NOACA Regional Priority Bike Plan

Prepared By Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland Ohio 44114

REGIONAL B ICYCLE P LAN

2013 UpdateJune 2013

T

NORTHEAST OHIO A R E A W I D E COORDINATING A G E N C Y

1299 Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44114

The preparation of this publication was financed through grants received from the Federal Highway Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation and appropriations from the counties of and municipalities within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina. The contents do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation or the Ohio Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard or regulation.

i

The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is a public organization serving the counties of and municipalities and townships within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina (covering an area with 2.1 million people). NOACA is the agency designated or recognized to perform the following functions: Serve as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), with responsibility for comprehensive, cooperative and continuous planning for highways, public transit, and bikeways, as defined in the current transportation law. Perform continuous water quality, transportation-related air quality and other environmental planning functions. Administer the area clearinghouse function, which includes providing local government with the opportunity to review a wide variety of local or state applications for federal funds. Conduct transportation and environmental planning and related demographic, economic and land use research. Serve as an information center for transportation and environmental and related planning. At NOACA Governing Board direction, provide transportation and environmental planning assistance to the 172 units of local, general purpose government.

The NOACA Governing Board is composed of 44 local public officials. The Board convenes monthly to provide a forum for members to present, discuss and develop solutions to local and areawide issues and make recommendations regarding implementation strategies. As the area clearinghouse for the region, the Board makes comments and recommendations on applications for state and federal grants, with the purpose of enhancing the regions social, physical, environmental and land use/transportation fabric. NOACA invites you to take part in its planning process. Feel free to participate, to ask questions and to learn more about areawide planning.GRAND RIVER VILLAGE MENTOR ON N AKE KE THE LAKE

PAINESVILLE TWP. P FA FAIRPORT A HARBOR VILLAGE.

MADISON PERRY RPAINESVILLE

90

ST

LAKELINE E

LA

TIMBERLAKE

2

THOMPSON TWP.

K

E

LAKE GEAUGA

WILLOWICK WILLO OW K O OWICK

EUCLID E UCLID D

CHARDON TWP.

HAMBDEN TWP.

MONTVILLE TWP.

90

CHARDON

HIGHLAND RICHMOND HTS.

MAYFIELD A VILLAGE

AQUILLA MUNSON TWP. CLARIDON TWP.

L LYNDHURST

MAYFIELD A D HTS.

GATES A MILLS

C CHESTERLAND TWP.

HUNTSBURG TWP.

271

SHEFFIELD D LAK LAKE LA

AVON LAKE A

A VILLAGE LLAGE BAY

LAKEWOOD

ROCKY RO

CLEVELAND

SHAKER HTS.

PEPPER PIKE

G HUNTING V VALLEY

BEACHWOOD O

RUSSELL TWP.

MIDDLEFIELD TWP. NEWBURY TWP. BURTON BURTON TWP. MIDDLEFIELD

GARFIELD HTS.

HILLS WA W AR RR RE EN NS SV VIL RA N. ILL LL LE ND N E AL L H

HIGHLAND AND D

CHAGRIN C HAGRIN

S. RUSSELL

BEDFORD

MAPLE HTS.

AMHERST TWP. S. AMHERST

BEREA

INDEPENDENC

GLEN WILLOW

GEAUGA

ELYRIA ELYRI L A

SEVEN H HILLS

OAKWOOD

G Y HOGA CUYAHOGA CUYA

80

MIDDLEBURGH EB HTS. S.

PARMA P HTS.

P PARMA

V LLEY VA VALLEY VIE

BEDFORD

BAINBRIDGE TWP.

AUBURN TWP.

TROY TWP.

PARKMAN P TWP.

422GEAUGA PORT POR TAGE PORTAGE

NEW RUSSIA TWP.R LORA

N. ROYAL ROYALTON Y LTON

BROADVIEW HTS.

CARLISLE TWP.

EATO A N EATON TWP.

STRONGSVILLE VI

480BRECKSVILLE

80AHOGA MEDINA DI SUMMIT

OBERLIN GRAFTONKIPTON

80CAMDEN TWP. PITTSFIELD TWP. La GRANGE La GRANGE TWP. TWP. WELLINGTON TWP. BRIGHTON TWP. WELLINGTON PENFIELD TWP. LITCHFIELD TWP. YORK TWP. GRAFTON TWP. LIVERPOOL TWP. HINCKLEY TWP.PORTAGESUMMIT

80

271MEDINA TWP.MEDINASUMMIT

GRANGER TWP. M MEDINA

LORAIN I

ROCHESTER HUNTINGTON TWP.

MEDINA

ROCHESTER TWP.

SPENCER SPENCER TWP.

CHATHAM A TWP.

77MONTVILLE TWP TWP. SHARON TWP.

For more information, call (216) 241-2414 or log on at http:\\www.noaca.orgHOMER TWP.

GUILFORD TWP. LODI HARRISVILLE TWP. SEVILLE RITTMAN

WADSWORTH W TWP.

76WADSWORTH W ADSWORTH H

71

ii

GA G UG E U GEA GEAUGA

EA

LAKE

NORTH PERRY R

MADISON TWP.

BOARD OFFICERSPresident: Valarie J. McCall, Chief of Government Affairs, City of Cleveland First Vice President: Mary E. Samide, President, Geauga County Board of Commissioners Second Vice President: Ted Kalo, President, Lorain County Board of Commissioners Secretary: Daniel P. Troy, Lake County Commissioner Assistant Secretary: Kathleen Scheutzow, Trustee, Brunswick Hills Township, Medina County Assistant Secretary: Robert E. Aufuldish, President, Lake County Board of Commissioners Treasurer: Stephen D. Hambley, Medina County Commissioner Assistant Treasurer: Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Assistant Treasurer: John D. Hunter, Mayor of Shefeld Village, Lorain County Immediate Past President: Edward S. Jerse, Director of Regional Collaboration, Cuyahoga County

BOARD MEMBERSCUYAHOGA COUNTY Robert G. Blomquist, Mayor, City of Olmsted Falls William R. Cervenik, Mayor, City of Euclid Scott E. Coleman, Mayor, City of Highland Heights Timothy J. DeGeeter, Mayor, City of Parma Edward O. FitzGerald, County Executive, Cuyahoga County Susan K. Infeld, Mayor, City of University Heights Edward S. Jerse, Director of Regional Collaboration, Susanna Niermann ONeil, Acting City Manager, Cleveland Heights Michael S. Procuk, Mayor, Village of Brooklyn Heights Julian Rogers, Councilman, City of Cleveland Leonard A. Spremulli, Mayor, Village of Bentleyville Robert A. Stefanik, Mayor, City of North Royalton Michael P. Summers, Mayor, City of Lakewood Deborah L. Sutherland, Mayor, City of Bay Village Bonita G. Teeuwen, P.E., Director of Public Works CITY OF CLEVELAND Anthony Brancatelli, Councilman, Robert N. Brown, Director of Planning Martin J. Keane, Councilman Valarie J. McCall, Chief of Government Affairs Mamie J. Mitchell, Councilwoman Jomarie Wasik, Director of Capital Projects GEAUGA COUNTY Tracy A. Jemison, Geauga County Commissioner Mary E. Samide, President, Geauga County Board of Commissioners Ralph Spidalieri, Geauga County Commissioner LAKE COUNTY Robert E. Aufuldish, President, Lake County Board of Commissioners James R. Gills, P.E., P.S., Lake County Engineer Ray Jurkowski, LAKETRAN General Manager Judy Moran, Lake County Commissioner Daniel P. Troy, Lake County Commissioner LORAIN COUNTY Holly Brinda, Mayor, City of Elyria Kenneth P. Carney, Sr., P.E., P.S., Lorain County Engineer Ted Kalo, President, Lorain County Board of Commissioners Dick Heidecker, Trustee, Columbia Township John D. Hunter, Mayor, Village of Shefeld Chase M. Ritenauer, Mayor, City of Lorain Tom Williams, Lorain County Commissioner MEDINA COUNTY J. Christopher Easton, Public Service Director, City of Wadsworth Stephen D. Hambley, Medina County Commissioner Michael J. Salay, P.E., P.S., Medina County Engineer Kathleen Scheutzow, Trustee, Brunswick Hills Township _________________________________

NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT (NEORSD)Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONALTRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA)

George M. Dixon, Board President CLEVELAND-CUYAHOGA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY: William D. Friedman, President/CEO

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(ODOT): Myron S. Pakush, Deputy Director,

District 12 Ex ofcio Member: Kurt Princic, Chief, Northeast District Ofce, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

NOACA DIRECTORSGrace Gallucci, Executive Director Cheryl A. Kurkowski, CPA, Director of Finance & Operations Jonathan Giblin, Director of Programs Randy Lane, Director of Programming William Davis, Associate Director of Planning

iii

1) Title & Subtitle:

Regional Bicycle Plan, 2013 Update

2) NOACA Report No.:TR1304

3) Author(s):Contributors:

Marc Von Allmen

4) Report Date: June 2013

Daniel Boyle William Davis Gayle Godek

Sara Maier Ryan Noles

Amy Stacy Brenda Walker

5) Performing Organization Name & Address:Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114-3204 Phone: (216) 241-2414 FAX: (216) 621-3024 Web site: www.noaca.org

6) Project Task No.: 6103-03

7) NOACA Contract/Grant No.:

8) Sponsoring Agency Name & Address:Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 W. Broad St., Box 899 Columbus, OH 43216-0899

9) Type of Report & Period Covered:FY2008-2013

10) Sponsoring Agency Code:

11) Supplementary Notes:Federal funding for this project was provided by the Federal Highway Administration and administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation.

12) Abstracts: The 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan serves as an update to the 2008 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan. It also functions as a component of NOACAs long-range planning efforts. The plan analyzes current conditions for bicycling, including levels of usage, construction of bikeways and other facilities, safety, as well as other factors. The plan update discusses previous goals, and establishes new goals, objectives, and performance measures. The plan also proposes priority roadways and facilities for a regional network and bicycling-related programs, and provides guidance for implementation. 13) Key Words & Document Analysis:A. Descriptors - Bicycle, bicycling, safety, multimodal, implementation, funding, stakeholders, benefits, regional priority, performance, progress, crash rate, count volumes, goals, objectives, B. Identifiers/Open Ended Term Regional Planning

14) Availability Statement: Available in print and on the NOACA website

15) No. Pages: 88 16) Price:

tr1304

iv

Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1: Benefits of Bicycling Chapter 2: Progress Since 2008 Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, & Performance Measures Chapter 4: Current Usage & Demand Chapter 5: Safety Chapter 6: Regional Priority Bikeway Network Chapter 7: Programs Chapter 8: Implementation & Funding Chapter 9: Conclusion Appendix I: Works Cited Appendix II: Regional Priority Bikeway Network Appendix III: Design Guidance Appendix IV: Stakeholder Engagement 1 5 8 12 14 26 33 42 47 51 53 56 67 71

LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Miles of Bicycle Lanes & Shared Use Paths Table 2: Bicycle Count Volumes by Year Table 3: Crashes Involving Bicyclists by Year Table 4: Potential Bikeway Demand Scoring Table 5: High Crash Rate Locations Table 6: High Crash Rate Corridors Table 7: List of Funding Opportunities LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Bicycle Commute Mode Share Map 2: Bicycle Counts Map 3: Potential Bikeway Demand Map 4: Potential Bikeway Demand & Existing Bikeways Map 5: Crash Density Map Map 6: Regional Priority Bikeway Network LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Northeast Ohio Bicycle Commuters, Bicycle Crashes, & Crash Rate Figure 2: Crashes Involving Bicyclists by County & Year Figure 3: Number of Crashes by Hour of Day Figure 4: Location of Crashes Involving Bicyclists Figure 5: Vehicle at Fault in Crashes Involving Bicyclists 11 26 27 27 28 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 & 24-25 30-31 & 32-33 34-41 8 10 10 15 29 29 50

v

vi

NOACAs 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan maps out what needs to be accomplished to make northeast Ohio more bicycle friendly, and serves as an update to the 2008 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan. It also functions as a component of Connections+ 2035, NOACAs long-range transportation plan, which is concerned with the entire regional transportation network. Because federal regulations mandate that regional transportation planning include all modes of transportation, it is important to incorporate the Regional Bicycle Plan into Connections+ 2035. Additionally, a more bicycle-friendly northeast Ohio can potentially lead to a wide variety of benefits for the region. The bicycle is a zero-emission vehicle, so replacing vehicle trips with bicycle trips decreases air pollution and can improve air quality, a current problem in our region.1 Bicycling also serves as a great form of exercise, which can help combat obesity as well as other health conditions.2 Infrastructure improvements can also improve safety for current bicyclists, and can make others feel safe enough to take to the road on two wheels instead of four.3 This infrastructure is typically less expensive and easier to maintain than building and expanding roads for motorized traffic. Finally, a more bicycle-friendly northeast Ohio can provide a number of mobility benefits such as a safer and more efficient means of transportation for those who do not have access to a car. Research about cities and regions that are already experiencing some of these benefits due to investments in bicycle facilities is discussed in Chapter 1 of this plan.

Progress and Future

To plan for improved conditions for bicycling, it is important to obtain a clear vision of what infrastructure exists today, the current efforts to reach bicycling-related goals, and whether these efforts are effective. The 2008 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan established five regional goals.4 Feedback from focus group participants and staff analysis reveal progress has been made on all five goals. In some instances, however, progress is difficult to measure or quantify. Also, there is room for improvement in regard to all five goals, and in some cases progress is not occurring fast enough. Chapter 2 goes into more detail as to what progress has been made in regard to each goal.

The 2013 plan includes the following goals:1. Plan and implement bicycle facilities. 2. Create and support new or improved policies and programs related to bicycling.

The list of regional goals is intentionally short and straightforward to avoid overlap and confusion. Measuring progress on goals will be easier as a result. Related to each of

1

the overarching goals, numerous objectives are also listed. The completion of each objective will result in becoming closer to reaching a stated goal. Finally, in addition to the goals and corresponding objectives, the 2013 plan establishes a list of performance measures. These performance measures have been previously monitored in some fashion. They will now be measured and monitored in a consistent way so that progress can be tracked and trends can be identified. The establishment of performance measures will further clarify the accountability of all parties involved in making northeast Ohio more bicycle friendly. The goals, objectives, and performance measures are further explained in Chapter 3.

Current Conditions

Besides assessing progress on previous goals, it is important to develop a clearer picture of current conditions and trends regarding bicycling in northeast Ohio. This allows for a more accurate identification of needs. NOACA staff examined factors such as current bicycling rates, potential demand for bicycle facilities, and volumes and trends for crashes involving bicyclists. Results from initial analyses were then presented for feedback to the NOACA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC), as well as focus group and public meeting participants, to gain more insight on current conditions. Crash data used to explore safety conditions included all reported and located crashes involving bicycles from 2007 through 2011, the most recently available five-year period. The data was obtained from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Geographic Information Systems Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT). Examined factors include crash volumes by county and year, distribution of crashes for time of day, the location of crashes in relation to the roadway network (intersection, non-intersection, driveway, other), and the identification of high-crash locations and corridors. Chapter 4 provides more detail on each one of these factors. To get an idea of where people are currently riding, NOACA staff compiled data from the U.S. 2010 Census and American Community Survey. Bicycle commuter rates were mapped out across the region at the census tract level. Results from recent bicycle counts were also used to determine where high volumes currently exist. Results from surveys, focus groups, and public meetings were also used to shed light on this topic. Chapter 5 includes some discussion of this analysis as well as observations. In addition to considering where people are currently riding, a methodology based on practices from peer regional bicycle planning efforts was developed and used to determine which areas within the region are most likely to have the highest potential demand for bikeways. The methodology included compiling census data for a variety of factors that are understood to have a correlation with higher rates of

2

bicycling. These six factors include population density, job density, bicycle commute rates, walking and transit commute rates, number of zero-vehicle households, and percentage of short commutes. Each census tract was assigned a score based on each of the six factors, and then a composite score was derived to determine the potential bikeway demand for every tract in the region.

Regional Priority Bikeway Network

The Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN) is a vision of a system of interconnected routes throughout northeast Ohio that are safe and convenient for bicyclists. The region has seen an increase in the number of facilities over the past four years, but to allow for safe and efficient bicycle transportation throughout the region, focus needs to be given to building a network that connects people to where they need and want to go. NOACA supports the provision of safe accommodations for bicyclists on roads within the region, but the roads included in the RPBN will take priority for the development of bicycle facilities that serve riders of all ages with different skill levels. The specific type of bikeway to be implemented is not indicated, but guidance on this decision can be found in Appendix III. The RPBN was identified by using the Potential Bikeway Demand layer developed in Chapter 5, as well as other factors, such as existing and planned bikeways, public transportation stops, current bicycle suitability of the road, and regional attractions. NOACA staff discussed this methodology with the BPAC and developed a draft. The draft RPBN was then presented to the BPAC for review, as well as at public meetings held throughout the region. Finally, the draft RPBN was sent out to all cities, villages, counties, and other stakeholders within the region for feedback. This extensive public involvement process was conducted so that the RPBN would truly reflect the regional vision for a safe and efficient bikeway network.

Proposed Programs

To make northeast Ohio a truly bicycle-friendly region, stakeholders should offer and conduct a multitude of programs to complement infrastructure improvements. This plan provides a menu of suggested programs that consists of four categories: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Some of the listed programs have already been implemented within the region and should either be continued or expanded. Others have been implemented elsewhere and have made other regions more bicycle friendly. Each program includes a suggested lead agency, department, or organization, as well as suggested partners. The actual implementation of a program may involve different leaders or supporters. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of current or future bicycle-related programs within the region, but instead a list of priorities to work toward implementation. Chapter 7 contains the list of programs.

3

Implementation and Conclusion

As the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Greater Cleveland, NOACA determines how federal funding for transportation projects is spent within the region. Chapter 8 contains an overview of various funding programs administered by NOACA, as well as additional state and federal programs. This is not a comprehensive list; there are many funding opportunities for municipalities or organizations interested in planning or constructing bikeway projects or implementing bicycle programs. The majority of bicycling-related projects that NOACA works with, however, involve these funding programs. This plan outlines many efforts that need to be undertaken to make northeast Ohio a bicycle-friendly region. Public and stakeholder involvement guided and strengthened this plan through its development, and NOACA staff appreciates all who participated. As with previous regional bicycle plans, this plan is a living document and should be updated on a regular basis.

4

Chapter 1: Benefits of BicyclingNOACA is eager to continue investing in the regional multimodal transportation system because of the varied benefits that can be realized, such as improvements to the environment, public health, and safety. Some of these benefits are expanded upon below. The Cleveland-Akron-Elyria urbanized area has the 12thhighest level of PM2.5, or fine particles, in the nation, one of six pollutants monitored for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.5 Although air pollution comes from a variety of sources and a range of efforts is necessary for clean air, our transportation habits play a considerable role. The fact that the bicycle is a zero-emission vehicle makes it a great opportunity to clear the air in northeast Ohio. Many of the commutes made or errands run in the region are short enough in distance to travel by bike.6 According to the American Lung Associations State of the Air 2012, the cleaner air that would result from a mode shift for these trips could encourage more businesses to locate in the region, offer a more attractive and healthy place for people to move to or continue to reside in, and create safer conditions for the hundreds of thousands in the region who suffer from respiratory diseases.7 According to a nationwide study, Ohio is now the 13th fattest state in the U.S., with an adult obesity rate of 29.6 percent and a childhood obesity rate of 18.5 percent.8 These are extremely alarming numbers, considering that obesity has been linked to serious medical conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and numerous forms of cancer. Someone who has been 40 percent overweight for more than 10 years is twice as likely to die prematurely. Additionally, an obese person spends 42 percent more in medical care costs annually.9 One of the many contributing factors to obesity is a lack of exercise. Increased levels of active transportation could go a long way to helping to lower these disturbing numbers. The Cleveland Clinic website prescribes at least 30-45 minutes of moderate exercise on most, if not all days. A daily five-mile round trip bike ride, perhaps for errands or commuting, would be more than sufficient. Additionally, the prescribed moderate exercise built into a daily routine could replace an hour budgeted at the gym, thereby increasing free time.

Environmental Impacts

Health Impacts

Safety Impacts

Additional investments in bicycle infrastructure will likely yield multiple benefits when it comes to road safety. Bikeways, especially more recent innovations such as bicycle boulevards and intersection treatments, will provide safer conditions for

5

current bicyclists. Furthermore, potential bicyclists, who may be wary due to a sense of lack of safety, will be more likely to incorporate bicycling into their everyday travel habits. The benefit of increased safety from additional bicycle infrastructure extends to all modes of transportation. Research has been conducted to better understand the effects of higher bicycle mode shares on safety for all road users. One study, analyzing 11 years of traffic data for 24 California cities, portrayed positive impacts. As the bicycle mode share increased, traffic fatality rates for all roads users, including motorists, decreased.10 This positive impact is the result of more cautious driving due to an increase in the presence of bicyclists, the fact that bicycle-friendly roads and intersections concurrently promote safer driving, and shorter trips due to a shift in mode choice, among other factors.

Economic Impacts

In a time when cities and counties nationwide are feeling the budget crunch, increases in costs for maintaining the existing transportation system are making matters considerably worse. Maintenance costs increase as the road network continues to grow, following the outward migration of both population and jobs from urban cores in northeast Ohio.11 In the 2012-2015 NOACA Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), more than $122 million is dedicated to resurfacing projects alone.12 Due to their size, as well as the size and weight of the vehicles that use them, bikeways cost significantly less to construct and maintain. Transportation spending is not only a problem at the regional and local level, but on an individual level as well. A report by the Center for Neighborhood Technology noted Cleveland (tied with Detroit) as the city spending the second highest percentage of personal income on transportation.13 More recent studies reveal that 60 percent of the regions housing stock is not affordable for the average annual income wage earner, when transportation costs associated with housing are also considered. The majority of the remaining 40 percent is located within urban areas or along transit routes.14 This 40 percent could expand significantly with increased investment in the multimodal network, including bike facilities.

Travel Impacts

Similar to other urban areas, people in northeast Ohio continue to feel the burden of a congested transportation system. In 2011 it is estimated that people living in Greater Cleveland on average lost nearly $642 to congestionrelated costs. The urbanized area as a whole lost $736 million, ranking 36th among 101 urban areas nationwide.15 There are numerous factors contributing to the regions congestion, such as a lack of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, as well as others. While it should not be considered a silver bullet solution, a significant increase in bicycle mode share can help relieve congestion throughout the region. The more people choose to get from their origin to destination by bike, the fewer the cars and congestion on our roads. A study released in 2011 looked at pairs of cities similar in size and compared their respective bicycle mode shares and hours of congestion-related delay per capita.16 In the three cases examined (New York City/Los Angeles, Philadelphia/Miami, Boston/Dallas), each city with the highest non-motorized mode share also had less hours spent in congestion per capita.

6

Another travel benefit provided by increased investment in bike facilities and other multimodal infrastructure is improved mobility for those who are unable to afford and maintain a car. The percentage of workers 16 and older without access to a motorized vehicle varies from just over 5 percent in Geauga and Cuyahoga counties to 1.2 percent in Medina County. That percentage more than doubles for the City of Cleveland, where more than one in ten do not have access to a motorized vehicle.17 Some of these people do not own a car by choice, but many simply cannot afford one. Providing more affordable options for all transportation system users can begin to erase this mobility inequality.

Quantifying the Benefits

Staff researched per mile rates to quantify the benefits of bicycling for northeast Ohio. These rates were applied to the number of miles that could be traveled by bike as opposed to driving alone. The results are below:

The number of people who commute by driving alone for a distance of five miles or less each way is 79,256 .* Taking into consideration weekends, time off, part-time workers, and weather conditions, the number of possible commutes by bike for this group is roughly estimated to be 146.The rates of benefit per mile by switching from driving to biking are 38.5 calories burned** 423 grams of CO2 avoided*** 64 cents saved**** This yields an annual benefit of Nearly 1 Billion Calories Burned Per Year! Over 23 Million Pounds of CO2 Removed From the Air! $16 Million in Savings for Northeast Ohioans!

*

This figure is taken from the 2007-2009 ACS and represents the number of people in Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina counties that have commutes of ten minutes or less and drive alone. These commutes are assumed to be five miles or less because the 2009 NHTS found an average commute speed of 28.7 for areas within an MSA of population 1-2.9 million and 32.5 for rural areas. This figure is taken from State of Wisconsins Department of Health and corresponds to bicycling, light effort, at a rate of 10-11.9 mph.

**

*** This figure is taken from the U.S. EPAs Office of Transportation and Air Qualitys website. **** Thomas Gotschi, Active Transportation For America (Rails to Trails Conservancy, 2008); http://www.railstotrails.org/ourwork/advocacy/activetransportation/ makingthecase/index.html (accessed Dec. 19, 2011).

7

Chapter 2: Progress Since 2008NOACA last updated its regional bicycle plan in 2008. The plan listed five overarching goals, as well as corresponding strategies that would gauge the degree to which these goals were met. The five goals are listed below, along with some of the strategies, with the progress that was made in the previous four years.

1. Promote a Network of Safe Bikeways and Supporting FacilitiesAn inventory of bikeways was created for the 1997 plan, edited and updated in 2006 for the 2008 plan, and edited and updated once again during the completion of this plan. The increase in miles of shared use paths and bicycle lanes over the two time periods is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: MILES OF BICYCLE LANES & SHARED USE PATHS

Year 1997 2006 2012

Lanes 8 40 55

Paths 105 195 260

Table 1 shows that both miles of bike lanes and paths continue to increase in northeast Ohio. Bike paths have been installed at a faster rate than bike lanes, with annual growth rates over the past six years averaging 10.8 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. Some shared use paths function as excellent transportation options, but many are geared toward recreation. While it is exciting to see both types of bikeways continue to be constructed throughout the region, it will be important to increase growth rates and to concentrate on providing facilities that offer transportation options. In addition to bike lanes and shared use paths, support facilities vital to the continued increase in ridership have also been installed throughout the region. Perhaps the most notable would be The Bike Rack, the bike storage facility and commuter station located in downtown Cleveland. The facility offers separate shower/changing facilities, lockers, bicycle rentals and a full-service bicycle repair shop.18

2. Increase Bicycle Planning and Provision of Facilities at the Local LevelNOACA has implemented several programs and initiatives, providing funding and technical assistance to help facilitate multimodal planning at the local level in northeast Ohio, including: Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative (TLCI): This program offers federal funding as well as technical assistance for municipalities within the NOACA region to conduct planning efforts geared toward improving multimodal infrastructure, among other objectives.19 Since the 2008 Bicycle Plan Update, eight grant recipients have been able to adopt multimodal master plans, mapping networks of potential bicycle and pedestrian projects, while 30 others have been able to make plans to improve vital corridors throughout the NOACA region.

8

Walkable Communities Workshops: In 2008, NOACA partnered with the National Center for Bicycling and Walking to lead walking audits in the communities of Lakewood, Brooklyn, Strongsville, and Chesterland. These workshops were geared toward getting planners, engineers, law enforcement officers, and elected officials out in the field to discuss possible solutions for improving the local multimodal infrastructure. All four workshops resulted in a list of possible projects that would make the communities more accommodating for bicyclists and pedestrians, including: Road diets to allow for bike lanes on roadways with underused capacity Shared use paths running parallel to arterials with high motor vehicle volumes Repainting crosswalks to allow for greater visibility to motorists

Bicycle Friendly Communities: NOACA staff has assisted communities in applying for Bicycle Friendly Community status, a designation awarded to communities nationwide by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB).20 Designations are based upon a variety of criteria regarding bicycling and are awarded at five different levels: Diamond, Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze. Currently there are no designated communities in the NOACA region, although Cleveland Heights received an honorable mention in 2010. NOACA believes that continued efforts to plan for and build a more complete multimodal infrastructure network will yield stronger applications and more designations in the years to come. Various municipalities have also prioritized planning for improved bicycle infrastructure without funding assistance from NOACA. The cities of Lakewood and Cleveland in Cuyahoga County, Medina County, and others jurisdictions have invested time and money to organize the ideas of local stakeholders to ensure that future investments go toward building an optimal network that will create momentum as it is implemented. All of these planning efforts significantly strengthen future applications for federal funding.

3. Increase Bicycle Ridership for TransportationData sources suggest that bicycle ridership is continuing to grow in northeast Ohio. The LAB annually compiles journey to work data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, comparing commuting trends for the 70 most populous U.S. cities. Journey to work data is concerned specifically with information regarding commuting trips, as opposed to all travel, and is released annually. Included in the compilation are the bicycle mode shares for each city, as well as the percent increases in mode share over the past decade. The City of Cleveland experienced an increase in bicycle mode share of approximately 280 percent from 2000 to 2010, the highest rate of increase for all 70 cities.21 The tremendous increase can be attributed to a wide variety of causes, including the increase in facilities noted above, a growing bicycling community, revitalization of the more compact, urban core areas, as well as many others. Cleveland now has a bicycle commute share estimated to be 0.6 percent, with Lorain County next in line at 0.5 percent.22 Another means to gauge progress on this goal is by examining bicycle count data. NOACA has been conducting bicycle counts since 2004; however, the bicycle count program was changed in 2011 to reflect standards included in the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD). The NBPD is a nationwide effort to collect bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts in a more uniform manner to achieve a better understanding of multimodal travel behavior.23

9

Many of the counts conducted since the program change in 2011 were located at intersections that had been counted in the past; however, these counts were screenline counts as opposed to intersection counts (counting traffic only at one leg of the intersection, as opposed to all four). In addition, recent counts were all conducted during the same two-hour period (from 5PM7PM), and during one-week periods in May and September. Previous counts were conducted during various hours of the day between June and August. Therefore, due to a shift in methodology, it is difficult to make accurate comparisons between past counts and counts since 2011. Table 2 below shows some of the counts that were conducted in 2011 as well as previous years. Note that previously, NOACA aimed to count locations every four years to allow for more time before assessing increases or decreases in volumes. Therefore, a count at each location is not available for the majority of years shown.

Table 2: BICYCLE COUNT VOLUMES BY YEARCount Location C oun Coun Co u tL unt Loc Lo ocati ti ion o on Detroit Ave. East of 25th St. Edgehill Rd. East of Overlook Rd. Detroit Ave. East of Warren Rd. Lake Ave. East of Avon Belden Rd. High St. North of College St. Liberty St. South of Mentor Ave. Bell St. West of Mapleridge Rd. County C ount o ou nt nty ty Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Lorain Medina Lake Geauga 2006 20 06 57 N/A 32 19 19 10 N/A 2008 2 008 00 8 N/A 108 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2010 2009 20 09 2 0 01 0 010 N/A 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 113 N/A N/A N/A 11 N/A N/A 2011 20 11 1 88 60 58 12 6 9 6 Increase/ I / Incr In crea cr ea ease ase se/ D Decrease Decrea Decr De ecr crea ea ease ase e -22% -6% 81% -37% -45% -10% 500%

Keeping the differences in methodology in mind, there are some conclusions that can be made from these results. One statement that still holds true is that the highest bicycle volumes remain in Cuyahoga County, which has higher population densities, a more complete street grid, and a mix of land uses. The three Cuyahoga County count locations returned the highest volumes from 2006 through 2010, and once again in 2011 under the new methodology.

4. Promote Safer Bicycling in the Region and Reduce AccidentsTo gauge the safety of the regions bicyclists, the 2008 plan compared the number of crashes involving bicyclists in each county between 1991 and 1995 to those between 2002 and 2006. That comparison showed that accidents involving bicyclists had decreased since the 1997 plan. This held true regionwide and in four of the five counties.24 For this plan, crash data from ODOT from 2008 to 2011 is shown in the table below.

Table 3: CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS BY YEARYear Ye ar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 C Cuyahoga uyah uy ya aho oga og a 310 363 374 374 Geau Ge Geauga auga auga au 4 4 3 5 L Lake ake ak e 48 54 47 34 Lora Lo Lorain ora ain n M edin ed ina in na Medina 65 57 64 63 17 16 17 14 Regi Re Region g on gi o 444 494 505 490

Source:Crash Statistics System (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/crashstatistics/CrashReports.aspx (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

Region-wide, crashes involving bicyclists increased by 10 percent from 2008 to 2011. This increase is alarming because total crashes for all vehicles regionwide decreased 4 percent from 2008 to 2011.25 Geauga, Lorain, and Medina

10

county crash volumes remained relatively stable, while crashes in Lake County decreased. Cuyahoga County, which has significantly higher crash volumes than all the other counties, also saw the biggest increase from 2008 to 2011. This is clearly a harmful trend, but it is difficult to determine to what extent this increase should be attributed to less safe conditions for bicyclists, increased levels of bicycling (and therefore a potential decrease in crash rate), or both. Figure 1 below compares the number of bicycle commuters, the number of bicycle-related crashes, and a bicycle crash rate calculated as the ratio between the two (bicycle-related crashes/bicycle commuters) from 2005 to 2011.

Figure 1: NORTHEAST OHIO BICYCLE COMMUTERS, BICYCLE CRASHES, & CRASH RATE600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2006 0

Number of bicycle-related crashes

Bicycle commuters Bicycle-related crashes Bicycle crash rate

Source:Crash Statistics System (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); https:// ext.dps.state.oh.us/crashstatistics/CrashReports.aspx (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). See also Table S0801: ACS 1-Year Estimate: Commuting Characteristics by Sex (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau); www.census.gov (accessed Oct. 10, 2012).

Due to fluctuation, it will be beneficial to continue to track this data over a longer time frame to better identify trends. The number of bicycle-related crashes has gradually increased over time, but the bicycle crash rate and number of bicycle commuters has fluctuated. While the number of crashes increased 10 percent from 2008 to 2011, the crash rate had a modest increase of 2 percent. In the two years in which there were significant increases in the number of bicycle commuters (2006 to 2007 and 2009 to 2010), however, the number of crashes remained relatively stable, resulting in a significant decrease in the crash rate. Additionally, the one year in which there was a significant decrease in the number of bicycle commuters (20082009), there was a significant increase in crashes, resulting in a significant increase in crash rate. These observations begin to illustrate a trend of safety in numbers that has also been experienced around the nation.26 Although infrastructure improvements, continued education of drivers and bicyclists, and many other factors play a role in increasing the safety of bicyclists, it is likely that, as the number of bicyclists on the road increases, so does their safety.

5. Encourage Involvement of the Private Sector & Other Outside Support for BikingAlthough little investment from the private sector has been tracked, one significant investment was that of the Gund Foundation. The foundation awarded a grant of $60,000 to the advocacy organization Bike Cleveland in November 2011. Bike Cleveland has put this money toward funding its

11

executive director position, creating the first professional bike advocacy organization with paid staff in northeast Ohio.27 Additionally, the private sector was involved during the annual Bike to Work Day celebrations. NOACA approached employers for the first time in 2009, and again in 2010, to join in the event by encouraging their employees to try commuting to work. In 2009, 13 employers informed NOACA they would participate, and in 2010, the number grew to 27 employers.28 Participating employees provided positive feedback, including the intention to continue to commute by bike after trying it for the first time.

Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Performance MeasuresLong-range GoalsThis plan focuses on one mode, bicycling, but it also functions as one part of the overall long-range transportation planning process conducted by NOACA. Therefore, this plan should be and is in accordance with the stated goals of Connections+ 2035.

Regional Bicycle Plan Goals

It is important to develop goals and objectives specific to bicycling in order to better achieve the long-range planning goals. NOACA staff developed two main goals based on analysis of previous internal and external planning efforts, current conditions and needs, and input from the public and stakeholder groups. They are as follows: 1. Plan and implement bicycle facilities 2. Create and support new or improved policies and programs related to bicycling

Regional Bicycle Plan Objectives

These two goals may seem simple and straightforward, but to make progress on or achieve them, there is much work to be done. This work is further outlined by the list of objectives below. As opposed to overarching goals, objectives are distinct, and whether they have been fully or partially achieved will be easily determined in the future. The objectives are listed below their corresponding goals, but the completion of some objectives will result in progress made on both goals.Objectives for Goal 1 (Plan and implement bicycle facilities): a. Identify a regional network that provides more options for people currently bicycling, as well as those considering bicycling for transportation. b. Coordinate with cities, counties, villages, townships, and the state to implement local connections into the regional network. c. Eliminate critical gaps in the current regional network, as well as local bikeway networks. d. Encourage the design and implementation of innovative and safe bicycle facilities that have proven successful in other metropolitan areas, and analyze their impacts within the region. e. Increase the quantity and quality of bicycle parking at appropriate locations. f. Develop maintenance strategies for existing and future bicycle facilities. g. Improve bicycle access to targeted destinations, including public transportation stops, schools, shopping centers, and places of employment.

12

h. Target major barriers to safe bicycling travel within the region, such as highways, railroads, bridges, rivers, and work with cities, counties, villages, townships, and the state to develop solutions. i. Enhance the user experience by incorporating way-finding signage where applicable.

Objectives for Goal 2 (Create and support new or improved policies & programs related to bicycling):a. Improve and clarify NOACAs current policies related to planning and programming infrastructure projects and the provision of bicycle facilities. b. Draft and adopt a regional complete streets policy. c. Update appropriate agency processes to facilitate the implementation of a regional complete streets policy. d. Provide project sponsor resources that facilitate the implementation of a regional complete streets policy. e. Support the local adoption and implementation of complete streets policies. f. Develop strategies to improve the enforcement of laws regarding bicycling. g. Continue to update and distribute county bicycle maps to interested bicyclists. h. Offer bicycle facility planning and design training opportunities to local planning and engineering staffs. i. Lead or support the implementation of programs listed in Chapter 7.

Finally, progress in making northeast Ohio a more bicycle-friendly region can be documented by adopting performance measures. Performance measures are defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as qualitative or quantitative measures of outcomes, outputs, efficiency, or cost effectiveness.29 Benefits of incorporating performance measures in any transportation planning exercise include enhanced accountability, transparency for the public being served, improved decision making, and a better ability to assess system performance. According to MAP-21, performance measures will be developed by the U.S. DOT, and states and MPOs must develop performance targets to correspond to the federal performance measures.* NOACA will use the following performance measures to evaluate progress. The performance measures used will be reevaluated in subsequent updates to the Regional Bicycle Plan to ensure that they effectively capture the necessary context to determine progress. 1. Annual number of bicycle-related crashes 2. Annual number of miles of bikeways constructed 3. Annual growth of bicycle commute mode share and bicycle count volumes Progress on these performance measures will be tracked by means of an annual or biennial bicycling report card, one of the proposed evaluation programs in Chapter 7.

Regional Bicycle Plan Performance Measures

* MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. Funding surface transportation programs at more than $105 billion for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization enacted since 2005.

13

Chapter 4: Current Usage & Demand CIn addition to creating a snapshot of the current bikeway network, it is important to explore the current level of bicycle usage and potential demand for more facilities in the region. In doing so, a framework d can be developed for continued investment in more bicycle and c pedestrian infrastructure. Ultimately, this process will help NOACA p determine which areas should be identified as priorities for bicycle d facility projects. Numerous factors need to be analyzed to determine f an areas bicycle usage as well as potential demand. a

Where people are bicycling WT Two main data sources are available to determine where and how many people are riding bicycles in Northeast Ohio. One source is the m journey to work data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Bicycle jo commuting rates for all census tracts within the NOACA region c from the 2010 Census are displayed in Map 1.30 As shown in the f map legend, the darker the red shading, the higher the percentage m of people commuting by bike. To put the numbers in context, the o national mode share is a little more than 0.5 percent of the population n commuting by bike. The City of Cleveland, as a whole, has a rate of c 0.6 percent. Areas within Cuyahoga County that display relatively 0 high bicycle commuting rates are downtown and the near east and h west neighborhoods in the City of Cleveland, the cities of Lakewood w and Cleveland Heights, and an outer ring of various suburban a municipalities. Areas displaying relatively higher commuting rates in m Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina counties are largely limited to the G more urban areas. Map 1 also shows existing bikeways and suggests m that expenditures for bicycle facilities have been appropriately focused t in n higher-usage areas. Bicycle counts conducted by NOACA with the help of volunteers B provide additional insight into levels of bicycling. As stated in Chapter p 2, the NOACA bike count program was reorganized in fall 2011, and 2 the locations chosen for each count period include: t - Locations that had been counted in previous years - Locations surrounded by relatively high population densities, a mix of land uses, bicycle facilities, and other factors that are likely to make bicycling a more viable transportation option. - Locations for planned bicycle facility installation or improvements (before and after studies) After NOACA staff compiles a list of potential count locations based A on these factors, the locations counted from year to year depend o on volunteer availability. NOACA intends to continue and improve o volunteer recruitment efforts so that locations can be counted on a v consistent basis and additional locations can be added in future years. c Map 2 shows the five-county region and its major roads, as well as M bicycle count locations and volumes from September 2011 and May b 2012. As the legend indicates, the size of each dot represents the 2 number of bicycles that were counted during a two-hour period during n the evening peak period. t

14

Looking at Map 2, most of the higher volumes are located in t the he Ci City ity o of f Cleveland and the inner ring suburbs. Because the bicycle count program unt pro ogram m was only recently changed, it will be important to continue to conduct o cond duct t the counts in a consistent manner so that trends can be accurately ur rately y monitored in the future. Also, as the sample size grows, further analysis her ana alys sis can examine the various strengths of correlations between count volumes ount volum mes and factors such as land use, population density, presence of bikeway, f a bikewa ay, , and other factors.

Where people may want to rideBy compiling data on a handful of factors, it is possible to uncover nc cover wh which hich hi h areas within the NOACA region may have a greater demand fo for more or mo ore r bicycle facilities. Numerous planning efforts at various scales the s across ss t he he nation have conducted similar analyses to develop priorities fo for future or the f uture utu development of bikeways. The different factors used in these to e efforts ts t o determine potential bikeway demand vary to some extent, but generally ut t gene era rall ly include the following: Percentage of people already commuting by bike Percentage of people already commuting by other active transportation modes (walking and public transit) Percentage of people who do not own an automobile Percentage of people with commutes of ten minutes or less Population density Employment density

Data was complied from the 2010 Census to create a map depicting epicting ep ga composite demand score based on these six factors.31 Table 4 show shows ws how each factor was weighted to determine the potential demand score mand s core e for each census tract, and Map 3 shows the results.

Table 4: POTENTIAL BIKEWAY DEMAND SCORINGFactor Fact Fa ctor ct or or Population Density (# of people per acre) Employment Density (# of jobs per acre) Commutes by Bicycle (% of employed 16 & older) Commutes by Walking or Public Transit (% of employed 16 & older) Zero-Vehicle Households (% of households) Short Commutes (% of employed 16 & older) Range R ange an g ge 15 15 0.8-2 2-4 >4 5-15 15-25 >25 5-15 15-25 >25 10-25 15-25 >25 Score S core co re 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6

15

Data Sources: U.S. Census BureauNOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.

16

Darker census tracts received higher potential bikeway demand scores. The City of Cleveland stands out as the most prominent priority area. Priority areas are also identified throughout the five-county region. The following municipalities contain census tracts with relatively high composite scores. City of Cleveland Heights City of East Cleveland City of Elyria City of Lakewood City of Lorain Village of Middlefield City of Oberlin City of Painesville City of Wadsworth

Mode Share (%)0.0 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.5 1.5 - 10.1 Bike Lane Bike Path County Boundary Major Road: Planning For Greater Cleveland

Not only are individual areas able to be identified as potential priorities, but larger, regional corridors also emerge from this analysis. Numerous corridors originate from the City of Cleveland and extend outward to various Cuyahoga County municipalities. Additionally, a corridor that connects the cities of Lorain and Elyria in Lorain County can be seen. Finally, the most prominent regional priority corridor identified by this map extends from eastern Lorain County throughout Cuyahoga County along the shore of Lake Erie, and all the way to the eastern end of Lake County. Although the number of bicycle trips spanning the distance of these regional corridors may be a small portion of all trips, a regional bikeway

17

0

5

10

01

2 Miles

Data Sources: U.S. S. Census Cen ensus Bureau reauNOACA makes no representations entations or r warranties with respect to the accuracy cy y and/or an completeness of the map. .

18

network with connections to local networks will be necessary to realize many of the benefits outlined in Chapter 1. Besides analyzing census data, it is also important to obtain insight directly from the public to determine where people would like to see improvements for bicycling. This question, as well as others, were posed to people throughout the five-county region through surveys, small focus groups, and public meetings. Feedback obtained included general priorities such as the need to extend currently existing bikeways, as well as the importance of prioritizing bikeways that provide connections to places of employment, schools, and recreation opportunities. Also, more specific feedback was provided on which roads were the best candidates for future bikeways. Appendix IV provides more details on guidance and insight received through public engagement efforts.

SEPTEMBER S SEPTE EMBER R 2011 1 Bicyclist 10 Bicyclists 100 Bicyclists County Boundary

MAY 2012 1 Bicyclist 10 Bicyclists 100 Bicyclists

Where we need more bike facilitiesBy overlaying existing bikeways on the potential bikeway demand map, some judgment can be made on which priority areas are being served, and which priority areas are underserved. Map 4 begins to explore this situation. The map shows that most of the priority areas include a few existing shared use paths (dark green) and/or bike lanes (light green). Conversely, there are some darker red areas that have close to none. Examples include the

Major Road

Greater Cleveland

19

0

5

10

Data Sources: U.S. Census Cen ensus Bureau reauNOACA makes no representations ntations or r warranties with respect to o the accuracy cy y and/or an completeness of the map.

20

cities of Elyria, Lakewood, Lorain, Painesville, and Wadsworth, and the Village of Middlefield. Still, areas that have high potential bikeway demand as well as some existing bikeways can also be considered underserved. One prime example is the City of Cleveland. Cleveland has more miles of bikeways than any other municipality in the region. As shown on the map, however, many of these bikeways exist in isolation, not connected to one another. While some may provide options for traveling down the street for a quick errand, they often fall short of getting a person from an origin to a destination. The Detroit Superior and Hope Memorial Bridges clearly illustrate this deficiency. Both include bikeways, but they would be much more valuable and likely support significantly higher volumes if they functioned as segments within a network. For bicycles to be a more viable transportation option in the region, isolated facilities must grow into local networks, and local networks must connect to each other to form a more robust, regional network. Chapter 6 provides more discussion of a regional bikeway network in northeast Ohio.

Composite Demand Score4-6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 County Boundary

Greater Cleveland

21

0

2.5

5

Miles


: Planning For Greater Cleveland

22

Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 67 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Bike Lane Shared Use Path State Roads County Boundary

23

Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 67 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Bike Lane Shared Use Path State Roads County Boundary0 2.5 5

Miles



24

25

Chapter 5: SafetyImproving the safety of all transportation modes, including bicycling, is a vital goal for NOACA. To make this improvement, NOACA staff should analyze trends to help identify the most effective solutions. Toward this end, staff downloaded crash data for all accidents involving bicyclists from ODOTs GIS Crash Analysis Tool for the years from 2007-2011, the most recent available five-year time frame. The following graphs pertain to this data. It is important to note that data for crashes involving bicyclists is typically not as complete and accurate as crashes involving only motorists. This is because crashes involving bicyclists are typically underreported. Figure 1 displays annual crash volumes by county.

Figure 2: CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS BY COUNTY & YEAR400 350 Number of Crashes 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Cuyahoga Geauga eauga Lake ake Lorain orain Medina edina

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: Crash Statistics System (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); https://ext.dps.state. oh.us/crashstatistics/CrashReports.aspx (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

Cuyahoga County has significantly higher crash volumes than the other four counties. This is likely a result of a variety of factors that include total population, population density, bicycle mode share, as well as others. After calculating a crash rate for each county (number of crashes involving bicyclists per 100,000 people), the order of highest to lowest remains the same, but the range decreases, with Cuyahoga at a rate of roughly 30 accidents per 100,000 people, and Geauga with a rate of roughly five accidents per 100,000 people. Most counties experienced relatively stable levels of bicycle crashes over these five years. The county with the most significant change was Cuyahoga County, which saw an increase from 331 crashes in 2007 to 374 cashes in 2011. This growth, along with the fact that Cuyahoga County has the largest volume of crashes involving bicyclists, indicates that the county should be a priority in safety improvements for bicyclists. The time of day in which a crash occurs can provide some insight as to what safety improvements can be made. Figure 3 shows the number of crashes that occurred during each hour of the day from 2007 to 2011. The graph shows that the majority of crashes involving bicyclists occurred during evening peak hours, which is informative in prioritizing certain safety measures. According to this data, safety measures should likely be directed toward conflicts between rush hour motorists and bicyclists, such as increased education, further encouragement of off-peak commuting, safer accommodations connecting bicyclists to their places of work, as well as many others.

26

Figure 3: NUMBER OF CRASHES BY HOUR OF DAY400 350 Number of Crashes 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 2 3 Hour of DaySource: Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

Another crash characteristic that needs to be considered when prioritizing future safety measures is the locations of crashes involving bicyclists in relation to the road network. Figure 4 shows where these crashes occurred from 2007 to 2011.

Figure 4: LOCATION OF CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS

Intersection Non-Intersection Driveway OtherSource: Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot. state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

The graph shows that nearly half of all crashes involving bicyclists occurred at intersections, nearly a third of crashes occurred at non-intersections (along the road but not near driveways), and nearly a fifth of crashes occurred at driveways. Although many measures can increase safety at all three location types, there are intersection-specific bicycle safety improvements that project sponsors should prioritize to effectively reduce crash rates. These include a variety of pavement markings, signage, and signal-timing strategies. Examining common causes can also provide insight on which safety measures should be prioritized. Examining the data from 2007-2011, three of the top five contributing factors recorded are Unknown, Other improper action, and None. All provide very little information. This may indicate that increased efforts by law enforcement officials are needed so we can better understand the causes for crashes involving bicyclists. Top contributing factors that do provide some information and apply to both motorists and bicyclists include Failure to yield and Improper crossing. These two contributing factors are likely tied to

27

the fact that, as displayed in Figure 4, many crashes occur at intersections. Pavement markings and signage alerting motorists and bicyclists should be used at more dangerous intersections to reduce bicycle-related accidents. Many bicyclists feel that education and enforcement needs to be directed toward motorists to promote safer, shared roads. Concurrently, motorists point out that some bicyclists ignore traffic signals and signage, putting themselves in harms way. Figure 5 displays vehicles at fault in crashes involving bicyclists from 2007 to 2011.

Figure 5: VEHICLE AT FAULT IN CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS

Bicyclist Motorist Unknown/Hit & Skip Non-Motorist

Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

The graph illustrates that both motorists and bicyclists are equally at fault in crashes involving both modes. There are likely instances where some blame can be attributed to unsafe road conditions and infrastructure, regardless of whether the bicyclist or motorist was at fault. Either way, safety measures geared toward bicyclists and motorists should be pursued. Additionally, this was confirmed during all focus groups, with participants expressing that better education needs to be made available to all modes of traffic. Along with understanding what types of crashes occur between bicyclists and motorists, it is important to determine where crashes occur so NOACA and municipalities can prioritize where to install safety measures. To accomplish this, NOACA staff mapped crashes involving bicyclists with reports that included location data along the road network. Then, staff determined a crash rate (crashes per mile) for each road segment included in the road inventory maintained by ODOT. The results are found in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 includes the top segments overall in terms of crash rate. One important thing to note about this list is that all segments measure less than a half mile, and most less than a quarter mile. With lengths this small, spot and intersection improvements should be considered first. The smaller segments shown could be improved by increased signage, signals, and/ or pavement markings that increase driver awareness and further instruct bicyclists at these dangerous spots; however, these smaller segments must also be examined within their context of the overall roadway network. For example, Detroit Avenue appears four different times on this list, in three different cities, indicating that improvements need to extend beyond specific intersections and instead to the entire corridor. One trend is that

28

Table 5: HIGH CRASH RATE LOCATIONSStreet Stre St reet re et et W Erie Ave. E 13th St. Segment S egme eg ment me nt Washington to Broadway Superior to Chester County C ount ou nty nt y LOR CUY Municipality M Mu n ci ni c pa pali lity li ty City of Lorain City of Cleveland City of Cleveland Annual Annu An nual nu al Crash C rash ra sh Rate Rate 12.19 11.75 7.07 Length L engt en gth gt h 0.11 0.1 0.16

Lorain Ave. Richmond St. Detroit Ave. Denison Ave. Lorain Ave. Westway Blvd. West Ave. Bagley Rd. Fulton Rd. Detroit Ave. 2nd St. Detroit Ave. Franklin Blvd. Lee Rd. Root Rd. 9th St. Detroit Ave.

Denison to W 98th Prospect to Erie St. Warren to Belle W 73rd to W 69th W 83rd to W 80th Wager to Northview Broad to 3rd Between IR 71 Ramps Between IR 71 Ramps W 192nd to Lake West to Court W 28th to W 25th W 28th to W 25th Cedar to Essex Bainbridge to Kruger Saint Clair to Superior Robinwood to Bunts

CUY LAK CUY CUY CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY LOR CUY LOR CUY CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY

City of Painesville City of Lakewood City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Rocky River City of Elyria City of Middleburg Hts City of Cleveland City of Avon Lake City of Rocky River City of Elyria City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Cleveland Hts City of North Ridgeville City of Cleveland City of Lakewood

6.53 6.25 6.23 5.98 5.93 5.88 5.77 5.59 5.0 4.93 4.72 4.72 4.7 4.69 4.51 4.43 4.35

0.36 0.12 0.12 0.1 0.1 0.16 0.1 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.13

Avon Beldon Rd. Community to Walker

Source: Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

Table 6: HIGH CRASH RATE CORRIDORSStre St reet re et Street S egme eg ment me nt Segment C ount ou nty nt y County M Mu Muni uni nici cipa ci pali pa lity li ty Municipality Annual Annu An nual nu a al C ra ash Crash Rate Rate L engt engt en gth h Length

Detroit Ave. Vine St. Lorain Ave. Turney Rd. Madison Ave. Lee Rd. Broadway Mayfield Rd. Detroit Ave. Tower Blvd. 220th St. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Ridge Rd. Mentor Ave. Detroit Ave. Clark Ave.

Graber to Warren 337th to SOM Center W 80th to W 57th Willard to Rockside Riverside to Cohasset Hyde Park to Cedar 28th to 36th Coventry to Lee Lake to W 49th Oberlin to Falbo Westwood to Lorain Norton to W 117th 229th to 204th Rocky River to Warren W 117th to Denison W 57th to W 25th Pearl to Snow Hopkins to Wellesly Bunts to 117th IR 90 Ramp to W 44th

CUY LAK CUY CUY CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY CUY CUY CUY CUY CUY LAK CUY CUY

City of Lakewood City of Eastlake City of Cleveland City of Garfield Hts City of Lakewood City of Cleveland Hts City of Lorain City of Cleveland Hts City of Cleveland City of Lorain City of Fairview Park City of Cleveland City of Fairview Park City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Parma City of Mentor City of Lakewood City of Cleveland

3.58 3.17 2.96 2.75 2.72 2.62 2.59 2.53 2.49 2.29 2.27 2.27 2.22 2.2 2.14 2.11 2.11 2.09 2.03 1.94

1.56 0.56 0.87 0.94 2.12 0.53 0.54 0.63 0.88 0.61 0.52 1.32 1.7 0.81 0.83 1.23 0.56 1.43 1.08 1.13

Source: Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

29

0

0

2.5

2.5

5

5

Miles Miles



30

the majority of segments are in Cuyahoga County and predominately in urban areas. Also, two of the segments on the list include shared use paths in proximity to highway ramps. Table 6 is included to identify potential corridor improvements beyond the spot locations listed in Table 5. The list includes segments of at least a half mile in length with the highest crash rates in the region. Similar to the previous table, all segments are located in urban areas, and the majority of the segments are located within Cuyahoga County. Again, major east-west corridor safety concerns can be identified, with Detroit Avenue appearing three times and Lorain Avenue appearing six times. Municipalities that contain these high crash rate road segments should either improve them to accommodate bicyclists safely, or direct bicyclists to a convenient, alternate route which either already safely accommodates cyclists or has conditions that make it more feasible to do so. Map 5 displays high crash intersections and corridors, as well as crash density for the NOACA region. High crash densities are found throughout the region, but concentration occurs along Lake Erie, and in Cuyahoga County, specifically on the near west side of the City of Cleveland and in the City of Lakewood. A variety of measures need to be considered by municipalities with high crash densities, and their implementation will be a priority for NOACA.

Crash DensityLow Medium Low Medium Medium High High High Crash Intersection High Crash Corridor Roads County Boundaries

31

Crash DensityLow Medium Low Medium Medium High High High Crash Intersection High Crash Corridors Roads County Boundaries0 2.5 5

Miles



32

Chapter 6: Regional Priority Bikeway NetworkProgress has been made in planning and implementing bikeways in northeast Ohio. Because funding for bikeway projects continues to be limited, it is important that investments be made strategically. Bikeways that function as part of regional and local networks, as opposed to isolated segments, must be identified and prioritized for funding. The 2008 Priority Plan, part of the 2008 Regional Bicycle Plan, included the roads prioritized for bikeway improvements within the region. Feedback from the BPAC in 2012 indicated that the 2008 Priority Plan built a solid foundation, but that changes needed to be made. A main concern was that the Priority Plan was too extensive and did not do a good enough job of focusing on true regional priority roadways for investment. Another concern was that an updated format would need to provide more guidance in regard to types of facilities and design solutions, as opposed to simply drawing lines on a map. These concerns were considered in developing the 2013 Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN). The RPBN represents NOACAs vision for a safe and efficient regional bikeway network. The implementation of this regional network will be one of the most important steps

33

Regional Priority Bikeway NetworkExisting Planned

Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 15 - 20 7 -10 11 -140

21 - 30 Roads

2.5

5

Miles



34

in increasing the regional bicycle mode share, as well as expanding the variety of bicyclists in terms of age and skill level. NOACA staff developed an initial draft of the RPBN based on feedback from the BPAC on the 2008 Priority Plan, as well as methods used by other MPOs throughout the nation. Factors that were deemed to be important in developing a regional network were converted into digital map layers. These layers were overlaid to determine which areas and roads possessed multiple characteristics that make them candidates for future bikeway investments. One of the layers used in this exercise was the Potential Bikeway Demand (PBD) layer explained in Chapter 4. In addition to the Potential Bikeway Demand, these additional layers were used: Existing bikeways Committed and planned bikeways (results from TLCI studies, city and county bicycle and pedestrian plans, etc.) Locally and regionally significant destinations (schools, hospitals, libraries, shopping malls, places of employment, etc.) Public transportation networks Skill level ratings from the NOACA Bicycle Transportation Maps 2008 NOACA Regional Priority Plan

After developing the initial draft, staff presented the RPBN to the BPAC for review. The draft was then presented at all five

35

0

2.5

5

Miles

Data Sources: U.S. Census BureauNOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of these maps.

36


Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Roads

0

2

4

Miles

37

Regional gional gi i Pr Priority ty Bikeway ew NetworkExisting ting g Planned P

0

2

4

Potential entia ial Bikeway ay Demand d Score S 2 4- 6 15 - 20 7 -10 -1 11 -14 21 2 - 30 0 Roads Roa

Miles

38

of the public meetings held throughout the region. Finally, staff sent letters to mayors, county planning and engineering departments, as well as other stakeholder groups to solicit additional guidance and input. Throughout all planning stages, staff obtained feedback and made adjustments so that the RPBN can most accurately reflect a true regional vision for the priority bikeway network. Map 6 shows the RPBN along with the Potential Bikeway Demand layer. The routes drawn on the map should not be interpreted as the only prospective roadways to include bikeways or the only roadways that will receive NOACA funding for bikeway projects. NOACA is concerned with safety for all modes of transportation, including bicycling, on all roads on which they legally travel. There is a limited amount of funding for transportation projects, however, and therefore applications for bikeway projects that are included in the RPBN will be more competitive than others. Many steps have been taken to make sure the RPBN reflects current regional priorities. If priorities change, however, it is important that the RPBN be updated. Also, if a different route that makes similar connections is later determined to be more appropriate, then the current planned route may be dropped as a priority and replaced with the new route. Any replacement should

Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau NOACA makes no representations or Data Sources: warranties with respect to the accuracy Census of Bureau and/or US completenessNOACA makes no representations : Plan Planning For or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.

the map.

Greater Cleveland

39

be carefully considered, taking into account the same resources and methodology used to develop the original route. Also, it is important to link origins and destinations as directly as possible. Appendix II provides more details about segments included in the RPBN. Potential project sponsors should reference this appendix to determine if any segments lie within their municipality. Segments in bold already include bikeways that accommodate a variety of users and skill levels. For guidance on which types of bikeways are appropriate for different situations, project sponsors should reference Appendix III. Appropriate design resources are stated for bikeways, and guidance is provided on which types of bikeways are appropriate for different traffic and roadway conditions.0 2.5 5

Miles


Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Roads



40

41

Chapter 7: ProgramsImproving the regional infrastructure and adopting and strengthening policy related to bicycling will go a long way toward achieving the two goals of the 2013 plan. To reach these goals most effectively, however, programs geared toward connecting current and potential bicyclists to resources should be developed and offered. Programs should be targeted to specific audiences to maximize their effectiveness in providing support and guidance. The following list of programs is intended to be a menu of options for cities, counties, villages, and in some cases, current and potential bicyclists in northeast Ohio. Many of the programs listed currently exist in some shape or form, and many successful local examples that can be replicated are included. But all of the listed programs can be improved upon, expanded, or made more consistent to have a greater impact. The programs are grouped into four categories: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Each program listed includes potential leaders and supporters. NOACA can play a role in many of these suggested programs, but in some instances, NOACA may not be best suited to lead program implementation. Numerous regional partners will need to work together to offer these valuable programs.

EducationNAM AME ME OF O PRO ROGRAM OGR GRA AM A M LEA EAD E AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U DIE IE ENCE Share the Road Campaign NOACA City safety departments, advocacy organizations Motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians

As the number of bicyclists increases in northeast Ohio, it will be important to educate all transportation system users about how to coexist safely with each other. A share the road campaign will involve numerous components, including Share the Road signage, public safety announcements played over the radio, flyers and brochures handed out to the public, increased media coverage, and many others.NAM AME ME OF O PRO ROGRAM OGR GRA AM A M LEA EAD E AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IE ENCE Maintenance Classes Bicycle shops, bicycle co-ops NOACA Beginner & intermediate bicyclists

Although bicycles are easier to maintain than a motor vehicle, bicycle maintenance can be a barrier for some to start riding, ride more often, or ride on some streets out of concern for the wear and tear on the bicycle. Many focus group and public meeting participants stated they needed further instruction on topics such as fixing a flat tire and checking their gears. Many bicycle shops and organizations throughout the region currently offer maintenance classes. Bicyclists should contact your local bike shop or bike coop to see what is currently offered.

42

NAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE

Complete Streets Education NOACA, local municipalities National planning & engineering organizations Local planning & engineering departments

New design guidance related to bicycle facilities and roads frequently develops and changes, and it is important that local planners and engineers stay informed of new research and be trained in best practices. NOACA should provide training opportunities to potential project sponsors to develop better multimodal infrastructure projects that more effectively achieve agency goals. Some cities, such as Cleveland and Oberlin, have already taken the initiative to bring in national experts for training sessions with various departments, staff, and local stakeholders. In addition, NOACA has hosted webinars on various topics offered by the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals.NAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IENC IE NC CE Driver & Bicyclist Education Ohio BMV, Driver Education Providers NOACA, Ohio MPOs, ODOT Beginning drivers & bicyclists

Many drivers on the road today in northeast Ohio are not aware of a bicyclists right to the road. This can be a major deterrent to all modes sharing the road safely. This misconception can be mitigated by making sure future motorists receive instruction and information on bicycling-related laws during their driver education courses and while obtaining their drivers license. Additionally, many beginner and experienced bicyclists within the region have not been properly educated on how to ride safely and legally. Similar to maintenance classes, numerous bike shops and co-ops within the region offer rider education courses. NOACA will work with current education providers to increase awareness and accessibility of existing opportunities, and also to develop more educational resources for all bicyclists.

EncouragementNAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET A GE G ET AUD UDIENCE U IE ENC CE Open Streets Local municipalities NOACA, law enforcement, advocacy organizations Beginner, intermediate & advanced bicyclists, families

Open Streets (also called Walk and Roll or Ciclovias) involve closing down a street to motorized traffic for several hours during an off-peak time and opening it up to all forms of nonmotorized traffic. Bicyclists and pedestrians are then free to enjoy the street as a paved public park and experience the surrounding neighborhood in a new and unique way. Benefits of Open Streets events are wide ranging, including

43

engaging participants in physical activity, building community identity, and increased business to participating and surrounding vendors and stores.32 In northeast Ohio, the City of Cleveland was a national pioneer in Open Streets. Walk and Roll events, the local name for Open Streets, were held in various Cleveland neighborhoods from 2006 to 2011. NOACA will support Cleveland and other cities in additional Open Streets events in the future.NAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM M LEA EAD E AD SUP UPPORT U UPPO PPO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IEN IE EN NC CE Bike Share System City of Cleveland NOACA, first ring cities/suburbs, advocacy organizations Cleveland & surrounding cities

Many cities throughout the U.S. and the world are beginning to implement or already have bike share systems to promote an increased bicycle mode share. Bike share systems make a fleet of bicycles available to the public at convenient locations for short one-way or two-way trips. Bike share systems can make bicycling a more convenient option for people at work, people running errands, or tourists.NA AME AM ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM RAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE Bike to Work Day & Car-Free Fridays Advocacy organizations NOACA Potential & current bike commuters

For a variety of reasons, many people are reluctant to try commuting by bicycle for the first time. This is where Bike to Work Day comes in. By providing an opportunity for first-time bike commuters to ride with fellow bicyclists, and through incentives such as breakfast locations for socializing and competitions between workplaces, this type of program can provide the motivation for people to give commuting by bicycle a try. During the public meetings and focus groups for this plan, many people mentioned that while they enjoy and have participated in Bike to Work Day, the fact that it is an annual event as opposed to a regular occurrence makes it more of a novelty than a true influence for riding. A solution to this problem would be to organize a similar event on a monthly or weekly basis.NAM AME ME OF OF PRO ROGRAM OG GRAM GR AM M LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PPO PORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AU GE UDIENCE UDIE UD I NC IE CE Bike to School Day, Bike Rodeos School Districts NOACA, parent volunteers Schoolchildren

Bike to School Day works very similarly to Bike to Work Day, but it is targeted to schoolchildren. Childhood obesity rates continue to rise throughout northeast Ohio, and studies show that active transportation such as biking or walking to school on a regular basis can improve a childs health as well as performance in the classroom.33

44

In addition, many parents have concerns about letting their children walk or bike to school due to safety reasons. On a Bike to School Day, parent volunteers provide supervision throughout the trip to school and can also provide instruction and tips so that students can develop safer habits of their own. Schools can incorporate other activities, such as bike rodeos, so that children can learn, try out, and perfect their skills while having fun. Numerous Bike to School days have been held throughout northeast Ohio, and some schools have held an annual event for a number of years. Some of these schools include Root Middle School and Claggett Middle School in the Medina City School District, Bay Village High School and Middle School in the Bay Village School District, and also Rocky River Middle School.NAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM M LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT UPPO PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IENC IE NC CE Bicycle Maps NOACA BPAC, Bicycle Clubs Transportation & recreational bicyclists

NOACA has developed, printed, and distributed county bicycle maps that show parks, bike shops, and shared use paths within the region. These maps also show a bike suitability ranking for all major roads within the region, based on a variety of factors such as lane widths, average daily traffic, vehicle speeds, public input, and others. These maps can help guide current and potential bicyclists in choosing a low stress, safer route. These maps will continue to be updated and distributed to all interested bicyclists. The maps can also be downloaded from NOACAs website at www.noaca.org/bikemaps.html.

EnforcementNAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM M LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE I NC IE CE Sting Operations Law Enforcement NOACA, city safety & traffic departments Unsafe bicyclists and motorists

Traffic laws related to bicycling can often be misunderstood or ignored by both bicyclists, motorists, and all other road users. Highly visible and publicized sting operations, in which law enforcement officers observe specific high-crash locations and hand out informational materials, warnings, and/or citations to offenders, can make a significant impact in encouraging safe and lawful behavior.

45

NAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR RAM LEA EAD D SUP UPPORT UPPO PO ORT TAR ARGET A G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE

Bicycle Law Enforcement Task Force Law enforcement NOACA, advocacy organizations Police departments

There are many players involved in the enforcement of traffic laws related to bicyclists, and often many of these players do not communicate with each other regularly, or even at all. A regional bicycle law enforcement task force would be made up of law enforcement, traffic and civil engineers, transporta

NOACA Regional Priority Bike Plan

Documents

Transcript of NOACA Regional Priority Bike Plan