bicycle impacts and whether proposed acilities are in accordance with the most current design

standards beore approving design plans. Local ordinances might require developers to submit an internal pedestrian

circulation plan, or a bicycle parking plan, as part o site designs or connections to existing acilities.

5.3.1. Benchmark: Review site plans; ater construction, make a site visit to ensure developers build to ordinance

standards, beginning in 2009.



5.4. Encourage transportation agencies to use a certain percentage o their unding or pedestrian and

bicycle accessibility. The MPO allocates to DART approximately 8-14% o the MPOs annual Surace Transportation

Program (STP) unds or new bus purchases. DART could use a similar approach to solicit STP unds to place adequate

pedestrian and bicycle acilities at their bus stops (or example, handicap accessible bus stops, standing pad repair

around bus stops, bike racks at bus stops, and so orth).

5.4.1. Benchmark: Encourage DART to apply or regional and statewide Surace Transportation Program Transportation

Enhancement (STP TE) unding to improve bicycle and pedestrian access, beginning in 2009.



5.5. Work with local governments to update their development regulations to include provisions

or accessible transit acilities. Eorts need to make certain new commercial and residential developments

include transit access inrastructure, negating the need to have such inrastructure retrotted later. DART member

communities could include bicycle and pedestrian acilities and accessible bus stop locations in new developments,

with a plan to implement similar acility improvements in existing and developed areas.

5.5.1. Benchmark: Modiy local government comprehensive plans and zoning standards to promote transit-oriented

development, by 2012.

Partner: MPO - Ames Area MPO - DART - CyRide


5.6. Build a bicycle station. A growing number o communities are supporting centrally located, secure bicycle

parking garage developments that also oer bike rentals and repairs, access to public transportation, inormation to

plan commute trips, showers and lockers, and a variety o other services. Central Iowa should build bicycle stations

near major employment centers, multiple trails, and transit acilities.

5.6.1. Benchmark: Finalize a bicycle station easibility study and business plan, by 2011.

5.6.2. Benchmark: Determine bicycle station design, by 2012.

5.6.3. Benchmark: Build a bicycle station, by 2014.

Partner: Roundtable - Government/Agency - MPO - FOCIT

Roundtable Subcommittee: Planning, Policy, and Funding

b a az

h p:

Experienced - Generally use

bicycles or tness or transporta

Speed, convenience, and directnes

important actors in route selec

Although they are comortable r

in trac, adequate operating spaimportant to sae riding and avoi

conrontations with motor ve

operators.

Recreational - Typically use

bicycles or recreation and tness,

so or transportation. These riders

to avoid busy roads with higher t

speeds, unless there is a dened

or bicyclists, such as a wide should

a designated bikeway. These rider

generally comortable riding on

streets and busier trails.

Youth and Children - Tend to be sl

and less condent than adults. Chi

use trails or recreation and gettin

key destinations in the community,

as schools, convenience stores, p

and recreational acilities. Reside

streets with low motor vehicle sp

are acceptable, but trails are preerre

this group.

5.6

Photo: Bike A

Source: Federal Highway Administra


26/154

SYSTEM

14 | CONNECT

Actions:6.1. Identiy, create, and support unding eorts or bicycle and pedestrian acility maintenance

issues. Various municipal sources, local improvement districts, or property owners can help und bicycle and

pedestrian acility maintenance projects. Opportunities exist or identiying new and unique unding sources.

6.1.1. Benchmark: Develop a list o alternative unding sources or bicycle and pedestrian acility maintenance

operations, by 2010.

Partner: Roundtable


6.2. Increase joint participation by cities, counties, and state governments in pursuing grants and

other unding. Cooperation and collaboration between and among jurisdictions can help ensure coordinated

improvements and linkages or region-wide, non-motorized travel modes. When a trail crosses multiple

jurisdictional boundaries, acility planning, design, and operation should be coordinated between and among

jurisdictions to ensure regional connectivity and mobility or all users.

6.2.1. Benchmark: Coordinate local jurisdictions to pursue unding or statewide (Level 1) and regionally

signicant (Level 2) projects, beginning in 2009.



6.3. Identiy and eliminate practices that are major contributors to accelerated trail deterioratio n.

Ater identiying practices causing trail deterioration, one approach would be to avoid those practices that

are major contributors to accelerated trail deterioration. Trails not designed with the recommended width

and structural strength to withstand regular motor vehicle usage can cause pavement surace cracking and

breakdown.

6.3.1. Benchmark: Produce a list o trail deterioration causes and develop a best practices guide on trail

maintenance or local jurisdictions, by 2012.

Partner: Roundtable


Objective 7Improve accessibility at public transit facilities.

Actions:7.1. Increase the number o bicycles that buses can carry. Bike-on-bus programs can attract many

passengers who would not otherwise be able to use transit or their trip, particularly to reach suburban

destinations where transit coverage oten is sparse.10 DART and CyRide should research alternatives to the

currently implemented ront-mounted bicycle racks on buses. DART and CyRide should experiment with bicycleracks that could carry more than two bicycles, as well as any various types o bicycles. Another alternative is to

allow bicycles on buses. Westchester County Department o Transportation (New York) adopted a permissive

welcome aboard policy toward bicyclists and other potential users, beginning in the late 1970s.11

7.1.1. Benchmark: Experiment with two to our alternative transport solutions to increase bicycle capacity on

DART buses, by 2011.

Partner: Roundtable - DART - CyRide


Objective 6Improve and maintain existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities

through various funding sources and programs.

Photo: DART

.1

.3

Photo: Dave McKay


27/154

CONNECT |

SYSTE

7.2. Install bicycle racks on DART Vanpool Program vehicles. King County Metro Transit (Seattle, Washington)

provides ree bicycle rack installation on vanpool vehicles at the request o vanpool riders. Bicycle racks t on the rear

o the vanpool vehicles and can hold one to our bicycles. DARTs Vanpool Program has 60 ull-size passenger vans

and minivans, used by ve to teen commuters per vanpool or work trips into the greater Des Moines metropolitan

area..

7.2.1. Benchmark: Test two to our bicycle rack accommodations or DART vanpool vehicles, by 2011.

Partner: Roundtable - DART


7.3. Continue to count and report Bike & Ride ridership. DART should continue counting and recording Bike &

Ride ridership on DART vehicles or the purpose o tracking ridership over time. DART could expand the methodology

to count Bike & Ride users at their boarding and departure bus stop locations. (See Bike & Ride counts in Table 1 and

Table 2 and see Map 3, page 16.).

7.3.1. Benchmark: Expand DARTs Bike & Ride ridership counting methodology to include location boardings and

departures, beginning in 2010.

Partner: Roundtable - DART


2005 2006 2007 2008

JANUARY -- 334 717 718

FEBRUARY -- 425 378 623

MARCH -- 553 833 1,183APRIL -- 771 1,256 1,904

MAY -- 1,240 1,934 2,739

JUNE -- 1,718 2,632 3,297

JULY -- 1,803 2,823 3,968

AUGUST -- 2,077 3,202 6,636

SEPTEMBER -- 1,898 2,823 3,844

OCTOBER 485 1,623 5,873 3,797

NOVEMBER 321 1,255 2,282 2,248

DECEMBER 99 1,064 701 701

TOTAL 905 14,761 25,454 31,658

2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTA

WDM/Fairgrounds 154 2,253 3,648 5,546 11,6

University/Highland-OakPark

283 3,492 6,326 8,449 18,5

Urbandale/E. 14th 88 2,460 3,823 5,039 11,4

Clark/E. 6th & E. 9th 40 730 1,230 1,489 3,48

W. 9th/Indianola-Locona 140 1,870 3,489 3,738 9,23

Walker/Fort Des Moines 86 2,404 4,387 4,646 11,5

South Union/Havens 11 296 705 467 1,47Pleasant Hill -- -- -- 13 13

Jordan Creek 2 98 149 143 392

Park Ave. Feeder 1 27 35 54 117

Riverpoint 0 0 0 0 0

Lincoln/McCombs 1 6 50 42 99

Link -- -- -- 457 457

MLK Shuttle -- -- -- 63 63

WDM On-call 1 0 0 26 27

Delaware Flex -- -- 4 6 10

Airport South 19 136 50 48 253

Northwest Express 1 3 34 40 78Urbandale Express 28 273 304 333 938

Clive Express 1 9 37 44 91

Westown Express 2 28 39 89 158

Vista Express 3 26 84 103 216

EP True Express 10 281 232 97 620

Ankeny Commuter 12 337 694 589 1,63

Altoona Commuter 22 14 107 78 22

DMACC Shuttle -- -- -- 26 26

Miscellaneous 0 18 27 33 78

TOTAL 905 14,761 25,454 31,568 71,8

TABLE 2. Bike & Ride usage by route

TABLE 1. Bike and Ride usage by Month

wha Vap?

Vanpooling is a carpool with v

teen commuters riding toge

to and rom work in a ully equi

passenger van.

Vanpool members live within a

miles o one another, work in

same general area, and have si

work hours.Vanpool members meet at a ce

location, set their route and

schedule, pay one low mon

are, and travel to and rom

together.

Vanpooling oers a convenient, reli

economical, and less stressul altern

to driving alone to work. Ridesharers

to reduce trac delays and conges

as well as help keep the air clean

reduce pollution in the environmen

7.2

7.3

Source: Des Moines Area RegionalTransit Authority

Source: Des Moines Area Reg ional Transit Authority Source: Des Moines Area Reg ional Transit Authority

Photo: Bikeiowa.com


28/154

SYSTEM

16 | CONNECT

Des MoInes

AnKenY

wesT Des MoInes

URBAnDAle

JohnsTon

gRIMes

wAUKee ClIVe

noRwAlK

AlToonA

PleAsAnT hIll

CARlIsle

BonDURAnT

PolK CITY

CUMMIng

MITChellVIlle

wInDsoR heIghTs


Uivrity/hiad-oak Park

Daar Fx

wakr/Frt D Mi

nrtt expr

Civ expr

wt expr

Park Avu Fdr

Vita expr

Ata Cmmutr

Airprt sut

Jrda Crk

Urbada expr

eP Tru expr

sut Ui/hav

Aky Cmmutr

Cark/eat 6t & eat 9t

wt 9t/Idiaa-laca

wDM/Fairrud

Urbada/eat 14t

Trai

Bicyc la

Bicyc Rut

Des MoInes

6T

h

AVe

2nD

AVe

gRAnD AVe

UnIVeRsITY AVe

hICKMAn RD

7Th

sT

3RDsT

5 6 T h

s T

IngeRsoll AVe

9ThsT

MAURYsT

M.l.K

Ing,J

R.P

KwY

e6ThsT

ne22nDsT

BeAVeR

AVe

19ThsT

8ThsT

31sTs

T

gUThRIe AVe

loCUsT

sT

42nDsT

e gRAnD

AVe

hUBBell

AVe

FoResT AVe eAsT

onBlVD

e CoURT

AVe

FleUR

DR

e15Th

sT

PRoPoseD

hIgh sT

KeosAUQUAwA

Y

se ConneCToR PRoPoseD

PARK sT

se1sTsT

se6Th

sT

15Th

sT

CoURT A

Ve

PennsYlVAnIAAVe

sCoTT

AVe

e loCUs

T sT

ThoMA

s BeCK

RD

30Th

sT

ARlIngTonAVe

19Th

sT

FleURDR

InseT: Ir D Mi Ara

Map 3: Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority Bike & Ride Routes


29/154

Chapter 2:

PedestrianChallenges and Opportunities. a cmbii pubic ipu, p vi, iucu vui ii h Cc, i, pi ik;Bui i ik i high pi civi;

Impv cig ch cmmci ;

ec igh-- pii mi v p highpi vum ;

rvi pi pig pcu, picu ih

g cucig ik i ii/cmmci vpm;

Pvi u ppuii hich ppihi kig ic cmmci i ii;

Impv pi ccibii i ,

Impv ici fc igizi cig u, icuig p ih ibiii, chi

h .


30/154

PEdESTRIAn

18 | CONNECT

GOAL:

Develop a cohesive, connected, and

continuous walkable pedestrian

environment or all users, including persons

with disabilities, children, and the elderly.


31/154

CONNECT |

PEdESTRIA

Objective 1Integrate pedestrian plans and designs into transportation and

residential/commercial development projects.

Actions:1.1. Conduct a comprehensive pedestrian acilities review, evaluate walkability, and identiy deciencies.

The Roundtable suggests that local governments evaluate whether barriers and intrusions aect walkability and to

what degree, and identiy what steps they might take to remedy those barriers and intrusions. How walkable is a

community? A neighborhood? A commercial district? Walkingino.org developed a walkability audit that local

governments could use to conduct an unbiased examination o a walking environment.1 The audits general purpose

would be to identiy saety, access, comort, and convenience concerns in the walking environment or pedestrians.

1.1.1. Benchmark: Establish a walkability advisory group and begin to complete walkability checklists, by 2010.

1.1.2. Benchmark: Submit walkability checklist ndings and recommendations to the appropriate local governments,

by 2013.

Partner: Roundtable - MPO - CIRTPA - Greater Des Moines Volksport Association - FOCIT - Volunteers


1.2. Add new sidewalks, improve existing sidewalks, and improve connections to sidewalks. Sidewalks are

an important structural component necessary or pedestrian transportation. When located next to the roadway or at

the roadway pavement edge, sidewalks become pedestrian thoroughares. Research suggests sidewalks should havecontinuity, access on both sides o the roadway, separation rom moving trac, width to accommodate walkers side

by side, and good maintenance.2 Local sidewalks meeting these suggestions will depend upon the road classication,

whether the roadway is new construction or a retrot, and available unding. (See Map 4, page 24.)

Sidewalks: Encourage installing wider sidewalks on both sides o all arterial roadways. The width o a

sidewalk depends primarily on the number o pedestrians expected to use the sidewalk at a given time high-use

sidewalks should be wider than low-use sidewalks. For two adult pedestrians to walk comortably side-by-side, the

recommended minimum sidewalk width is 1.5 m (5 t).3

1.2.1. Benchmark: Add sidewalks along both sides o all central Iowa arterial roadways, by 2020.



Obstructions within Sidewalks:Ensure proper placement o street urniture. Utility poles, signposts, parking

meters, trac signal standards, and other street urniture can aect a sidewalks clear accessible width. Other

obstructions could include bushes, trees, and other landscaping that encroaches into the sidewalk. When an obstacle

along a sidewalk exists, users should contact the government entity having jurisdiction at that location to provide an

inspection procedure or a system o responding to sidewalk encroachment and maintenance complaints.

1.2.2. Benchmark: Remove sidewalk obstructions, determined through a walkability checklist and user complaints,

beginning in 2013.



Curb ramps: Install curb ramps in existing and developed areas. Some older sidewalks are dicult, or impossible,or persons with disabilities and other pedestrians to traverse because o missing curb ramps or an inadequate,

unobstructed walkway width. Under the American Disabilities Act, an alteration to a sidewalk or street will give rise

to an additional obligation to include curb ramps in the scope o the project. From the Title II regulation 35.151(e)

(2), ...newly constructed or altered streets, roads, and highways must contain curb ramps or other sloped areas at any

intersection having curbs or other barriers to entry rom a street level pedestrian walkway. 4 Newly constructed or

altered street level pedestrian walkways should contain curb ramps or other sloped areas at intersections to streets,

roads, or highways.

1.2.3. Benchmark: Identiy decient locations or curb ramps and install curb ramps where missing rom existing

sidewalks, beginning in 2010.



All walkways must comply with

Americans with Disabilities Act o 1

which mandates the establishmen

minimum walkway clearance wimost recently updated to 48 inches.

clear width minimum is the minim

width or passage and not a side

width recommendation. The acces

design guidelines known as ADAAG

specically created or buildings, no

sidewalks and streets. Accessible P

Rights-o-Way: Planning and Desig

or Alterations, published by the Inst

o Transportation Engineers explains

to maximize accessibility in the cour

alterations through careul plannin

understanding o current regulaand access criteria, and strategie

negotiating constraints.

Walkability Checkli

How walkable is your community

Take a walk with a childand decide for yourselves.

Everyonebenefitsfromwalking. Thesebenefits

include:improvedfitness,cleaner air, reduced risksof certain health problems,and a greater senseof

community. But walking needsto besafeand easy.

Takea walk with your childand usethis checklist

to decideif your neighborhood isa friendly place

to walk. Takeheart if you findproblems,thereare

waysyou can makethingsbetter.

Getting started:

First,you'llneed to picka placeto walk,liketherouteto school,a friend'shouseor just somewhere

fun to go.

Thesecondstep involvesthe checklist.Read over

thechecklistbefore you go,andas you walk,note

thelocations of thingsyou would liketo change.

Atthe endof your walk,giveeach question a

rating. Then addup thenumbers to seehowyourated your walk overall.

After you'verated your walk and identifiedany

problemareas,thenext step isto figureoutwhat

you can do to improveyour community'sscore.

You'llfind both immediateanswersand long-term

solutionsunder "Improving Your Community's

Score..."on the thirdpage.

Pedestrian and BicycleInformation Center

U.S. Departmentof Transportation

1.1

1.2

Source: www.walkableamerica.org

Source: Intsitute o TransportationEngineers


32/154

PEdESTRIAn

20 | CONNECT

Planting Strips: Incorporate planting strips into design plans or pedestrian access and use. A

planting strip is the area between the constructed curb/roadway and property line, exclusive o the sidewalk

area. Sidewalks separated rom the roadway with a planting strip help create a pedestrian-r iendly

environment. Planting strips also create a buer rom the moving vehicle noise and splash. Planting strips

can provide:

Accommodation o street urniture such as signs, util ity and signal poles, mailboxes, parking1.

meters, re hydrants, and so orth;

An opportunity or aesthetic enhancements, such as landscaping and shade-producing trees2.

that can increase roadway appeal and a pedestrians sense o comort; and,

A better environment or wheelchair users, as sidewalks can be kept at a constant grade3.

without dipping at every driveway.5

1.2.4. Benchmark: Install planting strips along roadway corridors with high pedestrian usage, beginning in

2010.



1.3. Adopt uniorm bus stop accessibility policies or pedestrians. The Roundtable suggests that local

public works departments and public transportation agencies work together to adopt bus stop accessibility

policies or all persons, to ensure bus stop connectivity to sidewalks, trails, and other pedestrian/bicyclist

acilities. One example policy that promotes bus stop accessibility is avoiding mid-block bus stops, which may

encourage jaywalking.6

1.3.1. Benchmark: Survey existing bus stop locations to determine the degree o connectivity, saety, and

accessibility to other bicycle and pedestrian inrastructure and acilities, by 2011.

Partner: Government/Agency - MPO - DART - CyRide


1.4. Incorporate new technologies/amenities into bus stops or all pedestrians. Bus stops should be

conducive or all pedestrian use. In areas where blind persons use buses, local governments could incorporate

audio notication technology to notiy blind persons o the bus schedule and approaching buses. In addition,

sidewalk texture eatures are available to notiy the visually impaired o a bus stop being nearby.

1.4.1. Benchmark: Identiy three to ve potential locations or audio and/or sidewalk texture improvements,

by 2011.1.4.2. Benchmark: Test two to our new technology instruments at identied potential locations, by 2013.

Partner: Government/Agency - DART


1.5. Take advantage o ederal unding programs to solve pedestrian needs and demands. Local

governments could use existing unding opportunities to solve pedestrian needs and demands. Available

grants, such as the Iowa Department o Transportations (DOT) Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP)

and Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program, and the MPOs STP TE program, typically und highway-

related projects, but can und pedestrian-related projects too.

1.5.1. Benchmark: Submit our applications annually rom among central Iowa governments or ICAAP,

Statewide Transportation Enhancement, or MPO STP TE unds to solve pedestrian needs and demands,beginning in 2010.

Partner: Roundtable - Government/Agency - MPO - CIRTPA - DART


1.6. Provide pedestrian-scale lighting along all pedestrian activity areas. Pedestrian-scale lighting

has an important role in a commercial districts overall character. In urban areas, it is important to light at

least the intersections and other pedestrian crossing areas. A local governments use o pedestrian-scale

lighting, such as shorter poles, can help promote walkability by illuminating transit and pedestrian routes

and providing a sense o securit y or pedestrians around walkways, bus stops, stores, public plaza s, and other

pedestrian areas.7 For inormation on desirable lighting levels or pedestrian acilities and levels o illumination

or sidewalks, reer to Time-Saver Standards or Landscape Architecture.8

The ollowing are some general

guidelines or lighting in public

spaces included in the Salt Lake

City Street Lighting Master Plan

and Policy using Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design.

Public spaces must be well

lighted or pedestrians;

The light type and lighting

level must not hinder

recognition o people; a good

measure is being able to

identiy aces 50 eet away;

Consistency is essential;

Glare and shadows must be

eliminated to the maximum

extent possible;Blind spots, entrapment

locations, and hidden areas

need adequate lighting; and,

In most cases, the best

approach is to use more lights

with lower wattage than a ew

lights with higher wattage.

.6

.2

Source: Salt Lake City StreetLighting Master Plan and Policy.


33/154

CONNECT | 2

PEdESTRIA

1.6.1. Benchmark: Install pedestrian scale lighting on both sides o major roadways in ve to seven central Iowa

commercial districts, beginning in 2010.



Actions:2.1. Encourage area employers to undertake measures that promote walking by employees. There

are many benets to walking to work such as transportation, economic, and health. The Downtown Community

Alliances (DCA) Transportation Management Association (TMA) DrivetimeDesMoines.org website has inormation

or employers and employees interested in walking to work. The website looks at transportation issues rom the

perspective o commuters, riders, walkers, bikers, and shoppers. (See Map 5, page 25.)

2.1.1. Benchmark: Promote the DrivetimeDesMoines.org website, beginning in 2009.

2.1.2. Benchmark: Distribute promotional materials to central Iowa businesses highlighting the benets o

commuting to work by walking, beginning in 2010.

Partner: MPO - TMA - DCA

Roundtable Subcommittee: Communication

2.2. Address pedestrian behavior with children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities to promote

sae and independent travel. Over one-hal o all pedestrian deaths in Iowa since 1984 have been persons under

20 or over 65 years o age. Pedestrian actions contributing to pedestrian trac atalities include not crossing the

street at crosswalks, walking in an improper position on the roadway, running onto the roadway rom between

parked cars, and drinking.9

2.2.1. Benchmark: Regularly conduct pedestrian workshops that concentrate on education, enorcement, and

design strategies addressing special pedestrian needs, beginning in 2010.

2.2.2. Benchmark: Identiy locations where the elderly and those who have special needs or pedestrian ac ilities are

known to reside and walk, mapping locations along with adjacent needed activities such as grocery stores, senior

centers, and so orth, beginning in 2010.

2.2.3. Benchmark: Research how to accommodate and increase pedestrian travel opportunities or the elderly,

children, and persons with disabilities, beginning in 2010.

Partner: Roundtable


Objective 2Increase the number of pedestrian trips.

2.2

Photo: Dave Sadler


34/154

PEdESTRIAn

22 | CONNECT

2.3. Promote walkability with an event, such as sponsorship o a Walk to School Day. The

Partnership or a Walkable America sponsored the rst National Walk Our Children to School Day in Chicago

in 1997.10 The 1997 Chicago event modeled itsel ater the United Kingdoms walk to school events. In 2008,

the central Iowa cities o Altoona, Ames, Boone, and Bondurant registered and participated in Walk to School

Day.11 Promoting such events can encourage children and amilies to walk to school.

2.3.1. Benchmark: Sponsor a Walk to School Day event at every central Iowa school, by 2020.

Partner: Iowa DOT - MPO - CIRTPA - Ames Area MPO - Schools


2.4. Analyze pedestrian demand and pedestrian walkability. Measuring pedestrian demand and

level o service is a unction o design, in which a system o pedestrian improvements provides citizens an

opportunity to walk. To determine what pedestrian improvements a local government might need to make,

a local government rst must identiy methods or evaluating the pedestrian system and pedestrian system

demand.12

2.4.1. Benchmark: Identiy methods or evaluating the walkability o the pedestrian system and evaluating

the pedestrian system demand, by 2012.

2.4.2. Benchmark: Produce maps and walkability analysis on the pedestrian demand and pedestrian

inrastructure deciencies, by 2013.

Partner: Government/Agency - MPO - CIRTPA


Five Pedestrian Level o

Service Measures

Directness - does the network

provide the shortest possible

route?

Continuity - is the network ree

rom gaps and barriers?

Street Crossings - can the

pedestrian saely cross streets?

Visual Interest and Amenities -

is the environment attractive and

comortable?

Security - is the environment

secure and well lighted with goodline o sight to see the pedestrian?

.4

Source: Kansas City WalkabilityPlan

Objective 3improve walkable land use patterns for pedestrian travel.

Actions:3.1. Review existing zoning ordinances and adopt new zoning ordinances to improve pedestrian

saety and accessibility. Pedestrian saety and accessibility is oten an aterthought in the residential/

commercial development process. This aterthought results in impassable barriers to pedestrian travel, both

within and between residential/commercial developments. Pedestrian-riendly zoning ordinances could

mandate design requirements, such as reduced lot sizes and setbacks, in order to shrink block sizes, providemore requent crossing opportunities, and provide more direct connections to destinations or pedestrians.

3.1.1. Benchmark: Review local government zoning ordinances and recommend appropriate changes to support

and promote pedestrian saety and accessibility, by 2012.

Partner: Roundtable - MPO - CIRTPA


3.2. Develop more direct and convenient pedestrian routes between residential and commercial

land uses. Land use development patterns that provide accessible routes to popular destinations can help

increase local business investment and personal health. Research indicates that physical activity participation is

higher in adults who live within close proximity o trails, parks, and utilitarian destinations such as businesses,

shops, and recreational acilities.13 Today, mixed-use developments capitalize on this concept by combining

walkable routes with residential and retail/commercial development.

3.2.1. Benchmark: Begin providing direct pedestrian routes to new residential/commercial developments rom

nearby residential and commercial land uses, by 2015.

Partner: Roundtable - Elected Ocials - Government/Agency


urce: Bureau o Transportationatistics


35/154

CONNECT | 2

PEdESTRIA

3.3. Consider pedestrian transportation in local land use plans. Local community planning criteria could

include encouraging compact and mixed-use development that acilitates walking, promotes school and residential

siting to accommodate walking as the primary mode, and provide or continuous sidewalk connectivity. Land use

plans could encourage better local land use decisions when local governments address pedestrian transportation

needs.

3.3.1. Benchmark: Update local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances to include pedestrian-oriented

development goals and standards, by 2012.



3.4. Include pedestrian transportation and other multimodal needs into transportation studies,

transportation project selection processes, and other plans and studies. The MPO, the CIRTPA, and the Ames

Area MPO should address pedestrian needs within their respective Transportation Improvement Programs, long-

range transportation plans, unding guidelines, and so orth. A multimodal transportation system allows people to

choose to walk, bicycle, use transit, or drive according to the type o trip being made. Such a transportation system

helps promote choice, ensures equitable access to transportation, and reduces societal reliance on a single mode o

transportation.14

3.4.1. Benchmark: Use a weighting actor in a MPOs or RPAs project prioritization process, taking pedestrian needs

into account in that process, beginning in 2010.



3.5. Encourage local school districts to include pedestrian needs in school siting decisions. A number o

actors infuence determining where to build a new school; however, a rigorous planning process considering size,

ootprint, location, accessibility, walkability, and so orth oten take a back seat to nding a location that is the

most cost eective and that oers the least amount o obstacles prior to development (environmental, storm-water,

zoning, etc).15 A broad, comprehensive approach to school siting decisions can include long-term solutions, such as

incorporating pedestrian needs into the platting process and into developing attendance projection maps, and short-

term solutions, such as providing crossing guards, engineering solutions, and identiying unusual hazards.

3.5.1. Benchmark: Encourage local school districts to produce Sae Routes to School Plans to support new school

construction and school closures, beginning in 2010.

Partner: Government/Agency - Schools


Photo: Matthew Blackett

The diagram shows an a

oriented sprawl inrastructure in

lower hal - notice how each m

destination leads to a collector

- a major source o trac conges

The pedestrian-oriented la

in the upper hal (aka tradit

neighborhood development (TND

good suburban development) show trac is distributed evenly

multiple choices o travel, thoug

housing is depicted as predomin

single-amily or communic

purposes.

3.3

Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk &Company


36/154

PEdESTRIAn

24 | CONNECT

Des MoInes

AnKenY

wesT Des MoInes

URBAnDAle

JohnsTon

gRIMes

wAUKee ClIVe

noRwAlK

AlToonA

PleAsAnT hIll

CARlIsle

BonDURAnT

PolK CITY

CUMMIng

MITChellVIlle

wInDsoR heIghTs


sidak A FFC strt

sidak

Des MoInes

6Th

AVe

2nD

AVe

gRAnD AVe

UnIVeRsITYAVe

hICKMAn RD

7Th

sT

3RDsT

5 6 T h s T

IngeRsoll AVe

9ThsT

MAURYsT

M.l.K

Ing,J

R.P

KwY

e6ThsT

ne22nDsT

BeAVeR

AVe

19ThsT

8ThsT

31sT

sT

gUThRIe AVe

loCUsT

sT

42nDsT

e gRAnD

AVe

hUBBell

AVe

FoResT AVe eAsT

onBlVD

e CoURT

AVe

FleUR

DR

e15Th

sT

PRoPoseD

hIghsT

KeosAUQUAwAY

se ConneCTo R PRoPoseD

PARK sT

se1sTsT

se6Th

sT

15Th

sT

CoURT A

Ve

PennsYlVAnIAAVe

sCoTT

AVe

e loCUs

T sT

ThoMA

s BeCK

RD

30Th

sT

ARlIngTonAVe

19Th

sT

FleURDR

InseT: Ir D Mi Ara

Map 4: Existing Sidewalk Coverage Along Major Corridors


37/154

CONNECT | 2

PEdESTRIA

POLK

JASPER

STORY

BOONE

DALLAS

MARIONWARRENMADISON

M 0 7.5 153.75 Mi 2008 D Mi Ara Mtrpita Pai oraizati.Pa ca (515) 334-0075 fr prmii t u.

Percent Walking to Work

0 - 2 %

2 - 5 %

5 - 10 %

10 - 20 %

> 20 %

PARK AVe

gRAnD AVe

6Th

AVe

UnIVeRsITY AVe2nD

AVe

ne 46Th AVe

eAsTon

BlVD

73R

D

sT

FleUR

DR

hICKMAn RD

ne

22nD

sT

MCKInleY AVe

BeAVeR

AVe

7ThsT

3RDsT

MAURY sT

5 6 T h s T

hUBB

ell A

Ve

8 T h

s T

MeReDITh DR

VAnDAlIA RDInDIAnolA

AVe

IngeRsoll AVe

s w 9 T h s

T

9ThsT

VAlleY

DR

M.l.K

Ing,J

R.P

KwY

e6ThsT

e30ThsT

seConneCToRPRoPoseD

19ThsT

e29T

h

sT

se5ThsT

gUThRIe AVe

31sTsT

DoUglAs AVe

loCUsT

sT

42nDsT

70Th

sT

e gRAnD

AVe

RAIlRoAD AVe

AshwoRTh RD

se6ThsT

PleA

sAnThIllBlVD

FoResT AVe

e 3

8 T h

s T

e CoURT

AVe

e15Th

sTP

RoPoseD

eVeRgReen AVe

12ThsT

nw

6ThDR

ThoMAs BeCK RD

hIghsT

KeosA

UQUAwAY

nw

MoRnIngsTARDR

ne BRoADwAY AVe

PARK sT

sw34Th

sT

M.l.K

Ing

,JR.PKw

YPRoPoseD

se1sTsT

wATRoUs AVe e

15Th

sT

sCoTT A

Ve

sw42nD sT

MeRKlIn

wAY

MAPleDR

VAnD

AlIA

RD surc: U.s. Cu 200

InseT: Ir D Mi Ara

Map 5: Percentage o Commuters Walking to Work, 2000


38/154

PEdESTRIAn

26 | CONNECT



39/154

Challenges and Opportunities. a cmbii pubic ipu, p vi, iucu vui ii h

Provid training or nginrs and pannrs;

locat dirctiona and inormationa signag aong trais, as

an markings, and aong adjacnt to roads;

Improv roads to aow a bicycists to rid comortaby andsay;

Insta mor short-trm and ong-trm bicyc parking

aciitis;

Provid cary dfnd, sa, comortab, and accssibPhoto: C Tag, Picasa

bicyc commutr routs;

Provid bicyc commutr amnitis such as showrs, d

rooms, parking, and so orth; and,

estabish short- and ong-trm bicyc parking aciitibus stops

Chapter 3:

Bikeway


40/154

BIkEwAY

28 | CONNECT

GOAL:

Provide sae, accessible, and comprehensive

bicycle riendly acilities throughout central

Iowa.

Photo: Mark Wyatt


41/154

CONNECT | 2

BIkEwA

Objective 1Re-educate and re-train city and county staffs on bicycle

infrastructure planning and engineering.

Actions:1.1. Train policy makers, planners, and engineers on accommodating all users within the public right-o-

way. The United States Department o Transportations Design Guidance Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel:

A Recommend Approach recommends intensive re-tooling and re-training o transportation planners and engineers

with the new inormation required to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians (Reer to Appendix 4). Training will

help ensure routine accommodations in transportation projects.

1.1.1. Benchmark: Support the Iowa Bicycle Summits annual bicycle planning and design workshop, collaborating

with the Iowa Bicycle Coalition and the Iowa DOT, beginning in 2009.

Partner: Roundtable


1.2. Encourage city and county sta to join the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, the League o American Bicyclists,

and/or the Association o Pedestrian and Bicycle Proessionals. These organizations promote excellence in

the proessional discipline o pedestrian and bicycle transportation and can provide training opportunities in all areas

and aspects, such as saety and design.

1.2.1. Benchmark: Encourage city and county sta to join a bicycle and/or pedestrian organization(s), by 2010.

Partner: Governmental/Agency


1.3. Provide a Trac Skills 101 course that is adapted or planners and engineers. The League o American

Bicyclists certies individuals to become League Cycling Instructors (LCIs). LCIs teach a Trac Skills 101 course that

covers on-bike skills, crash avoidance techniques, and a ull understanding o vehicular bicycling. Adapted or planners

and engineers, a Trac Skills 101 course could show the dangers o bicycling without accommodations or bicyclists.

1.3.1. Benchmark: Develop a Trac Skills 101 course or planners and engineers, by 2012.

Partner: Iowa Bicycle Coalition - LCIs


Objective 2Maintain a Bicycle Level of Service (Bicycle LOS) score of C or better

on roadways.

Actions:2.1. Convert poor Bicycle LOS roadways to better Bicycle LOS roadways through stand-alone projects

or as part o new construction and/or reconstruction road projects. The Bicycle LOS Model, based on the

proven research documented in Transportation Research Record 1578 published by the Transportation Research Board

o the National Academy o Sciences1, evaluates a bicyclists perceived saety and comort with respect to motor

vehicle trac while traveling in a roadway corridor.2 The statistically calibrated mathematical equation evaluates

bicycling conditions in shared roadway environments and uses the same measurable trac and roadway actors thattransportation planners and engineers use or other travel modes. With statistical precision, the model refects the

eect on bicycling suitability, or compatibility, due to actors such as roadway width, bike lane widths and striping

combinations, trac volume, pavement surace condition, motor vehicle speed and t ype, and on-street parking. Most

cyclists eel comortable on roadways with a Bicycle LOS score o C or better.

2.1.1. Benchmark: Convert 50 miles o the Des Moines metropolitan area roadways to a Bicycle LOS score o C or better,

by 2016; 100 miles, by 2020.

Partner: Government/Agency - MPO - CIRTPA


A b los vaa

a va

a:

Producing a bicycle map or the

public to assist them in route

selection;

Identiying the most appropriat

routes or inclusion in the

community bicycle network;

Determining weak links in the

network, and prioritizing sites

needing improvement;

Evaluating alternate treatments

improving bike-riendliness o a

roadway; and,Road project selection ormulas

can include a Bicycle LOS term t

encourage implementation o b

planning goals.

2.1

1.3

Source: League o American Bicycl

Source: Landis, Bruce W. et al. 199Real-Time Human Perceptions:Toward a Bicycle Level of Service.Transportation Research Record 1578Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC


42/154

BIkEwAY

30 | CONNECT

2.2. Use a Bicycle LOS Model to examine the eects o road projects on bicyclists. For all road projects,

transportation planners and engineers should calculate the beore-and-ater Bicycle LOS to raise awareness

about the impact o road projects on bicyclists.

2.2.1. Benchmark: Calculate the Bicycle LOS or all arterial and collector roadway projects in central Iowa,

beginning in 2010.



2.3. Add the Bicycle LOS as a actor in the STP scoring system or road projects with and without

bicycle accommodations. Adding Bicycle LOS as a actor in the STP scoring process could help the MPO, the

CIRTPA, and the Ames Area MPO consider bicyclists during the planning process. By planning and designing

transportation projects with a Bicycle LOS score o C or better, the MPO, the CIRTPA, and the Ames Area MPO can

ensure that no projects applying or STP unding will worsen a roads Bicycle LOS.

2.3.1. Benchmark: Develop a policy that includes Bicycle LOS as a scoring criterion or STP unds, beginning with

Federal Fiscal Year 2015 unds.

Partner: Roundtable - MPO


Objective 3Encourage more bicycle trips in central Iowa with better bicyclecommuter facilities and infrastructure.

Actions:3.1. Provide a bic ycle riendly workplace. Large employers oten are more inclined to provide various orms

o accommodations or employees. Employees that commute by bicycle are a benet to the employer, having

shown increased productivity and reduced health care costs.3 Providing bicycle parking and a shower may

encourage an employee to become a bicycle commuter. (See Map 6, page 31.)

3.1.1. Benchmark: Prepare a campaign program targeting employers that highlights the benets received by

employees who commute by bicycle, beginning in 2009.

Partner: TMA - Central Iowa Businesses


3.2. Establish a system o bicycle commuter corridors that connect remote areas directly to core

urban areas. Many dierent roadway types cross jurisdictional boundaries. Designating a ew roadways as

bicycle commuting corridors could help provide viable regional transportation connections to dierent areas

or bicyclists. Designating roadways within a mile o each other would provide a balanced regional network o

bicycle commuter corridors. Such corridors may consist o bicycle lanes, trails, shared lane markings, or signed

bicycle routes.

3.2.1. Benchmark: Identiy roadways that could act as bicycle commuting corridors and promote the system to

residents, by 2011.

Partner: Roundtable Government/Agency - Advocates


3.3. Integrate bicycle lanes on existing and new arterial and collector roadways. Bicycle lanes at

minimum, are ve-oot wide corridors exclusively or bicyclists. Bicycle lanes are appropriate particularly on

collector and ar terial roadways, given these roadways high trac volumes and because these roadways oten

are the only crossings o reeways, expressways, waterways, and railway lines. The MPO Planning Area contains

491 miles o arterials and 335 miles o major collectors. Currently, central Iowa has 12.5 miles o bicycle lanes,

with 4.5 o those miles within the MPO Planning Area.

3.3.1. Benchmark: Identiy all central Iowa arterial and major collector roadway locations suitable or bicycle

lanes, by 2011.

3.3.2. Benchmark: Integrate 100 miles o bicycle lanes on central Iowas arterial and collector roads, by 2020.

Partner: Roundtable - Government/Agency - Iowa DOT - MPO


\

Bicycle-riendly cities such asMadison, WI, Eugene, OR, Davis,

CA, Gainesville, FL, and Palo Alto,

CA have developed extensive bike

lane networks since the 1970s

and more recently large cities

such as Tucson, AZ, Chicago, IL,

Houston, TX, Philadelphia, PA,

Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA have

begun to stripe bike lanes on their

arterial and collector streets as a

way o encouraging bicycle use.

In general, bicycle lanes should

always be:

one-way, carrying bicyclists

in the same direction as the

adjacent travel lane;

on the right side

Connect: Central Iowa Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan 2020

Documents

Transcript of Connect: Central Iowa Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan 2020