HomeMy WebLinkAboutBicycle Friendly Commity agendas and notesLITTLE ROCK
BICYCLE FRIENDLY
COMMUNITY COMMITTEE
Friday, July 29, 2011
11:30 am — 1:00 pm
RiverMarket
2nd Floor
Agenda
I. Call to Order
li. Roll Call
III. Approval of Last Meeting's Minutes
IV. Sub -Committee and Task Team Reports
V. Old Business
a. Master Plan Subcommittee Report
b. By -Laws
c. Bike Station
VI. New Business
a. Video and TIGER III grant for closing the loop
b. Riverfront Roundabout status
c. West Ramp of the BDB — completion fall 2012
d. Phase 1 Trails to Hwy 300 — pave next week
e. Goals for September Clinton visit
f. Temporary fix at ECS — widen sidewalk and curb cuts
g. Riverfront Drive Improvements — two options
h. Nominations — Sam Ledbetter
VII. Calendar — Next Meeting Tentatively August 31
VIII. Adjournment
BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY COMMITTEE
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
PROJECT: SUGGEST CHANGES TO THE BICYCLE PLAN
Submission by: Pfeifer 2/12/09
I. State the opportunities and problems:
A. Opportunities:
1. This project was suggested by the Staff in the Planning
Department and in particular by Walter Malone who is
responsible for administering the Plan. He recognizes the need for
a stronger plan and a plan that is more easily interpreted so that it
can be more easily administered.
a). He is seeking the assistance of the private sector that may
have better luck lobbying the City Board to adopt a stronger plan;
and
b). He welcomes the input of the private sector trail users.
This attitude of welcoming a public sector/private sector
collaboration gives this project a much higher chance of success.
2. Developers can formally be offered the opportunity to replace
sidewalk requirements with Class I Bike Path (with road). This
has been done in the past on a case-by-case method (see Rahling
Road [existing] and Divide Parkway [proposed] but needs to be
institutionalized into the plan
3. Sharrows, if approved by Metroplan needs to be incorporated into
the plan
4. Provide captions to paragraphs for case in navip_ating the flan
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
B. Problems:
1. 'There is one problem that --up-m-eedessunersedes all others.
Section 7: Authority, jurisdiction and enforcement, Section A, last
sentence was inserted after the Plan was adopted with the express
intent by the Board to render the Plan ineffective. It reads:
"Applicants for site plan review and building permit are not
requirer! to dedicate or construct any bicycle path or route as
described in the Plan L— 'emphasis added). The Board will have
to be lobbied to eliminate this neutering sentence or all other work
will be moot.
2-.iDefinitions: Several different definitions are used interchangeably
for the various classes possibly leading to confusion and difficult
administration. We need to simplify and make uniform the class
definitions.
-2
3.
4.
II.
11-Apecific suggestions: Adopt a uniform nomenclature for the various classes, incorporate
it early in the Plan and adhere to it thereafter in the Plan.
Existing definitions:
Little Rock Master Street Plan: Section 1. '`�(Definitions (an excerpt)
Class I Bicycle Route (Bike Paths): A route designated for the sole use of bicycles that is
physically separated from vehicular lanes.
Class 11 Bicycle Route (Bike Lanes): A route designated for the sole use by bicycles but
physically connected to a street.
Class III Bicycle Route: A route designated with signs for bicycle use, but shared with
motorized vehicles.
Suggested revised definitions:
Class I Bicycle Route (Bike Paths): A route designated for the sole use of bicycles that is
physically separated from vehicular lanes.
Class I (with road) Physically separated but within the road ROW (example: Rahling)
Class I (without road) Physically separated but within its own easement or ROW fief
asseeiatednot associated with a road (example: Westrock or River Trail in NLR through the
quarry)
{These shall be referred to in the revised Plan as "Class I (with road)Bike Path" or "Class I
(without road)Bike Path"
Class II Bicycle Route (Bike Lanes): A route designated by a painted stripe separating the
bikeway fonxi motor vehicle traffic and intended for the sole use by bicycles, Additional
pavement markings and signage are required. f These shall be referred to in the revised Plan as
"Class II Bike I_,a.nes"
Class III Bicycle Route: A route designated with only special signs for bicycle use. These
routes use the existing vehicular area, with no physical separation. {These shall be referred to in
the revised Plan as "Class III Bicycle Routes"}
NEW: Shared facilities: All streets, unless otherwise stated (interstates, for example) should be
considered "shared facilities" because bicycles are classified as vehicles which may be ridden on
public roadways. Shared facilities have no pavement markings or signs. {These shall be referred
to in the revised Plan as "Shared facilities"
NEW: Sparrows: (This portion to hopefully be added by Tom Ezell after action by Metroplan.)
For the balance of the suggested changes, I have used Track Changes
SECTION 6: BICYCLE PLAN
INTRODUCTION
It is the City's intention to provide bicycle accessibility throughout I.:ittle Rock. This can be
accomplished with the use of the existing street network, with additional bicycle paths and lanes
where necessary for safety and continuity. In addition to the existing street network, the City of
Little Rock has adopted a network of routes to be specially designated for bicycle use. This Plan
provides a system of
fwAe&.Qlqsses, isee table below)-4at is the proposal of the City of Little Rock to review these
routes on a regular basis to determine the need of upgrading the routes to Class 11 (shared) Rowes
, and to review the need for additional routes. The decision to upgrade the
routes will be based on usage, safety and speed and volume of motorized vehicular traffic.
All bicyclists wish to have safe direct routes for nonrecreational trips. The most
advanced riders can generally ❑ erate ander most traffic conditions. However the more casual
user often will feel intimidated by the vehicular traffic, This combined with higll volume and
high speed vehicular traffic and few direct routes available creates the need for a bicycle route
system desirable for all users.
Insert Suggested revised definitions here:
DEVELOPMENT PATHS:
The City of Little Rock also intends to implement Class I (not assoeiated with a
dwithout road Bike Paths in phases. A Class I without road
(bt ike Ppath) may be opened and built to a reduced standard (paving surface). If a Class I
rRoute is built to less than the standard, the actual standards of these "Development Paths" will be
designated on the plan neap. Any Class I (without road)eoff-Fea4 Bike Pathe must be
reviewed mud approved by the City of Little Rock Parks Department. T'he City is using the
phasing process in an attempt to speed the process of implementation. Over time the Class
(Development I'ths may be upgraded to full bike path standards.
NEW STREETS: (IS THIS SENTENCE NECESSARY AT THIS POINT??)
Class I (road) routes must be included in the review of new streets by the Public Works
Department.
ean genemily operate undei- moM tr-ag-;e eOHditiffliffi HOWeVel- the fflOrS WSW! USeF 0140EI Will f801
users,
-BICYCLE FACILITIES
SHARED FACILITIES
Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles which may be ridden on public roadways. Therefore,
any facilities designed for the sole use of bicycles must allow the bicyclists to emulate vehicle
drivers. It should be noted; however, bicycles have the right to share all city streets. Thus, all
streets, unless otherwise stated, should be considered "Shared €aeesFacilities". On
shaped -Shared €ae e&Facilities, the bicyclist shares the normal vehicle travel lanes with
motorized vehicles. Where bicycle travel is significant or high volume and high speed vehicular
traffic is present, additional bicycle facilities are recommended.
CLASS I AND CLASS II DIFFERENTIATED:
Bicycle only facilities are of two types: Bike Paths and Bike Lanes, A bicycle path is a
physically separate, bicycle -only facility. A bicycle lane is a specifically designated area on a
street for the sole use of bicycles.
CLASS I (WITH ROAD OR WITHOUT ROAD) BIKE PATHS
Class I bikeways or "Bike Paths" are constructed and designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists.
These paths are completely separated from motor vehicle traffic. Bike Paths are the
safest for prevention of accidents with motorized vehicles.
The main advantage of a Class I bikeway -Bike i Path is the total separation between automobile
traffic and bicyclists. It is, in essence, a .road for bicyclists designed to accommodate speeds of
up to 35 MPH with sharp turns and meandering pathways avoided whenever possible. Class I
sways- ike Paths should be used when motor vehicle traffic volumes or speeds are too high
for Class II k ikew *.Bike Lanes Tied -Class I {without road) Bike Paths arc also necessary
when connections need to be made where no roadways exist. such as following a creek bed
While Class IbBike Paths are the safest and provide enjoyable rides, they are the most
costly to construct and maintain. A reliable and continuing; maintenance program is essential to
the continued use and safety of the Bike element of the Master Street Plan. Design of Class I
(non -road or road) bikaw&ysSike Paths must be done with care to insure safe intersections
avoiding bicycle - motor vehicle accidents.
CLASS II BIKE LANES
Class I1bikeways r--L'B.ike Lanes" consist of a paved area both sides of a roadway
with a painted stripe separating the bikeway from motor vehicle traffic. A Class Il
bieyele p °+^Bike Lane is used for safety reasons where mixing of bicycle and
motorized vehicles is unsafe for both. These routes may either be a smooth paved
shoulder:' or a section of the paved roadway. Class II'�Bike Lanes require
minimal construction and are likely to be located on higher volume and vehicular
traffic major. roadways. Class 11 Re�routes on collector roads should use the
existing paved area. This would mean that in commercial areas with a Class 11
4meroute, only two traffic lanes would be allowed, except at intersections. Only a
painted line on the street separates bicyclists from motorists, additional pavement
markings and signage are required. Class 11 Bike Laney are easier to maintain
and allow for maximum design flexibility. Accommodations can be made for
automobile parking between the bike lane and curb where street parking is
required. In order. to .accommodate parking on new (irnproved) roads additional
ROW and paving will be required if parking is included.. When space is limited, parking
may have to be restricted to one side of the street.
CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTES
Class III bike -Bicycle Routes crave only special signage. These routes use the existing
vehicular area with no physical separation. Generally, Class III bi1ww+y-s-Bicycle Routes are
local streets or higher class streets when speeds are less than 30 miles per hour and volumes less
than half design volume, Since there is no additional area, Class III routes have no additional
maintenance requirements (except for signage).
The main disadvantage of Class IIIbBicycle Routes is that they provide the bicyclists
with minimal protection from vehicular traffic. Safety concerns make shared facilities
insufficient for high speed streets with heavy traffic.
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: (I have not worked on this section et)
Class I bikeways may have an initial construction phase with a lesser standard.
These routes should be designated "Development Routes". Any Development Route
must be constructed with a indusWalindustrial sand or screening of. 100% crushed
material or compacted soil. Off-road (large wheel) or mountain bikes will be recommended for
these paths. In all cases the path must be constructed so it will properly drain.
Class I bikeways should be constructed to be permanent. Proper drainage is
important to prevent standing water on the route. Construction should be of 2"
flexible paving on a compacted 4" gravel base or 4" flexible paving on compacted or
undisturbed suitable soil. A sloped surface of 1/4" in I foot will allow for drainage.
Paths should be constructed at least 10 feet from large trees to minimize root damage to paths and
decrease the possibility of a cyclist/tree collision. For safety, separate paths should not run
immediately parallel and adjacent to streets.
A one way bike path, while not reconrnrended should be minimurn of 5 feet wide, and
a two way path should be at least 10.0 feet wide with a stripe down the middle to
separate the two lanes. For Class I, non -road, routes where pedestrian traffic is
expected, separate lanes 4 feet wide should be constructed for their use.
Class I bikeways build as part of an arterial will require an additional 10 feet of
right-of-way (5 foot each side for one-way path) or an easement in which the path is
placed. The required sidewalk along these streets can be incorporated into the bike path. The
result would be a 9 foot wide path on each side of the road. A four foot section of the path should
be marked for pedestrian use.
Class 11 Bikeways should be of the same construction as the streets on which they
are constructed. The minimum width is 6 feet from back of curb, . If roadway shoulders
are used for bikeways, the shoulder should be 5 feet wide. This width should discourage
vehicular traffic use and keep the path free of debris.
Class III bikeways are part of the street. No additional construction is required. The AASHTO
"Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities", (1991) is the recognized standard for bikeway
design and should be utilized by bikeway designers.
1. If on -street parking is desired, additional ROW and paving will be required,
subject to Traffie Engineering approval.
2. Two one-way 5 feet each side, one two-way 10 feet one side
Class III
Class II (1)
Class I With
Class I
(2) Road
Without Road
c.x KAHL1NG ROAD
C-& WEST'
PCK
R -O w
No additional
No additional
10 feet
No additional
additional
Paving
No additional
No additional
9 feet (4 feet
10 to 13 feet
for pedestrians)
1. If on -street parking is desired, additional ROW and paving will be required,
subject to Traffie Engineering approval.
2. Two one-way 5 feet each side, one two-way 10 feet one side
The Plan should include proposed (P), development (D) and
existing routes (E).
Coordinate with Public Works to show typical cross sections of the various classes at
this location in the Plan. We may also incorporate photographs of typical situations
where available from other cit 's Oans.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Design speed
Maximum grade
Minimum clearance
vertical
lateral
Sight distance
street intersection
bike intersection
Horizontal curves
(between reverse curves)
Horizontal radius
(at centerline)
For no more than 500 feet
*Use associated street standards
Class I
(non -road)
35 MPH
100'
8 ft.
1 ft.
100 ft.
30 ft.
200 ft.
100 ft.
SIGNAGE AND MARKING: I have not worked on this section
All Others
*
*
*
*
Signage for bikeways consists of pole mounted signs and painted graphics on the roadways.
Pole mounted signs include: usual traffic signs; bike route signs indicating the degree of
difficulty of the bikeway; signs giving bikeway designations; bicycle bus stop and color coded
signs to aid bicyclists in following routes. Bike crossing signs should be used to alert motorists to
the presence of bicyclists. All classes of bikeways should be signed. Signs and graphics painted
on the pavement may vary depending upon the class of a particular bikeway.
Class I bikeways utilized by bicycles and/or pedestrians should have a solid or
dashed d" wide; yellow or white line separating the various use lanes. Intersections
should be appropriately striped to warn motorists to be aware of bicyclists.
Class II bikeways require 8" wide, solid or dashed, yellow or white striping to denote the bike
lane. Additional striping may be needed at intersections.
Class I and II bikeways should be marked with on street bicycle graphics in white
paint with directional arrows directing the flow of bicycle traffic. Class ITT bikeways
may be marked with on street bicycle graphics as described above. For Class II
routes at intersections where it is necessary for bikes to merge with automobile traffic due to
right turn lanes, the bike lane should resume on the other side of the intersection. Rating
bikeways as to degree of difficulty and using color coded signage to designate them is helpful for
cyclists. The bikeways can be color coded as black for difficult, red for moderate, and blue for a
minimal level of difficulty. Marking specific routes with street graphics is important to keep
cyclists aware of what direction they are traveling. East -west routes are designated with even
numbers, with north -south routes designated with odd numbers.
The most important aspect of signage is that it remain consistent from bikeway to
bikeway. This will reduce confusion for and aid those using of Bikeways.
SECTION 7: AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT
A. (1)n. Any subdivider of land or applicant for rezoning, variance, conditional
use permit, site plan or a building permit (herein referred to as applicant) review
within the official planning area of the City shall conform to the Plan by indicating
on any flats, drawings or surveys submitted to the City for its review, any street
identified in the Plan which traverses or abuts the said property, Applicant, nr site
tan review and building permit are not required to dedicate or construel air
Nude path or route as described in the Plan. (We must lobby this exemption out
of the Plan
MWhere the said property abuts a street included in the Plan, the property owner
shall dedicate one half of the required right-of-way as established in the Plan (except as
provided below). In the event that the proposed centerline of the right-of-way does not
coincide with the existing property lines resulting in a disproportionate amount of right-of-
way required from one property owner; the City will reserve for acquisition any right-of-way
in excess of' one half of the total right-of-way which the property owner is required to
dedicate.
Ljjwhew2 here the said property is traversed by the street, the property owner
will be required to dedicate the entire amount of right-of-way as established in the Plan.
(4)ROW DEDICATION NOT REQUIRED;CITY'S OBLIGATIONS IF ACQUIRING:
Any right-of-way acquisition must be made within twelve (12) months from the date the final plat
is filed for record with the Office of the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk or within twelve (12)
months from date of final approval of the appropriate application. Acquisition shall be deerned as
having been made when either an option to purchase is executed or suit to condemn is filed by the
City; provided, however, no subdivider or other applicant shall be denied the privilege of having
a plat or application approved solely by reason of the issue of reserved right-of-way unless the
City determines and advises said subdivider or applicant within sixty (60) days from the date his
plat or application is presented to the City that public funds for acquisition will be available
within twelve (12) months from the date the plat or application is presented.
(5)ROW DEDICATION REQUIRED OF APPLICANT IN SPECIFIC INSTANCES:
Where an Expressway, Principal Arterial or Minor Arterial intersects an existing or proposed
Expressway, Principal Arterial or Minor Arterial and where an Expressway or Principal Arterial
intersects a Collector street, the subdivider or applicant shall dedicate ail additional 10 feet of
right-of-way, measured from the centerline of the right-of-way, for a right turn lane, This
additional right-of-way shall normally be 250 feet in length measured from the intersecting right-
of-way. At such intersections, the intersecting right-of-way lines shall normally have a radius of
75 to 100 feet.
B. We must reconcile this paragraph to the last sentence in AM above). Whenever the City is I
presented with a request for review of a plat or application involving any facility :shown or
described in the Plan, the City will determine the exact location and extent of right-of-way
necessary for the provisions of said facility, and shall require, in conjunction with the approval of
the preliminary plat or application, the dedication or reservation of the right-of-way.
C. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any new building, or for an
addition to an existing building, or for the moving of any building, on any lot or parcel of land
which is traversed by or abuts any street facility indicated herein unless it has first been
determined that the proposed structure would not lie within the proposed bounds of said facility.
D. Reconcile with or combine with AM aboycl No lot or parcel of land which lies within the
right-of-way of a proposed street shall be privately developed, nor shall airy permit be issued
authorizing such until the City shall have refused to execute a written option or to file suit for
condemnation to acquire said area. Such refusal shall be given by the City within one year of the
date such action is requested by the property owner; provided, however, no property owner shall
be denied the privilege of developing such lot or parcel of land by reasons of the provisions of
this ordinance unless the City determines and advises such property owner within sixty (60) days
from the date of written request for action that public funds for the acquisition will be available
within twelve (12) months from the date of request for such action by said property owner.
E, No provision of this ordinance shall be construed to deny a permit for the remodeling, repair or
maintenance of an existing building not involving structural alteration or for the use of said lot or
parcel for purposes not involving the construction or relocation of buildings.
F. The Plan of the Little Rock Planning Area shall be duly considered prior to action on any
matter related thereto which comes before the Little Rock Planning Commission, the Board of
Directors or any of the departments, agencies, boards or commissions of this City.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF BIKEWAYS
Notes:
1. Repair formatting of columns as 1 have done for first 10 lines only
2. Like interstate numbering system; make uniform the "frons" column should
start from the West of South end of each trail and the "to" column should be
the East of North end of the trail
3. Under the "code" column in Class I designate each trail IIP' proposed, "E"
existing, or "D" development.
4. Under the "code" column in Class II designate each trail "S" for signs. "ST"
for striped and "PM" for pavement markin s or two or three such cones
CLASS I:
DESCRIPTION
FROM
CODE
Alexander Road
Alexander
Little .Fourche Trail
Allsop Park
Lookout Drive
Kavanaugh Boulevard
Brodie Creek
Cooper Orbit Road
Fourche Creek. (West)
Brushy Flat
Rocky Valley Drive
I-630
Burlingame/Col. Glenn
Kanis Road
Bowman Road
Calligan Creek
Outer Loop
Fourche (West)
Cedar Hill Road
Hill Road
Oakhurst
Chenal Parkway
Bowman Road
Hwy. 10
Crystal Valley Road
Outer Loop
David O'Dodd Extension
David O'Dodd Road
Colonel Glenn Road
Stagecoach Road
Downtown - .Riverfi-ont
Riverfi•ont .Drive Fourche Creek (Airport)
East Little Rock DNTN-Riverfi-ont
Trl Fourche Creek Trail (R/R
track)
Fourche Bayou Fourche
Trail Ilaiper Road
Fourche Creels (South)
Mabelvale Pike Little Fourche Trail
Fourche Creek (West)
Rock Creek Trail Outer Loop
Fourche Creek Trail
Arkansas River Mabelvale Pike
Heinke/Mabelvale Main Mann Road Alexander Road
Hinson Road Taylor Loop Creek Jennifer Drive
I-630 Shackleford .Road Fair Park
Jamison Creek Rebsamen Park Road Cantrell Road
Little Fourche Trail Fourche Creek Trail South -Loop
Little Maurnelle Creek Planning Boundary Pinnacle Mountain
Mann Road Forbing Road South Loop
McHenry CreekOuter Loop Fourche Creek (West)
Midtown Trail Riverfront Fourche Trail
Otter Creek Fourche West "frail Park (South of Alexander)
Outer Loop "Taylor Loop Road Alexander
Panther Creek 36th Street Extension Brodie Creek
Pinnacle Trail Pinnacle Mountain Twin River Park
Rebsanien Park Road R.iverfront Drive Lilac Terrace
Reservoir Connection West Reservoir Road Reservoir Park
Rock Creek 1-630 Trail Mabelvale Pike
South .hoop Mabelvale West Road Arch Street Pike
Sunset Connection Sunset Lane Little Fourche Trail
Taylor Loop Creek Pinnacle Trail Hinson Road
Twin River Park Rebsamen Park Road Twin River Park
Twin Rivers Park South River Mountain Road Southridge Road
UALR 19th Street 28th Street
,1.,o
Bike Plan Subcommittee Meeting
20 January 2010
Attending:
Ed Levy — Cromwell AE, Architect
Don Bearden - Regions
Walter Mallone — City of LR, Urban Planner
Dan Williams—Garver, Engineer
Coreen Frasier — Retired School Teacher (PE), TAC Member
Mike Sprague — Map Maker/Semi-Free Spirit
Van Warren — Aerospace Engineering
Gordon Fisher — 3D Animator, Ron Sherman Advertising
Vision:
You don't need a car to safely and efficiently get around Little Rock,
Goals:
1. Update the Bike Plan for LR
a. Graphic - Mike
b. Written - Don
c. Citizen Input - Coreen
d. Data Gathering (for assessment) — Van
e. Develop a Complete Streets policy for LR — Ask Ken.
f. Visit to other city(s) to learn/get fired up - Dan
2. Implementation Strategy
a. Phasing Plan
b. Identify who in the City Government is going to be responsible for implementation of
the plan.
c. Prioritize plan components.
3. Safety Strategy
a. Log hot spots to bring attention to problem areas to encourage the city to fix problem
areas, create workarounds, etc.
b. Education
Meeting Notes
• Van presented a bike safety powerpoint presentation.
• Introductions.
■ Ideas:
o Green corridors with trails.
o Paved and un -paved trails.
o Link parks.
o Separate Joggers and Cyclists from Cars and Trucks
o Bike paths should be widened and smoothed.
o Transitions should be free of "lips", ADA -compatible.
o Educate higher energy to yield to those with less.
o Pay attention to hot spots! Log the hotspots online and make them more known.
o First lanes should get a lot of use to ensure positive response to capital expenditures.
o Plan should also include connectivity to outlying communities (CARTS).
o The saddest thing in LR is the pedestrian bridge over 430 at Immanuel Baptist — it goes
nowhere. Maybe we move it to somewhere else? At a minimum get it some connections
on either side of 430.
o Close one lane of Rebsamen Road
o Rework Markham from Downtown to Chenal — Bike lanes on either side, three lanes
with a switched lane that changes from
o Gather data on Bike/Bus use.
o Rework 12th street — same as above
0 12th street corridor study has been done — University to Woodrow — recommended a
road diet from Fair Park to Woodrow. There is already momentum for this to be a bike
lane.
o Incentivize the use of the facilities we are creating.
o System should be well thought out and efficient.
o There is a need for bike parking.
o Understand the diversity of cyclists.
o Need a complete street policy.
o Sometimes it takes time to get people using the trails.
o Complete streets — whenever Missoula restripes they re -assess the road to determine if
it needs a bike lane.
o We should look at some other cities that have done what we are trying to do — talk to
city officials and learn from their mistakes, what they did right, what they would do
differently, etc. Also can take some of our city officials to visit to get them fired up about
bike lanes.
o Action Items:
■ Review written plan and Pfeifer's comments.
■ Review Bike Plan (graphic)
• Set up Citizen Input session.
0
Agenda
M _t' Meeting of
City of Little Rock Bicycle Friendly Community Committee
1. Report from the Little Rock Bicycle Plan Subcommittee
2. Report on status of City of Little Rock bicycle facility -trail efforts -projects
3. Report on steps to be taken toward making the next Bicycle Friendly
Community application for the City of Little Rock
4. Report on restructuring the Bicycle Friendly Community Committee
5. Consideration of steps to be taken & priorities to be assigned for the
development of the following bicycling projects:
a. Pinnacle Valley Road wideningr•-
. The Dillard's-ECS River Trail gap, including connection with the Medical
Mile dtkz*"ti's _1... 'u1-4
c. Bicycle lanes -trail on the Riverfront Drive River Trail gap
d. Development of a bike station in downtown Little Rock
e. Working with other community groups in development of bicycling
facilities & bike lanes on streets
C"X
f. Other projects?
6. Anything else for the good of the order.
DRAFT - REVISED
BIKEWAY MASTERPLAN MEETING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
PRIORITIZED LISTING OF BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
16 March 2011
Prioritized List in Degree of Importance:
1. Close the Loop — Dillards Connector from Downtown to Jr. Deputy Trail.
2. Improve Pinnacle Valley with Taylor Loop Connection - connection from RR tracks to Cantrell, tie to
Taylor Loop — becomes northmost east -west connector tying west LR to Downtown LR.
3. Improve Riverfront Drive from Cantrell to the new Roundabout - Bike -Ped Parkway on the east side
of the median or restripe road to create bigger bike lanes on the outside lane - reduce to 1 motor
vehicle lane per direction to match Rebsamen Rd.
4. Mabelvale/UALR/Western Hills.
5. Center City East-West Connector — connect the eastern part of the city to the western part of the
city south of the River — combination of Class 1, 2 and 3 bike lanes.
6. Twelfth Street improvements from Childrens Hospital to Rodney Parham.
(72 Connectors to the bridge at game and fish.
8. Fourche Creek Trail.
9. Mountain Bike trails at Granite Mountain
10. Reservoir Park connector (connect Leewood to Midtown)
J Provide Connections to Rock Creek Trail and pave sections of the trail
12. Class one trail from Pinnacle Valley to Pinnacle Mountain
13. West 65th Street and Arch
14..#nis to Boyle Park connection
15. River Mountain Park Trails up to Walton Heights
16. Jimmerson Creek trail from the River to Reservoir Park at Cantrell
17. Connector from the River to Taylor Street near Scenic
q8 Fill in the gaps on the 630 corridor
19. West loop from Rahling Rd to Stagecoach
20. B*Park-Western Hills -Hindman Parkway
Phasing of Class Three Signage
1. West LR
2. North-South routes (to city south limits)
3. Midtown to downtown
BFCC - Two additional items related to today's meeting
Members of the City of Little Rock Bicycle Friendly Community Committee,
Two items below (I will distribute hard copies of item i at the 4 p.m. meeting):
(1) In the attached files is the "Prioritized Listing of Bicycle Facility Improvements" developed by the Bike
Plan Subcommittee & the subcommittee's "Phasing of Class Three Signage."
(2) Yesterday Ed Levy forwarded the following links in regard to bike stations. Most likely you won't have an
opportunity to review the links prior to today's meeting, but I wanted to forward Ed's compilation of the
links at least for future reference.
Ken
-------- Original Message--------
Subject:Bike Station Examples - Web Links
Date:Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:32:12 -0500
From:ed.levyC@cromwell.com
To:Bryan Day ¢BDay@lfttlerock.org,>
CC:Mark Webre <mwebre@littlerock.org>, ksdould.@ualr.edu
Websites
htti):I/,www.chicagobikestation.com/
htto://home.bikestation.com/clarement
http:llbartbikestation.coml
http://www.alamedab!Cycle.com/station berkeley.html
hMp:l/www.qycle2city.com.au/51te.L)hp?content=home
http 1Lwww;aOlvetrans. oral
http://www.josta.de/rstl.htm
http-://www.facebook.com/stibikestation
htt[):jJwww. bicyc_lea Iliance. orglaboutbawlbi keoort. htm I
htt bike ortland.or
Various Bike Station Stuff
htti�:/1home. bi kestatlon. coml
hgl2: //www. thetra nsportpolltic.com/2009/031101serving.-the- biketransit-commuter)
htto:llwww, iosta.delevents. htm
Articles on Bike Stations
Ott www.biziournals.com stlouis rint-edition 2011 03 11 artnershi s-brin -commuter-bike.h ml
httr):/lwww.berkeleyside. com12010107113/new-bike-station-opened-todav-in-downtown-berkeleyl
htt2:/ nextstf.com/downtown/ride-wit-me-to-work.-downtown-st-fouis- lets-bike-commuter-sstation
http: Ystlelsewhere.bladspot,com120 OL061delmar-station_ssamzledN.html
htt www.s reetsbla .or 2006 12 1 t e-weeks-finks-
http:llbuzzer, tra_nsl ink. ca/ Index.,phpica tedory/cvcli nglpade131
htir lwww.thewashcycle.com1200911t71fa5t-lane-on-the-bike_-station.htmI
Ed
edwin cromwell levy, ala, teed ap
director, architectural
elevy@crornwell corn
501.372.2900 w
501.960.6145 c
101 south spring street
little rock, ar 72201
Ken Gould I Professor of Law
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law
0- 501.324.9952 1 H- 501.225.5343 1 ksgould@ualr.edu I www.law.uair.edu
2011-03-16 DRAFT Revised Prioritized List.pdf Content -Type: application/pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
2 of 3 3/16/2011 1:40 PM