HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 8171 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8171
of r To the Mayor and Members of the City Council January 19, 1999
rrr
41
Nxx Subject:
1873 PUBLIC MEETING TO SOLICIT COMMENT ON THE FORT
WORTH BICYCLE PLAN AND THE GRANT PROGRAM TO
SUPPORT BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES IN FORT WORTH
A Public Meeting to solicit comments on results of our Bicycle Planning efforts and on a Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) program for bicycle racks and storage lockers in Fort Worth has been scheduled in the Fort
Worth City Council Chambers on Wednesday, January 20, 1999 from 4:30 - 6:00 p.m.
The purpose of this meeting is to give the community information about current bicycle planning
results that the City has received from the North Central Texas Council of Goverrunents (NCTCOG),
The Fort Worth City Blueprint for Bicycling Executive Summary (Attachment A) analyzes possible
on-street routes for bicycle use and identifies those that are most "bicycle-friendly." From this
analysis, the report recommends a system of on-road signed bicycle routes, trails, and other bicycle
facilities. Public comment will be solicited on proposed bicycle facilities and signed route locations.
Information received will be incorporated into the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The first phase of development of the Fort Worth Blueprint for Bicycling was a Central Fort Worth
F Pilot Study for the Fort Worth Downtown. This study identified a lack of bicycle parking facilities in
downtown Fort Worth. Through the ISTEA Program, the City of Fort Worth was awarded a CMAQ
program grant for$217,050 to provide bicycle parking. The Fort Worth urban area has approxi-
mately 40 large employers that will potentially qualify for 80120 funding to purchase bicycle storage
facilities. The City Council approved that contract with Resolution 2304, signed June 24, 1997. This
program will. fund the installation of bicycle parking facilities in Fort Worth, with an emphasis on
downtown. These storage facilities include bicycle racks for short-term parking and storage lockers
for long-term parking.
Bob Terrell
City Manager
Attachment A: Fort Worth City Blueprint for Bicycling, Preliminary Executive Summary
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH,TEXAS
Fort Worth City Blueprint for Bicycling
Preliminary Executive Summary
January 5,1999
1 .0 Introduction
Increased bicycle mobility is recommended as a specific goal for the City of Fort
Worth. Increased use of the bicycle for transportation leads to an improvement
in air quality, reductions in automobile traffic congestion, greater personal health
and fitness, as well as an increased sense of community and quality of life.
Further, bicycles provide individuals with low-cost personal transportation,
reducing the financial burden of transportation on families at every income level,
The Fort Worth City Blueprint for Bicycling provides the long-term vision and
action plan for building facilities and implementing policies to actually develop a
bicycle-friendly city with a high rate of bicycle transportation.
2.0 Bicycling Benefits
The development of improved bicycle facilities is rooted in two primary
documents, each of which recognizes the air quality, health and economic
benefits of bicycling. First, the federal law called TEA-21, or the Transportation
Equity Act for the Twenty-first Century. The second is NCTCOG's long-range
transportation plan, Mobility 2020: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
TEA-21 establishes the federal funding programs and transportation planning
requirements that guide all modes of transportation. Key among the
requirements in TEA-21 is that transportation plans must conform to air quality
plans. As a federally designated Serious Ozone Nonattainment Area, our region
has a variety of control measures for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), pollutants which lead to the formation of ground-level
ozone. This means that new transportation plans and projects in the region must
have a net r8dVcdOO On the level OfV{JCS and N[)X8nlitted by vehicles in the
� tr8DgpOdadi0D system.
Because these reductions 8nB, over time, harder and harder to achieve while
relying On 3VtoDlOhi|8 tn8ffiC' KJ[|TC[>G'S |UDg-n8Og8 transportation plan has
established strategies to provide 8 greater variety of transportation options in the
nl8tn]p\eX. This SDuOOd major document, Mobility 2020, S9rVeS as the regional
blueprint for improving bicycle DlUhi|hv and sets the [eQiOD8| gV8\ increasing the
Sh8PB Of bicycle and pedestrian trips from 296 to d% Of total trips. Such an
increase would cut V{]C emissions alone byan estimated 13 tons per day.
In addition to the health benefits Of this overall air quality iDlpnDVeOlent,
bicycling has a SVbStand@| impact on the personal health and fitness Of
the individual bicyclist. NCTCC)G'S Bicycle {}ornOOVdOA for Health and
Fitness reviews the nurDenJUS clinical and scientific research studies On
bicycling.
Bicycle commuting can have @ direct and SUbStaDt\8| impact OD the cost Of
transportation. /\ well-outfitted COnlDlutiOg bicycle costs in the hUOd[8dS Of
dollars compared to the thousands Of dollars 8n automobile costs. Many families
are able to Sh8n8 one aVtO[DObile. saving the cost nf8 s8CDDd Ca[. by simply fully
utilizing the potential of the bicycle. For eXa0ple, a comprehensive 1896
Washington State study computed the average annual cost of bicycle commuting
at $250 V8nSVs $3`6QG for automobile c0nlnlVt\Og. Even for those fully invested
in an 8uh]DlObi)B. each bicycle trip saves DOOnSy on gas and operating costs. In
1901, the Federal Highway Ad[Oini8t[8UOD estimated these V8h8b|e costs Of
driving ([U8|' insurance, upkeep, wear and tear) ad33 cents per mile.
3.0 Encoura_qinq Bicycle Transportation
Achieving large iOCFe8SeS in the DUnlbe[ of bicycle trips relies on creating a
series of GnlaU Gygt8DlS which provide high quality bicycle mobility over a city-
wide network Of on-street, O��St[�8� and end-of-trip facilities. N�diOO�||y, and
even internationally, there is, an enormous variety in the types and style of
��� � .
facilities designed for bicycle transportation. In some cases, facilities have been
developed to channel unwanted bicycle traffic separately from preferred vehicles.
In other cities, facilities have been altogether lacking.
Bicycle transportation is both possible and popular from Chicago, Illinois to Santa
Barbara, California and from Portland, Oregon to Jacksonville, Florida. The
diverse areas that have been successful in encouraging bicycle transportation
have one trait in common: each has developed systems which take bicyclists to
all points in the city without forcing them onto high volume, high speed roadways.
Mobility 2020 recommends the development of Bicycle Transportation Districts to
accomplish this goal. Bicycle Transportation Districts (BTDs) are designed to
mimic existing, working bicycle systems already in place across the country and
include:
• Signed on-street bicycle routes
• Off-street multiuse trails
• Wide outside lanes
• Bicycle parking
• Changing facilities at businesses
Each of these facilities provides a critical link to the bicycling public. A potential
bicycle commuter with a quick, safe route to work may not ride due to the lack of
changing facilities at his or her place of work. Potential customers arriving by
bicycle are dissuaded by the lack of parking facilities. When combined within a
concentrated system of bicycle transportation facilities, these elements create the
'critical density' of bicycle facilities needed to make the bicycle a viable and
popular transportation mode.
Achieving the citywide benefits of bicycling requires a commitment by the city not
only to build and maintain the specific facilities that make up a Bicycle
Transportation District, but to also evaluate the impact of all transportation and
land uses on bicycle mobility, and provide a minimum level of bicycle safety on
all roadways.
3
� 4 D Bicycle
��
As part Of developing the Blueprin . NCTCOG has bicycled over 700 Oni|eS in Fort
VVnrth, searching out and n8S8anChiOg bicycle nJUt8S and COnD8{tiOnS. In
addition, NCTC{}(] has evaluated the traffic VO|UnnBs. Sp88dS and nDadvV8Y
cOOdhiVDS to determine the sp8CHiC 0iCyC|8 ACC8SSibi|ih/ Index rating of every
major roadway in Fort Worth. This o||0vVs a quantitative determination of hOxv
'bicycle friendly' an individual stretch Of rOodvV@y may be and whether it is
appropriate to utilize as part of the bicycle route system. The OVe[aU goal for on-
street routes iStO develop a one-mile grid network Ofroads that provide bicyclists
passage 1hnJUghOVt the Chy, aCn]SS freeways and to important trip destinations
like downtown, universities, shopping centers, and major employers.
Based OD the current field work and technical 8v@|UatiOOS by NCT{|{]G, o basic
draft SyS1erV has been developed. This includes:
* 18 different off-street iOlp[OveDleOtS
"
including eXteDSiODS Of existing trails, SeCtiODS Of the regional
V8\oVv9b, and c0OneCbODs between on-street routes. These total
over 33 rDi|eS at an estimated cost Of$17 OOi||i0D.
° Over 300 miles Of on-street
i[Op[OV8OlentS, failing into one of five categories listed below. The
OliDiDlUnn cost vVoW|d equal roughly $300.000 for signing the entire
route system.
In addition LO being signed and mapped, each Of these on-street research routes
will be evaluated for one of the treatments listed be|OVV. Of CoV[S8, additional
treatments to bicycle routes, from traffic calming tOwide outside |aD8S represents
additional costs to the plan.
* The standard on-street p8VeDl8Ot marking for
a Signed bicycle route is simply a stencil of a bicyclist and a
�
~ di[8cUODo\ arrow painted OOt0 the right-hand Side of the roadway at
regular intervals. These greatly improve the visibility of the bicycle
route system, indicate to the motorist to expect bicycle traffic and
are placed, to assist bicyclists in finding and following bicycle routes.
• Wide Outside Lanes: A regular traffic lane is generally 12 feet wide.
Given heavy traffic conditions, this can create a frequent number of
conflicts when motorists attempt to pass bicyclists in the travel lane.
In order to make this passing maneuver easier and quicker for both
the motorist and the bicyclist, some roads may be built or re-striped
with 14 or 15 foot wide outside lanes.
0 Shoulders: While old-style bicycle lanes are not recommended for
the City (old-style bike lanes have a number of problems such as
maintenance costs, intersection conflict points and nonstandard
traffic flow), some rural roadway sections are candidates for paved,
improved shoulders to increase bicycle mobility and safety.
• Traffic Calming: A variety of traffic calming strategies are
appropriate along bicycle routes. These include long speed humps
(but not speed bumps), automobile traffic diverters that allow
passage for bicyclists and pedestrians, and traffic circles at
intersections. Bicycle routes with traffic calming features are known
as bicycle boulevards and are often quite a solution for
neighborhoods with cut-through traffic problems.
• Just Signs: Again, many routes will be marked simply with signs.
Typically signs are posted at least once per mile, at every turn along
the bicycle route and at major intersections. These signs may be
augmented with stickers along existing street sign poles to let
bicyclists know they are on the right route.
The draft set of on-street bicycle routes is shown on the map at the end of the
Executive Summary with labeled on-street research routes. All of these are
5
intended as signed bicycle routes. As the D\@D development process cVOUOU8S
and more public involvement is received, these routes may change streets.
5.0 Funding Bicycle Improvements
Mobility 2020 identifies over $240 million in improvements 1O increase the
opportunity for individuals to take advantage [f the health and economic benefits
of bicycling while improving regional air quality. |nnprVVe[DentS to|| into one Of
four project areas: the Bicycle /\Cc8SSibi|itv Project; the \/e|Ovveb Project; the
Bicycle Transportation District Project and the Pedestrian Access to Transit
Project. Funding for these projects comes frOnnthe following sources:
• A statewide reimbursement
prVg[8nn administered by the Texas Department of Transportation,
the Enhancement funding program 8CCOUntS for the bulk Of planned
funding for the R8giOD3| \/e|0vveb.
�
• Metropolitan Mobility: /\ federal p[Og[@nn with projects programmed
regionally, bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible under this
category.
• /\ federal prDg[8rn with
projects So|oCted by the Metropolitan Planning (][gaOizatioD, this
funding p[Ogr8Dl is identified for funding system iDlp[OVeDOeDt5 in
Bicycle Transportation Districts.
• /\ statewide program of the lFeXaB Parks
and Wildlife OopartDleOt, this program is identified for funding trail
projects along the \/e|OVVeb.
• Each Ofthe state and federal programs require
|OCa| rn8tCh ranging from 2096 to 5096 Of the project costs.
Additionally, some segments may be appropriate to fund through
impact fees, the bond program D[other sources,
�
(}Ve[oU, the landscape for planning and developing bicycle facilities is fertile.
Federal policies and funding programs are in place; TX[)OT has improved their
accommodation Of bicycles; the regional plan is supportive Of a variety Of
improvements; and, individuals have a variety of reasons to choose bicycling as
a OlOd8 Of transportation. The opportunity to O8OVe forward with bicycle
tr@DsportEdion improvements could not be better. The first step to SUooeSS is
establishing 8 SeDS8 of direction and vision for these improvements.
�
7