HomeMy WebLinkAboutMetro 2030 Technical Reportr I
rA61 tl.711
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
Provision of pedestrian facilities is an essential component of mixed-use land development and an intermodal
transportation network. Additionally, pedestrian facilities promote a sense of community, and improve
opportunities for equality of access and a healthy lifestyle. Although provision of sidewalks is primarily a local
government responsibility, sidewalks and shared paths can fulfill a valid transportation need. In order to do
that, however, it is essential that sidewalks connect in order for pedestrians to safely travel from one place to
the next.
CARTS AREA PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Municipal pedestrian sidewalk plans are routinely incorporated into the metropolitan transportation plan. In
2000, five cities had adopted pedestrian plans. Five years later, in 2005, 10 jurisdictions have either adopted
separate sidewalk plans, or comprehensive plans with pedestrian elements. Two jurisdictions have not adopted
citywide plans, but do require sidewalk construction in their subdivision regulations or other ordinances.
METRO 2025 identified 345.58 miles of sidewalk and shared pathway in the CARTS area (see Map 11-1). Since
its adoption in 2000, approximately 210.31 miles of additional walkway have been added throughout the region.
(Note: that this number may include .come previously existing un -inventoried walkway.)
PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS
In the Fall of 2004, Metroplan compiled and reviewed pedestrian and bicycle accidents in the four counties that
occurred between 2000-2002. This study allowed Metroplan to determine the locations of such accidents and
the determination of high risk groups.
A total of 436 pedestrian crashes occurred between the years 2000-2002 in the four -county area, 32 of which
involved fatalities. Totals are summarized by county in Table 11-1.
Adopted September 28, 20051 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 11-1
2000-2002 Number of Pedestrians - Involved in Crashes
County 111
2001
20022000-2002
Faulkner 14 (4)
6(l)
11
31 (5)
Lonoke 13
8 (1)
8
29 (1)
Pulaski 108(9)
109 (10)
125 (4)
342 (23)
Saline 11 (1)
Total4•
7
1
16 (2)
.i
34 (3)
Note: Numbers in parenthesis are the number of fatalities.
In general, higher pedestrian -related crashes were concentrated in the downtown areas, minority
neighborhoods, and transit -dependent areas. Within Pulaski County, North Little Rock had higher
concentrations of pedestrian -related crashes occurring on Pike Avenue south of 1-40 and East Broadway near I-
30. In Little Rock, the higher concentrations of pedestrian crashes occurred in the CBD area, particularly on
Broadway Avenue, in the Cloverdale area of southwest Little Rock, and along parts of Asher/Wright Avenue,
east of University. Map 11-2 shows the location of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists for the four -
county area occurring between 2000-2002. Map 11-3 shows the location of pedestrian fatalities between 2000-
2002. Many of the fatalities occurred on or near area freeways.
Groups that were determined to have a higher risk of being involved in a pedestrian accident for the four -
county area include individuals between the age of 10-19, African Americans and Hispanics, and males. For
more information on pedestrian and bicyclist accidents, consult 2000-2002 CARTS Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crash
Analysis.
PREVIOUS CARTS PLANNING EFFORTS
METRO 2020 targeted an average of $1 million per year to fund pedestrian and bikeway projects in the region.
Jurisdictions that adopted pedestrian plans or ordinances with pedestrian provisions incorporated the CARTS
pedestrian standards into their federally funded roadway projects.
In the development of METRO 2025, the TAC appointed a standing committee to investigate alternatives and
develop a pedestrian element for METRO 2025. Safety, access and community were guiding priorities for the
committee. The resulting recommendations, listed in Table 11-2, are carried forward in METRO 2030 with a
brief assessment of their implementation.
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
�`O. P
IM91
F -
w
O
CL
LU
J
Q
U
Z
U
W
M
O
N
O
w
F-
LU
IG n
i
�n_
}ry' f I 1J it
--
� r.r M� ie�ii Arai
1 ^ ■fit■ ,.,,a.: r�■
•pie �'•�
�•..iiii
d
0
0
N
00
N
N
4)
CL
U)
a
Q
O
Q
Lf
O
m
W
J
Q
U
Z
U
LLL
F-
0
M
N
O
F—
LU
2
4
c
d
v
E�l
N
� v
208
r% • a tr 1
i
t• I
iot` r• -� d i
l �
J
0
O
N
C6
N
N
E
N
Q
(U
U)
a
0
Q
co
a
c
c
ca
'C
a�
fp
d
d
a
1�
0
w
F-
LU
2
m
LL
W
V
a)
a.
F;
co
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 11-2
METRO 2025 Recommendations
Recommendations
Coordinate with the AHTD to implement its state plan recommendations. N/A (see State Planning
Efforts, below)
Maintain and improve existing sidewalks.
YES
Priority should be given to providing connections to existing sidewalks.
YES
Sidewalks should be built to provide access from neighborhoods to and around
YES
schools, parks, transit stops, and shopping areas.
Provide appropriate furniture to pedestrian facilities; for example, benches and
YES
trashcans.
Provide pedestrian refuges in appropriate areas,.
YES
STATE PLANNING EFFORTS
In September 1997, the Arkansas State Highway Commission adopted a State Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan to serve as a stand alone element of the Statewide Long -Range Intermodal Transportation
Plan. The stated intent of the plan is "to provide direction for planning, development and implementation of
safe and useable facilities for bicycle and pedestrian transportation in Arkansas." Since that time, there have
been no updates of the plan.
State Pedestrian Transportation Plan Recommendations
1: Encourage local communities to conduct sidewalk inventories
as elements of master street plans. Such inventories will
identify gaps in existing pedestrian systems and allow
communities to target areas for improvements
2. Cooperate with local communities to develop sidewalks in
conjunction with urban highway and street improvements.
Replace substandard existing pedestrian facilities in
conjunction with improvement projects and construct initial
pedestrian facilities if local demand exists. Note: Metroplan
standards call for construction of sidewalks regardless of
current demand. The assumption is that the CARTS area is
building an integrated travel network, which should be
seamless and supportive of all modes.
The Heights Neighborhood, Little Rock
4. Develop a pedestrian safety program targeting school -aged children.
!O
® •p0
Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Characteristics and Needs of Pedestrians
Pedestrians fall into five basic categories.
1. Children and Pre -Teens - Usually impulsive and unpredictable, shorter and, therefore, harder to see, and
rely on adults to look out for them.
2. Teenagers - Walk longer distances, walk during night and evening hours and walk to school.
1 Elderly - Walk for exercise, walk because they may n o longer be able to drive and walk at a slower pace
than any other pedestrian.
4. Everyday Pedestrians - Most frequently are present on roadways early in the morning and in the evening,
walk or run longer distances than most pedestrians and are concentrated in urban areas where there tends
to be more traffic.
5. People with Disabilities - They may be walking because they can not drive; pedestrians in wheelchairs or
on motorized scooters may be hard to see because they are shorter.
IMPEDIMENTS TO PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL
The characteristics and needs of pedestrians are different from all other travel modes. Recognizing the unique
needs of pedestrians is the first step toward improving safety for pedestrians. One of the best ways to
encourage walking is to eliminate the conditions that discourage people from walking.
SAFETY: Several issues fall under the category of safety for
pedestrians. Surface condition, physical barriers (telephone
poles, newsstands) and crosswalks are just a few examples
of safety issues. Surface conditions do not matter to all
pedestrians, but to the ones it does matter to, it is very
important. It is difficult for a person in a wheelchair to
traverse a side -walk that is broken. The same is true for
families pushing a stroller, or anyone who is unsteady on
his/her feet. Physical barriers that cause problems for
those people can also be hazardous to any pedestrian.
Crosswalks are essential to pedestrian safety since they
allow for a safe place for pedestrians to cross a street.
Tucker Creek Trail, Conway
ACCESS: Access is a critical issue for pedestrians. People wishing to walk from their home to the grocery store
may not be able to because of the lack of sidewalks in the area. Lack of sidewalks near shopping centers,
schools, parks and in neighborhoods may be prohibitive to those who wish to walk instead of drive.
Connectivity between pedestrian generators should be a priority for walkway systems. Not only do pedestrians
use sidewalks to walk to the store, they also use them for transit connections.
PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Sidewalks are a necessary element to advance the regional goal of a seamless, multi -modal transportation
network. In the 2000 METRO 2025 plan, the TAC went further by recognizing that pedestrian facilities are
critical to maintaining and strengthening the fabric of the community.
Good sidewalk planning and engineering must be combined with public education/information, and
enforcement of basic pedestrian -vehicle traffic laws (e.g., at cross -walks, regarding the parking of vehicles on
Adopted September 28, 20051 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
pedestrian walkways). It is also important to encourage walking as a mode choice. Table 11-3 exhibits some of
the attributes of each of these 4-E implementing strategies.
Table 11-3
Pedestrian Implementing Strategies
Engineering/Planninq
Education
Enforcement
Encouragement
sidewalks where
Walking & health (Center
Keep motor vehicles &
Organize community walks
people want to go
for Disease Control &
bikes off the sidewalks
(e.g., through Parks &
Prevention)
(except shared paths)
Recreation Department)
Employ traffic calming
Coordinate with schools
Control speeding & un-
Enlist business to support
techniques where
for national SAFE Kids
safe vehicle movements at
employee walking program
appropriate
Campaign
intersections
Provide street furniture, i.e.,
Provide aesthetic
benches, trash receptacles,
Pedestrian Road Show
Enforce jaywalking laws
enhancements such as
trees, landscaping, textured
drinking fountains, etc.
sidewalks
SIDEWALK/SHARED PATH STANDARDS
All sidewalks constructed with funds provided through CARTS, unless located in a CBD, must be a minimum
of five feet wide with a three foot minimum buffer located on both sides of the street.
Shared paths can be used by both cyclists and pedestrians and are separated from motorized vehicular traffic by
an open space or barrier and either within the roadway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way.
Shared paths are a minimum of 12 feet wide separated from the roadway by a five foot buffer.
BIKEWAYS
INTRODUCTION
Like sidewalks, bikeways are primarily a local responsibility. Bikeway facilities complement pedestrian facilities,
as well as play a regional role in promoting a multi -modal, inter -connected metropolitan transpor tation system.
CARTS AREA BICYCLE FACILITIES
METRO 2025 inventoried a total of 24.7 bikeway and shared path miles in the CARTS area. Bikeway/shared
path mileage inventoried in 2005 is 70.0, an increase of 45.3 miles.
Map 11-4 depicts existing or programmed (not planned) bikeway facilities in the CARTS area.
Six jurisdictions— Benton, Cabot, Conway, Little Rock, Maumelle, and North Little Rock—had adopted bike
plans, park or comprehensive plans with bikeway elements, in 2000. That figure has not changed. Some
jurisdictions considered developing bike plans, but ultimately decided against it. Two jurisdictions are in the
process of updating their comprehensive plans, and including a bikeway element, but those pl ans have not yet
been adopted.
Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
M
F -
w
O
m
LU
J
Q
U_
Z
x
U
W
F-
O
M
O
N
O
w
F-
LU W
2
m
r V. M ��
V.
a
E
�s
Z�•:
V U U
i _ a
LL,�7
LO
0
O
N
M
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
A total of 108 bicycle crashes occurred between the years 2000-2002 in the four -county area. No fatalities were
recorded for the crashes. Totals are summarized by county in the table below.
Table 11-4
2000-2002 Number of Bicyclists - Involved in Crashes
As with accidents involving pedestrians, higher bicycle -related crashes were concentrated in the downtown
areas, minority neighborhoods, and transit dependent areas. Within Pulaski County, North Little Rock had
higher concentrations of bicyclist -related crashes occurring on Pike Avenue south of I-40 and East Broadway
near 1-30. In Little Rock, the higher concentrations of bicyclist crashes occurred in the CBD area, particularly
on Broadway Avenue, in the Cloverdale area of southwest Little Rock, and along parts of Asher/Wright
Avenue, east of University. Again, these data are very similar to the data for pedestrian crashes. Map 11-2 shows
the location of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists for the four -county area occurring between 2000-
2003.
For more information on pedestrian and bicyclist accidents, consult 2000-2002 CARTS Pedestrian/Bicyclist
Crash Analysis.
PREVIOUS CARTS PLANNING EFFORTS
METRO 2020 detailed a comprehensive approach to
bicycle planning, and provided a framework for future
planning efforts. The METRO 2025 plan update
incorporated some of the 2020 guidance.
The TAC appointed a standing committee to investigate
alternatives for developing a bikeway element for
METRO 2025. With input from area cycli sts and the
AHTD Bikeways Coordinator, the committee agreed that,
(1) bikeway facilities should be considered and designed
for use first as a transportation mode; and, (2) the CARTS
Regional Bikeway Plan should encompass and integrate
four elements, or 4-E: engineering, education,
enforcement, and encouragement. Table 11-5 lists
examples of the four elements of bicycle planning
according to the 4-E.
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
Frazier Pike Pedestrian/Bicycle
Enhancements, College Station
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 11-5
Elements of Bicycle Plannin
Engineering
Education
Enforcement
Encouragement —
Hazard Removal
In -class instruction
Basic traffic law
enforcement
Media campaigns
Roadway Improvements
On -bike training (e.g., bike
rodeos)
Warning programs
Bikeway mapping
Barrier & Bottleneck
Adult education
Accident statistic
Provision of bicycle
Elimination
LIMITED
compilation
amenities
On -Road Bikeway
Development
Motorist education
Bicycle patrols
Bike -to -work days
Bicycle Trail Development
IN PROGRESS
and explore feasibility of adding bike racks to those buses.
Recreation programs
A number of recommendations were also promulgated. Following are the METRO 2025 recommendations,
with a brief assessment of their implementation.
Table 11-6
METRO 2025 Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION
Downtown Little Rock /North Little Rock river district phases (already identified in locally
YES
adopted plans) should be developed first.
More effort should be put into providing facilities for commuters. This may include showers,
IN PROGRESS
lockers, secure bike parking.
Work with legislators to obtain tax incentives for companies that provide bicycle -friendly
amenities. Note: Amenities may include but are not limited to showers, lockers, parking,
IN PROGRESS
internal linkages to roadways and transit stops.
Amenities should be provided for cyclists who wish to bike to shopping and business areas
LIMITED
(e.g., secure bike racks, lockers)
Bike routes should include linkages from neighborhoods to and around schools, parks, transit
SOME
stops, and shopping areas.
Identify bus routes appropriate for links to potential intermodal users (for example, University),
IN PROGRESS
and explore feasibility of adding bike racks to those buses.
PROGRESS
METRO 2025 should support the implementation of plans in those jurisdictions that have
YES
adopted bike plans and encourage/assist other jurisdictions in developing bicycle plans.
METRO 2020 targeted $26 million for pedestrian, bikeway, and other transportation
enhancement projects. The TAC Standing Committee recommends that this should be
YES
continued into the five-year update.
METRO 2025 should support and encourage the implementation of the State Bicycle &
Pedestrian Plan Recommendations. Moreover, the TAC Committee believes that the State
IN PROGRESS
Bikeway Plan should be revised and expanded to include detailed and specific strategies for
implementing a statewide program.
Safety is an especially critical factor to bicyclists; therefore, shared paths, bike lanes and bike
YES
routes should be well maintained and kept free of debris.
Encourage efforts to build a Rails -to -Trails route in Lonoke County. The TAC Standing
Committee feels that it would be especially appropriate to create a route named in memory of
IN PROGRESS
the late judge Don Bevis.
A,y
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
STATE PLANNING EFFORTS
In September 1997, the Arkansas State Highway Commission adopted a State Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan to serve as a stand-alone element of the Statewide Long -Range Intermodal Transportation
Plan. The stated intent of the plan is "to provide direction for planning, development, and implementation of
safe and usable facilities for bicycle and pedestrian transportation in Arkansas." The AHTD has not updated
the plan.
State Bicycle Plan Recommendations
1. Develop a bicycle safety pamphlet to distribute at school, bicycle rodeos, and points of bicycle purchase
outlining state laws, common rules of the road, and safety techniques for cycling including the benefits of
wearing helmets.
2. Gather bicycle facility design standards from other states and adapt them to serve as standards for the
development of such facilities in Arkansas. Until such Arkansas specific standards are available, utilize
existing American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bikeway
standards and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, "Selecting Roadway Design Trealmentr
to Accommodate Bicycles." (Note: Metroplan has adopted design standards applicable to CARTS.)
3. Determine the suitability and feasibility of developing bicycle facilities for urban and rural road
improvements and modifications in the state.
4. Appoint an internal AHTD task force to be responsible for developing a process by which local
communities can propose state routes traversing their jurisdictions to be signed as bicycle routes and to
develop a set of criteria by which other routes would be selected for inclusion on the statewide bicycle
suitability map.
5. Identify improvements needed to bring routes selected for the bikeway system up to prevailing standards.
6. Conduct a statewide personal transportation survey to determine the existing amount of utilitarian and
recreational cycling taking place and the potential for increasing the frequency of cycling trips.
7. Work with the Department of Parks and Tourism to develop a follow-up survey to determine a qualitative
analysis of cyclists' experiences in Arkansas.
CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS OF CYCLISTS
Cyclists fall into three basic catego ries:
1. Group "A" comprises the minority of cyclists, who are often the most vocal in advocating bikeway
planning. These people are experienced and confident. They do not hesitate to use busy r oadways and are
more apt to use the bicycle as their commuting vehicle. Group "A" cyclists also participate in long-distance
touring.
2. Group "B" cyclists are adults who enjoy bike riding, but are not as experienced or as confident as Group
"A." Class I bikeways and shared paths are ideally suited for Group "B."
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
. r-
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Group "C" cyclists are children, These cyclists are difficult to quantify, but in general they are between
eight and fifteen years of age (old enough for a degree of independence, but too young for a driver's
license) and the bicycle is their primary means of solo transportation. Children lack the experience of
Group "A" cyclists and the judgment of Group `B" cyclists, Unfortunately, they often possess all of the
self-confidence of Group "A," which can make for reckless cycling. Nationwide, about one-half of current
cyclists are under the age of 16.
RECOGNIZING BICYCLISTS' PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
The characteristics and needs of cyclists are unique and considerably different than the needs of other
transportation modes, including the pedestrian mode. Recognizing the unique needs of bicycling is the first step
toward improving bicycling safety and encouraging bicycle use. One of the best ways to encourage bicycle use is
to eliminate those conditions that currently discourage its use as a mode of transportation and recreation.
Bicycling needs and problems are generally related to
surface conditions, access to and continuity of bicycle
facility, safety, security, and the overall riding environment.
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Problems associated with facility
surface conditions include poor surface quality, such as
cracked pavement, or unsuitable surface material such as
cobblestone. Storm grates with slots parallel to the street
present hazards to cyclists, as do accumulations of debris
and dirt. Construction and maintenance operations may
create unexpected hazards or rough pavement conditions.
Railroad crossings can be hazardous if the cyclist does not
cross at a right angle to the track.
Riverfront Drive, Little Rock
ACCESS AND CONTINUITY: Barriers to bicycle accessibility to desired destinations include topographic and
geographic conditions, such as major streams or creeks, and slopes in excess of seven to 10% grade. Limited -
access highways, especially where the cross access is severely limited, are major barriers to bicycling. High
volume streets and roadways pose significant constraints to bicycling activity. This is especially true for those on
which speeds are high, capacity deficiencies exist, or where accident hazards are most severe.
Camp Robinson Rd, North Little Rock
Land use and development of large areas in which through
access is restricted or highly congested may also pose
significant hazards to cyclists. Examples of this kind of
development pattern include major strip developments, high-
density areas such as CBDs and other commercial
developments, and areas such as campuses needing internal
bikeway systems. Rail lines and rail rights-of-way, to which
access is severely limited or highly dangerous, are major
barriers to bicyclists.
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
More localized impediments to accessibility include discontinuities (lack o f linkages from one area to another)
in bicycle facilities, conflicts with parked vehicles, and bicycle facilities designed to inadequate standards.
TRAFFIC SAFETY: The characteristics of bicycles and pedestrians are basically incompatible. When there are
large numbers of either, it is difficult to successfully mix these modes on a combined facility. The primary safety
concern of the cyclist is conflict with motor vehicles and pedestrian traffic. Intersections pose pard cular
problems for many cyclists: left -turning cyclists often encounter conflicts with traffic; right -turning cars often
conflict with straight -through cyclists. Riding on the wrong side of the street is a common traffic violation by
cyclists.
BICYCLE AND CYCLIST SECURITY: Security may be a concern, especially in urban areas. Parking that is
located in an out-of-the-way area with low security, or is poorly designed, can invite vandalism and theft. In
areas where no parking is provided, cyclists may leave their bikes where they impede safe pedestrian movement.
Similarly, remote or secluded bicycle facilities may cause some cyclists to fear for their personal safety, resulting
in an under-utilized facility.
RIDING ENVIRONMENT: The quality of the bicycle riding experience can significantly affect the desirability of
cycling. For example, recreational cyclists will appreciate a pleasing environment that offers a variety of
experiences. The work -trip commuter values safety and directness of route, but will also ride out of his/her way
to take a route that is less stressful or more aesthetically pleasing.
TYPES OF BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle facilities are divided into three classes:
Class I: Bike facilities are physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier,
either within the roadway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. Two-way shared paths
are required to be a minimum of 12 feet (3.6 meters) wide. Metroplan also defines shared
pedestrian/ bicycle paths and Rails -to -Trails routes as Class I.
Class II: Bike lanes are portions of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for
the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes should always be one-way facilities carrying
bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. The minimum required width
for a bike lane is six feet (1.8 meters).
Class III: Bicyclists share space with motorists on roadways with no special provision except for signing of the
bike route for bicyclists. Shared lanes typically feature 12 -foot (3.6 -meter) lane widths or less with no
shoulders, allowing cars to safely pass bicycles only by crossing the center line or moving into
another traffic lane.
OTHER TYPES OF SHARED FACILITIES: These include wide outside lanes with a width of at least 14 feet that can
accommodate bicycle traffic. Shoulders must be paved and a minimum of four feet (1.2 meters) wide when they are
designed to accommodate bicycle traffic.
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF BIKEWAY ON-SITE SURVEYS
Metroplan staff took the participation process directly to the people in May 2005, when they set up shop along
popular shared paths in Faulkner and Pulaski counties. Weekend cyclists, walkers, runners and skaters were
offered Gatorade, ice water and trail mix in return for taking a few moments to fill out a survey. Trail patrons
enthusiastically shared their vision and concerns for future growth in central Arkansas. Summaries follow:
User Counts
These are rough visual counts. Users were routinely under -counted, because staff was attempting to keep count
while also conducting surveys.
Conway, Tucker Creek
Saturday, April 23, 2005 -7:00 a.m. until about 7:00 p.m.
Runners & Skaters
25 & under
51
43
26-35
15
29
36-45
15
22
46-55
7
6
Over 55
11
6
Maumelle, Lake Willastein
Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
rte:'
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Walkers & Runners
North little Rock
Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 11:00 a.m. until about 6:00 p,m.
fists
25 & under 38 27
26-35 69 41
36-45 80 r 28
46-55 36 16
Over 55 8 4
Walkers & Runners
tattle Rock, Murray Park
Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:00 a.m. until about 7:00 p.m.
BicVclists
25 & under
10
1
26-35
25
10
36-45
39
12
46-55
23
1
Over 55
1
0
Walkers & Runners
am Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
r
�fT40��63C
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Survey Summaries
Little Rock
Murray Park
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Summar of S�eys. A total of 97 people stopped to answer the survey. (Note that not everyone answered all
the questions, so none of the numbers will add up.)
How often do you bike?
Less than once a month: 27
Once or twice a month: 10
Less than once a week: 4
Once or twice a week: 16
More than twice a week: 17
Daily: 5
How often do you walk?
Less than once a month:
6
Once or twice a month:
6
Less than once a week:
6
Once or twice a week:
18
More than twice a week:
28
Daily: 23
Today, ate you biking or walking?
Biking: 26 Walking: 40 Running/J ogging: 8 Skating: 1
Did you come here with your family? Yes: 34 No:
Did you come here with your friends? Yes: No:
Did you drive to get here? Yes: 79
If no, how did you get here? Bike: 10 Walk: Run/Jog: 1
What is your age?
25 or under: 4
26-35: 23
36-45: 16
46-55: 29
55 or over: 23
r
m.
M19
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Males: 55
Females: 30
(Note that 12 people declined to answer thegender question.)
What are your concerns? See the following table + "Other Comments," below.
Other concerns:
• Need more water fountains 2
• Need trash cans & recycling bins 1
• Dogs not on leash are a danger 1
• Narrow bridges 3
• High traffic between connections 2
• Complete trail system 2
• Broken glass 1
Would you like to have:
Bike facilities for commuters: 34
Additional recreational bike and walking facilities: 55
Sidewalks and bikeways connecting to "places": 62
How would you fund the desired improvements:
Property tax: 29
Gas tax: 17
Impact fees: 14
Special sales tax: 21
Combination: 32
None of the above: 9
Other: Following are the "Other"suggestions forfunding:
• Donations only
• "Adopt a mile" by businesses & organizations
• Income tax
• Bond issues
• Recreation tax
• Fund raisers
• Federal & state grants
• User fees
• Any or VAT tax
• Grass encroachment 1
• Need bathrooms 1
• Bridges AR River/Little Maumelle 1
* Motorcycles on paths! Dangerous! 1
• Trail quality, e.g., width, surface type 1
• Bikers need to be aware of walkers 1
• No concerns—great as is 4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
Lighting
12
6
7
12
Maintenance
23
4
3
0
Security
18
3
4
2
Location
8
5
0
4
Other concerns:
• Need more water fountains 2
• Need trash cans & recycling bins 1
• Dogs not on leash are a danger 1
• Narrow bridges 3
• High traffic between connections 2
• Complete trail system 2
• Broken glass 1
Would you like to have:
Bike facilities for commuters: 34
Additional recreational bike and walking facilities: 55
Sidewalks and bikeways connecting to "places": 62
How would you fund the desired improvements:
Property tax: 29
Gas tax: 17
Impact fees: 14
Special sales tax: 21
Combination: 32
None of the above: 9
Other: Following are the "Other"suggestions forfunding:
• Donations only
• "Adopt a mile" by businesses & organizations
• Income tax
• Bond issues
• Recreation tax
• Fund raisers
• Federal & state grants
• User fees
• Any or VAT tax
• Grass encroachment 1
• Need bathrooms 1
• Bridges AR River/Little Maumelle 1
* Motorcycles on paths! Dangerous! 1
• Trail quality, e.g., width, surface type 1
• Bikers need to be aware of walkers 1
• No concerns—great as is 4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Where do you live? (One respondent did not answer this question.)
Little Rock:
75
North Little Rock:
4
Mayflower:
2
Cabot
1
Cammack Village
1
Alma
1
Fayetteville
1
Thinking about your own community, what are your priorities and concerns? The following comments pertain
specifically to bikeway and pedestrian issues in Little Rock.
• Continue work on River Trail. Excellent place for walking/running & biking.
• Recreational facilities add a lot to quality of life.
• Looking forward to path over dam.
• Safe biking trails, so that more persons might bike to work, would be great. This would help cut down on
air pollution & gasoline use.
s Clean drinking water
• Accessible parks for personal rec.
• I would like to go to my school [by] biking.
• More accessible & better [????] parks & trails.
0 Love the new bridge
• Health & fitness
• Great place!
■ Enforce dog leash laws
• Security
• Safety, cleanliness of area, friendliness of people
• Need more restroom facilities
• Health & fitness
• Enjoy the River Trail and a.m. looking forward to the lock & dam bridge
• Not sure
• Safety
• Safety—family activities
• Need bridges for bike trail along Fourche Creek
• Need solar -powered lights & signs
0 Safety, security, noise reduction
a Having facilities to enjoy, exercise & that offer some type of recreation
■ Safety for single/individual walkers
• Speeds in which people drive on Pleasant Forest
• Need bathrooms or port -a -potties
• Lots of special places to walk, bike & play
• More sidewalks on residential and commercial areas
• Safety, recreational areas
• Enforce leash law (There is never ever any law enforcement officer.)
• Not enough sidewalks & paths!
• I like it.
•:: 6, : u]�
M� Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
• Security; exercise op portunities; beautiful, WILD landscape
• Class in bike lane
• Wider bridges
• Street sweeper
• Go to Hattiesburg, MS, learn about their trails. They work with college, schools, etc. They have restrooms,
water, Gatorade, security phones
• Education on trail etiquette
• Places to go & plenty of trails to ride
• Safety in all recreation facilities
• More benches along trails
■ Water stations
• Love the paths! My only concern has been safety at times. Cars have been broken into!
• Security, accessibility.
• Connections to shopping & recreational facilities
• Need 'A mile markers
• Add sidewalks in town
■ The following comments are concerning Cabot.- There are no current bike paths & limited walking trails. There
needs to be a large bike and walking pathway around or looping around the town. I would like to have a
bike pathway & walking trail from Hwy 89 to Cherry Park. Trail would run along Hwy 321 and also
Campground Road. As these roads are resurfaced I would like them to be widened to accommodate
walkers & bicyclists.
• Better bridges
Other comments. The following comments are still applicable to the City of Little Rock, but do not necessarily pertain to
bikeway &pedestrian issues.
• In my opinion, the LR Parks & Rec Dept has done more to beautify this town than any other single entity.
For example: flower beds, stonework entrances to parks.
• Cleaner city
• I'm worried about the level & type of traffic at the river—cars going 60-70 mph—heavy drinking at
parks—little police presence.
• Planning—too much unplanned growth
• Great job!
• Safety, environment, good public facilities, public transport
• Safety & beauty
■ Safety, pollution
• Health & safety
• Safety
• Security/ neighborhood upkeep
• Quality of life = top priority
• Keep up the good work!
• Bad Gov.
• We need more parks
• Support from the group which actually benefits from the programs—it's not quite fair to steal from others.
• Safety
• Security, green spaces for community recreation, high quality of life
• Speed bumps in Rebsamen Park
• Safety, family activities
• Crime
WWI 00
® �Ek1 r
Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
+ Traffic speed on Evergreen
• Provide skate surfaces; keep trail clean; train people on how to use rollerblades. Add skating to comment
form.
• Lack of tax base to fund public improvements for cities of 2°d class.
Maumelle
Willastein Park
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Summary of surveys. A total of 26 people stopped to answer the survey. (Note that not everyone answered all
the questions, so none of the numbers will add up.)
How often do you bike?
Less than once a month: 9
Once or twice a month: 1
Less than once a week: 0
Once or twice a week: 6
More than twice a week: 2
Daily: 0
How often do you walk?
Less than once a month: 0
Once or twice a month: 1
Less than once a week: 0
Once or twice a week: 5
More than twice a week: 9
Daily: 10
Today, are you biking or walking? Biking: 7
Did you come here with your family? Yes: 20
Did you come here with your friends? Yes: 6
Did you drive to get here? Yes: 11
If no, how did you get here? Bike: 5
What is your age?
25 or under:
2
26-35:
2
36-45:
7
46-55:
4
55 or over:
11
Males: 11
Females: 10
(Note that S people declined to answer the gender question.)
Walking: 21
No: 6
No: 18
Walk: 8 jog:1
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
What are your concerns? See the following table + "Other Comments," below.
Other concerns:
• Bridge crossings 1
■ [Disappearing] scenery 1
• Cleanliness of bathrooms 2
• Cleanliness (general) 1
• Safe playground equipment 1
• "Development" destroying
existing parks & paths 1
Would you like to have:
Bike facilities for commuters: 4
Additional recreational bike and walking facilities: 14
Sidewalks and bikeways connecting to "places": 18
How would you fund the desired improvements:
Property tax: 5
Gas tax: 1
Impact fees: 5
Special sales tax: 10
Combination: 9
None of the above: 3
Other: "Don't know. Seems like we already pay enough taxes for this if they were properly used." "Sales tax:
provided it has a sunset clause."
Where do you live? (One respondent did not answer this question.)
Maumelle: 23
Little Rock: 1
North Little Rock: 1
Thinking about your own community, what are your priorities and concerns? The followin,g comments pertain
specifically to bikeway and pedestrian issues in Maumelle,
• Trails in Maumelle need work, especially at Lake Willastein
• Need signals at Emerald Park to Big Rock
• Complete work on trail to Pinnacle Mountain Park & Maumelle Park
• Need more water fountains
• Complete and tie-in all trails in Maumelle
• Need web site for all trails
• [Poor] drainage across bike/walk paths
• Paths & lighting
• Safety & security
• Handicapped access on trails
• Access to recreational facilities (indoor and outdoor)
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
Lighting
5
4
1
5
Maintenance
18
2
1
72
0
Security
8
2
5
1
Location 1
2
2
5
Other concerns:
• Bridge crossings 1
■ [Disappearing] scenery 1
• Cleanliness of bathrooms 2
• Cleanliness (general) 1
• Safe playground equipment 1
• "Development" destroying
existing parks & paths 1
Would you like to have:
Bike facilities for commuters: 4
Additional recreational bike and walking facilities: 14
Sidewalks and bikeways connecting to "places": 18
How would you fund the desired improvements:
Property tax: 5
Gas tax: 1
Impact fees: 5
Special sales tax: 10
Combination: 9
None of the above: 3
Other: "Don't know. Seems like we already pay enough taxes for this if they were properly used." "Sales tax:
provided it has a sunset clause."
Where do you live? (One respondent did not answer this question.)
Maumelle: 23
Little Rock: 1
North Little Rock: 1
Thinking about your own community, what are your priorities and concerns? The followin,g comments pertain
specifically to bikeway and pedestrian issues in Maumelle,
• Trails in Maumelle need work, especially at Lake Willastein
• Need signals at Emerald Park to Big Rock
• Complete work on trail to Pinnacle Mountain Park & Maumelle Park
• Need more water fountains
• Complete and tie-in all trails in Maumelle
• Need web site for all trails
• [Poor] drainage across bike/walk paths
• Paths & lighting
• Safety & security
• Handicapped access on trails
• Access to recreational facilities (indoor and outdoor)
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
• Motor vehicle transportation congestion increasing even more, creating conflict between pedestrian traffic
& motor vehicle traffic.
• Expand walking paths
• There needs to be good restroom facilities on biking/walking paths
• Would like to see Lake Willastein Park kept beautiful and well maintained. The restrooms especially need to
be improved and kept clean and well maintained.
• Clean, well maintained walking paths
• Preservation of Lake Willastein Park
• Clean restroom facilities on paths
• Having places close to walk, bike and exercise—without having to leave the area
Other comments. The following comments are still applicable to the City of Maumelle, but do not necessariypertain to
bikeway & pedestrian issues.
• More parks
• [For example, concerned about] the apartments being built on Lake Willastein, strip malls, etc.
• Public facilities development (parks, libraries, etc.)
• Keeping facilities, roads, etc. up with large increase in population
• Safety
• Community services (police/fixe, water, sanitation, etc.)
• Traffic, air pollution, diminishing green space
• Good roads (not patched), drainage, congestion
• Need third I-40 interchange
• Traffic congestion
• More street lights at intersections
6 More green space
North Little Rock
Cook's Landing
Sunday, May 1, 2005
Summary of surveys. A total of 122 people stopped to answer the survey. (Note that not everyone answered
all the questions, so none of the numbers will add up.)
How often do you bike?
Less than once a month: 8
Once or twice a month: 10
Less than once a week: 1
Once or twice a week: 28
More than twice a week: 25
Daily: 11
How often do you walk?
Less than once a month: 11
Once or twice a month: 10
Less than once a week: 2
Once or twice a week: 17
More than twice a week: 30
Daily: 15
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Today, are you biking or walking?
Biking: 44 Walking: 22 Running/Jogging: 3 Skating:1
Did you come here with your family? Yes: No:
Did you come here with your friends? Yes: No:
Did you drive to get here? Yes:
If no, how did you get here? Bike: 15 Walk: 0 Run/Jog: 0
What is your age?
25 or under: 10
26-35: 23
36-45: 23
46-55: 19
55 or over: 18
Males: 59
Females: 40
(Note lhal 23 people declined to answer the gender question.)
What are your concerns? See the following table + "Other Comments," below.
Other concerns:
• Need restrooms
•
Access
• Beautify
•
Lighting
16
8
6
11
Maintenance
41
10
5
1
Security
37
12
3
2
Location
5
7
10
7
Other concerns:
• Need restrooms
•
Access
• Beautify
•
More difficult trails—all are too easy here
• Bike lock -ups & racks on buses
•
Everything is OK except we need the bridge
• Get junk out of river
•
We markers
• More mile markers
•
Toilets
• Create paths that go down to river
•
Paths that go to the river
• Crossing the street under the hill on?
•
Water stations
• Some areas look unkempt or messy yet
•
Restrooms
could be easily cleaned up or trimmed
•
Getting run over by a bike
• All dogs on leashes!
•
Flooding—couple of places get real deep it rains
• Width of path for cyclists & walkers
•
Goose attack!!
Need benches
•
Water
• Parking security
•
None
• Parking security
•
It is great as it is
• Length—need longer paths
•
Connect Maumelle trails to Cook's Landing
• Unleashed dogs
•
Longer routes/new routes
• Stupid people
• Bridge crossing
®Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005 ��
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Would you like to have:
Bike facilities for commuters: 38
Additional recreational bike and walking facilities: 67
Sidewalks and bikeways connecting to "places": 63
How would you fund the desired improvements:
Property tax:
24
North Little Rock:
Gas tax:
13
1
Impact fees:
12
Mayflower:
Special sales tax:
25
1
Combination:
37
Conway
None of the above:
6
1
Other: Following are The "Other"suggestions forfunding•
1
• User fees
1
2
• Any & all
1
• Short-term
mil increase
1
• Volunteer
"Friends of the Trails"
1
• Not sure
2
• Grants
1
Where do you live? (13 respondents did not answer this question.)
Little Rock:
53
North Little Rock:
28
Jacksonville
1
Maumelle
13
Mayflower:
1
Benton
1
Cabot
3
Conway
5
Hot Springs
1
Hot Springs Village
1
Carthage, MS
1
Charlotte, NC
1
Thinking about your own community, what are your priorities and concerns? The following comments pertain
specifically to bikeway and pedestrian issues in North Little Rock, Little Rock, and a few other named communities.
• Security of cars in parking lots and security of path users and others exercising in the city.
• Bike paths/lanes for bikers to be able to get around the city.
• I would like to see bicycle racks on buses; showers and bike lock -ups for commuters.
■ Roadways with shoulders and no curbs! Also, more shoulders and signage on roads for share the road.
• Clean water; long-term investment into city infrastructure
• Width of temporary bridge is too narrow.
• Better trails, better roads and sidewalks connecting
• Walking/biking trails
• Traffic flow—coordinated signals
• Would like to see similar path (more mileage)
• Glass, debris on roads
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
• Better bike paths; many are too rough or narrow for bikes. It would be great to have a family -friendly route
between Maumelle and Cook's Landing. Crystal Hill might make a great alternative.
* Lowering crime, family activities; beautify community
• Put in sidewalks!
• Lack of bike paths
• Crime, traffic congestion
• More opportunities to ride
• Security
• Public transportation should be more evident in connecting bikers/walkers
• Road through soccer fields in Burns Park bike trail has a bad blind spot.
• Longer paths, more miles. More bike races?
■ More green space. No tearing down (clear cutting) for development.
• Complete the bridge to Two Rivers from the LR side.
• Fix the bridge from Cook's so it isn't a right angle turn. Perhaps put a barrier to keep out the water.
• Very few safe streets for bikes.
• [Currently] No bike locks. Need bike lockers where people might want to leave bike all day, like airport,
western bus stops.
0 Bike trails + community planning
0 Security & maintenance
• This trail is a great asset to our community.
• Safety & extent of trails
• More resources devoted to Parks /Recreation—especially to bike paths
• Bike routes connecting neighborhoods. Also need bike route to cross I-30; lane on Salem Road
M Great path. Thanks!
■ Too much growth in WLR and downtown/midtown decline
• More biking trails
■ Livability, including: libraries, schools, p arks
• I love the River Trail. I wish LR could have a trail so nice.
• Traffic
• Security & keeping the sanctity of the local "greenbelts"
• No sidewalks!!! Build sidewalks!!!
• Security; habitat restoration; pollution
• Quality of Life (parks, trails, etc.)
• More sidewalks, bike lanes
• Wish the Maumelle bike trail connected to the River Trail!
• [Difficult] Getting to the river
0 Crime
+ Connecting trails between LR, NLT, Maumelle, Mayflower, Conway
• Safety, places for recreation. Places for kids, away from cars!!!
• We need to connect the River Trail to routes to get out into the surrounding communities & counties.
We're on the right track.
• Further development in North Little Rock
• In Maumelle there are many kids who skate, so there should be a skate park for skateboards, inline, and
bikes.
• Vote "WET" in Park Hill
• Extend River Rail to Park Hill—increase public transportation
MO. 17
Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005 WE IQ
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
• Security
• Secure area—lighting. Also good clean areas
• More trails
• River Trail from Clinton Library to Riverdale area [is] very poor
•. Everything on the river trails is wonderful but I think we need more security in the late afternoon
• Car -free areas; environment; beauty
• Family recreational facilities
• Build the bridge connecting north and south bike trails.
• Maumelle is a great place to live. We've been here 14 years and plan to stay!
• Safety & cleanliness
• Sidewalks & bike paths so one is not so reliant on cars. Population that cannot drive is disenfranchised in
so many ways.
• I hope they will put some kind of bike/run/walk path that connects Maumelle with the NLR River Trail. I
love the trail!
• They should make the people at the soccer fields clean up their messes after they play soccer. They leave all
kinds of Gatorade/water bottles, etc littering the area.
• Needs lots of work
• Cleanliness, curb appeal, safety, community pride
■ Beautification: litter control, recycling. More wildflowers are needed.
.• We love the idea of the Dam Bridge. Extended loop will be great on both sides of the River.
• More benches
• Crime and grunge
• River walk is great
• Safety/ enjoyment. Keep dogs on leashes
• More trails
• Biking & running trails
• Lighting
• Upkeep of a beautiful park; security
r (1) that the Twisters win a game this year (2) the cost of a Trays game doesn't double when the new park is
built & (3) that the LR Marathon gets increased funding/support from the city/county/state
• Crime; litter; motorcycles & noise
• Safety
• Annexation to NLR city limits and further development
Other comments. The following comments are still applicable to the cities of Nortb Little Rock and Little Rock, but do not
necessarily pertain to bikeway dam' pedestrian issues.
• More people from Arkansas need to go to the Bike Summit.
• I love the parks
■ Very beautiful area
• Doing a great job
• We enjoy the bike trail and look forward to connecting the bridge to LR/NLR
• Bike trails alongside streets with cars are risky
• Great job on bike/walking trail
• I would like the loop connected between LR/NLR sooner rather than.later
• Trails are great. Expansion should be supported and continued.
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
* People do not know trail etiquette. Pedestrians do not keep to the right of the trail.
* Please add trail in Cabot
* They seem to be maintained very well; keep it up
* Keep up the good work.
■ Increase security on LR side of trail
* Do not develop Emerald Park; no condos
* Safety in all parks
* Need bike path across Maumelle River on Little Rock side of bike path by River Road to bike path at Two
Rivers Park
■ People who don't pay attention to others on the path
* Completion of the loop would be great.
* Wish [we] had lighted paths for night time walks or riding
* More security
* Continue growing the trail!
* Can't wait for the bridge to open.
* 1 walked and rode my bike from NLR to Southwest LR. Arch Street has no shoulder in some places; a car
came within 1 foot of hitting me. We need wider roads for bikes and walkers
* Great job so fax!!
* Put restrooms along paths.
* Select Coreen Fraizer to ride first across Dam upon completion.
* I would like to see a light rail system from Benton, Bryant & Conway to LR. Also expand trolley service to
Capitol Building and up Kavanaugh & Main.
* Bike racks on buses & on future light rail system
* Thanks
■ More paths, new places to ride
* I like the idea of connecting path to Little Rock & eventually to Pinnacle.
* The more opportunities for children & adults to have easily accessible places for play & exercise are better
for all our health—which affect finances for community.
* Good job Pat Hays & all who help!! Thanks!!!
* We're so lucky to have trai is in our wonderful city!
* I love this trail
* The LR Marathon is the No 1 thing going in town. If there is a way to add funding to make it even better,
it could be one of the best "big" marathons in the country. It already is THE BEST SMALL
MARATHON in the U.S.A.
* Appreciate your efforts
Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Conway
Tucker Creek
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Summary of surveys. A total of 61 people stopped to answer the survey. (Note that not everyone answered all
the questions, so none of the numbers will add up.)
How often do you bike?
Less than once a month:
29
Once or twice a month:
4
Less than once a week:
1
Once or twice a week:
3
More than twice a week:
4
Daily: 3
How often do you walk?
Less than once a month:
1
Once or twice a month:
2
Less than once a week:
5
Once or twice a week:
14
More than twice a week:
13
Daily: 18
Today, are you biking or walking? Biking: 6 Walking: 46 Skating: 3
Did you come here with your family? Yes: 26 No: 31
Did you come here with your friends? Yes: 32 No: 26
Did you drive to get here? Yes: 38
If no, how did you get here? Bike: 4 Walk: 16 Run: 4
What is your age?
25 or under: 20
26-35: 6
36-45: 15
46-55: 11
55 or over: 8
Males: 20
Females: 29
(Note thal 12 people declined to answer the gender question.)
What are your concerns? See the following table + "Other Comments," below.
�;�: 9W
Now
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Lighting
16
7
7
6
Maintenance
14
10
6
2
Security
30
2
1
2
Location
11
3
4
10
�;�: 9W
Now
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
Other concerns:
• No 4-wheelers/other motorized vehicles 2
• Require pet poop clean up 3
• More/better mile markers 2
* Additional water fountains 1
• Benches/resting places 1
• Control pests & wild animals 2
■ More/better public bathroom facilities, even if pay 2
• Not enough trails, not connected 1
Would you like to have:
Bike facilities for commuters: 18
Additional recreational bike and walking facilities: 45
Sidewalks and bikeways connecting to "places": 44
How would you fund the desired improvements:
Property tax:
15
Gas tax:
5
Impact fees:
9
Special sales tax:
22
Combination:
21
None of the above:
4
Other: "creative fund raising"
Where do you live?
Conway: 59
Greenbrier: 1
Mayflower: 1
Thinking about your own community, what are your priorities and concerns? The following comments pertain
specifically to bikeway andpedestrian issues in Conway.
• Extend shared path to soccer complex and beyond to new airport
• More parking at opposite end of bike path
• Require pet owners to clean up after their pets
• For safety, separate bike path from walkers (including casual walkers with baby carriages) & joggers. It
would be safer to have more trails, specially designated.
• Link and connect these trails!
■ Re-do/retrofit the sidewalk system.
• Try to connect some of the walking paths.
■ Little Rock and other cities (Maryland, where we have lived and frequently visit) require that pet owners
pick after their pets. On some Little Rock trails they have dispensers for "gloves" and a place to deposit
droppings.
■ More space to run hike, & ride.
• Locate [paths] to places of interest, safety.
■ More walking trails in Conway
• We appreciate the walking and biking paths
• Connect existing trail to Conway High School and preferably to Hendrix College
■ Long-range, trail toward Little Rock
raw
Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005 MIA
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
+ "If you pursue building trails in Conway and could use private donations, please feel free to contact me."
■ Connected bike/walking paths
+ Green space
+ I'd like trails closer to where I live so I wouldn't need to drive there—I could walk or bike there.
• Continue building this bike/walk trail as originally planned—site of origin at the high school.
+ More sidewalks
• Need more parks, walking & biking trails for individuals & families
• Biking safety & walking safety on roads — bike lanes — discouraging driving
• Develop a trail along Old Wire Road connecting with Conway's trail at Sevier Tavern site at junction of
Old Military, Round Mountain and Rocky Gap Road. This trail would start at Mayflower through the Davis
properties past Davis Lake, coming out at Seveir Stage House southwest of Round Mountain. Trail would
be 3.5 miles on either side of the tavern site, connecting with existing Tucker Creek trail and Wal-Mart.
• More parking availability near parks/trails.
• Traffic signs near parks/trails to permit walkers/joggers to safely cross over to trail.
• Pest control — mosquitoes & snakes specifically)
+ It would be nice to have more trails for biking/walking leading to UCA, Toad Suck Square, etc.
• Walking paths & biking to downtown area.
■ Complete trail to Ida Burns
• Lighting of trails.
• Really would like to see bike/walk facilities expanded from Tucker Creek to downtown Conway
+ More sidewalk and bike trails. If there were more of these then I'd feel safer walking on the road.
+ I'd like to see more bike trails and improved sidewalks in Conway.
• More sidewalks throughout city are needed
• Need mountain bike trails, too
• Need more sidewalks in general!!!
• Walking trail on Salem is great—need nice public restrooms & water
• More biking places
■ Keep the trail natural (i.e., don't bulldoze the creek)
• The walking/biking trails should have better mile markers.
• More outdoor trails & sidewalks
• Please put mile 'markers so I can know how long I go.
• I would like to see a place like this on the east side of town.
0 LOVE the bike trail on Tucker Creek, and would like to see the trail on both sides of Tucker Creek.
• Include sidewalks, bike trails, more parks and green spaces with each new development.
• Conway has very few sidewalks that are maintained. Fix them & add new ones!
• There are not enough safe routes for cycling within Conway. Also, bicycle police patrols on the bike trails
in Conway are not nearly visible/ frequent enough.
+ Designated bike routes throughout Conway would be nice. A more active bicycle police force would also
be good.
• Community education about cycling safety & driving around cyclists would be helpful, I hope.
• For bike & pedestrian safety we need more sidewalks.
• Bike paths that are safe from car/truck traffic would be a great benefit.
Adopted September 28, 2005 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
METRO 2030 TECHNICAL REPORT
• I took my first trip to Europe last year. I went to Holland. There is nowhere in Holland that you can't get
to a bike and their paths are safe and have traffic rules for all. I would love to see something like that in
Arkansas.
• Functioning cross -walk lights—i.e., walk/don't walk—very few work
• Bicycle lanes on streets
• More mandatory sidewalks
Other comments. The following comments are still applicable to the City of Conway, but do not necessai#pertain to bikeway
&' pedestrian issues.
• Child safety [because of] cars speeding through
•
Loafers, drug dealers, drug use
neighborhoods, too much traffic and too many
■
One thing is zoning—it should be done better
inexperienced drivers in Conway.
•
For the most part, this is a great community to
• Overcrowding [of] roads, schools
live in!
Drainage and infrastructure
•
Security for children
• Safety for young children
s
I would like to see a play area for children.
• Bigger storm drains so it doesn't flood
•
Not enough family type entertainment in the
• Better storm draining
area. Need more places for walking, riding,
• Controlled growth, maintaining green spaces,
skating, etc.
city beautification, traffic flow improved
•
I would love to see a playground similar to Laurel
• Security: schools, roads, recreational areas
Park.
• Dog park
•
Not enough places to do family activities
• Public swimming pools for children
•
There's not enough to do family activities
• Better streets, more exits to interstate
•
Amount of road trash
Additional parks & playgrounds
•
Traffic & safety
• Beautification, security, recreation, traffic
•
Security, schools, clean & well -kept areas
v Dog park
• Conway is building too much. We need to just
have open land in some places. It's getting too
crowded, and driving in town is awful ... terrible
roads.
• Bad traffic light coordination.
• The obvious appearance (or fact) of city council
serving 1sr, 2nd & Yd the needs of real estate
developers.
® Pedestrian and Bicycle I Adopted September 28, 2005