Columbus Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

STEERING COMMITTEE

Kevin Altevogt

Dennis Baute

Laurie Booher

Sarah Cruser

Trisha Dane

Doug Fauth

Jeff Fetterer

Jamie Hoffman

Grace Kestler

Millie Maier

Beth Booth Poor

Amber Porter

Diane Robbins

Dan Schroer

Jason Wilber

Drew Wyant

Mark Yeaton

ADOPTION

This Plan was approved by the Columbus Plan Commission and recommended for adoption as an element of the City of Columbus Comprehensive Plan through General Resolution # 2022-01 on March 9, 2022.

This Plan was adopted as an element of the City of Columbus Comprehensive Plan by the Columbus City Council through Resolution # 4, 2022 on April 5, 2022.

DOCUMENT PREPARED BY

City of Columbus - Bartholomew County Planning Department

in association with Rundell Ernstberger Associates

Front Cover Photo Credit (Top Right): Columbus Area Visitors Center

01 PLAN INTRODUCTION

Columbus is a vibrant community with an active bicycling community and a city-wide bicycle and pedestrian network that is highly valued by residents for both transportation and recreation. The popularity of the network is evidenced by the increased use of these facilities over the past several years.

This City of Columbus Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is an important step in further developing the bicycle and pedestrian network in the City. It identifies the improvements needed to make the network more convenient, safe, and comfortable for users of all ages and abilities.

2010 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

The City adopted its first Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 2010. The 2010 Plan sought to expand the transportation options available in the community and led to many improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network. Since adoption of the 2010 Plan, the City has constructed nearly 10 miles of bicycle lanes and over 7 miles of off-street shared use paths. It has also designated over 2 miles of bicycle routes. Additional miles of shared use paths and bicycle lanes are also programmed for construction.

Other improvements since 2010 include the installation of several Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK signals) citywide, which have improved crossing conditions at several intersections and mid-block crossings. The City also added a Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and established the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Team (BPIT), a technical committee that oversees bicycle- and pedestrianrelated projects and ensures the coordination of these projects across city government and community organizations. The City was also designated as a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community in 2012, 2016, and 2020.

Additionally, several Comprehensive Plan elements have been adopted, including the State Street Corridor Plan, the Columbus Central Neighborhood Plan, and the Downtown Strategic Development Plan Update. These plans continued the emphasis of bicycle and pedestrian travel and add additional detail to their respective study areas. The City of Columbus Thoroughfare Plan, a complete streets policy, was also adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan.

This Plan update revises the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. It provides an updated strategy for developing a safe and convenient network and reflects the latest designs and research from the bicycle and pedestrian field.

The priorities of this plan are to continue the growth of the existing network by implementing facilities for people of all ages and abilities; identifying needed connections to neighborhoods, schools, parks, and other key destinations; and planning for the future growth of the City.

BENEFITS OF WALKING AND BICYCLING

HEALTH BENEFITS

Bicycling and walking help to keep children and adults active and helps to decrease the prevalence of health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Increases in property values, local spending, and tourism activity provide additional tax revenue for local governments, providing strong returns on investment for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

SAFETY BENEFITS

Traffic fatality rates tend to be less in regions with higher rates of walking and bicycling. Additional bicycle and walking facilities, well designed crossings, and continued education and enforcement efforts can reduce the risk of crashes and injuries.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Walking and bicycling are more environmentally friendly modes of travel. Replacing driving trips with walking or bicycling can contribute to lower vehicular emissions which helps the environment and people with respiratory diseases.

SOCIAL EQUITY BENEFITS

Walking and bicycling are the most affordable forms of transportation. Much of the population is unable to drive including children, some individuals with disabilities, some seniors, and those unable to afford the cost of owning and operating a vehicle.

QUALITY OF LIFE BENEFITS

Facilities like trails, greenways, and safe places to bike and walk attract tourists and new businesses. Creating communities where walking and bicycling are accepted and encouraged increases a community’s livability in ways that benefit all residents.

“Safe and connected trails, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes are important to me because when people walk or run or bike together, strangers become neighbors and our community becomes stronger.”

AMBER PORTER CITY OF COLUMBUS RESIDENT

TYPES OF BICYCLISTS AND THE ‘INTERESTED BUT

CONCERNED’ PRIORITY USER GROUP

The Bicyclist Design User Profile illustrates the different types of bicyclists and the conditions under which they feel comfortable riding. Understanding the characteristics of each user type helps to inform bicycle facility selection.

The graphic below describes the four types of bicycle users, which are widely accepted within the field of bicycle facility design. The percentages are national averages and reflect the estimated proportion of the population that falls within each category. While the exact percentages for Columbus are unknown, the feedback received during the public input process for this Plan supports these percentages and revealed that the majority of bicyclists fall within the ‘Interested but Concerned’ user type. Therefore, the ‘Interested but Concerned’ user group was identified as the priority user group for this Plan.

‘Interested but Concerned’ bicyclists have the lowest tolerance for traffic stress. This group includes families with children and less experienced bicyclists. Designing for this user group results in a bicycle network that serves bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Although this should not be the only group that facilities are designed for, the first priority should be to build facilities and establish a network that meets the needs of the priority target user.

BICYCLIST DESIGN USER PROFILE

Comfortable riding with traffic; will use roads without bicycle lanes. Strong and Fearless 4% - 7% LOW STRESS TOLERANCE HIGH STRESS TOLERANCE

These individuals are uncomfortable bicycling in any condition, have no interest in bicycling, or are physically unable to do so.

Generally prefer more separated facilities but are comfortable riding in bicycle lanes or on paved shoulders if need be. No Way No How 28% - 40% Interested but Concerned 51% - 56% Enthused and Confident 5% - 9%

TYPES OF PEDESTRIANS

A pedestrian is considered to be any person who travels from place to place on foot and/or with the assistance from a mobility device such as a wheelchair or guide dog. Pedestrian needs are diverse and should be considered in the design of pedestrian facilities. While design standards are developed to meet the needs of an ‘average’ population, they must be applied in a flexible manner which addresses the needs of different types of pedestrians. For instance, children and older adults typically travel at slower speeds requiring additional crossing time at intersections. Where these populations are more likley to cross intersections, signal timing should be adjusted or refuge islands might be offered to accommodate the slower speeds.

Although pedestrian facilities are not designed for a specific user group, it is important to understand the characteristics of each group to ensure that facilities are designed to meet the needs of each.

TYPES OF PEDESTRIANS

OLDER ADULTS

Access to transit and safe routes to destinations become more important as populations age. Research shows that people over 65 walk more than any other age group. Columbus has an estimated senior population of 15%, with its aging population expected to grow steadily over the next 20 years.

YOUNGER PEDESTRIANS

Younger pedestrians often rely on safe walking routes to school, transit stops, and recreational facilities. Very young pedestrians get distracted easily and may dart out into traffic. Younger pedestrians (18 years and under) make up 31% of the population in Columbus.

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

People with disabilities need level, clearly defined easy access with carefully designed facilities that eliminate barriers and address mobility needs based on the particular disability. Many of these barriers are identified as part of the City of Columbus ADA Transitions Plan. Individuals with disabilities are generally more sensitive to maintenance issues, such as uneven pavement.

TYPICAL

Pedestrian users include, but are not limited to, walkers, runners, roller bladers, people with strollers, and people walking their dogs. This user group includes people traveling at various speeds.

PLAN ORGANIZATION

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan presents a summary of key recommendations designed to increase safety, comfort, and connectivity for the people of Columbus. The recommendations include improvements which seek to make bicycling and walking more appealing to users of all ages and abilities. The recommendations were informed by community input, technical analysis, and best practice research. The Plan is organized around recommendations for walking and bicycling in three key areas: facility network, policy and programs, and implementation. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes the following chapters.

VISION AND GOALS

CHAPTER 02 This chapter provides the vision for increased bicycling and walking in Columbus. The aspirational vision provides a picture of what the City can achieve through the Plan. The goals included in this chapter outline how the vision will be achieved and serve as the foundation for recommendations and priorities.

CHAPTER 03

BICYCLING AND WALKING TODAY

CHAPTER 04

PUBLIC INPUT

Chapter 3 includes a summary of the existing conditions analysis. This chapter describes current bicycle and pedestrian conditions within the City and analyzes needs of the community. The analysis summary, along with the public input described in Chapter 4, inform the recommendations provided in subsequent chapters.

NETWORK FRAMEWORK

This chapter provides an overview of the public engagement process and a summary of the results of that process. Community outreach incorporated multiple strategies including online, in-person, and small group meetings. All of the input received was summarized into common themes for the development of recommendations.

CHAPTER 05 Chapter 5 presents the framework for design of the bicycle and pedestrian network, including discussion of priority target users, the decision matrix, and criteria used to develop the recommendations.

CHAPTER 06

FACILITY TOOLBOX

This chapter describes the facility guidelines for each of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities and design features recommended in this document.

CHAPTER 07

RECOMMENDATIONS

The focal point of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Chapter 7 identifies proposed bicycle facilities, priority locations for sidewalk repair and installation, priority locations for intersection improvements, and recommendations for policies and programs. The policy and program recommendations move beyond the physical improvements for the network and encourage the further development of a walking and bicycling-friendly environment in Columbus.

THE PEOPLE TRAIL

CHAPTER 08 Chapter 8 provides a clear and concise definition of the People Trail, including its purpose and a map identifying the facilities and routes that make up the People Trail network.

CHAPTER 09

IMPLEMENTATION

CHAPTER 10

MAINTENANCE

APPENDIX

WAYFINDING AND PEOPLE TRAIL IDENTITY

This chapter presents a prioritized list of the bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations that will help the City implement the Plan in a strategic, data-driven, measured way.

Chapter 10 provides baseline information for the short- and long-term maintenance tasks that will promote a well-maintained, sustainable, safe, and enjoyable bicycle and pedestrian network. This chapter includes standardized maintenance expectations for the facility types in the network.

The appendix consists of a stand-alone document titled Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail Visual Identity. This document describes a high level approach to wayfinding along the City’s entire bicycle and pedestrian network, as well as a visual identity system for Columbus’ People Trail network.

02 VISION AND GOALS

The vision and goals establish an overarching framework for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, and they guide development of the Plan recommendations and establishment of priorities.

The vision statement is an aspirational view of Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network and is supported by four principal goals. The objectives, which include best practices from across the country, are specific actions identified to achieve these goals. Finally, performance measures will be used to track progress over time and to provide a method for measuring the success of the identified objectives.

The vision, goals, and objectives reflect priorities expressed by the public and community stakeholders throughout the community outreach process.

THE VISION:

Columbus is a community where people of all ages and abilities have safe, convenient, and equitable bicycle and pedestrian access to jobs, schools, parks, transit, and other key destinations.

CONNECTIVITY

OBJECTIVES

BUILD A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK THAT IS CONTINUOUS, CONNECTED TO KEY DESTINATIONS, AND ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL USERS

Increase opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians to efficiently commute and recreate by connecting parks, schools, transit, shopping and employment centers, and other key destinations.

Expand the current network of on- and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities by connecting existing segments of the network and by expanding outward to provide access to other areas of the community. Remove gaps in the sidewalk network, particularly along prioritized corridors.

Promote bicycle and pedestrian investments in underserved and isolated Columbus neighborhoods.

Connect existing neighborhoods that currently lack a safe connection to the bicycle and pedestrian network.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Percent of the planned bicycle and pedestrian network that is constructed

Total miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Number of annual bicycle and pedestrian trips

Percent of key destinations within 1/8 mile of a designated bicycle facility

Percent of key destinations with 1/8 mile of a designated low-stress bicycle facility

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS AREA VISITORS CENTER

5.

GOAL 2

SAFETY

OBJECTIVES

Identify and improve existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities with substandard conditions, such as areas of inadequate width or areas in disrepair.

Establish a designated network of low-stress bicycle facilities across the city that is comfortable for users of all ages and abilities, particularly children and less confident bicyclists.

Design roadway crossings that maximize bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

Record and analyze yearly bicycle and pedestrian crash data.

Implement countermeasures at key intersections and streets that experience high numbers of bicycle/ pedestrian crashes.

Ensure full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by improving the existing network where facilities do not meet current standards and ensuring that all new projects adhere to ADA design and accessibility guidelines.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Total number and number of fatal bicycle and pedestrian collisions

Miles of designated low-stress bicycle facilities

Percent of residential properties within 1/4 mile of a designated low-stress bicycle facility

1. 2.

3.

4. 1.

2.

5. 6.

3.

ESTABLISH A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK THAT IS SAFE AND COMFORTABLE FOR USERS OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

GOAL 3

CREATE AND IMPLEMENT AN INTUITIVE, EASY-TO-READ, AND COMPREHENSIVE WAYFINDING SYSTEM FOR BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS WAYFINDING

OBJECTIVES

Design and install regulatory, warning, and wayfinding signage and pavement markings that guide pedestrians and bicyclists to key destinations throughout Columbus.

Strengthen the identity of the People Trail as a network of safe, low-stress facilities suitable for family recreation through the installation of wayfinding signage and the use of a unique, recognizable brand. Implement consistent design choices and clear transitions between facility types to create a network with intuitive wayfinding.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

User surveys

Number of wayfinding elements installed, including signs and pavement markings

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS AREA VISITORS CENTER

GOAL 4

MAINTENANCE

OBJECTIVES

Create standardized maintenance expectations for every facility type and trail amenity within the city in order to create consistent aesthetics and functionality.

Develop a maintenance schedule for short- and long-term tasks, including coordination between departments.

Formalize responsibilities between City departments to avoid gaps in system maintenance.

Develop and maintain a complete inventory of the bicycle and pedestrian network, including the physical condition of all facilities.

Plan, design, and budget for increased maintenance responsibilities within departments as new facilities are implemented.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

User surveys

Number of maintenance projects completed annually by the Department of Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Department

Number of complaints received from the public by the Department of Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Department regarding maintenance issues

4. 5. 3.

PROACTIVELY PLAN FOR MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND RESTORATION OF EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

“Safe and connected trails, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes are important to us because our daily commute depends on it.”

KEVIN ALTEVOGT AND KATE SLABOSKY CITY OF COLUMBUS RESIDENTS

03 BICYCLING AND WALKING TODAY

Columbus has the foundation for a strong bicycle and pedestrian network with a system of shared use paths throughout the city and a growing network of on-road bicycle lanes and bicycle routes. Columbus residents are active and users regularly ride, walk, and run along existing facilities throughout the community.

This chapter includes the following which, along with the public input described in Chapter 4, provides the basis for the Plan’s recommendations.

Bicycle level of traffic stress analysis . .

Inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Identification of major pedestrian corridors .

Crash data analysis .

Equity analysis .

EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITY MILEAGE

EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK

The bicycle and pedestrian network in Columbus originated with the system of paths that were developed beginning in the 1980s. This connected system of paths continues to be expanded to provide a network of offstreet facilities for shared use by both bicyclists and pedestrians. This system includes the trail along Haw Creek; trails within Noblitt, Mill Race, Blackwell, and Clifty Parks; the Owens Bend trail; the Airpark trails; and the trail along Jonathan Moore Pike. This system of shared use paths serves as a spine for pedestrian and bicyclist travel, providing connections to schools, parks, and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The City’s bicycle network also includes a number of on-street bicycle facilities, including conventional and buffered bicycle lanes and signed bicycle routes, which serve to connect bicyclists to key destinations throughout the city. These on-street facilities are the the primary way through which the City has expanded its bicycle network since 2010.

In addition to the bicycle facilities already in use, a number of facilities are currently programmed for construction. These facilities, which are also reflected on the adjoining map, include both shared use paths and bicycle lanes.

The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identified a number of shared use paths in the Tipton Lakes residential area. Several of these pathways are no longer shown on this map as existing facilities because they are substandard in width and function as sidewalks, rather than shared spaces accommodating both bicyclists and pedestrians. The shared use paths that remain identified in this area are also substandard in width; however, they provide critical connections in the bicycle and pedestrian network and should be widened in the future to accommodate shared use.

These existing bicycle facilities provide a base from which the City can continue to expand its network and create a system that is safe, convenient, and comfortable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. An improved system will fill the gaps present within the existing network and provide more, connected facilities for the “Interested but Concerned” bicycle user.

The following pages describe, in further detail, the existing bicycle network in Columbus.

EXISTING SHARED USE PATH

EXISTING BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTE

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS

The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis (LTS) reviews the existing conditions of the transportation network in terms of bicyclist comfort while riding on specific roadway corridors. The LTS Analysis is a datadriven method that was developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute to assess the comfort and connectivity of bicycle networks. This analysis plays an important role in identifying gaps in the low stress bicycle network and locations where investment can be made to reduce stress. Traffic stress is a major deterrent to bicycling so using this analysis to find gaps in the low-stress bicycle network is an important first step in creating a network that is appealing to a broad segment of the population.

The LTS Analysis utilizes several factors to determine the comfort level of bicyclists while riding on a corridor, including traffic volume and traffic speed. The LTS ranking for a corridor is determined by the most stressful factor, not an average of all factors. Roadways with speeds over 35mph and with four or more travel lanes, even if a bicycle lane is present, will be designated with a high stress ranking.

Street segments are classified into four levels of traffic stress where LTS 1 represents the least stressful streets and LTS 4 represents the most stressful streets. Bicycling within neighborhoods in Columbus can, mostly, be done on low-stress streets. However, large traffic corridors like National Road/U.S. 31, State Street, and S.R. 46 create barriers between these neighborhoods and other parts of the City.

BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS

LTS 1

SUITABLE

FOR CHILDREN, INEXPERIENCED ADULTS, AND FAMILIES

LTS 2

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED ADULTS

Buffered bicycle lanes, low-medium volume streets

LTS 3

ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT ADULTS

Conventional bicycle lanes, high volume streets, streets with traffic speeds exceeding 30 mph

LTS 4

STRONG AND FEARLESS ADULTS

No bicycle facility on high volume streets and streets with traffic speeds exceeding 30 mph

The result of the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis is illustrated on pages 26 and 27. The majority of streets within the city are LTS 1 and LTS 2. Of these streets, most are located within residential neighborhoods. Therefore, bicycling within neighborhoods is comfortable for the majority of Columbus residents, including children. While riding within neighborhoods can largely be done on low stress routes, most neighborhoods are separated from the rest of the city by high stress corridors, creating isolated sections of the city. The result is that bicyclists have to cross or ride along high stress corridors which may limit their trips and will affect their comfort level while riding.

Although the majority of streets designated as LTS 3 and LTS 4 are located outside of the Columbus city limits, the LTS 3 and LTS 4 routes within the city are usually the most direct routes through the city. (See table on opposite page.) These high stress corridors create barriers to many destinations, including parks, schools, and shopping centers. For example, U.S. 31 separates the north and east parts of the city from destinations in the west, south, and central parts of the city, including the downtown. High stress corridors like U.S. 31, S.R. 46, Central Avenue, and 25th Street present opportunities to improve bicycle facilities along or parallel to the street to reduce the level of stress for bicyclists. Improvements can also be made at key intersections to provide lower stress crossings at

Shared use paths, cycle tracks, low volume streets

key locations along these corridors. The Haw Creek Trail underpass at National Road and 25th Street, a recently completed project, shows how lowering the stress for bicyclists at roadway crossings can successfuly increase the number of bicyclists using a corridor and eliminate barriers to access.

The bicycle level of stress analysis shows not only where bicycling is stressful but also where facility improvements can have the biggest impact by providing comfortable and safe connections. Several low-stress routes in the City are bisected by high-stress corridors, creating an impediment for less confident bicyclists. For example, Middle Road has an off-road bicycle facility that parallels the roadway, creating a low stress bicycle corridor for less confident bicyclists. However, bicyclists must cross National Road to reach downtown and other destinations. Middle Road at National Road is a high stress intersection; it has many lanes of traffic and high traffic volumes. Having to cross this roadway becomes a deterrent to bicyclists in this area who might begin their trip along this corridor when traveling by bike or foot to other areas of the city.

The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis also illustrates the areas of the city that become accessible for a wide range of bicyclists when gaps within the existing low stress network are improved to provide low stress connections. Filling these gaps is one of the quickest ways to increase the number of bicyclists by making bicycling a more appealing form of transportation.

ROADS WITH HIGHEST LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS WITHIN THE COLUMBUS CITY LIMITS

Roads are fully or partially designated as LTS 4 and are within or adjacent to the Columbus city limits.

2nd Street

3rd Street

10th Street

25th Street

Beatty Lane

Brown Street

Carr Hill Road

Central Avenue

County Road 50 North County Road 50 West County Road 100 North County Road 150 West County Road 175 West

County Road 200 South

County Road 200 West

County Road 300 West

County Road 450 South

Deaver Road

Gladstone Avenue

Indianapolis Road

Jonathan Moore Pike / S.R. 46

Jonesville Road / S.R. 11

Lindsey Street

Marr Road

National Road / U.S. 31

Poshard Drive

State Street

Tellman Road

Terrace Lake Road

Washington Street

BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS MAP

A bicycle level of traffic stress analysis is a data-driven approach to evaluating how comfortable a roadway feels for a person bicycling based on motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, roadway design, presence and type of bicycle facilities, and other factors. This analysis identified four levels of traffic stress, LTS1 through LTS4, with LTS1 being the most comfortable for bicyclists and LTS4 being the least comfortable.

In Columbus, several high stress, LTS4 corridors divide the city. This impacts the ability of bicyclists to travel from one area of the city to another, particularly impacting bicyclists in the “Interested but Concerned” user group. Identifying locations along the LTS4 corridors where improved crossings can facilitate bicycle travel by the “Interested but Concerned” user group is an important step in creating a network that can serve bicyclists of all skill levels.

Analysis by: Rundell Ernstberger Associates

Rather than feature the entire study area this map and several maps that follow focus on areas within the Columbus city limits. Areas outside of the city limits commonly lack sidewalks. This scale provides a focused look at where sidewalks are most prevalent and where population density is highest.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITY INVENTORY

As the most common facility for pedestrians, sidewalks are the basis for any developed pedestrian system. Providing a continuous network of sidewalks throughout the entire city is necessary to ensure safe and convenient travel for pedestrians. Shared use paths also play an important role in the pedestrian network, linking neighborhoods to key destinations. This map is an evaluation of existing pedestrian facilities in the study area, featuring (1) data from the City’s ADA Self Evaluation and Transition Plan for the Public Right-of-Way (2018) and (2) neighborhoods within the city limits that generally lack sidewalks.

The City’s ADA Transition Plan was a self-evaluation of pedestrian facilities within the City of Columbus public right-of-way, including sidewalks. Sidewalks were evaluated based on width, grade, cross slope, surface condition, obstructions, and overall compliance with standards included in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Sidewalks were categorized as “high”, “medium”, or “low” based on the degree to which they limit accessibility and the priority for corrective action. “High” priority sidewalks are those that include barriers that effectively prohibit access or present a safety hazard. “Medium” priority sidewalks are those that include barriers that either partially prohibit access or make access especially difficult. “Low” priority sidewalks typically do not limit access but are not compliant with ADA standards. To highlight existing sidewalks in most need of improvement, this map shows sidewalk segments categorized as “medium” and “high” priority.

In addition to featuring sidewalks in most need of improvement, this map highlights residential areas within the city limits that lack sidewalks. The areas identified as lacking sidewalks are groups of several city blocks where sidewalks are mostly missing from the public right-of-way. Some sidewalks may be present within these areas, but in general, most streets within the identified areas are without sidewalks.

This map reveals that the current system of shared use paths provides connections between and to a number of key destinations, including parks and schools. However, residents in many neighborhoods lack safe access to a shared use path. Furthermore, many sidewalks within the Columbus city limits are in disrepair, which can significantly impede pedestrian travel and limit a pedestrian’s ability to access shared use paths, nearby transit stops, and other important destinations. Finally, many neighborhoods lack sidewalks entirely, which either requires residents to walk in the street or dissuades them from walking altogether.

USE PATHS

Clifty

The identified major pedestrian corridors include existing and proposed street corridors as well as shared use paths that do not parallel a street. The corridors that do not parallel a street are identified separately on this map because the assessment of existing sidewalks was not necessary for these routes.

MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS

The Major Pedestrian Corridors Map identifies the routes in Columbus that provide direct connections between and to key destinations, including neighborhoods, schools, parks, and shopping centers. These corridors are critical linkages in the pedestrian network and, if fully constructed and accessible, could serve as the backbone of Columbus’ system of sidewalks from which neighborhood-level sidewalks could connect. These major pedestrian corridors were identified based on observation of current pedestrian use and/or their direct connection to and between key destinations.

A small number of identified major corridors are not existing streets, such as the Regency Drive extension from Prairie Drive to Taylor Road. These streets are planned future streets in the City of Columbus Thoroughfare Plan.

Although these corridors provide direct connections to key destinations and/or are frequently used by pedestrians, sidewalks are intermittent or completely lacking along many of these important corridors. The presence of sidewalks is identified on this map. However, if an existing sidewalk was identified as a “medium” or “high” priority sidewalk in need of repair by the City of Columbus ADA Self Evaluation and Transition Plan for the Public Right-of-Way (2008), it was not identified as an existing sidewalk that fulfills a need along these important corridors.

The identification of these key corridors and missing sidewalks, together with the Pedestrian Facility Inventory on the previous page, will help the City prioritize needed, future sidewalk improvements and installations.

EXISTING SIDEWALK ALONG MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR (EXCLUDES EXISTING SIDEWALKS IDENTIFIED AS HIGH AND MEDIUM PRIORITY FOR NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS BY THE CITY OF COLUMBUS ADA TRANSITIONS PLAN)

MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR - STREET CORRIDOR

MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR - NON-STREET CORRIDOR

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

Clifty Creek

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH DATA ANALYSIS

Bicycle and pedestrian related crashes were studied from available data within the study area between 2012 and 2019. This analysis, combined with public input, is an important first step in reducing the frequency of pedestrian and bicyclist collisions. Not only can the crash report identify specific locations along roadways or in the city which are dangerous, but it can also start to indicate the situational surroundings that might contribute to these incidents. Future improvements to these locations should be designed to improve the safety and visibility for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

Although bicycle and pedestrian related crashes equal less than one percent of reported crashes in the city, these crashes can be much worse because they involve the most vulnerable users of the road.

The crash data analyzed includes accidents occurring on both public and private property, including roadways and commercial parking lots. The number of reported bicycle-related crashes has remained steady since 2012, averaging approximately 13 incidents each year. Reported pedestrian-related crashes have been varied, jumping to nearly 30 incidents in 2018 and declining again in 2019. Fault, as indicated in the police reports, varied between motorist and bicyclist or pedestrian. Education and enforcement efforts should be implemented, in addition to physical improvements, to lower the crash rates.

Crash data maps for both bicyclists and pedestrians are shown on the following pages. These maps reflect locations of reported crashes between 2012 and 2019. The actual number of incidents involving bicyclists and pedestrians may be under represented on these maps due to unreported accidents or “near miss” accidents. However, reported incidents are important to assess to understand existing movements of pedestrians and bicyclists and to understand where improvements may be needed to create a safer environment for users.

Although Columbus has a fairly low percentage of pedestrian and bicycle accidents, there have been a number of fatal accidents involving pedestrians and one involving a bicyclist.

3rd Street / Lindsey Street

Intersection

25th Street / Taylor Road

Intersection

U.S. 31 Corridor between Central Avenue and Taylor Road

North High School Campus, specifically intersections at 25th Street / Home Avenue, 25th Street / Maple Street, and 27th Street / Home Avenue

Chestnut Street Corridor, specifically its intersections at 3rd, 8th, and 11th Streets

Gladstone Avenue / State Street

Intersection

17th Street / Central Avenue

Intersection

25th Street / Marr Road

Intersection

25th Street / Hawcreek Avenue

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH DATA MAP

The bicycle and pedestrian crash data analysis revealed several corridors and intersections with high incidences of collisions. Collisions occurred on roadways with and without dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and singular instances of bicycle and pedestrian incidents were common along the National Road (U.S. 31), 25th Street, State Street, 17th Street, and 3rd Street corridors. 25th Street, in particular, had high crash incidences for both bicyclists and pedestrians at several key intersections, including Home Avenue, Maple Street, Hawcreek Avenue, Marr Road, Taylor Road, and Timbercrest Drive. The Columbus North High School campus had the highest incidence of bicycle and pedestrian crashes compared to other school locations. The most dangerous intersection for both bicyclists and pedestrians, according to the crash data, is the 3rd Street / Lindsey Street intersection.

The Wal-Mart parking lot, at Whitfield Drive, is a hot spot for pedestrian collisions. Although these incidents took place on private property, it is worth noting in order to have a complete understanding of where pedestrians are vulnerable or most at risk of collisions with motor vehicle traffic.

EXISTING SHARED USE PATH

EXISTING BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTE

ROADWAY BARRIERS AND EQUITY ANALYSIS

Bicycle and pedestrian facility development largely focuses on creating ways for bicyclists and pedestrians to travel along corridors. However, there are a number of roads in Columbus that, due to traffic volume, traffic speed, or roadway width, prevent bicyclists and pedestrians from safely crossing corridors and traveling from one area of the community to another. These roadway barriers create areas of isolated residents and destinations. Although safe crossings have been constructed at some intersections along these roadway barriers, several neighborhoods remain isolated and lack safe access to low-stress bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The map below identifies major roadway barriers in Columbus, as well as existing intersection treatments that facilitate low-stress crossing of those barriers. These intersection treatments include grade-separated crossings, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) signals, and Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) signals. The map also features existing, designated bicycle facilities, both on- and off-road, that were identified as LTS 1 and LTS 2 facilities in the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis. When assessing access to bicycle facilities and to destinations throughout the community, it is critical to evaluate access that is comfortable and safe for a wide range of users. Therefore, this map features only where low-stress bicycle facilities provide access throughout the community. As Columbus continues to build its bicycle network, prioritizing low stress connections across these roadway barriers will be an important way to expand the use of the bicycle network.

The Roadway Barriers Analysis below is the first in a series of maps used to identify isolated areas in the community and prioritize future locations for bicycle and pedestrian infrastruture. The following pages feature additional maps in this analysis series.

Equity in transportation means fairness in accessibility to meet the needs of all community members. This is achieved by providing equitable levels of access to affordable and reliable transportation options for the people being served, particularly people who are typically under-served.

Traditionally vulnerable members of society (children, older adults, and people from low-income households) rely on lower cost methods of transportation including transit, bicycling, and walking. These community members often bike and walk out of need, rather than recreation, and statistically do not fall within the “enthused and confident” or “strong and fearless” bicycle user groups. Therefore, they will rely on protected and off-road facilities to reach their destinations comfortably and safely.

The maps below and on the following pages show population density, age, and income data in Columbus. This data was used to designate priority areas for the implementation of future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, where need was identified by isolating (1) areas with high percentages of vulnerable community members and (2) areas of high population density.

The following census data is from the Census American Community Survey (2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates) and is presented by census block group.

POPULATION UNDER 17 YEARS

POPULATION ABOVE 65 YEARS

Less than 25 years

25 - 35 years

35 - 45 years

45 - 55 years

55 - 65 years

Over 65 years

MEDIAN AGE

PERCENT OF HOUSHOLDS WITH INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL

East Fork of the White River

FOCUS AREA MAP

The census data on the previous pages was analyzed to identify priority locations for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The results, shown on this Focus Area Map, include two tiers of focus areas which each have two key characteristics:

1.

Due to roadway barriers these areas lack access, via low-stress segments of the bicycle network, to other areas of the community.

They represent demographic characteristics for which access to low-stress bicycle infrastructure is especially desired, such as high density and/or high poverty rate.

ROADWAY

BARRIER LTS

TIER 2 FOCUS AREA (HIGH PRIORITY)

2.

FOCUS AREA NARRATIVES

The focus area narratives, which provide an assessment of the focus areas identified on the previous page, are included below.

FOCUS AREA A

TIER 1 The near downtown neighborhoods are some of the densest in Columbus, and they’re expected to get even more dense with the development of new multi-family residences. These neighborhoods also have a high number of households earning an income below the poverty level. These census characteristics, the physical barriers presented by Central Avenue and 3rd Street, and the lack of low-stress bicycle routes within the near downtown neighborhoods make this location a particular area of focus.

FOCUS AREA B

TIER 1 The neighborhood south of State Street has a high number of households earning an income below the poverty level and is completely isolated from the bicycle network by State Street. Although this area isn’t identified as dense by the census data, the inclusion of agricultural land south of the neighborhood within this census block group makes this data misleading. The neighborhood, considered on its own, is highly dense. This neighborhood also has a high percentage of children.

FOCUS AREA

TIER 1 Focus Area C is moderately dense and is home to a high percentage of individuals above the age of 65. This neighborhood is isolated from the low-stress bicycle network by 10th Street and U.S. 31, both of which lack bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This neighborhood also lacks access to the Haw Creek trail. Although the trail crosses to the east side of Haw Creek near 25th Street, this area has not been provided with a direct connection.

C

FOCUS AREA D

TIER 1 Completely surrounded by 25th Street, Washington Street, Central Avenue, and U.S. 31, residents from this dense neighborhood cannot access the bicycle network without facing a challenging roadway barrier. This area is also home to the school campus that includes Columbus North High School, Northside Middle School, Schmitt Elementary School, and St. Bartholomew Catholic School, making it an important destination for residents living outside of the area. This neighborhood additionally has a high percentage of children.

FOCUS AREA E

TIER 1 Forest Park and its nearby neighborhoods are highly dense and lack direct access to the bicycle network. Although the Westenedge Drive shared use path is immediately to the east, these residents cannot access the path without traveling along U.S. 31 or Rocky Ford Road.

FOCUS AREA F

TIER 1 This dense neighborhood is isolated from the Haw Creek Trail, which is located on the east side of Haw Creek, and residents from this neighborhood cannot access the Middle Road path without traveling along U.S. 31. This neighborhood, which has a high percentage of children, has no safe access to the low-stress bicycle network.

FOCUS AREA G

TIER 1 This highly dense neighborhood lacks safe access to the low-stress bicycle network. Internal streets from this neighborhood do not provide access to the low-stress bicycle route on 30th Street and Marr Road, while crosswalks are present, could still be a barrier to accessing the Haw Creek trail, located on the west side of the street.

TIER 1

FOCUS AREA H

This highly dense neighborhood is home to the city’s census block group with the highest percentage of households earning an income below the poverty level. This neighborhood is isolated due to Taylor Road and 25th Street.

FOCUS AREA I

TIER 2 Although they’re not shown as dense areas on the map due to the size of the census block groups, Shadow Creek Farms and Wildflower Estates are highly dense neighborhoods along County Road 200 South. Other than Shadow Creek Farms’ access to the path on the south side of 200 South, residents from these neighborhoods cannot access the city’s low-stress bicycle network. This area also has a high percentage of children.

FOCUS AREA J

TIER 2 Tipton Lakes and the surrounding residential developments represent the densest areas on the west side of Columbus. Due to barriers presented by Goeller Boulevard and State Road 46 residents in this area lack safe access to the low-stress bicycle network. This area is comparatively affluent so residents in these neighborhoods likely bike for recreation and/or by choice. However, the density and location of the area elevates it to a Tier 2 focus area.

FOCUS AREA K

TIER 2 Although current census data does not identify this area as a high priority location for access to the low-stress network, a housing development with over 300 lots (Abbey Place) is currently under development in this area. This new development will increase the density in this census block group, and due to U.S. 31 and Indianapolis Road, the area is highly isolated from the existing bicycle network.

TIER 2

FOCUS AREA L

Area L is a moderately dense neighborhood that doesn’t have direct access to the lowstress bicycle network. Reaching the low-stress facilities to the east and west could be challenging, particularly for children.

TIER 2

FOCUS AREA M

Area M is completely isolated from the low-stress bicycle network by U.S. 31, 25th Street, and Taylor Road. Although this area doesn’t stand out for its high density or high poverty rate, its complete isolation heightens it to an area of focus.

TIER 2

FOCUS AREA N

This area does not stand out for its high density or high poverty rate. However, it is isolated from the low-stress bicycle network by Rocky Ford Road and reaching the low-stress network to the west could be challenging. This area also has a growing 65+ population.

FOCUS AREA O

TIER 2 Although this area does not have a census indicator, Prairie Stream Estates, a dense cluster of residences, and the other residents along Talley Road lack close access to the low-stress bicycle network.

EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK OBSERVATIONS

The following describes key physical observations about Columbus’ existing bicycle and pedestrian network.

EXISTING

SHARED USE PATHS

. .

The existing network of shared use paths consists of scenic trails within parks and along rivers, as well as paths adjacent to the roadway.

EXISTING

. .

Several segments of the shared use path network are located adjacent to rivers. This provides a scenic route for users but also presents challenges to both maintenance and access. There are sections of the shared use path network that are impassable after even minor flood events. These same sections of the network get covered in mud and experience pavement settling, requiring maintenance attention.

Some segments of the network are located in areas that lack frequent activity. These areas may be considered unsafe by some users, especially at times of little sunlight.

Some sections of the network have begun to show their age with pavement cracks and root upheaval.

Many sections of the shared use path network are less than 10 feet wide, some sections as narrow as 4 - 6 feet wide. Most newly constructed shared use paths, formerly called sidepaths, are 8 feet wide which was likely the standard at the time of construction. Other narrow sections of path are located in Mill Race Park, Noblitt Park, and Tipton Lakes. The current standard for two-way shared use paths is a minimum of 10 feet wide to accommodate bidirectional pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

The existing network of bicycle lanes consists of conventional and buffered bicycle lanes.

.

BICYCLE ROUTES

SIDEWALKS EXISTING The downtown area is very walkable and pedestrian-friendly.

. .

. 44 COLUMBUS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

OVERALL NETWORK

EXISTING Aside from a few signs along Columbus’ bicycle routes, the bicycle and pedestrian network lacks systemwide wayfinding. The lack of signage and wayfinding is especially evident where shared use paths terminate into a sidewalk or street. These situations leave bicyclists unsure where to continue their trip and how to safely reconnect to the shared use path in other locations. Due to a lack of wayfinding, the bicycle and pedestrian network mostly does not provide directional, mileage, and destinationrelated information for its users.

Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network consists of a variety of facility types, which at times, impacts the fluidity of the network for bicycle users. Along a single route from origin to destination, bicyclists are often forced to make multiple transitions between on- and off-road facilities. The lack of wayfinding on the network complicates these transitions.

SIDEPATH RECLASSIFICATION

The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan included identification of existing and proposed sidepaths. Sidepaths were identified as an extra-wide sidewalk along one side of a street within the street right-of-way. Sidepaths were intended to carry both pedestrians and bicyclists with a minimum width of 8 feet.

Since a sidepath is designed to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists, it has become more accurately described as a shared use path and should be designed to meet the minimum standards for that facility type. This Plan update reclassifies existing sidepaths as either sidewalks or shared use paths based on their design characteristics, specifically width, and the intent of the City to make future improvements to these facilities to meet the minimum standards of a shared use path.

The reclassification of former sidepaths as sidewalks and shared use paths is reflected throughout this document.

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS: KEY TAKEAWAYS

1

GAPS IN THE LOW-STRESS BICYCLE NETWORK DETER CHILDREN, FAMILIES, AND ‘INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED’ ADULTS FROM USING THE BICYCLE NETWORK

The recommendations in this plan should eliminate gaps in the low stress bicycle network to provide complete corridors from neighborhoods to destinations, which will enable bicyclists of all ages and abilities to safely and comfortably access a wide variety of destinations.

2

HIGH SPEED AND HIGH VOLUME ROADWAY BARRIERS RESULT IN MULTIPLE ISOLATED AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY

Safe crossings should be provided in multiple locations along roadway barriers, such as along U.S. 31, State Street, and 25th Street, to connect isolated neighborhoods to the bicycle and pedestrian network and to key destinations. Isolated neighborhoods should also be connected to the low-stress bicycle network. Providing improved connections to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Focus Areas, as identified on Pages 42-43 should be a priority.

3

STRATEGIC INSTALLATION AND REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS IS NEEDED ALONG MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS AND IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SIDEWALKS ARE IN DISREPAIR

Many of the identified Major Pedestrian Corridors have sporadic sidewalks or lack sidewalks altogether. Furthermore, existing sidewalks are in disrepair, have steep cross slopes, or otherwise prevent travel in many areas of the city. A strategic plan for the installation and repair of sidewalks is needed in order to improve pedestrian access throughout the city.

4

SEVERAL CORRIDORS AND INTERSECTIONS HAVE HIGH INCIDENCES OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS AND SHOULD BE A TARGET FOR IMPROVEMENTS

The recommendations in this plan should address intersections with a high number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Furthermore, this plan should identify common characteristics of these locations to proactively improve other intersections and corridors with similar conditions.

5

GAPS IN THE EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK ARE PRESENT EVEN WHERE DEMAND IS HIGH

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be provided to areas of high demand to connect high numbers of people to key destinations. An examination of destinations and areas of high residential density revealed that demand for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is high in some areas of the city where bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is limited, such as in downtown Columbus and in neighborhoods and commercial areas along U.S. 31.

6

SIGNAGE AND INTUITIVE WAYFINDING ARE NEEDED TO FACILITATE SMOOTH TRANSITIONS BETWEEN FACILITY TYPES AND TO PROVIDE DIRECTION- AND DESTINATION-RELATED INFORMATION TO USERS

A signage and wayfinding strategy is needed to guide bicyclists and pedestrians along the network and to their destinations. The strategy should include making transitions between facility types intuitive and comfortable.

7

SOME EXISTING SHARED USE PATHS HAVE SUBSTANDARD WIDTHS

Shared use paths need to be widened in some locations due to substandard width. Widening these facilities to a minimum of 10 feet will enable bi-directional movement of both bicyclists and pedestrians.

8

ADDITIONAL TREATMENTS MAY BE NEEDED ALONG EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTES TO MAKE THEM COMFORTABLE FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis revealed that existing bicycle routes are LTS 2 facilities and may not be comfortable for families, children, and other bicycle users within the LTS 1 user category. These facilites were previously believed to be comfortable for families; however, the analysis reveals that additional treatments may be needed along these routes to make them comfortable for users of all ages and abilities.

9

UPDATES TO THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK SHOULD ADDRESS SYSTEM EQUITY

As identified by the Focus Area Map, a number of neighborhoods lack safe connections to the bicycle and pedestrian network. The identified neighborhoods represent demographic characteristics for which access to low-stress bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is especially desired, such as high density and high poverty rate. Updates to the bicycle and pedestrian network should prioritize connections for these neighborhoods.

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS AREA VISITORS CENTER (Top Right) and COLUMBUS

04 PUBLIC INPUT

An extensive public outreach process was conducted as part of this project. Public input collected at public meetings, through a community survey and online mapping exercise, and in focus group and Steering Committee meetings all guided the recommendations in this Plan update. Through a wide variety of public outreach methods, many different community members and bicycle and pedestrian user groups were able to participate in the Plan update process.

This chapter describes the various public outreach strategies and provides a list of key takeaways from the community.

STEERING COMMITTEE

A Steering Committee of local residents and stakeholders was formed to guide development of the Plan. This committee was tasked with identifying key issues related to bicycle and pedestrian mobility, contributing relevant experiences with Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network, identifying key takeaways from the public input and existing conditions analyses, and providing feedback on draft planning documents. The committee met several times between 2019 and 2021.

Prior to formation of the Committee, the City issued a media release inviting community residents interested in serving on the Committee to apply. That application process was used in order to establish a committee of residents with a diverse cross-section of experiences and perspectives related to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Over 50 individuals applied for membership. A committee of City staff selected 17 members to serve on the Committee, including representatives from City Council, the Columbus Park Board, and the Columbus Park Foundation.

In an effort to bring attention to the ongoing Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, several Steering Committee members participated in the creation of a series of public outreach posters. These posters feature family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers, and were created to bring light to the reasons they believe dedicating resources to the bicycle and pedestrian network is. The posters were displayed in various locations around the community, including along several sections of the trail network.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN POSTERS

STEERING COMMITTEE KEY TAKEAWAYS

Expand the existing network by filling gaps and establishing connections to desired destinations.

Construct more high-comfort facilities, which are more suitable for families and inexperienced bicyclists, throughout the network.

The network should be expanded and improved for the purposes of both transportation and recreation. Users will make different decisions based on trip intent.

Improve wayfinding for more intuitive use of the network. Increase awareness of the current system and its routes.

The material of a bicycle facility communicates to bicyclists whether they’re allowed to use the facility. The perception of most bicyclists is that concrete facilities are reserved for pedestrians only while asphalt facilities can be used by both bicyclists and pedestrians.

Existing shared use paths that don’t meet the new standards for accessibility and width should be improved. Establish a complete, off-street connection from the east to the west side of Columbus.

FOCUS GROUPS

Over 50 individuals applied to serve as members of the Steering Committee. While the City did not have room for every applicant on the Committee, the City still wanted to hear from every applicant. Therefore, the City invited the applicants not selected to serve on the Committee to a series of small-group, focus group meetings that took place in March 2019. The Focus Group participants, all passionate about improving the walking and bicycling experience in Columbus, wanted to participate despite not being selected for the Steering Committee. These valuable meetings provided a number of important takeaways that guided the recommendations in this Plan update.

FOCUS GROUP KEY TAKEAWAYS

Bicycle facilities that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic are preferred to other types of bicycle facilities because they are safer for bicyclists of all ages and abilities and don‘t collect debris.

The development and installation of signage and wayfinding is critically important for Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network.

Bicycle lanes collect glass, rocks, and debris. These facilities should receive more frequent maintenance.

A focus of this planning effort should be on making the bicycle and pedestrian system work well for those who use the network for transportation, such as to get to work and shopping centers. Gaps should be eliminated throughout the existing network.

The bicycle and pedestrian network should be enhanced with murals, sculptures, and other pieces of art. The trail should be its own destination.

Conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians on shared spaces sometimes occurs. Dedicated space for each user should be considered.

COMMUNITY SURVEY

In the summer of 2019, the City published a survey to learn about the experiences, behaviors, and perceptions of walking and bicycling in Columbus. The public was informed of the survey through a media release and social media. 149 community members responded. Highlights from the survey results are below.

96%

of respondents Agree or Strongly Agree that they would like to live in a community where they can walk to meet the needs of their lifestyle.

80%

of respondents Agree or Strongly Agree that they would walk more if additional pedestrian facilities existed in Columbus.

96%

Agree or Strongly Agree that they would like to live in a community where they can bike to meet the needs of their lifestyle.

87%

Agree or Strongly Agree that they would bike more if additional bicycle facilities existed in Columbus.

The adequacy of pedestrian facilities. Participants were asked to rate the adequacy of pedestrian features that comprise Columbus’ pedestrian network. The graphs below represent the percentage of respondents who feel these elements are currently adequate.

The top factors discouraging respondents from walking in Columbus today. Percentages reflect the percentage of respondents indicating that the corresponding factor discourages them from walking.

The top 5 Columbus-area locations pedestrians would like to access. Survey participants were asked to select the areas of Columbus and the surrounding region they would most like to access by walking. The top 5 responses are below.

The adequacy of bicycle facilities. Participants were asked to rate the adequacy of bicycle features that comprise Columbus’ bicycle network. The graphs below represent the percentage of respondents who feel these elements are currently adequate.

The top factors discouraging respondents from bicycling in Columbus today. Percentages reflect the percentage of respondents indicating that the corresponding factor discourages them from bicycling.

The top 5 Columbus-area locations residents would like to access by bicycling. Survey participants were asked to select the areas of Columbus and the surrounding region they would most like to access by bicycling. The top 5 responses are below.

Downtown Columbus 1

U.S. 31 Corridor (North of 25th Street) 2

U.S. 31 Corridor (South of 25th Street) 3

Parks (Throughout the City) 4

Bartholomew County Fairgrounds 5

Sharing facilities with other user types. Survey respondents were asked to indicate whether they are comfortable sharing bicycle and pedestrian facilities with other user types.

User experiences on the bicycle and pedestrian network. Survey respondents were asked to describe what they typically experience when bicycling, walking, and running in Columbus. Below are some of their responses.

“When biking in Columbus with my children, I am not comfortable on the bike routes that share the road with motorists. I prefer a separated path and this limits us from traveling to certain locations, such as downtown Columbus.”

“I like to walk but the lack of sidewalks makes it unsafe.”

“Safe routes for walking, running, or biking are not well identified through the downtown area. Effort needs to be made to identify side streets for pedestrians to use and focus investments on making these streets safer and more attractive for walkers and bikers.”

“Excessive debris in bike lanes - especially along 17th Street. The streets get cleaned but the bike lanes are full of hazards.”

“Overall I am very impressed. Few cities the size of Columbus have a trail system like ours.”

“The People Trails are rough and deteriorating.”

PUBLIC SURVEY KEY TAKEAWAYS

Improvements in connectivity between various sections of the bicycle and pedestrian network is needed. Traffic calming is needed to improve safety on on-street bicycle facilities and at street crossings. Most bicyclists are uncomfortable sharing the road with motor vehicle traffic, thus more off-street bicycle facilities are needed.

Sidewalks are missing or are in disrepair throughout the city, particularly in the downtown. Sidewalk repair and installation should be a priority. Also, many sections of shared use path are in disrepair, causing discomfort for users. Maintenance on the trails should also be a priority.

Bicyclists and pedestrians desire more lighting along the bicycle and pedestrian network.

Improved street crossings are needed throughout the city at high traffic speed and high traffic volume roadways.

Although most bicyclists prefer separated, off-street bicycle facilities, a number of bicyclists indicated that they desire on-road facilities, such as conventional bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes. Therefore, the bicycle network should include a mix of both low-stress, off-street bicycle facilities and on-street facilities.

PUBLIC MEETING AND ONLINE MAPPING TOOL

A public meeting was held on June 20, 2019 to collect input from the public on current bicycle and pedestrian user experiences and network issues. In addition to the workshop, the public was invited to participate in an online mapping exercise, utilizing a tool called WikiMaps, to describe their preferred bicycle and pedestrian routes, important destinations, conflict points, and desired routes. Members of the public were invited to participate in the workshop and online mapping exercise through a media release and social media announcements. Thirtyeight individuals attended the workshop. A summary of the input collected at both the public meeting and on the WikiMaps online mapping tool is below.

Key Destinations

Public meeting participants were asked to identify destinations to which they want to bike and walk. The most common destinations identified include:

Downtown Columbus

Shopping centers along U.S. 31 / National Road, including Kroger, Target, Wal-Mart, and Lowe’s

Columbus North High School and Northside Middle School

Tipton Lakes area

North Columbus neighborhoods near Columbus Municipal Airport

Shopping areas along Jonathan Moore Pike, near the I-65 interchange .

Parks citywide .

Preferred Bicycle Facility Type

This Plan update utilized public input to measure the comfort level of bicyclists on existing facilities and also on facilities that are not in Columbus now but might be implemented in the future. Based on photos and descriptions provided at the meeting, participants were asked to indicate what their comfort level is or would be on various bicycle facilities. The graphic below summarizes the public input responses for facility type preference.

Paved Trail

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared Use Path (Adjacent to the Street)

Bicycle Priority Street

Protected Bicycle Lane

Separated Cycle Track

Unpaved Trail

Conventional Bicycle Lane

Sidewalk

Shared Use Path (Separated from the Street)

Bicycle Route

Existing Bicycle Routes

Routes currently used by local bicyclists are illustrated on the adjacent map. This map shows that bicyclists are already riding in many areas of the city.

The paved trail system, including the Haw Creek Trail and the paved trail along Jonathan Moore Pike, are the most popular facilities for bicycling in the city. However, there is widespread use of existing bicycle lanes and bicyclists riding with traffic in the downtown area. Some of these routes were identified “high stress” routes on which bicyclists are not entirely comfortable or would not be comfortable riding with children. Downtown routes were identified in one-way pairs which indicates that bicyclists are following the law and riding with traffic while using these routes. The variety of current routes indicates not only the widespread demand for more bicycle and pedestrian facilities but also the range of bicycle skill levels in the city with many bicyclists choosing on-road facilities as well as off-road facilities.

DOWNTOWN ENLARGEMENT

EXISTING SHARED USE PATH

EXISTING BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTE

PREFERRED EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTE

Desired Routes

The public was asked where they would like to ride or walk throughout Columbus. This map reflects the response from both the public meeting and the WikiMap online exercise.

The demand for regional routes, in addition to local routes, is evident through this exercise. Many participants expressed the desire to be able to ride their bikes to places like Brown County State Park and the Edinburgh Outlet Mall. Participants also sought a connection from the downtown area south along State Road 11 to the Bartholomew County Fairgrounds and the Woodside Industrial area and beyond.

These results also confirm the need to expand the bicycle and pedestrian network by connecting various sections of the existing system. Completing these routes will provide comfortable and safe connections between residents and their destinations.

DESIRED PEDESTRIAN ROUTE

DESIRED BICYCLE ROUTE

EXISTING SHARED USE PATH

EXISTING BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTE

CliftyCreek

Conflict Points

Participants were asked to identify locations where they experience conflicts with other user types, specifically where bicyclists and pedestrians conflict with motor vehicles and where bicycles and pedestrians conflict on shared spaces, such as on shared use paths and in crosswalks. The adjacent map reflects the locations identified during the public input process.

Conflicts between bicyclists/pedestrians and motor vehicles are frequent along high volume roadways such as Central Avenue, Jonathan Moore Pike, U.S. 31, Rocky Ford Road, and 17th Street.

The conflict points identified by the public are consistent with the crash data analysis, which also indicated a high frequency of collisions along high traffic corridors, such as U.S. 31, 17th Street, and 25th Street.

9

LOCATION OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST CONFLICT

LOCATION OF VEHICLE AND BICYCLIST/PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT

EXISTING SHARED USE PATH

EXISTING BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANE

EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTE

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

Recent Project Impacts

Participants at the public workshop were presented with a selection of projects that had been completed since the adoption of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The list of projects included intersection improvements, bicycle route signage, and new shared use paths, buffered bicycle lanes, and conventional bicycle lanes. The participants were asked to identify the projects that have been most impactful for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The following are the top 5 selected projects, in order of most impactful.

The Haw Creek Trail Realignment at 25th Street / Newbern Bridge

Owen’s Bend Trail (Shared Use Path)

Rocky Ford Road Buffered Bicycle Lanes

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Throughout the City

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) Signal at 17th Street / Washington Street Intersection

Incomplete Project Impacts

Participants were also asked to identify incomplete projects from the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that they believed would be most impactful to the community if they were built. The following are the top 5 selected projects, in order of most impactful.

The Downtown Trail Connector (A Shared Use Path between Lafayette Avenue and the 3rd Street Bridge)

Washington Street Bicycle Lanes

State Road 11 Shared Use Path

Bicycle Routes Throughout the Downtown Indianapolis Road Shared Use Path

PUBLIC MEETING AND ONLINE MAPPING KEY TAKEAWAYS

Off-street and physically separated bicycle facilities are preferred by most bicyclists, especially by families and inexperienced bicyclists. Off-street physically separated facilities should be a priority for facility development.

The system of on-street bicycle facilities, such as bicycle lanes, is used and desired by experienced cyclists.

Safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings are needed along major vehicle thoroughfares, such as U.S. 31, Jonathan Moore Pike, and Central Avenue.

A better connection to shopping along U.S. 31, such as Target and Lowe’s, is needed.

Safe connections to areas outside of the city limits and to regional destinations, such as the Bartholomew County Fairgrounds, Brown County State Park, and the Edinburgh Outlet Mall, are desired.

More dedicated bicycle facilities are needed in the downtown area. .

As in 2010, the public still desires safe connections south of downtown, along Washington Street, on S.R. 11, and along Indianapolis Road. .

5.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

Prior to the evening public workshop on June 20, 2019, a series of stakeholder interviews was conducted. Participants included a diverse cross-section of bicyclists and pedestrians, representatives of community organizations serving Columbus youth, and City of Columbus staff responsible for ongoing maintenance of the bicycle and pedestrian network.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW KEY TAKEAWAYS

S.R. 46, I-65, U.S. 31, and other major roadway barriers impede connectivity throughout the community. Shared use paths adjacent to the roadway are confused with sidewalks, and bicyclists are often uncertain if they can or should use those facilities.

Fair Oaks Mall / NexusPark, Kroger, and several other commercial areas along U.S. 31 are important destinations for both bicyclists and pedestrians. Safe connections to these destinations should be established. .

Trail amenities, such as trailheads and water fountains, are desired throughout the trail network.

Downtown sidewalks need maintenance and repair. Pedestrians sometimes choose to use bicycle lanes and streets because they are in better condition than adjoining sidewalks.

Officially naming the various sections of trail would assist trail users and City maintenance staff in the identification of issues along the trail.

With respect to ongoing maintenance, wayfinding and directional information displayed on-pavement is preferred because signs are frequently vandalized or stolen.

A detailed plan for maintenance and operations is needed. .

PUBLIC OUTREACH FOLLOW UP

Following the public outreach efforts in 2019, draft materials were prepared for additional public review. During the summer of 2021, the City presented the community with the draft bicycle and pedestrian facility maps and engaged the public in an exercise to help proiritize the recommended improvement projects. The results of this effort contributed to the implementation priorities described in Chapter 9.

Through use of the city website and other digital tools, the City created an online method for the public to vote on the improvements they felt were most important. To encourage participation in this exercise, the City ran a fullpage color advertisement in The Republic, the local newspaper, on July 18, 2021 which showcased the draft bicycle and pedestrian facility map and invited the public to vote online. The advertisement also presented the public with the option to mail in their votes using a printed survey included with the advertisement and to visit City staff at an upcoming Farmers Market to further discuss the draft recommendations. The City also (1) coordinated with First United Methodist Church to collect feedback on the most needed sidewalk improvements from attendees of their weekly Hot Meals site and (2) partnered with the Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization to co-host a public open house to collect feedback on both the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and the ongoing Metropolian Transportation Plan update.

In addition to the advertisement in the local newspaper, the City publicized the various opportunities to provide feedback through social media posts and email invitiations to local contacts. Over 250 people participated in the online survey and several more provided input at the various in-person events described above.

PUBLIC INPUT: KEY TAKEAWAYS

1

OFF-STREET AND PHYSICALLY SEPARATED BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PREFERRED BY MOST BICYCLISTS AND SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR FUTURE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT

Families, children, and inexperienced bicyclists prefer bicycle facilities that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. If off-street, physically separated facilities are not provided, these bicyclists choose not to ride. Or, if riding is a necessity, these bicyclists feel unsafe on facilities that are shared with motor vehicle traffic.

2

THE SYSTEM OF ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES IS USED AND DESIRED BY EXPERIENCED CYCLISTS

Although most bicyclists prefer separated, off-street facilities, a number of bicyclists desire on-road facilities, such as bicycle lanes and bicycle routes. Therefore, in order to accommodate a range of bicycle users, the bicycle network should include a mix of both low-stress, off-street facilities and on-street facilities.

3

REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, BUT ESPECIALLY IN THE NEAR-DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS, SHOULD BE A PRIORITY

Sidewalks in many areas of the city, particularly in and near the downtown, are in disrepair. In order to facilitate and improve pedestrian travel, repairing and maintaining sidewalks should be a priority.

4

5

WAYFINDING IS NEEDED TO ENHANCE THE

USE OF THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

The bicycle and pedestrian network should be enhanced with wayfinding so users can easily find their way to destinations and understand where they are with respect to destinations and other segments of the network. Wayfinding should be intuitive and easy to interpret by all users.

SAFE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ARE NEEDED ALONG MAJOR VEHICLE THOROUGHFARES, SUCH AS U.S. 31, CENTRAL AVENUE, STATE STREET, AND JONATHAN MOORE PIKE

Unsafe street crossings were identified by both pedestrians and bicyclists as reasons that they do not bike or walk more often. Furthermore, unsafe crossings are a “barrier to entry” for people who do not currently bike. This Plan should identify intersection treatments that reduce conflict between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles and should prioritize improvements along high speed and high volume roadways.

6

TRAFFIC CALMING IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE SAFETY ON ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITES AND AT STREET CROSSINGS

Too much or too fast motor vehicle traffic was identified by both pedestrians and bicyclists as a deterrent from walking and bicycling more often. In order to improve safety and the overall environment for pedestrians and bicyclists, street calming techniques should be used to slow motor vehicle traffic.

7

FILL GAPS IN THE EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

Expand the existing network by filling gaps between the various segments of the network and by establishing connections to desired destinations. Important destinations identified by the public include downtown Columbus, parks and schools throughout the city, the commercial centers along U.S. 31, and Fair Oaks Mall / NexusPark.

8

THE MATERIAL OF A BICYCLE FACILITY COMMUNICATES TO BICYCLISTS IF THEY ARE PERMITTED TO USE THE FACILITY

The perception of many bicyclists is that concrete facilities are reserved for pedestrians while asphalt facilities can be used by both bicyclists and pedestrians. Bicyclists had this perception especially for shared use paths adjacent to the roadway, where they perceived the facility as a wide sidewalk.

9

TRAIL AMENITIES ARE NEEDED

Trail amenities, such as lighting, water fountains, and trailheads, are desired by both bicyclists and pedestrians.

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS AREA VISITORS

05 NETWORK FRAMEWORK

The network framework provides the strategy for improving the quantity, quality, and safety of bicycling and walking in Columbus. The framework provides key principles for developing the network. The three principles, listed below, are intended to be used along with the Plan’s Vision and Goals as plan recommendations are implemented.

Key Principles:

1. Create a Low-Stress Bicycle Network

2. Plan for the Future

3. Apply Flexible Design

LOW-STRESS BICYCLE NETWORK

A low-stress network is one that is designed to be comfortable and usable for all levels of bicycle users. It is also known as a high comfort network. This network is designed to accommodate the least confident bicyclist and often provides facilities which accommodate pedestrians as well. The emphasis for this network is in providing bicycle facilities which are separated or protected from vehicular traffic. The design of this network appeals to families and adults just starting to ride a bicycle. By providing a network of comfortable facilities for a broader range of users, these networks typically increase the number of shorter distance, utilitarian trips for all types of bicyclists.

A low-stress network typically includes a connected network of shared use paths and cycle tracks. Low-speed and low-volume neighborhood streets also support these networks when safe crossings and connections are provided between neighborhoods and destinations within the city.

Low-stress networks are often implemented along with bicycle facilities which better serve more confident cyclists. The success of the network as a whole depends on how safe, comfortable, and connected the network is for a bicyclist with a particular skill level. Each network must be complete on its own and connect to the desired destinations for each user. In this type of network design, every corridor does not necessarily meet the needs of every user type. Less confident and more confident bicyclists may take different and parallel routes which are more comfortable for the needs of each bicyclist. Wayfinding and education are an important part of this type of network.

The Bicyclist Design User Profile provided in Chapter 1 illustrates the different skill levels and needs of each bicyclist type. As shown in the graphic, the majority of users nationally are included in the “Interested but Concerned” user group. Providing a low-stress bicycle network creates facilities which are appealing to this user group. Based on the public input received during this project, the following facilities could be included in Columbus’ low-stress bicycle network:

Shared Use Paths .

Cycle Tracks / Protected Bicycle Lanes .

PLAN FOR THE FUTURE

While this Plan recognizes the need to provide a complete and connected low stress network of facilities to meet the needs of the majority of existing bicyclists, the City also needs to plan for the long-term needs of bicyclists. As bicycling and walking become more common and users increase, conflict issues will become more prevalent on many of the low-stress facilities. One example can be seen in small ocurrences in the city today along busy sections of the off-road shared use trail system. As use increases along shared use facilities more conflicts occur between cyclists and pedestrians because of the speed differential between the user types. When a corridor does not have an on-road facility, bicyclists who fall into the “Enthused and Confident” group will ride on the shared use path. Their speeds can cause slower bicyclists and walkers to be uncomfortable while using the same facility. A buffered bicycle lane would provide a comfortable facility for the more confident bicyclists while moving them to the roadway where their speeds are more appropriate.

As the network is developed and the vision for this plan is realized, a progression of collective bicyclist skill will occur with more of the population falling into the “Enthused and Confident” category. A system that is designed

to only meet the needs of the least skilled bicycle riders will not meet the needs of this group of users and can lead to a decreased number of users utilizing certain facilities because of increased conflicts.

Age is also an important consideration in long-term planning. Like housing needs, the needs for bicyclists and pedestrians change over time. Providing a complete network of a variety of facility types, which will meet the needs of the community from young to old, encourages the continued use of the network and provides many benefits to residents’ health and the environmental health of the community.

Planning for the future includes incorporating the following elements:

A variety of bicycle facilities to meet the needs of multiple user types with varying skill and confidence levels.

Corridors with multiple user groups and high user numbers may need separated facilities or multiple facility types such as shared use paths along with bicycle lanes.

Regular reassessment of facilities to address width and maintenance issues.

Regular and long-term maintenance of existing facilities along with development of new facilities.

Safe and comfortable intersection crossings to complement the corridor facility type and preferred user type.

FLEXIBLE DESIGN

It is important for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update to include flexible design which can be modified to fit site and contextual conditions, including available right-of-way, budgets, and construction complexity. Bicycle and pedestrian plans are often unsuccessful when blanket design solutions are implemented that focus on uniformity instead of site specific specialization for each corridor. The network should be designed to function as a complete transportation system for bicyclists and pedestrians while offering multiple design solutions, some of which are not ideal but respond to the real-world context, constraints, and opportunities that exist in the city at the time of project construction. The facility guidelines that are provided as part of this plan should be utilized with engineering judgment, best practices, and design flexibility.

The Federal Highway Administration bicycle selection process, which is illustrated on the following page, demonstrates how a flexible design approach can be implemented. This approach was utilized in the development of the proposed network for this Plan. The overall network was established to provide safe and connected corridors throughout the city. Each corridor was then analyzed for the appropriate facility starting with the preferred design, which is determined by the target user, and then downgraded if that preferred facility was not feasible. Criteria used to determine the feasibility of a facility included:

Right-of-way width .

Pavement width .

Speed limit .

Traffic volume (when available)

Drainage and utilities along the corridor .

Adjacent land uses (existing and future) .

Potential to relocate or eliminate on-street parking

Function of the corridor in the overall network .

Potential for right-of-way acquisition

Potential for roadway widening .

Level of urgency to complete a gap in the existing network .

Identify Project Purpose

An important consideration in downgrading a preferred facility type is the need for a facility within a corridor. If the preferred facility will only be possible with additional funding or planning that will take years to accomplish (such as a high cost project or the need to purchase right-of-way where established businesses exist) but the corridor provides a vital connection to the network, then the downgraded facility can become a short-term solution which provides an important, if not ideal, connection. Downgraded facilities can include a protected bicycle lane instead of a grade separated cycle track or shared use path, or might include directing users to parallel paths which are less direct but have more comfortable facilities.

Federal Highway Administration Bikeway Selection Process and Guide Outline

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS AREA

06 FACILITY TOOLBOX

This bicycle and pedestrian facility toolbox provides general design guidelines and considerations for the development of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These treatments and design guidelines represent the tools for creating a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, safe, and accessible community.

The toolbox includes facility types and design elements anticipated for use; however, the list is not all-inclusive. The toolbox is not a comprehensive list of design standards and is not a substitute for a more thorough evaluation upon implementation of facility improvements.

NATIONAL AND STATE GUIDANCE

The following national and state guidelines were referenced during the preparation of the Facility Toolbox. These reference materials should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure compliance with the most recent revisions.

The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012) provides cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists. To create the Guide, the authors have conducted an extensive worldwide literature search from design guidelines and real-life experience.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) is the latest national guidance outlining planning considerations for separated bicycle lanes (also called “cycle tracks” and “protected bicycle lanes”). The Guide consolidates lessons learned from practioners designing and implementing separated bicycle lanes throughout the U.S.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed trade-off decisions relating to the selection of bikeway types. It incorporates and builds upon the FHWA’s support for design flexibility to assist transportation agencies in the development of connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle networks that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities.

Other national, state, and local guidance includes the following:

Indiana Design Manual (2013) .

FHWA Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator (2006) . Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009) . Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design (2009) .

.

Minikel (2011) Cyclist safety on bicycle boulevards and parallel arterial routes in Berkeley, California. Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) provides information on the physical infrastructure needed to support bicycling and presents sound guidelines that result in facilities that meet the needs of bicyclists and other road users.

FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks Guide (2016)

ITE Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares

AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)

FHWA Memorandum on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility (2013)

National Highway Institute Bicycle Facility Design Course (2020) .

NACTO Designing for All Ages and Abilities (2017) . Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic .

Montgomery County (MD) Planning Department Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit (2018)

FACILITY SELECTION

Facility selection for the bicycle and pedestrian network requires good engineering judgment which can be applied to complex urban, suburban, and rural environments. Project specific details should be determined by the design professional during the construction design process. Determining the appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facility begins with this Plan but also includes examination of the broader network and roadway context and then looks at the conditions of the corridor.

The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide provides recommendations for facility type based on the volume and speed of automobiles in the corridor. This guidance is provided in the graphic below. In addition to these recommendations, site specific conditions should be considered, including:

What is the function of the corridor in the overall network? (For example, north/south or east/west connector, short distance neighborhood connector)? .

What user type will the corridor serve? (For example, the “Enthused and Confident” user group along with pedestrians)? .

.

.

.

What are the physical constraints of the corridor? (For example, are there buildings close to the right-of-way, are there major utility lines within the corridor, is there a natural feature such as a ditch or river)?

Is there an opportunity to provide separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities or should they be combined into a single facility?

What are the land use conditions of the corridor? (For example, a residential area with on-street parking and off-street parking available for each homeowner or a busy business district with frequent trips)

What is the level and speed of vehicular traffic in the corridor? .

Where is the existing bicycle and pedestrian demand? .

Is this facility completing a gap within the existing network? .

Are there short-term and long-term solutions appropriate for the corridor? .

Is the preferred facility type feasible or would a less than ideal facility provide a safe and comfortable improvement to the network? .

Are there existing facilities to which this corridor will connect and what are the transitions needed to connect the different facilities? .

Are there barriers to completing the route within this corridor? .

Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, and Rural Town Contexts

Source: FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed.

Advisory bicycle lanes may be an option where traffic volumes are less than 3,000 ADT. .

See page 32 of the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.

Separated bicycle lanes are also called “cycle tracks” and “protected bicycle lanes.” For purposes of this Plan update, the facility is called a “cycle track.” Shared lanes and bicycle boulevards are similar to the neighborhood bicycle route used in this Plan.

DESIGN NEEDS OF BICYCLISTS

Regardless of which user type a particular facility will serve, such as the “Interested but Concerned” or “Enthused and Confident” user groups, the design of a bicycle facilitiy should consider expected bicycle types and utilize proper dimensions. The figure below illustrates the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which is the basis for typical facility design.

Bicycle Operating Space

Source:National Highway Institute and AASHTO

Preferable Operating Space

10’

Minimum Operating Space

8’

Physical Operating Space

7’

Handlebar Height

3’-8”

Physical Operating Width

2’-6”

Minimum Operating Width

4’-0”

Preferred Operating Width

5’-0”

It is preferrable that the width of bicycle facilities accommodate side-by-side bicycling. At a minimum, the facility width should allow for bicyclists to pass one another without creating unsafe or uncomfortable conditions. When designing to accommodate side-by-side riding, the width of the bicycle facility should include the operating space of both bicyclists. On minimum-width bicycle facilities, bicyclists must operate single-file, which allows only occasional passing and precludes the opportunity for social bicycling and for parents to ride next to their children.

FACILITY USER GROUPS

In order to meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities, Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network will be comprised of a variety of facility types.

The key described below, which represents the various user groups in Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network, will be used throughout the facility toolbox to indicate the user groups that will be comfortable on a given facility. As introduced in Chapter 1, bicyclists in the “Interested but Concerned” and “Enthused and Confident” user groups prefer facilities that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic, especially as traffic speeds and volumes increase. Conversely, bicyclists in the “Strong and Fearless” user group are comfortable riding with traffic, even as traffic speeds and volumes increase.

PEDESTRIANS

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED BICYCLIST

ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT BICYCLIST

STRONG AND FEARLESS BICYCLIST

A grayed out user group indicates that the particular facility is not intended for that user group and/or that the facility would be uncomfortable for that user group.

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS AREA VISITORS CENTER 79 COLUMBUS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

This page intentionally left blank

Facility Types

SIDEWALK

Sidewalks are an essential component of the pedestrian network. Sidewalks are generally located within the public right-of-way and provide a space for pedestrian travel that is separate from motor vehicle traffic. Sidewalks connect pedestrians to their homes and destinations and promote walking.

Although sidewalks are generally used by pedestrians, bicyclists in the “Interested but Concerned” user group are permitted to use sidewalks when no on-street bicycle facility is available or when they are uncomfortable using the provided on-street bicycle facility.

BENEFITS

CHALLENGES

.

. A dedicated space for pedestrians

Provides a space separate from motor vehicle traffic

.

.

The “interested but concerned” bicycle user group can use sidewalks to make connections when alternative bicycle facilities are not available

CONSIDERATIONS

.

Installing sidewalks in locations where none currently exist can be a challenge due to existing grade, utilities, and similar obstacles

Wider sidewalks should be installed near schools, transit stops, in downtown areas, and anywhere high concentrations of pedestrians exist.

New sidewalks are required to meet ADA guidelines for, but not limited to, width, grade, and cross slope. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires a 3 foot clear walkway plus a 5 foot passing area every 200 feet.

. A sidewalk width of 6 feet enables two pedestrians (including wheelchair users) to walk side-by-side or to pass each other comfortably.

.

. Street trees in the tree lawn between the sidewalk and street buffer pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic and increase comfort for users.

Where a sidewalk is directly adjacent to moving traffic, the preferred minimum sidewalk width is 8 feet. .

Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of streets to ensure adequate, safe access to adjacent properties and to provide clear street crossings, which primarily occur at intersections.

Sidewalks can be used in locations not adjacent to streets to provide pedestrian access from cul-de-sac streets and other neighborhood streets to nearby sidewalks, shared use paths, and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities. They can also provide access to key destinations, such as schools and parks. These sidewalks are called connectors. The use of connectors is encouraged for locations where pedestrians and cyclists would otherwise be required to travel more than 1,000 feet out of their way to reach the same destination. All new developments adjacent to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and/ or key desinations, such as schools, parks, and shopping centers, should provide connectors. Connector sidewalks can be provided either (1) within easements where they are maintained by property owners, (2) in common areas where they are maintained by a property owners association, or (3) in right-of-way or parcels dedicated or deeded to the City where they are maintained by the City.

Public sidewalks should be located within the public right-of-way or within a designated pedestrian easement.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

Sidewalks should be designed and constructed to meet all applicable federal, state, and local standards, including ADA standards, and the design guidelines below:

WIDTH: 5 feet minimum or 8 feet minimum when the sidewalk is immediately adjacent to the curb or edge of shoulder .

.

SEPARATION FROM STREET: 5 feet minimum from back of curb or edge of shoulder to the sidewalk pavement, unless located in an urban, low motor vehicle speed, commercial area where separation is less necessary.

SURFACE: Concrete pavement .

VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 10 feet preferred, 8 feet minimum .

CROSS SLOPE: 1% minimum, 2% maximum .

GRADE: 8% maximum .

SIDEWALK CROSS SECTION

Tree Lawn Vehicle Travel Lanes

SHARED USE PATH

Shared use paths are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and provide shared space for twoway bicycle and pedestrian traffic. They may be located parallel to roadways or in areas outside of the roadway network, such as in parks or along rivers.

BENEFITS

.

Provides physical separation from motor vehicle traffic.

.

Shared use paths are the preferred facility for the “Interested but Concerned” bicycle user group and are a component of a low-stress bicycle network. Because of this, shared use paths could encourage new users and more bicycling.

.

Shared use paths provide routes for both transportation and recreation.

CHALLENGES

.

.

.

Limited right-of-way availability can complicate the implementation of shared use paths.

Topography and drainage can greatly impact design of shared use paths.

Shared use paths can present safety concerns when placed adjacent to a roadway with frequent driveway and/ or intersection crossings. Conflicts can occur because drivers aren’t expecting bicyclists and pedestrians to be moving in both directions on one side of the street. Also, this results in some bicyclists being on the wrong side of the street at intersections and integrating them with vehicles can be challenging.

Shared use paths can lose their function as bicycle commuter routes when pedestrian volumes increase. Similarly, user conflicts due to speed differentials can occur as user volume increases.

CONSIDERATIONS

Shared use paths should be designed to suit the characteristics of bicyclists. This includes establishing a design speed (typically 18-20 mph) and designing corner radii appropriately.

When adjacent to roadways, shared use paths are most appropriate where driveways and intersections are limited. In areas with high concentrations of driveways and intersections, on-street accommodations, such as cycle tracks and buffered bicycle lanes, are preferred.

.

To accommodate high volumes of users and to reduce conflicts between different user types, a path wider than the minimum can be provided or modes can be separated by constructing parallel paths for bicyclists and pedestrians. Separation of bicyclists and pedestrians is generally recommended when user volumes are high and when pedestrians make up around 30% or more of path users.

. On a path shared by both transportation and recreational bicyclists, additional path width is desirable to allow users to pass.

. Signage reminding users to “Keep Right Except to Pass” should be provided on wider paths.

.

The use of a centerline may be beneficial. A continuous stripe for paths with high user volumes and a localized stripe on curves with restricted sight distance should be considered.

. Consider adding amenities such as benches, rest areas, and scenic overlooks along paths that provide attractive recreational opportunities.

.

Pedestrian-scale lighting on shared use paths can improve visibility and increase a feeling of personal security.

.

.

.

When a shared use path is provided on one side of the street, a sidewalk should be provided on the other.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

Shared use paths should be designed, constructed, and maintained to meet the standards as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) current edition and the design guidelines below.

.

.

.

SURFACE: Asphalt preferred but concrete is acceptable in urban areas. Asphalt tends to communicate that both bicyclists and pedestrians are permitted, while concrete tends to communicate that only pedestrians are permitted. Where concrete is utilized, proper signage should communicate that the path is intended for shared use by both bicyclists and pedestrians.

.

HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE: 3 feet .

CROSS SLOPE: 1% minimum, 2% maximum .

GRADE: 8% maximum .

85 COLUMBUS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

SHARED USE PATH CROSS SECTION (WHEN ADJACENT TO A ROADWAY)

This page intentionally left blank

CYCLE TRACK

A cycle track is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by vertical elements.

Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way and may be at street level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. If at sidewalk level, a curb separates them from motor vehicle traffic while different pavement color or texture separates the cycle track from the sidewalk. If at street level, the cycle track can be separated from motor vehicle traffic by bollards, raised medians, flexible delineators, or on-street parking.

Cycle tracks are differentiated from conventional and buffered bicycle lanes by the vertical element that separates them from motor vehicle traffic. Cycle tracks are sometimes called “protected bicycle lanes” or “separated bicycle lanes.” Cycle tracks should be used in combination with sidewalks.

BENEFITS

CHALLENGES

.

. This facility reduces the risk of “dooring” compared to bicycle lanes because they are located on the sidewalk side of parking, if present, rather than the vehicle lane side of parking like bicycle lanes.

Cycle tracks provide a comfortable experience for bicyclists of all ages and abilities.

. Cycle tracks can be implemented economically if rightof-way exists.

Developing appropriate treatments at intersections is challenging with two-way cycle tracks because they result in some bicyclists being on the wrong side of the street at the intersection. Integrating these bicyclists with vehicle traffic can be problematic; therefore, focused attention on the design of intersections and transitions to other facilities is essential to minimizing conflicts.

.

.

. Maintenance is minimized due to limited automobile wear. .

Cycle tracks provide dedicated and protected space for bicyclists, improving perceived safety and comfort.

.

Emergency, transit, and maintenance vehicle access can be challenging due to the physical barrier. Snow removal and street sweeping may require special equipment.

Compared to a conventional bicycle lane, cycle tracks utilize more road space and likely require the presence of more right-of-way.

PHOTO CREDIT: National Highway Institute

CONSIDERATIONS

.

.

Cycle tracks are typically located on streets on which bicycle lanes would cause many bicyclists to feel stress because of factors such as multiple lanes, high traffic volume and speeds, high incidence of double parking, and high parking turnover.

When deciding between one-way and two-way cycle track configurations, designers should consider which configuration will provide clear and intuitive transitions to existing and planned bicycle facilities and which configuration minimizes conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles.

.

On two-way streets, one-way cycle tracks on each side of the street are generally preferred because they follow normal traffic patterns. This configuration provides simple transitions to existing bicycle lanes and neighborhood bicycle routes and is consistent with driver expectation because bicyclist travel is the same direction as motor vehicle operation. One-way cycle tracks on both sides of the street also provide access to destinations on both sides of the street.

.

.

Two-way cycle tracks may be desirable when a high number of intersections or driveways are present on one side of the street.

Sidewalk-level cycle tracks can reduce roadway debris in the bicycle facility, compared to on-street cycle tracks, buffered bicycle lanes, and conventional bicycle lanes.

. For on-street cycle tracks, beveled or mountable curbs should be considered. Compared to standard height vertical curbs, sloping curbs minimize pedal strikes and allow bicyclists to exit the cycle track and dismount on a sidewalk.

.

.

For sidewalk level cycle tracks, it is important to delineate the boundary between the pedestrian and bicyclist areas. Consideration should be given to how this boundary can be detectable by individuals with vision disabilities.

.

.

.

When protected by a parking lane, 3 feet is the desired width for a parking buffer to allow for passenger loading and to prevent dooring collisions.

If configured as a raised cycle track (where the cycle track is at sidewalk elevation or an elevation between the sidewalk and street), the crossing of perpendicular streets should be raised, where the sidewalk and cycle track maintain their elevation through the crossing. Sharp inclines on either side from road to sidewalk level serve as a speed hump for motor vehicles.

The width of cycle tracks should allow passing of slower bicyclists and side-by-side riding where feasible.

Bicycle lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings should be placed at the beginning of a cycle track and at periodic intervals along the facility to define the bicycle lane and indicate direction of travel.

A dashed yellow center line should be used to separate two-way bicycle travel on two-way cycle tracks and can be used to help distinguish the cycle track from adjacent pedestrian areas.

Intersection design for through and turning bicycle traffic should be carefully considered. Intersection treatments for cycle tracks can be found on pages 105-113.

For street level cycle tracks, gutters should not be included in the rideable surface width, unless that width is incorporated into the full width of the cycle track to provide a smooth rideable surface with no longitudinal joints or seams.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

Cycle tracks should be designed, constructed, and maintained to meet the standards as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) current edition, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the design guidelines below.

.

WIDTH: One-way cycle tracks have a preferred width of 7 feet (to allow passing) and a minimum width of 5 feet. Two-way cycle tracks have a preferred width of 12 feet and a minimum width of 8 feet to be used in constrained conditions only. Both measurements exclude the buffer area between the bicycle operating space and the motor vehicle travel lane.

SEPARATION FROM MOTOR VEHICLE LANE: Varies depending upon form of separation from motor vehicle traffic. See the following page.

SURFACE: Asphalt or concrete .

VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 10 feet preferred, 8 feet minimum .

HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE: 2 feet .

DESIGN SPEED: 18mph .

ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK ON A TWO-WAY STREET CROSS SECTION

FORMS OF SEPARATION

Cycle tracks are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by vertical elements. These vertical, separating elements are what make cycle tracks comfortable for a broad range of bicyclists. Below are examples of vertical elements that can be utilized to create a physical barrier, as well as the design guidelines associated with each form of separation. The selection of separation type should be based on the presence of on-street parking, overall street and right-of-way width, traffic speeds and volumes, emergency and service vehicle access, and maintenance.

Source: NACTO

Source: Alta Planning and Design

Source: Indy Star

Source: NACTO

Source: IndyCulturalTrail.org

One-way cycle track

Source: NACTO

One-way cycle track

Two-way cycle track

Two-way cycle track

One-way raised cycle track

Two-way raised cycle track

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

Buffered bicycle lanes are on-street dedicated lanes for bicycle travel separated from motor vehicle traffic by a painted buffer. Buffered bicycle lanes may be one or two-way facilities and are intended for exclusive use by bicyclists. They should be provided in combination with sidewalks.

BENEFITS

Buffered bicycle lanes provide dedicated space for bicyclists, except near intersections where motorists and bicyclists may mix depending upon intersection design.

.

Buffered lanes provide a space for bicyclists to pass other bicyclists without encroaching into the vehicle travel lane.

Compared to conventional bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes provide greater distance between motor vehicles and bicyclists.

.

Buffered bicycle lanes provide a wider space for bicycling without making the bicycle lane appear so wide that it might be mistaken for a travel lane or a parking lane.

CHALLENGES

.

Compared to conventional bicycle lanes and neighborhood bicycle routes, these facilities require additional right-of-way and/or street space.

Buffer striping requires additional time and materials for installation and maintenance. .

Unlike a cycle track, there is no physical barrier (bollard, raised curb, etc.) that restricts the encroachment of motor vehicles.

CONSIDERATIONS

Bicycle lane word and/or symbol and arrow markings must be used to define the buffered bicycle lane and designate that portion of the street for use by bicyclists. .

Where bicyclist volumes are high, bicycle speed differentials are significant, or where side by side riding is desired, the desired bicycle travel area width is 7 feet.

The bicycle lane buffer must be marked with 2 solid white lines. If the buffer is 3 feet or wider, diagonal hatching between the lines is required.

Buffered bicycle lanes that are too wide may be mistaken for general travel lanes. Therefore, 7 feet is the maximum recommended width for the rideable area.

Gutters should not be included in the rideable surface width, unless that width is incorporated into the full width of the bicycle lane to provide a smooth rideable surface with no longitudinal joints or seams parallel to the line of travel.

Intersection design should include a buffered bicycle lane design or visual cues to guide bicyclists on mixing with automobile traffic. Intersection design for through and turning bicycle traffic should be carefully considered. Intersection treatments can be found on pages 105 - 113

Dotted markings can be used to indicate the continuation of a buffered bicycle lane through an intersection.

Buffered bicycle lanes should not be placed adjacent to conventional front-in diagonal parking because drivers backing out of parking spaces have poor visibilty of bicyclists.

Buffered bicycle lanes can be retrofitted onto existing streets that have excess pavement.

Color may be used at the beginning of each block to discourage automobiles from entering the buffered bicycle lane.

Buffered bicycle lanes may sometimes be painted green, particularly where they cross intersections. This feature alerts motorists of the potential presence of bicycles and reduces the potential for collision. .

Buffered bicycle lanes are located on the vehicle travel lane side of on-street parking. On streets where the buffered bicycle lane is adjacent to on-street parking, an additional striped buffer area adjacent to the parking lane may be needed to protect bicyclists from dooring.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

Buffered bicycle lanes should be designed, constructed, and maintained to meet the standards as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) current edition, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the design guidelines below.

WIDTH: 6 feet preferred, 5 feet minimum. Where bicyclist volumes are high, bicyclist speed differentials are significant, or where side-by-side riding is desired, the desired bicycle travel area width is 7 feet.

BUFFER WIDTH: 3 feet or more preferred, 18 inches minimum .

SURFACE: Consistent with street pavement

VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 10 feet preferred, 8 feet minimum

HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE: 2 feet

DESIGN SPEED: 18mph

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE CROSS SECTION

Buffered Bicycle

Source: NACTO

Buffered Bicycle

Source: NACTO

Buffered Bicycle Lane with Green Pavement Paint Source: City of Denton, TX

Buffered Bicycle Lane Source: NACTO

This page intentionally left blank

BICYCLE LANE

Conventional bicycle lanes are on-street dedicated lanes for bicycle travel adjacent to vehicle travel lanes.

Bicycle lanes are one-way facilities that parallel the direction of travel and are located on each side of a two-way roadway or one side of a one-way roadway. These facilities are typically on the right side of the street, between the vehicle travel lane and the curb, road edge, or parking lane. Bicycle lanes should be provided in combination with sidewalks.

BENEFITS

.

Bicycle lanes create separation between bicyclists and automobiles and visually remind motorists of bicyclist rights to use the street.

CHALLENGES

Conventional bicycle lanes are not appropriate facilities for the “Interested but Concerned” bicycle user group. Instead, this facility serves more confident and experienced bicyclists.

.

Bicycle lanes are typically low-cost improvements that could require only re-striping and new signage.

. Bicycle lanes provide dedicated space for bicyclists, except near intersections where motorists and bicyclists may mix depending upon intersection design.

.

Conventional bicycle lanes are an established facility type that is understood by most motorists and other road users.

Bicycle lanes can lower motor vehicle speeds in some settings. .

.

. There is a potential risk of “dooring” when a bicycle lane is placed adjacent to on-street parking.

.

Motor vehicles sometimes drive and/or park in the bicycle lane.

Additional roadway width is needed to install a conventional bicycle lane, which might preclude other possible uses for that space, such as parking or an additional vehicle travel lane.

.

. Unlike a cycle track, there is no physical barrier (bollard, raised curb, etc.) that restricts the encroachment of motor vehicles.

CONSIDERATIONS

.

Bicycle lane word and/or symbol and arrow markings must be used to define the bicycle lane and designate that portion of the street for use by bicyclists.

A solid white lane line marking must be used to separate motor vehicle travel lanes from the bicycle lane. Most communities use a 6-8 inch line.

Bicycle lanes are most helpful on streets with posted speed limits of 25mph or greater and on streets with high transit vehicle volume. .

.

. Gutters should not be included in the rideable surface width, unless that width is incorporated into the full width of the bicycle lane to provide a smooth rideable surface with no longitudinal joints or seams parallel to the line of travel.

.

.

When a bicycle lane is placed directly adjacent to a guardrail or other physical barrier, an additional 2 feet of width is needed to provide minimum shy distance from the barrier.

When placed adjacent to a parking lane, the desirable reach from the curb face to the edge of the bicycle lane (including the parking lane, bicycle lane, and optional buffer between them) is 14.5 feet. Wherever possible, minimize parking lane width in favor of increased bicycle lane width. Also, when space allows, separation should be provided between the bicycle lane striping and the parking boundary to reduce the potential for dooring.

For high speed or high volume roads, alternative routes suitable for users of all abilities should be considered. .

.

.

Bicycle lanes can be retrofitted onto existing streets that have excess pavement. In some cases, on-street parking or driving lanes may need to be eliminated to accomodate the bicycle lane.

Bicycle lanes may sometimes be painted green, particularly where they cross intersections. This feature alerts motorists to the potential presence of bicycles and reduces the potential for collision.

Bicycle lanes should be made wider than minimum widths wherever possible to provide space for bicyclists to ride side-byside and in comfort. If sufficient space exists, buffered bicycle lanes should be considered.

.

. Intersection design should include a bicycle lane design or visual cues to guide bicyclists on mixing with automobile traffic. Intersection design for through and turning bicycle traffic should be carefully considered. Detailed intersection information can be found on pages 105 - 113.

Dotted markings can be used to indicate the continuation of a bicycle lane through an intersection. .

Bicycle lanes should not be placed adjacent to conventional front-in diagonal parking because drivers backing out of parking spaces have poor visibilty of bicyclists. .

DESIGN GUIDELINES

Bicycle lanes should be designed, constructed, and maintained to meet the standards as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) current edition, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the design guidelines below.

WIDTH: 6 feet preferred, 5 feet minimum.

SURFACE: Consistent with street pavement

VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 10 feet preferred, 8 feet minimum

HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE: 2 feet

DESIGN SPEED: 18mph .

CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANE CROSS SECTION

Conventional Bicycle Lane with Colored Pavement at the Crossing of an Intersection

This page intentionally left blank

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE

Neighborhood bicycle routes are streets with low motor vehicle volumes and speeds where bicyclists share the roadway space with motor vehicle traffic. On neighborhood bicycle routes, traffic calming measures are implemented as needed to enhance comfort for bicyclists and to further minimize motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. Neighborhood bicycle routes are identified by signage and pavement markings and should be complemented by sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Neighborhood bicycle routes are differentiated from rural bicycle routes, which are also shared road bicycle facilities, by their location and traffic volumes/speeds. Neighborhood bicycle routes are located on low-volume, low-speed, in-town streets where traffic calming is utilized to further improve the bicyclist experience. Rural bicycle routes, conversely, are located along preferred routes in rural areas with higher traffic volumes and speeds.

BENEFITS

.

.

Neighborhood bicycle routes provide a comfortable experience for bicyclists of all ages and abilities.

Pavement markings and signage increase motorist awareness of the potential presence of bicyclists.

CHALLENGES

.

Some elements of neighborhood bicycle routes have high maintenance needs. Pavement markings experience wear and tear due to motor vehicle traffic and some traffic calming elements have special maintenance needs.

. In general, maintenance, such as plowing and sweeping, is straightforward because neighborhood bicycle routes share street space with vehicles.

Neighborhood bicycle routes can be retrofitted within existing right-of-way.

. Strategically implemented traffic calming elements slow traffic, enhance the bicyclist experience, and improve motorist safety

.

Traffic calming elements are needed to create an environment comfortable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. The selection and implementation of calming elements at strategic locations requires additional planning and costs.

.

. Treatments at major intersections, to improve safety for bicyclists, must be designed and implemented.

PHOTO CREDIT: NACTO

CONSIDERATIONS

Streets classified as “local” by the City of Columbus Thoroughfare Plan are particularly well suited for neighborhood bicycle routes due to their function within the functional classification system. These streets inherently have less and slower moving traffic than other types of streets within the city because their intent is to provide local access to homes and businesses.

Signage and pavement markings are important for identifying the neighborhood bicycle route for bicyclists and for warning motorists of the possible presence of bicycle traffic.

. Neighborhood bicycle routes may be used to fill gaps between cycle tracks and other dedicated facilities for short segments where there are space constraints.

Where possible, neighborhood bicycle routes should prioritize bicycle travel. Relocating stop signs to allow through bicycle movement should be considered.

Treatments at major street crossings may be needed to maintain a safe connection for bicyclists. Intersection treatments such as median refuge islands, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs), and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK Signals), should be considered.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

Neighborhood bicycle routes should be designed, constructed, and maintained to meet the standards as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) current edition, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the design guidelines below.

SPEED LIMIT: Posted speed limits should not exceed 30mph .

SURFACE: Consistent with street pavement .

TRAFFIC CALMING: Traffic calming elements should be implemented as needed to enhance the neighborhood bicycle route and improve conditions for bicyclists of all ages and abilities.

TRAFFIC CALMING AND INTERSECTION DESIGN TREATMENTS TO CONSIDER

The following traffic calming and intersection design treatments, also called countermeasures, should be considered along Neighborhood Bicycle Routes to improve safety and enhance the bicyclist experience.

Traffic Circle

Sometimes called mini-roundabouts, traffic circles lower speeds at minor intersection crossings.

Chicane

A chicane is a slight S-curve in a street intended to slow traffic speeds.

Street Trees

Street trees create vertical “walls” framing streets, providing a defined edge of the street and resulting in motorist speed reduction.

Median Refuge Islands

Medians are raised barriers in the center portion of the intersection that provide a refuge for bicyclists crossing a busy intersection. See more on page 119.

Sharrows

Sharrows, or shared lane markings, are pavement markings in the roadway that indicate to drivers and bicyclists that a lane is to be shared.

Curb Extensions

Curb extensions narrow the roadway at an intersection and reduce the turning radius at street corners, resulting in slower motor vehicle speeds and shorter crossing distances for pedestrians. See more on page 119.

Diverters

Traffic diverters are placed at intersections to restrict through motor vehicle movements, limiting vehicle traffic volumes and giving bicyclists priority on the neighborhood bicycle route.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)

RRFBs are pedestrian/bicyclist activated signals utilized at unsignalized intersections. See more on page 120.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK Signal)

A HAWK Signal is a pedestrian and bicyclist activated signal that stops traffic at high-volume intersections, allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to cross safely. See more on page 121.

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE

Rural bicycle routes are a system of signs and pavement markings that guide bicyclists along preferred routes in rural areas outside of the Columbus city limits.

Rural bicycle routes are used to identify preferred routes where bicycle infrastructure is not needed or is not feasibile.

BENEFITS

.

Signage and pavement markings may increase motorist awareness of the potential presence of bicyclists.

CHALLENGES

.

Bicycle route signage can act as wayfinding aids, guiding experienced bicyclists to destinations and preferred transportation and recreational routes.

. The shared space of a bicycle route makes maintenance, such as sweeping and plowing, less challenging than for separated bicycle facilities.

Bicycle routes utilize signs and pavement markings to identify routes but do not use traffic calming elements. Therefore, motor vehicle traffic can move at high speeds, making these routes comfortable only for the most experienced bicyclists.

.

. Bicycle routes have a low cost of implementation.

PHOTO CREDIT: Love the Backcountry

CONSIDERATIONS

Rural bicycle routes should provide bicyclists with direction, destination, and distance information. .

Although rural bicycle routes are most appropriate for experienced bicyclists, low volume rural roads with wide shoulders and other characteristics that enhance safety are preferred. .

Signage and pavement markings are important for identifying the bicycle route for bicyclists and for warning motorists of the possible presence of bicycle traffic.

Bicycle routes are typically supplemented by signs, especially Bikes May Use Full Lane.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

Rural bicycle routes should be designed, constructed, and maintained to meet the standards as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) current edition and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Where possible, rural bicycle routes should have a minimum 4 foot paved shoulder to improve bicyclist safety.

Bicycle route Source: Bicycling.com

This page intentionally left blank

Intersection Treatments and Design Elements

INTERSECTION TREATMENTS

The following treatments should be considered at intersections to improve the safety of bicyclists and/or pedestrians at conflict points. The treatments listed below may not reflect all possible options for improving safety at intersections. Therefore, guidance published by the Indiana Design Manual and/or organizations such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the Federal Highway Administration should be referenced.

THROUGH BICYCLE LANES

Intersections with dedicated turn lanes can be challenging for bicyclists traveling in a conventional or buffered bicycle lane. Therefore, it is important to provide bicyclists with the opportunity to position themselves in a way that avoids conflicts with turning vehicles. The through bicycle lane design leads to more predictable bicyclist and motorist travel movements and positions bicyclists to the left of right turning vehicles. Similar to the lateral shift design on the adjacent page, in this configuration potential conflicts between right-turning vehicles and through bicyclists occur before the intersection. This treatment is effective for intersections where a separate bicycle signal and signal phasing is not feasible as bicyclists can proceed in the same signal phase as through and rightturning vehicles.

This design gives bicyclists priority and allows them to continue straight to the intersection. The dashed lines alert motorists to expect bicyclists and to yield to bicyclists as they make their way to the intersection. The dashed lines also signify to motorists an appropriate location to safely merge across the bicycle lane into the right turn lane.

LATERAL SHIFT

A lateral shift moves bicyclists to the left of the motor vehicle right turn lane before vehicles can merge to the right. This places responsibility of yielding on drivers turning right, and brings bicyclists into a highly visible position. In the lateral shift configuration, potential conflicts between right-turning vehicles and through bicyclists occur before the intersection. A lateral shift treatment is effective for intersections where a separate bicycle signal and signal phasing is not feasible as bicyclists can proceed in the same signal phase as through and right-turning vehicles. This design is typically achieved by removing a protected cycle track barrier or parking lane and shifting the bicycle facility closer to the adjacent motor vehicle lane to position the bicyclist to cross the intersection safely.

Source: Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Lateral Shift

Lateral Shift (Graphic Inspired by the National Highway Institute)

The following considerations apply to a lateral shift:

Provide minimum queue storage length for motor vehicles, based on right-turn volumes and cycle length.

.

. Include “Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes,” MUTCD R4-4, at the end of parking restrictions or the cycle track physical barrier.

. Provide between 20-40 feet of length to shift the bicycle facility closer to motor vehicle traffic.

The bicycle facility should terminate as close to the intersection and provide as small of a merging area as feasible. This encourages motorists to make slow and deliberate turning movements into the right turn lane. The length of the merge area should be 60 feet for roads with a speed of 30mph or less or 90 feet for roads with a speed greater than 30mph.

. Provide an optional narrow buffer with vertical delineators between the travel lanes and bicycle facility to increase comfort for bicyclists and slow driver turning speeds.

. Where a cycle track uses parked cars within the buffer zone, parking must be prohibited at the start of the transition.

.

. The lateral shift can be paired with intersection crossing markings, such as green pavement, to raise awareness of conflict points.

MIXING ZONE

A mixing zone is an area where bicyclists and right-turning motor vehicles merge into one travel lane approaching an intersection. Mixing zones can provide the best option on roadways without on-street parking and/or with limited right-of-way where the roadway width cannot accommodate both a bicycle lane and a right turn lane at the intersection. In this configuration, shared lane markings help guide bicyclists to the turning lane, which tends to have lower speed traffic than the adjacent through lane. In both examples below, include “Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes,” MUTCD R4-4 before the mixing zone.

Buffered Bicycle Lane to a Mixing Zone (Graphic Inspired by the Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide)

Cycle Track with On-Street Parking to a Mixing Zone (Graphic Inspired by the National Highway Institute)

PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS (AND BEND OUTS)

At protected intersections, the bicycle facility is set back from the parallel vehicle travel lane and bicyclists are provided with a dedicated path through the intersection. This design includes corner refuge islands, marked bicycle crossings parallel to pedestrian crosswalks, and two-stage left turns for bicyclists. The protected intersection maximizes user comfort within the intersection and promotes a high rate of motorists yielding to bicyclists. This intersection treatment positions bicyclists away from the intersection, allowing vehicles to complete turning movements before interacting with and yielding to bicyclists. It also provides space for a vehicle to yield to crossing bicycles without blocking through motor vehicle traffic. This design also provides the opportunity for a pedestrian refuge between the bicycle facility crossing and the street crossing. Protected intersections are most commonly found on streets with buffered bicycle lanes and cycle tracks protected by wide buffers or on-street parking.

Protected intersections provide a greater comfort level than other alternatives, accommodating the Interested but Concerned bicycle user group. This design helps reduce conflicts between right-turning motorists and bicyclists by reducing turning speeds and providing a forward stop bar for bicycles.

Protected intersections include “bend outs,” which are described below.

The following considerations apply to protected intersections and bend outs:

. A “Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes” sign may be placed at the intersection. .

The bicycle facility and crosswalk may be raised to sidewalk level through the intersection, providing a traffic calming effect and increasing visibility of bicyclists.

Wayfinding and directional signage may be needed to direct bicyclists through the intersection. .

.

Colored pavement may be used within the corner refuge area to clarify use by bicyclists and discourage use by pedestrians.

Protected signal phasing may provide additional comfort for less confident bicyclists. .

Retrofit implementation can include lower costs if existing curbs and drainage are maintained. Inexpensive materials, such as concrete planters and bollards, can be used.

Protected Intersection Source: Rundell Ernstberger Associates

Setback bicycle crossing of 16.5 feet allows for one passenger car to queue while yielding.

The bend out configuration can also be applied to shared use paths at signalized and unsignalized intersections. By increasing the offset distance between the shared use path crossing and the primary intersection, motorists turning from the parallel roadway are better positioned to see bicyclists at the crossing. This offset distance also creates a space for right-turning vehicles to yield and wait for through moving bicyclists and pedestrians. A larger offset allows motorists exiting a driveway or side street onto a primary roadway to separate yielding actions, yielding first to shared use path users and again, after pulling forward, to traffic on the primary roadway. The Dutch CROW Manual recommends 16-23 feet of setback from the curb line of the parallel street.

Protected Intersection with On-Street Parking (Graphic Inspired by NACTO)

Bend Out Without On-Street Parking (Graphic Inspired by the Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide)

PROTECTED BICYCLE SIGNAL PHASE

The safety of bicycle facility crossings at signalized intersections can be increased by using a protected bicycle signal phase, which reduces conflicts with motor vehicles by separating bicycle movements from any conflicting motor vehicle movements. Fully separated signal phases for bicycles and vehicles provide a green bicycle phase and pedestrian walk signal while motor vehicles have a red arrow, prohibiting right turns. This phase is followed by a motor vehicle turning phase with a red bicycle signal.

Bicycle signals are traditional three lens signal heads with green, yellow, and red bicycle stenciled lenses. The separated bicycle signal phase is typically used when increased conflict points warrant protected operation for bicyclists.

The bicycle signal must be timed so that bicyclists moving on a green or yellow signal of a bicycle signal will not be in conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle movement at the signalized intersection. Right turn on red should be prohibited in locations where the operation would conflict with a green bicycle signal indication.

Bicycles at signalized intersections should be able to trigger signals and safely maneuver through the intersection. Bicycle detection and actuation systems include user-activated buttons mounted on a pole, loop detectors that trigger a change in the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected, and video detection cameras that use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at a location.

Protected Bicycle Signal Phase (Source: NACTO)

BIKE BOXES

A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists using a conventional bicycle lane, buffered bicycle lane, and some cycle tracks with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during a red light. Bike boxes increase visibility of bicyclists and help prevent conflicts with rightturning vehicles at the beginning of a green light signal. Bike boxes can also facilitate the positioning of left turning bicyclists when the bike box extends across the entire intersection. Bike boxes are typically 10 to 16 feet deep.

Bike Box Source: NACTO

TWO STAGE BICYCLE TURN BOXES

The two stage bicycle turn box designates an area at an intersection for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before making a left turn at multi-lane signalized intersections from a right side cycle track or bicycle lane. Two stage bicycle turn boxes can also be used at unsignalized intersections to simplify turns from a bicycle lane or cycle track onto a neighborhood bicycle route, for example.

With the two stage bicycle turn box, bicyclists cross the intersection within the bicycle lane, buffered bicycle lane, or cycle track, stop within the turn box, reorient themselves to the cross street, and wait for the signal for the cross street to proceed. This design eliminates the need for bicyclists to merge across travel lanes.

The two stage bicycle turn box is essential in protected intersections. Because protected intersections prevent bicyclists from merging into traffic to make left turns, the two stage bicycle turn box provides the opportunity to make such turns.

The following considerations apply to two stage bicycle turn boxes:

A two stage bicycle turn box must be located outside of the path of through and turning traffic. Typically, this protected area is within an on-street parking area or between the bicycle facility and the pedestrian crossing.

. A two stage bicycle turn box must include a bicycle symbol oriented in the direction in which bicyclists enter the box, along with an arrow showing the direction of the turn.

.

. If limited space or right-of-way prevents the placement of a two stage bicycle turn box within a protected location, the turn box may be located behind the pedestrian crosswalk. This configuration should only be considered in locations where pedestrian volumes are low because bicyclists will need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk before entering the turn box.

Colored pavement should be used to make the turn box more visible to roadway users. .

A “No Turn on Red” sign must be installed to prevent vehicles from entering the turn box to make a right turn. .

As of July 2017, communities wishing to use two stage bicycle turn boxes must request approval under FHWA Interim Approval 20. .

MID-BLOCK AND UNSIGNALIZED CROSSING TREATMENTS

Driveways, alleys, and unsignalized intersections present unique challenges for bicyclists when they intersect with cycle tracks and shared use paths due to vehicle turning movements and through movement by bicyclists. The risk at these intersections is heightened on two-way facilities when bicyclists are traveling in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic on the same side of the street. These conflict points can be mitigated through design tools that improve visibility and make motorists aware of bicyclist movement. The following tools should be considered when cycle tracks and shared use paths intersect with alleys, driveways, and unsignalized intersections. The text below emphasizes safety improvements for bicyclists but, if a shared use path is the intersecting facility, these improvements also improve safety for pedestrians.

1 Parking Restrictions

Parking should be prohibited at least 20 feet, 30 feet preferred, from the edge of a driveway or similar crossing to create clear sight lines. The distance chosen should be based on vehicle speeds and volumes.

2 Colored Pavement Markings

Colored pavement markings and/or shared lane markings can be used through the conflict area to improve visibility of the cycle track or shared use path and to reinforce the presence of bicyclists.

3 Raised Crossing

In addition to colored pavement markings, crossings may be designed as raised crossings to slow turning cars and assert physical priority of bicycles. With this design, motor vehicles “ramp up” to the shared use path or cycle track, if at sidewalk elevation.

4 Signage

Appropriate signage can alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists. Warning signs, such MUTCD W11-15 and MUTCD W16-7P (shown below) can be placed at the crossing to improve motorist awareness.

5 Small Turning Radii

Smaller turning radii should be used at turns to slow motorists.

6 Stop Bars

Motor vehicle stop bars on cross streets and driveways or alleys should be set back from the intersection to ensure that drivers slow down and look for bicyclists before turning.

MUTCD W11-15 MUTCD W16-7P

Painted cycle track at unsignalized crossing Source: Rundell Ernstberger Associates

Striped shared use path at driveway crossing Source: Rundell Ernstberger Associates

OTHER INTERSECTION DESIGN ELEMENTS

The following describes other intersection design features that improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.

MARKED CROSSWALKS

Legal crosswalks exist at all intersections, even when pavement markings are not present, unless there is a sign prohibiting pedestrians from crossing the street. Indiana State Law requires all drivers to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. A marked crosswalk communicates to motorists that they must yield to pedestrians and encourages pedestrians to cross at designated locations. Installing crosswalks alone does not always enhance the comfort of crossing. In addition to pavement markings, crosswalks may be enhanced with refuge islands, active warning beacons, curb extensions, and other traffic calming features. At mid-block locations, crosswalks can be marked where there is a demand for crossing and there are no nearby marked crosswalks.

The following considerations apply to marked cosswalks:

Place crosswalks on all legs of signalized intersections, in school zones, and across streets with more than minimal levels of traffic.

Crosswalks should be at least 9 feet wide or the width of the approaching sidewalk if it is greater. .

.

Stop lines at stop-controlled and signalized intersection approaches should be striped no less than 4 feet and no more than 30 feet from the edge of crosswalks.

Continential crosswalk striping is the preferred crosswalk marking in Columbus. Zebra, ladder, and other highly visible crosswalk markings could also be used. Using only parallel lines to delineate the crosswalk should be avoided due to a lack of visibility.

Crosswalks should be oriented perpendicular to streets to minimize the crossing distance and limit the time that pedestrians are exposed in the roadway.

Raised crossings can calm traffic and increase the visibility of pedestrians. For more information see page 118.

Curb extensions, also known as bump-outs, reduce the distance pedestrians have to cross and calm traffic. For more information see page 119. .

Reasonable accommodation should be made to make crossings both convenient and in locations with adequate visibility.

Continential Crosswalk

Decorative Crosswalk

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

All traffic signals should be equipped with pedestrian signal indications except where pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signage. Pedestrian signals increase the comfort and safety of pedestrians and can make large intersections less intimidating for pedestrians.

Improvements may be made to signalized intersections to reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and increase user comfort and usability. Signal improvements should be prioritized at intersections with a history of crash risk, long crossing distances, or large volumes of turning vehicles.

Appropriate pedestrian crossing time is an important consideration for the pedestrian network. The MUTCD recommends a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second but crossing speeds of 3 feet per second can accommodate older pedestrians and pedestrians with disabilities. Furthermore, longer crossing times can improve pedestrian comfort at crossings.

The following considerations apply to marked cosswalks:

Countdown signals can be used to indicate if a pedestrian has time to cross an intersection.

Pedestrian signals must comply with ADA standards.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) give pedestrians a head start into the intersection, which can reduce right turn and left turn vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.

Audible pedestrian signals make signals accessible by individuals with visual impairments by providing audible tones or verbal messages to convey when it is appropriate to walk.

Shorter cycle lengths and extended walk intervals provide better service to pedestrians and encourage better signal compliance.

Pedestrian push-buttons can be installed at locations where pedestrians are intermittent. When used, push-buttons should be well signed and within convenient reach from a flat surface for pedestrians in wheelchairs and those with visual impairments. Push-buttons should be located where pedestrians commonly wait to cross.

Consider an all-pedestrian signal in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic to give pedestrians free passage in the intersection with all motor vehicle traffic stopped. All-pedestrian signals can reduce pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles in downtown areas.

Pedestrian Countdown Signal

Pedestrian Countdown Signal Signage Source: Manual of Traffic Signs

RAISED CROSSINGS

A raised crosswalk maintains the elevation of the sidewalk or shared use path through the intersection. Raised crossings eliminate grade changes from the sidewalk/shared use path to the street and give users increased visibility as they cross the street. Raised crosswalks also function as speed tables, encouraging motorists to use slower speeds through the intersection. Raised crossings should only be used in cases where a special emphasis on pedestrians is desired. Raised crosswalks are typically implemented on low-speed streets, neighborhood bicycle routes, and other areas of high pedestrian activity. They are often paired with other treatments such as curb extensions for greater traffic calming.

The crosswalk table of a raised crossing is typically a minimum of 10 feet wide and designed to allow the front and rear wheels of a passenger vehicle to be on top of the table at the same time. Detectable warnings must be used at curb edges of raised crosswalks to alert vision-impaired pedestrians that they are entering the roadway. Raised crossings should only be installed on streets with a posted speed limit of 30mph or less.

CURB RAMPS

ADA compliant curb ramps are necessary at street corners and crosswalks to provide a smooth transition from the sidewalk to the roadway. Ramps should be made as wide as the approaching sidewalk or path to accommodate more than one user at a time. Two perpendicular curb ramps should be used at each corner, with diagonal curb ramps strongly discouraged and reserved only for unique circumstances. Diagonal curb ramps orient pedestrians directly into the traffic zone, which can be especially confusing for drivers and challenging for wheelchair and visually-impaired pedestrians, as well as those with strollers or small children.

A sidewalk without a curb ramp can be a barrier to many pedestrians, drastically limiting their mobility.

The following considerations apply to curb ramps.

Curb ramps must be installed at all intersections and midblock crossings.

Existing intersections without curb ramps should be upgraded to current standards when appropriate.

Curb ramps shall be located so they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking aisles.

The edge of a curb ramp shall be marked with a tactile warning device to alert people with visual impairments to changes in the pedestrian environment.

. The level landing at the top of a curb ramp must be at least 4 feet long and at least the same width as the ramp itself. To accommodate pedestrians in wheelchairs, a width of 5 feet is preferred.

Raised Crosswalk Source: Vision Zero for Youth

Curb Ramps

CURB EXTENSIONS

Curb extensions, also known as curb bump-outs, are created by extending the sidewalk at corners or midblock crossings. Curb extensions are intended to increase safety for pedestrians and calm motor vehicle traffic. Curb extensions minimize pedestrian exposure by shortening the crossing distance at intersections and provide better visibility for pedestrians intending to cross the street. Curb extensions can additionally be used to create smaller corner radii, which slows the speed of turning motor vehicles, and to restrict parking at intersections, enhancing pedestrian visibility.

Curb extensions should be considered only where parking is present or where motor vehicle traffic deflection is provided through other curbside uses. Furthermore, curb extensions should not restrict a travel lane or bicycle lane to an unsafe width.

Planted curb extensions may be designed as a bioswale for stormwater management.

MEDIAN REFUGE ISLANDS

Median refuge islands are located in the center of the street and help improve pedestrian access by increasing pedestrian visibility and allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Refuge islands minimize pedestrian exposure at mid-block crossings by shortening the crossing distance and increasing the number of available gaps in traffic for crossing. Median refuge islands also calm traffic by narrowing the roadway.

The following considerations apply to refuge islands.

Refuge islands can be utilized on any roadway with a left turn center lane or median that is at least 6 feet wide.

Refuge islands may be applicable on multiple-lane roadways depending on traffic speed and volume.

Active warning beacons can improve vehicle yielding compliance.

Refuge islands can be used at signalized and unsignalized crosswalks. .

The refuge island must meet ADA requirements including detectable warning elements if the island is greater than 6 feet in width. Detectable warning elements must be full width and 2 feet deep to warn visually impaired pedestrians.

. It is preferable for refuge islands to be at-grade passthrough islands rather than with curb ramps and landings.

Refuge islands require 6 feet width but 8-10 feet is preferred to accommodate bicycles and wheelchair users. A length of 20 feet is required but 40 feet is preferred. A clear width of 4 feet is required, but it is preferable for the refuge to be the same width as the crosswalk.

Curb Extensions

Source: Rundell Ernstberger Associates

Pedestrian Refuge Island Source: NACTO

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON (RRFB)

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are a type of warning beacon used at unsignalized crossings. RRFBs can be particularly effective at locations with four or more lanes, where automobiles are less likely to comply with laws that require motorists to yield to pedestrians and where vehicle speeds and poor pedestrian visibility combine to create conditions where very few drivers are compelled to yield.

RRFBs are typically activated manually by pedestrians with a push button or can be actuated automatically with passive detection systems. RRFBs must cease operation at a predetermined time after user actuation or, with passive detection, after the user clears the crosswalk.

RRFBs are considerably less expensive to install than mast arm-mounted signals and can be installed with solar power panels to eliminate the need for an external power source.

The following considerations apply to RRFB signals:

RRFBs should only be used in locations with critical safety concerns and should not be installed in locations with sight distance constraints that limit the driver’s ability to view pedestrians when approaching the crosswalk. . Advanced stop bars and signs should be used.

RRFBs should be used for high-volume pedestrian crossings and for priority bicycle route crossings or where bicycle facilities cross roads at mid-block locations.

RRFBs are not warranted at intersections with signals or stop signs.

RRFBs shoud be installed on both sides of the street at the edge of the crosswalk. If there is a pedestrian refuge island or other type of median, an additional beacon should be installed in the median.

RRFB Signal at River Road and Royal Street

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON (HAWK SIGNAL)

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, also known as High Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacons (HAWK Signals), are a type of hybrid signal intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to stop traffic in order to cross high volume streets. This type of signal may be used in lieu of a full signal that meets any of the traffic signal control warrants in the MUTCD. It may also be used at locations which do not meet traffic signal warrants but where assistance is needed for pedestrians or bicyclists to cross a high volume arterial street.

The HAWK Signal consists of a traffic signal head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on a major street and a pedestrian signal head for the crosswalk. The signal is only activated when a pedestrian and/or bicyclist is present, resulting in minimal delay for automobile traffic. HAWK signals are used at marked mid-block crossings or unsignalized intersections. They are typically activated with a push button at each end. If a median refuge island is used, another pedestrian push button can be located in the island to create a two-stage crossing.

The following considerations apply to HAWK signals:

.

Parking and other sign obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk to provide adequate sight distance.

.

Engineering judgment and best practices should be used to ensure safe and appropriate signal timing for all phases.

The MUTCD provides standards related to the design and location of the beacons. The MUTCD also provides warrants for the use of these signals based on motor vehicle speed, crossing length, motor vehicle volumes, and pedestrian volumes.

.

Push buttons should be placed in convenient locations for all users and should comply with ADA standards. Passive signal activation, such as infrared detection, may also be used.

HAWK Signal at Washington Street and 17th Street

If HAWK signals are placed in an existing signalized corridor, they shall be coordinated with existing signal systems. .

This page intentionally left blank

Facility Transitions

TRANSITIONS BETWEEN BICYCLE FACILITY TYPES

Columbus’ bicycle network is comprised of a variety of bicycle facility types, including both on- and off-street facilities. As bicyclists make their way from origin to destination or as they ride recreationally around the city, they will likely experience situations where one facility type ends and another begins. Bicycle facility transitions should be designed so bicyclists do not face uncertainty where the facility begins, ends, or intersects with another bicycle facility. These transitions should be designed to minimize conflicts with motor vehicle traffic and/or pedestrians and to allow bicyclists to intuitively and safely switch from one facility to the next. If the transition involves downgrading to a less protected bicycle facility, wayfinding signage should be installed at the transition to alert bicyclists of when and where they will transition back to a protected facility.

Design recommendations for various types of transitions are described below. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guide current edition and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be referenced for specific design and signage recommendations.

Several of the following transition recommendations utilize bicycle exit and entrance ramps. The Indiana Design Manual (2013) offers the following geometry guidelines for the bicycle ramp transition.

TRANSITION FROM: ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK TO: BICYCLE LANE

A roadway with a cycle track may narrow to the point where it is no longer feasible to provide space for separation. In locations where a one-way cycle track must continue as a conventional bicycle lane, signage and pavement markings should be used to clearly communicate the transition to both bicyclists and motorists.

The diagrams on the adjacent page illustrate how this transition could occur before and after an intersection.

Transition After the Intersection

This transition maintains bicyclist separation from motor vehicle traffic through the intersection, reducing conflicts with turning vehicles within the intersection. It offsets the bicycle crossing to promote visibility of bicyclists and utilizes two stage turn queue boxes to facilitate left turns. A similar design could be used for a transition from a one-way cycle track to a buffered bicycle lane.

One-Way Cycle Track

Transition Prior to the Intersection

Where one-way cycle tracks must terminate prior to an intersection, the cycle track may transition to a shared lane prior to the intersection. This transition occurs by terminating the vertical barrier of the cycle track, such as parking or curbing, in advance of the intersection to develop a separate bicycle lane and turn lane. In this scenario, the cycle track should terminate as close to the intersection as possible and provide as small of a merging area as feasible. Include a “Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes,” MUTCD R4-4, prior to the merge area.

Cycle Track Transition to Conventional Bicycle Lane Before an Intersection (Graphic Inspired by the National Highway Institute)

Transition from Cycle Track to Conventional Bicycle Lane (Graphic Inspired by the Montgomery County Planning Department Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit - 2018)

Sidewalk

Sidewalk

Bicycle Entrance Ramp

Bicycle Exit Ramp

TRANSITION FROM: ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK TO: SHARED LANE (NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE, RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE, OR NO DEDICATED BICYCLE FACILITY)

Where a one-way cycle track transitions to a shared lane (neighborhood bicycle route or rural bicycle route) or ends with no bicycle facility beyond, signage and pavement markings should alert both bicyclists and motorists of the upcoming transition.

For bicyclists approaching the end of the cycle track where no bicycle facility continues, alerts should be provided with enough advance warning to allow for a change in route, especially if the cycle track terminates in an area with high vehicular traffic volumes. For transitions that occur in high-volume locations, a safe landing point for bicyclists should be created on the street or adjacent sidewalk.

The transition from a one-way cycle track to a shared lane or no bicycle facility can occur before or after an intersection. The graphics below and on the following page illustrate these two design options.

Transition After the Intersection

The graphic below illustrates the transition from a cycle track to a shared lane (a neighborhood bicycle route or a rural bicycle route) occurring after the intersection crossing. This transition could also be utilized for a transition to a corridor with no dedicated bicycle facility. This design maintains bicyclist separation from motor vehicle traffic through the intersection, reducing conflicts with turning vehicles within the intersection. It offsets the bicycle crossing to promote visibility of bicyclists, incorporating the “bend out” intersection treatment, and utilizes two stage turn queue boxes to facilitate left turns.

Transition from Cycle Track to Shared Lane - Neighborhood Bicycle Route or Bicycle Route (Graphic Inspired by the Montgomery County Planning Department Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit - 2018)

One-Way Cycle Track

Bicycle Entrance Ramp

Bicycle Exit Ramp

Sidewalk

Sidewalk

Transition Prior to the Intersection

Where one-way cycle tracks must terminate prior to an intersection, the cycle track may transition to a shared lane prior to the intersection. The graphic below illustrates how a mixing zone at the intersection can facilitate this transition. The transition occurs by terminating the vertical protection of the cycle track in advance of the intersection to develop a shared turn lane. In this configuration, shared lane markings help guide bicyclists to the turning lane, which tends to have lower speed traffic than the adjacent through lane. When the cycle track ends, signage should be installed that communicates the termination of the bicycle facility, such as ‘Bikes Should Merge with Traffic’ and ‘Bike Lane Ends.’

TRANSITION FROM: BUFFERED AND CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANES TO: SHARED LANE (NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE, RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE, OR NO DEDICATED BICYCLE FACILITY)

Where buffered or conventional bicycle lanes terminate and continue as a shared lane (neighborhood bicycle route, rural bicycle route, or a roadway with no dedicated bicycle facility), a mixing zone at the intersection can facilitate the transition. In this configuration, shared lane markings help guide bicyclists to the turning lane, which tends to have lower speed traffic than the adjacent through lane. When a buffered or conventional bicycle lane ends, whether at an intersection with a mixing zone or at a mid-block location, signage should be installed that communicates the termination of the bicycle facility, such as ‘Bikes Should Merge with Traffic’ and ‘Bike Lane Ends.’

Buffered Bicycle Lane to a Mixing Zone (Graphic Inspired by the Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide)

Transition from Buffered Bicycle Lane to Shared Lane with a Mixing Zone

TRANSITION FROM: SHARED USE PATHS AND TWO-WAY CYCLE TRACKS TO: BICYCLE LANES, BUFFERED BICYCLE LANES, AND ON-STREET ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACKS

Transitions at the beginning and end of shared use paths and two-way cycle tracks require special consideration because these facilities are typically located on only one side of the street, requiring bicyclists to make their way across vehicle travel lanes to the opposite side of the street. This transition can occur mid-block or at an intersection, each situation requiring a different treatment. The examples below depict both a mid-block and intersection transition. In both cases, the bicyclist is protected throughout the transition and does not mix with vehicular traffic except at the crosswalk. In each scenario, signage and pavement markings emphasizing the transition should be installed at and leading up to the transition. Green paint can be used at the junction of these facilities to further alert path users of the safest way to transition to the next facility type.

Mid-block Transition

The graphic below depicts a mid-block transition from a shared use path on one side of the street to one-way buffered bicycle lanes on each side of the street, paired with sidewalks. This design concept could also apply to transitions from shared use paths to conventional bicycle lanes and to on-street one-way cycle tracks. This design makes use of a median island and horizontal deflection of the roadway travel lanes to slow motor vehicle traffic and to offer safe crossing conditions for path users.

Transition from Shared Use Path to Buffered Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks (Graphic Inspired by Small Town and Rural Multi-Modal Networks/FHWA)

Shared Use Path

Bicycle Entrance Ramp

Bicycle Exit Ramp

Sidewalk

Sidewalk

Intersection Transition

The graphic below illustrates how a two-way cycle track on one side of the street transitions to one-way cycle tracks while keeping bicyclists protected through an intersection. This design can be used at intersections with all types of traffic control and provides opportunities on both sides of the intersection to transition from the one-way to the two-way cycle track. Bicyclists in the one-way cycle track approaching the intersection at a red light can use the near-side crossing while bicyclists approaching the intersection at a green light can continue through the intersection and use the far side crossing. This treatment utilizes the “bend out” design, which creates space between the bicycle crossing and turning vehicles. While the graphic illustrates a cycle track transition, a similar design could be utilized for a transition from a shared use path to conventional bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, and a one-way cycle track with a bicycle ramp entrance and exit.

TRANSITION FROM: SHARED USE PATHS AND TWO-WAY CYCLE TRACKS TO: SHARED LANE (NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE, BICYCLE ROUTE, OR NO DEDICATED BICYCLE FACILITY)

A roadway with a shared use path or two-way cycle track may narrow to a point where it is only feasible to continue with a shared lane facility, such as a neighborhood bicycle route, a rural bicycle route, or a roadway with no dedicated bicycle facility. In this situation, a design similar to the graphics on pages 128 and 129 could be utilitized. These designs safely transition bicyclists to the appropriate side of the street so they are prepared to mix with motor vehicle traffic. This design would utilize Bicycle Entrance and Exit Ramps to facilitate a smooth transition, and pavement markings and signage would be required at the Bicycle Entrance Ramp to require bicyclists to yield prior to merging onto the street in shared lanes with motor vehicle traffic.

Transition from Two-Way Cycle Track on one side of the road to One-Way Cycle Tracks (Graphic Inspired by the Montgomery County Planning Department Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit - 2018)

Sidewalk

Two-Way Cycle Track

One-Way Cycle Track

TRANSITION FROM: BICYCLE LANE, BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE, AND ONSTREET ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK TO: ROUNDABOUTS

Bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, and one-way, on-street cycle tracks are not recommended within roundabouts. The additional width of these bicycle facilities, particularly the buffered and conventional bicycle lanes, can increase vehicular speed and increase the possibility of vehicle-bicycle collisions. Therefore, these bicycle facilities should terminate prior to the start of the roundabout and bicyclists should either proceed through the roundabout mixed with motor vehicle traffic or exit the roadway, via a bicycle exit ramp, and navigate the roundabout on a shared use path with pedestrians. This transition design, which provides both an on- and off-street option, allows bicyclists of all ages and abilities to comfortably navigate the roundabout. Experienced bicyclists can continue on-street, mixed with motor vehicle traffic, and less experienced bicyclists can reach an off-street shared use path and utilize crosswalks at the intersection.

The following considerations apply to this roundabout design:

.

To facilitate these options, bicycle exit ramps should be provided on all approaches to the roundabout, and bicycle entrance ramps should be provided at each outlet where on-street bicycle facilities return.

To accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians on the shared use path, a minimum width of 10 feet should be provided. . Appropriate pavement markings and signage should communicate these options to bicyclists and guide them to the shared use path if they desire to exit the street.

.

.

Shared use paths should be connected by ramps to the roadway 50 to 150 feet upstream of the yield point on each approach and outlet of the roundabout.

The bicycle exit and entrance ramps should have a 25- to 35-degree angle toward the roadway. .

Bicycle entrance ramps should be signed as bicycle-only to discourage pedestrians from entering the roadway.

To improve the safety of bicyclists in the roundabout, entry curvature and entry widths that slow motor vehicle traffic entering the roadabout should be used.

Bicycle Exit and Entrance Ramps at a Roundabout (Indiana Design Manual 2013)

TRANSITION SIGNAGE

Where one facility transitions to another or a facility ends, signs or other forms of wayfinding should communicate to users how and where to continue their journey. The sign to the right, for example, was placed where a shared use path transitions to a sidewalk and a bicycle lane. It directs users to where they can make the appropriate connections.

Sign placed where a shared use path transitions to a sidewalk and a bicycle lane. This sign is shown as an example. Colors and design of signage in Columbus will be based on the City of Columbus Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail Visual Identity document.

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS AREA VISITORS CENTER (Top Right), CRH HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

07 RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provides a comprehensive set of recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and policies. These recommendations, collectively, will help Columbus achieve a bicycle and pedestrian network that is connected, safe, convenient, and equitable.

Infrastructure recommendations in this chapter are considered planning-level and should be used as a guide during implementation of future bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

This chapter includes the following sub-chapters:

Bicycle Facilities, Pedestrian Facilities, and Intersections Policy and Program Recommendations . . Lighting .

This page intentionally left blank

RECOMMENDATIONS

BICYCLE FACILITY TOOLBOX OVERVIEW

The City will utilize a variety of bicycle facility types in order to meet the needs of bicyclists of all abilities and to respond to the unique characteristics of individual roadways, including traffic volume, traffic speed, and availability of road rightof-way.

LOW-STRESS BICYCLE FACILITIES

SHARED USE PATH CYCLE TRACK

Shared use paths are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and provide shared space for twoway bicycle and pedestrian traffic. They may be located parallel to roadways or in areas outside of the roadway network, such as in parks or along rivers.

Shared use paths should be a minimum of 10 feet wide to accommodate bidirectional traffic and both bicyclists and pedestrians.

A cycle track is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by vertical elements.

Cycle tracks may be one-way or twoway and may be at street level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. If at sidewalk level, a curb separates them from motor vehicle traffic while different pavement color or texture separates the cycle track from the sidewalk. If at street level, the cycle track can be separated from motor vehicle traffic by bollards, raised medians, flexible delineators, or on-street parking.

Cycle tracks are differentiated from conventional and buffered bicycle lanes by the vertical element that separates them from motor vehicle traffic. Cycle tracks are sometimes called “protected bicycle lanes” or “separated bicycle lanes.”

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE

Neighborhood bicycle routes are streets with low motor vehicle volumes and speeds where bicyclists share the roadway space with motor vehicle traffic. On neighborhood bicycle routes, traffic calming measures are implemented as needed to enhance comfort for bicyclists and to further minimize motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. Neighborhood bicycle routes are identified by signage and pavement markings and should be complemented by sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Neighborhood bicycle routes are differentiated from rural bicycle routes, which are also shared road bicycle facilities, by their location and traffic volumes/speeds. Neighborhood bicycle routes are located on low-volume, low-speed, in-town streets where traffic calming is utilized to further improve the bicyclist experience. Rural bicycle routes, conversely, are located along preferred routes in rural areas with higher traffic volumes and speeds.

The following facility types are part of Columbus’ bicycle facility “toolbox.” Sidewalks are not included in this toolbox but inexperienced bicyclists and children are permitted to use sidewalks when no on-street bicycle facility is available or when they are uncomfortable using the provided on-street bicycle facility. See pages 84-103 for design guidelines and more information about the bicycle facilities below.

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE BICYCLE LANE RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE

Buffered bicycle lanes are on-street dedicated lanes for bicycle travel separated from motor vehicle traffic by a painted buffer.

Buffered bicycle lanes may be one or two-way facilities and are intended for exclusive use by bicyclists.

Conventional bicycle lanes are onstreet dedicated lanes for bicycle travel adjacent to vehicle travel lanes.

Bicycle lanes are one-way facilities that parallel the direction of travel and are located on each side of a two-way roadway or one side of a one-way roadway.

Rural bicycle routes are a system of signs and pavement markings that guide bicyclists along preferred routes in rural areas outside of the Columbus city limits.

Bicycle routes are used to identify preferred routes where bicycle infrastructure is not needed or is not feasibile.

BICYCLE FACILITY SYSTEM MAP

This map identifies Columbus’ existing bicycle network and the approximately 157 miles of proposed new bicycle facilities.

NOTES:

Some of the existing shared use paths do not meet current width standards and should be widened in the future to meet minimum standards.

The proposed facilities shown on this map are based on existing best available data and street conditions. Proposed facilities are also aspirational, reflecting the best future conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. As designs progress, facility types and routes may be altered.

Recommended Existing

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE

BICYCLE LANE

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

CYCLE TRACK PARK SCHOOL

SHARED USE PATH

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

Note: Proposed Shared Use Path and Cycle Track to replace existing Neighborhood Bicycle Routes

CliftyCreek

HawCreek Sloan Branch

BICYCLE FACILITY SYSTEM MAP: CITY ENLARGEMENT

This map is an enlargement of the project area, providing more detail in the Columbus urbanized area.

NOTES:

Some of the existing shared use paths do not meet current width standards and should be widened in the future to meet minimum standards.

The proposed facilities shown on this map are based on existing best available data and street conditions. Proposed facilities are also aspirational, reflecting the best future conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. As designs progress, facility types and routes may be altered.

Clifty Creek

Recommended Existing

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE

BICYCLE LANE

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

CYCLE TRACK PARK SCHOOL

SHARED USE PATH

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

Note: Proposed Cycle Track to replace existing Neighborhood Bicycle Route

BICYCLE FACILITY SYSTEM MAP: LOW-STRESS NETWORK

Over 70% of survery respondents indicated that, as bicyclists, they are uncomfortable sharing the road with motor vehicle traffic. These bicyclists prefer to bike in spaces that are separated from motor vehicle traffic. Therefore, the proposed bicycle system includes a connected network of low-stress facilities that allow for families and the “Interested but Concerned” user group to comfortably reach their destinations.

In Columbus, bicycle facilities are considered low-stress if they provide physical separation from motor vehicle traffic. Thus, the low-stress network includes shared use paths and cycle tracks. Cycle tracks can be physically separated from traffic lanes by curbing, tree lawns, planters, vertical delineators, and similar vertical elements.

Providing a connected and extensive system of low-stress bicycle facilities enables families and inexperienced bicyclists to commute and recreate throughout the community and could encourage new riders to choose bicycling as an alternative to driving.

Recommended Existing

SHARED USE PATH

EXISTING RRFB OR HAWK SIGNAL

GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING

BICYCLE FACILITY SYSTEM MAP: ON-STREET NETWORK

A system of on-street bicycle facilities is an important component of the overall bicycle network.

On-street facilities are often preferred by experienced bicyclists because they allow cyclists to travel at higher speeds as compared to shared use facilities and they allow cyclists to avoid conflicts with slower moving bicyclists and pedestrians on shared use facilities. Furthermore, on low-volume and low-speed streets, on-street bicycle facilities can be an economical way of establishing a safe bicycle connection.

Recommended Existing

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE

BICYCLE LANE

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

CYCLE TRACK PARK

SCHOOL

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

THE BICYCLE NETWORK BY THE

PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENT MAP

This map identifies a subset of the major pedestrian corridors, as identified in Chapter 3, where Columbus will dedicate its resources to repair and install sidewalks. The identified pedestrian corridors are those in most need of improvements based on where sidewalks need repair, where sidewalks are missing, and where pedestrian connections to key destinations are most needed. The map includes the following elements:

MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS - The identified major pedestrian corridors are a subset of the corridors identified in Chapter 3 of this document. These corridors will be a focus of pedestrian improvements due to missing sidewalks, sidewalks in disrepair, and the role of the corridor in making important connections throughout the community.

SHARED USE PATHS - Existing and proposed shared use paths establish connections along some of the major pedestrian corridors.

NOTATION OF NEEDED SIDEWALKS - Where shared use paths do not improve or establish connections along the pedestrian corridors, sidewalks should complete these connections. The sidewalk feature on this map indicates areas where sidewalk repair and installation is needed along each of the major pedestrian corridors.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT - Several areas of the community are hotspots for sidewalk disrepair. This map identifies two areas in the densely populated downtown Columbus where sidewalk repair should be strategically performed to improve pedestrian access and circulation.

SHARED USE PATH (EXISTING / PROPOSED)

MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR NEEDING FOCUSED IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING SHARED USE PATH ALONG MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR

PROPOSED SHARED USE PATH ALONG MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR

WHERE SIDEWALKS NEED REPAIR OR INSTALLATION ALONG MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR

AREA WHERE SIDEWALK REPAIR IS NEEDED

(STUDY

PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS MAP

This map identifies the intersections that have been prioritized for additional engineering analysis and improvement based on high rates of bicycle and pedestrian collisions, the presence of high-speed and high-volume roadways, public input, and location within or adjacent to disadvantaged neighborhoods. These intersections have been identified independently of intersection improvements that will be necessary with the construction of proposed, new bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

HIGHEST PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

3rd Street / Lindsey Street

7th Street / Central Avenue

19th Street / Central Avenue

19th Street / Hawcreek Avenue

25th Street / Home Avenue

25th Street / Maple Street

25th Street / Taylor Road

S.R. 46 / Two Mile House Road

Rocky Ford Road / Middle Road

Rocky Ford Road / Marr Road

HIGHER PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

11th Street / Chestnut Street

25th Street / Marr Road

27th Street / Home Avenue

30th Street / Marr Road

C.R. 200 South / Daylily Drive

Hillcrest Drive / Marr Road

S.R. 46 / Goeller Boulevard

State Street / Gladstone Avenue

U.S. 31 / Beam Road

U.S. 31 / Westenedge Drive

HIGH PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

10th Street / Central Avenue

11th Street / Washington Street

17th Street / Central Avenue

25th Street / Hawcreek Avenue

Central Avenue / Cunningham Drive (at SUP crossing)

C.R. 25 East / River Road

Rocky Ford Road / River Road / Sycamore Drive

S.R. 46 / Carr Hill Road

S.R. 46 / CR 325 East / Westwood Boulevard

State Street / Indiana Avenue

State Street / Mapleton Street

Tipton Lakes Blvd / Goeller Road (east intersection)

U.S. 31 / Central Avenue

U.S. 31 / Haw Creek Boulevard

HIGHEST PRIORITY INTERSECTION

HIGHER PRIORITY INTERSECTION

HIGH PRIORITY INTERSECTION

MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR NEEDING FOCUSED IMPROVEMENTS

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE (EXISTING / PROPOSED)

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE (EXISTING / PROPOSED)

BICYCLE LANE (EXISTING / PROPOSED)

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE (EXISTING / PROPOSED)

CYCLE TRACK (EXISTING / PROPOSED)

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

This page intentionally left blank

RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring that the bicycle and pedestrian network effectively meets the needs of different users requires the adoption of a comprehensive set of policies that address each aspect of bicycling and walking. This includes new policies specific to the City of Columbus, as well as the incorporation of state and federal policies. This subchapter describes each of the policies that the City has adopted to improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians in the community. Collectively, the policies recommended in this plan seek to sustain and enhance walking and bicycling conditions for all users, regardless of skill level, physical ability, or whether they walk or bike for transportation or recreation.

In the following policy statements, the use of “will” indicates that the City is committed to implementing that policy, and the use of “should” signifies a recommendation. 1-01

1. GENERAL POLICIES

In order to create a comprehensive and connected system for bicyclists of all ages and abilities, the “Interested but Concerned” bicycle user group is the target user for Columbus’ bicycle network. Future facility design and implementation will consider the needs of this user group to ensure safe connections throughout the City.

1-02

The City will continue to be opportunistic in its approach to implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, constructing new facilities, where appropriate, when streets are resurfaced, reconstructed, or newly built; when sewer projects are constructed; and when similar infrastructure projects are implemented. The City will also specifically devote resources to implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure separate from road improvement projects when new bicycle and pedestrian facilities will improve safety conditions and establish needed connections in the network.

1-03

This Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes a list of identified and prioritized bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects. As the system develops and opportunities arise to implement projects not included in this document, those new projects will be evaluated and prioritized based on need, target user, location, and available funding.

1-04

The City of Columbus will utilize a flexible design approach, as described on pages 71 and 72 of this document, during implementation of projects identified in this Plan. The City’s preferred approach to design flexibility is to make every effort to manage constraints in order to implement facilities that serve the “Interested but Concerned” bicycle user group and/or projects that form a vital piece of the low stress bicycle network before determining that downgrading a facility is necessary.

1-05

As new development occurs both within the City and along the City’s periphery, the City will provide for the extension of the bicycle and pedestrian facility network to serve these areas. The City will consider the context, future development potential of the area, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in close proximity, the target design user, and the bicycle and pedestrian facility maps when determining the most appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be installed with new development.

In order to respond to changing needs and to ensure continuity of Columbus’ expanding bicycle and pedestrian network, the City will consider a series of factors when determining the most appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facility to be constructed as part of new developments. The Subdivision Control Ordinance currently requires that bicycle lanes and sidewalks be installed on all collector and arterial streets that adjoin new developments. This requirement is not consistent with the approach and goals established by this Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan update, and the Subdivision Control Ordinance should also be updated to reflect this new, flexible approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility selection.

1-06

Traffic calming measures should be implemented, where appropriate, citywide. Slower vehicle speeds improve pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety everywhere, even when designated bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not present. (Reference page 101 for a list of possible traffic calming design elements.)

1-07

The City will coordinate with and actively encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Bartholomew County, and other local, state, and federal agencies to implement bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, where appropriate, when those agencies engage in road improvement projects within the City’s Planning Jurisdiction.

1-08

The City should, when appropriate, engage the public on project-level bicycle facility type selection and other design decisions in order to educate, inform, and collect feedback.

The City should, where appropriate, capitalize on wide streets by narrowing them to construct sidewalks, bicycle facilities, or other missing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 1-09

2. ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Chapter 10.56: Bicycles

Amend Section 10.56.010 (Effect of Violation) of the Municipal Code 2-01

This section of the code states, “These regulations applicable to bicycles shall apply whenever a bicycle is operated upon any street or upon any public path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, subject to those exceptions stated herein.” The phrase “set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles...” implies that these regulations do not apply to shared use paths.

Therefore, “path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles” should be replaced with “shared use and other paths on which bicycles are allowed.”

Repeal Sections 10.56.030, 10.56.040, 10.56.050, 10.56.060, and 10.56.070 of the Municipal Code 2-02

These sections of the Municipal Code describe the requirements for bicycle licenses within the city. These codes have not been applied for many years and do not represent best practices for bicycling.

Repeal Sections 10.08.050 and 10.08.060 of the Municipal Code 2-03

These sections of the Municipal Code address “play streets.” The establishment of play streets has not been exercised for many years and is no longer relevant.

Repeal Section 10.56.160 (Riding on Sidewalks) of the Municipal Code 2-04

This section prohibits bicyclists from riding upon sidewalks in “business districts.” The City of Columbus supports the use of sidewalks by children and inexperienced bicyclists traveling at low speeds when no on-street bicycle facility is available or when an available bicycle facility is uncomfortable for children and inexperienced bicyclists. Therefore, this section of the Municipal Code should be repealed.

2-05 Prohibit motorized vehicles on shared use paths, cycle tracks, and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities providing dedicated space for bicyclists and/or pedestrians.

In Chapter 10.56 (Bicycles) of the Municipal Code, motorized vehicles, with the exception of motorized wheelchairs and electric bicycles permitted by the City to operate on bicycle facilities, should be prohibited from use on all shared use paths, cycle tracks, conventional and buffered bicycle lanes, and sidewalks in order to promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Authorized law enforcement, emergency medical, and maintenance vehicles should be exempt from this prohibition.

2-06 Designate and regulate the use of electric bicycles (e-bikes) consistent with the 2020 State of Indiana regulations.

Indiana Law designates three classes of electric bicycles:

Class 1: An electric bicycle equipped with an electric motor that provides assistance only when the operator is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance to the operator when the electric bicycle reaches a speed of 20mph.

.

Class 2: An electric bicycle equipped with an electric motor that may be used to exclusively propel the electric bicycle (throttle-activated motor) and is unable to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 20mph.

.

Class 3: An electric bicycle equipped with an electric motor that provides assistance only when the operator is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 mph.

Indiana Law indicates that Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes may be operated in any location where human-powered bicycles are permitted, such as shared use paths, bicycle lanes, and cycle tracks. Also, the same rules of the road apply to both e-bikes and human-powered bicycles. Indiana Law prohibits Class 3 e-bikes from operating on bicycle paths or shared use path unless: (1) the bicycle path or shared use path is within or adjacent to a highway or roadway, or (2) the Class 3 e-bike is specifically allowed by the local authority or state agency with jurisdiction.

In the City of Columbus, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes should be permitted in any location where human-powered bicycles are permitted and must follow the same rules of the road as human-powered bicycles. The City of Columbus should consider prohibiting Class 3 e-bikes on all shared use paths.

2-07

Implement a Safe Passing Law

Many states, including the state of Indiana, have a law requiring motorists to provide at least 3 feet of space when passing a bicyclist. The City of Columbus should add the following language to its code to increase the safety of bicyclists on roadways, “The driver or operator of a motorized vehicle overtaking a bicyclist must pass the bicycle at a safe distance of not less than three feet between the vehicle and the bicycle and must not return the vehicle to the vehicle’s original lane of travel until the vehicle is safely clear of the bicycle.”

THOROUGHFARE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

2-08

Revise the Thoroughfare Plan to be consistent with the recommendations in this Plan, including to reflect the complete list of bicycle facility options recommended in this Plan.

Bicycle lanes are currently the only bicycle facility included in the Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan should include all bicycle facility types, including but not limited to shared use paths, cycle tracks, buffered bicycle lanes, and neighborhood bicycle routes, and it should reference the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for implementation guidance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

2-09

Revise the Thoroughfare Plan to require sidewalks on both sides of all Urban and Suburban local industrial streets.

Sidewalks are an important component of pedestrian access on all streets, including local industrial streets. Sidewalks on local industrial streets provide important connections from higher classification streets to businesses along the local street, and they offer a place for recreation during work breaks.

SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

2-10

Revise the Subdivision Control Ordinance to reflect the recommended changes to the Thoroughfare Plan Design Elements Charts and this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

The Subdivision Control Ordinance includes design standards which reference the Thoroughfare Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Minor and major subdivision design must include implementation of recommended improvements from these plan elements. Therefore, the Subdivision Control Ordinance should be appropriately revised to reflect the recommended changes to the Thoroughfare Plan Design Elements Charts described above and in this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

ZONING ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Amend Section 7.1(Part2)(C) - Bicycle Parking Requirements - to meet the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) current standards. 2-11

As recommended by the APBP, the “wave” and “comb” bicycle racks should be removed from the list of acceptable racks in the City of Columbus. The APBP recommends that bike racks support the bicycle upright without putting stress on the wheels, providing two points of contact with the bike frame, and allows locking of the frame and a least one wheel with a U-lock. The “wave” rack supports the bike frame in only one location, and the “comb” rack does not support the bike frame at all and does not allow appropriate locking.

The Zoning Ordinance should also be updated to reference APBP’s placement standards, which describe minimum spacing requirements. This guidance will encourage proper distancing between racks and will prevent instances where racks are placed too close to buildings, rendering them unusable.

3. SIDEWALK INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE

Public sidewalks should be installed on both sides of all public streets within the areas classified as Urban and Suburban in the City of Columbus Thoroughfare Plan. 3-01

3-02

For all street construction, reconstruction, and resurfacing projects, the City of Columbus should install perpendicular curb ramps at all street intersections, in all perpendicular directions, to facilitate pedestrian street crossing. Diagonal curb ramps may be used, at the discretion of the City Engineer, in exceptional circumstances.

3-03

The City of Columbus should take an assertive role in the installation and repair of sidewalks throughout the City, particularly in areas where sidewalks are missing and/or are in disrepair.

Current city policy requires that home and business owners maintain the sidewalks adjacent to their properties. This policy has resulted in some sidewalks falling into and remaining in disrepair, severely limiting access for pedestrians. In order to improve pedestrian mobility throughout Columbus, the City should take an assertive role in installing sidewalks along critical pedestrian corridors and making repairs to existing sidewalks that, due to their current condition, limit pedestrian mobility.

4. ENGINEERING POLICIES

4-01 The City will use nationally-recognized design guidelines, including AASHTO and NACTO, when designing onstreet bicycle facilities.

The Indiana Design Manual 2013 (IDM) is the statewide guidance used by INDOT and local jurisdictions during the development and design of transportation projects. Part 3, Roadway, provides guidance for several subject areas, including accessibility for persons with disabilities (including sidewalks), shared use paths, and roundabouts. The IDM also contains guidance for the design of on-street bicycle facilities. Namely, it provides guidance on determining the appropriate type of bicycle facility based on factors such as motor vehicle traffic and speed. However, it does not contain the specific design guidance necessary to design on-street bicycle facilities.

As such, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition, 2012 (AASHTO Guide), or future editions, will be used in the design of all on-street bicycle facilities. While the AASHTO Guide serves as a set of minimum standards, the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO Guide), which is used by many communities to design innovative bicycle infrastructure that surpassess the AASHTO minimum standards, may also be consulted.

4-02

The City will utilize national and international best practices and guides as supplemental guidance for shared use path design.

Shared use paths along roadways, which constitute the most common dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility type in Columbus, come with many challenges, including (1) path crossings of driveways and intersections are often blocked by automobiles waiting to turn, (2) conflicts exist between slow moving pedestrians and faster moving bicyclists, (3) the need for additional traffic control signage, especially at driveways and intersections, (4) a lack of clarity regarding who has the right-of-way where paths cross minor streets, and (5) increased risk of crashes due to limited visibility of drivers.

In light of these challenges, paths are most appropriate where driveways and intersections are limited. In areas with high concentrations of driveways and intersections, on-street accommodations (such as cycle tracks, buffered bicycle lanes, and conventional bicycle lanes) are preferred because they are proven to be safer.

The AASHTO Guide states that shared use paths along roadways should be considered a supplement to, but not a replacement for, on-street bicycle facilities. In other words, the provision of a path does not preclude the need to provide on-street accommodations for bicyclists that are more comfortable riding with traffic. [AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition, 2012]

Since the bicycle and pedestrian network primarily consists of paths along roadways, it is important that the City design shared use paths according to the best design guidance available. While the Indiana Design Manual contains a significant amount of detail on path design, there are several issues and situations that it does not address. Therefore, the City should regularly reference additional design guidelines and standards that address more complex issues beyond the limited scope of the IDM. These guidelines and standards include the AASHTO Guide, the NACTO Guide section on two-way cycle tracks, the 2011 Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 9 (MUTCD), and the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW Manual). The CROW Manual is the primary bicycle infrastructure design guide for the Netherlands and while it is not directly applicable to American cities, it contains relevant concepts for shared use path design. The CROW Manual is especially informative for designing path crossings at intersections and driveways.

4-03

The City should follow a Complete Streets process for the construction and reconstruction of public streets.

Ideally, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infrastructure will be included with all street projects when they are initially constructed or when streets are reconstructed. Including bicycle and pedestrian facilities at this time is less expensive than retrofitting facilities as stand-alone projects. Two federal policies support and mandate this approach for projects utilizing federal aid unless (a) bicycles are prohibited by law from using the roadway, (b) the cost is excessively disproportionate to the need (exceeding 20 percent of the project cost), or (c) sparsity of population indicates an absence of need.

Following a Complete Streets process for street projects (especially those along or connecting to a planned bicycle facility) will help further the implementation of this Plan. Such a process will ensure that all street

users -- motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians -- are considered during the design stage and are adequately accommodated. The process should be flexible in terms of design specifics and sensitive to the surrounding context and land uses. This process also applies to street resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R) projects.

4-04

The City should complete a study to evaluate the implementation of “No Right Turn on Red” at key intersections.

Many cities across the nation are implementing a “No Right Turn on Red” policy as part of their Vision Zero plans, which are aimed at eliminating all traffic-related injuries. Banning right turn on red lights has been shown to increase the safety of intersections for pedestrians.

This plan recommends a study to evaluate the implementation of a “No Right Turn on Red” policy in the downtown, school zones, and key intersections that have seen high accident rates. This study should evaluate the loss in traffic efficiencies balanced with the increase in safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

4-05

The City will replace curb ramps as part of reconstruction and resurfacing projects in accordance with the ADA Transition Plan.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s and U.S. Department of Transportation’s Joint Technical Assistance on the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements to Provide Curb Ramps when Streets, Roads, or Highways are Altered Through Resurfacing mandates that curb ramps be provided (or replaced if existing curb ramps are non-compliant with current ADA requirements) when a street is reconstructed or resurfaced. This ruling includes the following provisions:

Curb ramps are required where any sidewalk or pedestrian walkway crosses a curb.

Resurfacing of a roadway is considered an alteration (thereby requiring the provision of curb ramps) when it spans from one intersection to another.

Resurfacing includes overlays, with or without milling (new asphalt, concrete rehabilitation, open-graded surface courses, cape seals, etc.)

Maintenance treatments do not trigger the requirement to provide curb ramps (pavement markings, crack sealing, chip seals, joint repairs, friction treatment, etc.). However, multiple maintenance treatments occurring over a short span of time might constitute an alteration.

If a crosswalk is resurfaced, curb ramps must be provided, regardless of project scope.

The City has an ADA Transition Plan to replace the many existing curb ramps in Columbus that were constructed prior to current standards and which do not meet current accessibility requirements. Some ramps lack detectable warning and there are areas in the city where sidewalks simply terminate at rolled/ mountable curbs, which is not sufficient for people with disabilities. These issues limit the mobility of people with disabilities and, in the case of rolled/mounted curbs, are quite dangerous for bicyclists.

The IDM includes a comprehensive set of guidelines for curb ramp design that is in keeping with the United States Access Board’s Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), which is the latest set of standards for complying with ADA requirements. The City of Columbus follows the IDM when constructing new curb ramps and has an ADA Transition Plan that is used to identify and replace all non-compliant curb ramps in the community. The City has completed several of the projects identified in their ADA Transition Plan. Whether constructed by the City or by developers, curb ramps (not including flared sides) must equal the width of the sidewalk or path to which they connect. When connected to shared use paths they must be of the perpendicular or depressed-corners types, as described in the IDM.

The City will design all crosswalks to be highly visible and free of obstructions. 4-06

Off-road facility crossings at streets are high-conflict locations. Crosswalks must be clear of obstructions and visible to pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists. For every marked crosswalk, the City of Columbus will, at a minimum, provide two solid white lines (each between 6 and 24 inches wide) in keeping with MUTCD 2009 Edition Section 3B.18. This shall be in addition to any colorized concrete or pavers. Alternatively, the City may provide other types of marked crosswalks, including solid, continental, zebra, or ladder patterns. The continental pattern is preferred due to its high visibility.

The City should repaint all painted crosswalks in Columbus every one to two years or as fading occurs. Alternatively, the City may utilize more durable materials (non-slip thermoplastic, preformed tape, epoxy, etc.) to decrease maintenance intervals.

4-07

The City should design all facilities with necessary regulatory and warning signage.

Regulatory and warning signs are crucial elements for bicyclists and pedestrians in terms of mitigating safety hazards (especially where physical constraints and age of infrastructure results in noncompliance with current IDM and AASHTO standards) and indicating who has the right-of-way at intersections. Warning and regulatory signage makes the transportation system (streets and paths) safer and more efficient.

Several sections of the city’s bicycle and pedestrian network are lacking in regulatory and warning signage. To correct this issue, the City should assess all existing facilities and determine signage needs based on the MUTCD standards. The City can then begin a program to purchase and install the necessary signage.

Signage for shared use paths along roadways will follow the same regulatory controls as the parallel roadway. For example, a stop sign will not be placed along the shared use path at an intersection or driveway unless the parallel roadway also has a stop sign at the same location. Instead, the perpendicular street will include a stop bar behind the path crossing and warning signage for both the motorists and the path users. At these locations, the motorist should always yield to the path user. Warning signs for motorists turning across shared use pathways may be appropriate at high traffic areas. Reference MUTCD 2009 Edition Figure 9B-3 for warning signs and plaques for bicycle facilities. See also MUTCD 2009 Edition Figure 9B-7 for examples of signing and pavement markings for a shared use path crossing.

Pavement markings may be considered for use as regulatory and warning signage. Use of pavement markings should be based on engineering judgment. Preformed markings should be considered as an alternate to thermoplastic because preformed markings are thinner and less objectionable to bicyclists on both shared use paths and on-street facilities.

4-08 All bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City of Columbus should be designed and constructed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other applicable federal, state, and local standards and to be accessible to all members of the community.

5. EDUCATIONAL POLICIES

5-01 The City should support and partner with local organizations to provide programming that educates and informs the public on subjects related to safety, rules of the road, shared use path etiquette, and similar educational topics.

Educational programs are instrumental to the success of bicycle and pedestrian networks as they encourage use of the network and encourage all road and shared use path users to use the network safely. Educational actions include media campaigns, bicycle education programs for children and adults, safety training for motorists, and practical training for bicyclists, such as how to ride safely or properly wear a helmet. The range of educational programs also includes the work of the ongoing Safe Routes to School Task Force, which emphasizes projects that make it easier to walk and bike to school and encourages safety during the school commute by distributing bicycle lights and reflectors. The City should support and partner with community organizations to initiate educational programs and to continue ongoing educational efforts within the community.

5-02 The City should distribute at least one piece of road use education annually in City communications. At least once per year, the City of Columbus should distribute educational materials explaining the rules of the road for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Educational materials could be included in utility bills; publicized in the local newspaper; or distributed digitally via social media, the city website, or similar means. Simple communications could cover seasonal topics such as rules of the road, local bicycling ordinances, and back to school safety information.

5-03 The City should develop and distribute educational materials when new-to-Columbus bicycle facility types are constructed.

New facility types can cause confusion about proper use. When new-to-Columbus bicycle facility types are constructed, imparting the same knowledge to all users is critically important. Doing so will create proper expectations of behavior among all user types. To communicate important safety and user information, the City should develop and distribute educational materials, such as brochures, flyers, or digital material. Educational materials should cover the range of bicycling and pedestrian issues that could be encountered while using the new facility, traffic laws, city regulations, basic equipment safety, and tips for crossing intersections.

5-04 The City should launch marketing campaigns to promote mutual respect and awareness amongst motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Members of the community may not have an inherent understanding of the motivations, needs, and behaviors of those taveling by other modes of transportation. For example, a driver may not understand the importance of using a turn signal to notify a bicyclist of an upcoming turn. A bicyclist may not appreciate how their travel speeds impact the comfort of pedestrians on shared pathways, and a pedestrian may not understand how important it is to make eye contact with a driver or bicyclist when crossing the street. Each of these situations can lead to misunderstanding and animosity which does not promote productive interactions on streets and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Creating a marketing campaign with simple but targeted messaging is a highly effective way to increase awareness of the perspective of other users. Marketing materials might include bus ads, posters, and stickers with a hashtag for social media.

6. ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6-01 The City should continue targeted enforcement of traffic laws.

While most users follow traffic laws, there are a few who willfully disobey the rules. Many times, these infractions do not result in crashes or conflicts, but higher incidence of infractions lead to a higher likelihood of conflicts. When users cannot expect other users to obey traffic laws, they cannot accurately gauge how to interact with them on the roadway or trail. Spot enforcement of traffic laws for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists will encourage these users to obey traffic laws. Word of mouth will spread information about tickets and fines being issued to law breakers and encourage other users to obey the laws. The policy should be to first issue a warning and then a ticket to repeat offenders. Officers should also have educational materials to hand to those disobeying the laws. A diversion program for first time offenders can also be implemented where fines can be reduced by attending an education program.

Targeted enforcement of traffic laws should include enforcing proper yielding activity at crosswalks, speed limits, and proper stops at traffic signals and stop signs.

6-02 The City should continue to enforce posted speed limits, particularly in school speed zones.

Too often speed limits are viewed as guidelines, rather than the rule, by motorists. Studies show that the probability of serious injury to non-motorized users when hit by a car exponentially increases with each increment of 5 mph increase in speed. The enforcement of posted speed limits through warnings and ticketing can quickly improve compliance. The Police Department can also station patrol officers at specific locations, such as school zones.

6-03 The City should utilize automated speed-tracking equipment.

Installing digital speed monitoring signs along main roads, cut-throughs, and by school zones has been effective at decreasing speeds in communities. Speed monitors can be posted and eventually might encourage people to reduce their speeds out of habit in those locations. The use of digital speed monitoring is a cost-effective way to alert motorists of their speed.

6-04 The City should expand law enforcement training of bicycle laws and bicyclist/motorist conflict. Most police academies include training for officers from the International Police Mountain Bike Association. This training equips officers with the skills and knowledge to enforce the law on a bicycle, including tactical maneuvers taking advantage of the bicycle’s speed and ability to be used as a shield. However, this training does not include any content regarding traffic interactions between motorists and bicyclists. Education courses for law enforcement officials can provide information on types of traffic violations that are most likely to result in crashes between bicyclists and motorists. Annual reviews of bicycle and pedestrian crash statistics will provide the Police Department with knowledge of specific behavioral issues and high-risk locations.

7. ENCOURAGEMENT POLICIES

7-01 The City should support and partner with local organizations to build enthusiasm and interest in bicycling and walking.

The City should support and partner with local organizations who sponsor Bike Month, Bike to Work/School Day, Walk to School Day, and similar events and activities in order to promote bicycling and walking in the community.

7-02

The City should develop and maintain up-to-date bicycle and pedestrian maps and similar resources, such as the Bike Walk Columbus website.

As facilities are constructed, the City should continue to update the bicycle and pedestrian network map. This map should be produced in hard copy and digital format and should continue to be available to residents and visitors at various locations in the community and on the Bike Walk Columbus website.

The City should continue to update and improve the Bike Walk Columbus website and maintain it as a valuable bicycle and pedestrian resource for the Columbus community.

8. EVALUATION AND PLANNING POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8-01 The City will continue its Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Team (BPIT).

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Team will continue to meet and guide the implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This interagency team will continue to identify infrastructure projects that need to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements, in addition to driving specific bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. BPIT will continue to act as the champion for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan with the goal of developing a complete and connected network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the city.

8-02 The City should continue to expand its permanent bicycle and pedestrian counting program and conduct annual bicycle and pedestrian counts.

Collecting bicycle and pedestrian count data is important because the data can track trends in bicycling and walking over time, identify bicycle and pedestrian activity patterns, evaluate the effects of infrastructure improvements on bicycle and pedestrian activity, and help forecast the impacts of planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Counts also inform community officials and the general public about bicycle and pedestrian activity, communicating the value of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network.

8-03

As financial resources become available, the City should expand its existing permanent bicycle and pedestrian counting program by purchasing additional permanent bicycle and pedestrian counters and placing them at strategic locations along the community’s shared use path network.

The City should also plan to collect annual count data at locations where permament counters are not present. Counts should be conducted utilizing the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Methodology. There are three methods available for performing counts: (1) volunteer-based visual counts, (2) electronic counts, and (3) estimates using GPS data. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project provides a recommended methodology, survey and count forms, and reporting forms online for free. Local trainers for the program are also available. Each of the methods have varying costs but can be economical when used in combination with volunteers. It is important for the data that is taken each year to be taken at the same locations, times of day, week, and year for data to be comparable from year to year.

In order to evaluate the success of the bicycle and pedestrian network, the City should establish a series of performance measures that will track and measure progress toward achieving the community’s bicycle and pedestrian goals. The performance measures will track trends over time, aid in future decision-making, and serve as a tool for reporting progress to the public and City officials.

8-04 The City should create an annual report card on walking and bicycling.

The City should create an annual report card on walking and bicycling in Columbus, which should be shared with community officials and the general public. The report card should include bicycle and pedestrian count data; information about completed, ongoing, and planned infrastructure improvements; and data on the performance measures identified in this Plan. The purpose of the report card is to communicate ongoing efforts to improve bicycle and pedestrian conditions, to evaluate where facilities may need further improvements, and to communicate the current status of walking and bicycling in Columbus to the public.

8-05 The City should develop and maintain a Capital Improvement Plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The City of Columbus does not currently designate a specific budget for bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. However, bicycle and pedestrian improvements are included in most roadway improvement projects. Without a multi-year plan, projects are often implemented on an opportunity basis rather than on a need basis. Developing a multi-year capital improvement plan for bicycle and pedestrian projects will allow the city to track the total amount of bicycle and pedestrian facilities being built by the city and realistically plan for future improvements.

The Capital Improvement Plan should include an annual budget and provide a framework for prioritizing how the budget is spent. Budget resources should be used for maintenance, ADA compliance, sidewalk installation, and high priority bicycle and pedestrian projects.

8-06 The City will maintain its Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator staff position.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator serves an integral role in implementing the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and ensuring that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is integrated into city plans, development projects, and road improvement projects. A staff person dedicated to improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and supporting partnerships with local organizations to provide safety and educational programming to the community contributes greatly to developing a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly community.

This page intentionally left blank

Lighting RECOMMENDATIONS

PRIORITY LIGHTING LOCATIONS MAP

Lighting is an effective way to enable safe travel at night. Lighting can reduce the possibility of collisions with other network users or objects within the line of travel, illuminate unevenness in pathways to prevent falls, and allow network users to recognize threats to their personal safety.

AASHTO offers the following lighting standards:

.

The provision of lighting should be considered along all facilities where nighttime use is permitted, especially along facilities that provide access to transit stops, schools, and employment areas.

Lighting should be installed at all locations where a bicycle and pedestrian facility intersects with a roadway. .

.

Lighting should be installed in locations where personal safety is a concern. In these locations, higher levels of illumination may be needed than in other areas of the network.

.

Pedestrian-scale lighting is preferred to tall, highway-style lamps. Characteristics of pedestrian-scale lighting include short light poles (15 feet tall or less); low levels of illumination, except at roadway crossings; and close spacing standards.

.

If a bicycle/pedestrian facility is used infrequently at night, lighting can be provided during designated hours only. For example, lighting could be provided from sunset to 11pm and 5am to sunrise. If lighting is limited to designated hours, these conditions should be made known to users with signage.

.

Lighting should be provided in pathway tunnels and underpasses and at People Trail trailheads. Signage illumination is also encouraged.

This map identifies priority locations for the installation of pedestrianscale lighting along existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, based on high levels of commuter traffic, lack of nearby street lighting, and public input. Lighting along proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be considered along with the design of those facilities.

PRIORITY LIGHTING LOCATIONS

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE

BICYCLE LANE

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE

CYCLE TRACK PARK SCHOOL

SHARED USE PATH

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

LOCATIONS WITH CURRENT PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING

08 THE PEOPLE TRAIL

This chapter provides a clear and concise definition of the People Trail, which is a system within Columbus’ larger bicycle and pedestrian network. This chapter also includes a map identifying the facilities and routes that make up the People Trail network.

THE PEOPLE TRAILS ARE THE SIGNATURE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN COLUMBUS

The People Trail network, a subset of the overall bicycle and pedestrian network, consists of family-friendly, low-stress recreational routes and loops throughout the city.

People Trails meet the following criteria:

Comprised of only shared use paths .

Constructed and maintained to the highest safety standards .

Uninterrupted or minimally interrupted movement .

High level aesthetics .

Well-connected to community destinations and amenities .

Maintained to high standards by the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department .

Designed and upgraded to accommodate bi-directional bicycle and pedestrian traffic .

THE COLUMBUS BICYCLE NETWORK IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR USERS OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES.

The proposed bicycle network includes a system of on- and off-street facilities that provide varying levels of separation from motor vehicle traffic, intended to accommodate bicyclists of varying skills and comfort levels. The bicycle network reflects that our community is comprised of bicyclists of differing and changing skills, and it recognizes that not every bicycle facility in the network will serve every bicyclist in the community. Therefore, the overall proposed bicycle network contains within it smaller systems of existing and proposed facilities that communicate to bicyclists where they will feel most comfortable and how they should plan their routes.

The overall bicycle network is the complete system of bicycle facilities and includes off-street facilities, as well as a system of on-street facilities intended to serve confident bicyclists who are comfortable and/or prefer sharing the street with motor vehicle traffic or riding in bicycle lanes. The low-stress bicycle network is a subset of the larger, overall bicycle network; it consists of bicycle facilities that provide physical separation from motor vehicle traffic. The low-stress network includes comfortable facilities that serve all types of bicyclists in Columbus. The People Trail network, the smallest system of bicycle facilities, is the signature family-friendly recreational system, also serving pedestrians, providing comfortable access to amenities and key destinations throughout the community. The People Trail network consists only of select shared use paths. This nested approach to the bicycle network is illustrated below.

DIAGRAM OF BICYCLE NETWORK SUBSETS

OVERALL BICYCLE NETWORK

The complete network of bicycle facilities in Columbus

LOW-STRESS BICYCLE NETWORK

A subset of the overall bicycle and pedestrian network consisting of low-stress bicycle facilities that meet the needs of inexperienced bicyclists and the “Interested but Concerned” user group.

The smallest subset of the overall bicycle network, serving both bicyclists and pedestrians, consisting of family-friendly recreational routes and loops.

PEOPLE TRAIL MAP

The People Trail is envisioned by this plan as a system-within-the-system; a subset of the overall bicycle and pedestrian network. This map identifies the existing and proposed sections of Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian system that comprise the People Trail network. The map also identifies existing neighborhood bicycle routes that, while not part of the People Trail, close loops and connect segments of the People Trail network.

The proposed trailheads identified on this map will serve as designated public access points to the People Trail and/or as significant wayfinding markers along the trail. Many of the proposed trailheads are located in existing and proposed parks, where users would have access to existing amenities and can easily begin or end their journeys.

In Columbus, all trailheads should include the following wayfinding features:

Rules and etiquette of the People Trail and of the complete bicycle and pedestrian network .

Distance and directional information to key destinations .

Wherever possible, trailheads should include the following amenities which will enhance their function as a gateway to the People Trail network:

Maps of the People Trail network and of the complete bicycle and pedestrian network . .

Parking Areas

Trash Receptacles .

Bicycle Racks .

Bicycle Repair Station .

Lighting .

Seating (benches, picnic tables, etc.) .

Drinking Fountains .

Restrooms .

Landscaping .

PROPOSED TRAILHEAD

PEOPLE TRAIL (EXISTING / PROPOSED)

EXISTING BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITY PROPOSED AS A FUTURE PEOPLE TRAIL

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTES THAT CONNECT SEGMENTS OF THE PEOPLE TRAIL NETWORK

PHOTO CREDIT: COLUMBUS

09 IMPLEMENTATION

This chapter outlines implementation priorities of the bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations presented in Chapter 7 based upon need, community input, and existing conditions data.

PHOTO CREDIT: Columbus Area Visitors Center

IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS

This plan is intended to guide future bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City of Columbus by identifying the conceptual location and type of new facilities. This plan recognizes that the implementation of any single project will likely require detailed evaluation of site conditions, detailed engineering studies, and involvement of area property owners. This plan intends for the actual design and construction of any new facility to be based upon engineering analysis, public participation, and the overall feasibility of that specific project. For example, labeling of a future connection as a “neighborhood bicycle route” in this plan should not be interpreted as preventing the installation of a “shared use path” instead if the design process, which considers the intended user, discovers that a shared use path or some other alternative facility type would be more appropriate.

Implementation of this plan should be accomplished via the following mechanisms:

Integration of planned facilities and routes into the City of Columbus Thoroughfare Plan and resultant projects.

Integration of planned facilities and routes into the Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 25 Year Metropolitan Transportation Plan (Long Range Transportation Plan) and resultant projects.

Integration of planned facilities and routes into the City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan and resultant projects.

Integration of planned facilities into private development projects through the requirements of the City’s zoning and subdivision control ordinances.

Adoption of new City Ordinances and modification of existing City Ordinances. .

Education and encouragement .

The implementation of the bicycle and pedestrian system described in this document should be funded by a variety of sources:

MPO and City Thoroughfare funds as part of street improvement projects .

Parks Department capital project funds .

Other City entities (Columbus Redevelopment Commission, Board of Aviation Commissioners, etc.) .

Federal and INDOT funds as part of highway projects .

Federal Transportation Alternatives funds .

Private fundraising efforts, such as the Columbus Park Foundation .

Private financing as part of subdivision development .

Other funds and grants that may become available .

PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS

The development of a safe, efficient, and connected bicycle and pedestrian network, as recommended in the previous chapters, is a long term effort that will be implemented over many years. The implementation of this plan will require phasing and long term commitment. The following maps and tables outline implementation priorities.

PROGRAMMED PROJECTS

This map illustrates the bicycle and pedestrian projects currently programmed. See Table 09-1.

Taylor Road Shared Use Path

1821 Trail (Downtown Trail Connection)

Riverfront Trail (Downtown Trail Connection)

Lowell Road Shared Use Path

Talley Road Trail

350 West Shared Use Path

Goeller Road Shared Use Path Improvement and Widening

17th Street - 19th Street Trail

Central Avenue / 19th Street Intersection

Hawcreek Avenue / 19th Street Intersection

25th Street / Home Avenue Intersection

25th Street / Maple Street Intersection

25th Street / Taylor Road Intersection

Two Mile House Road / SR 46 Intersection

P-X

PROJECT NUMBER

PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE (EXISTING / PROGRAMMED)

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE (EXISTING / PROGRAMMED)

BICYCLE LANE (EXISTING / PROGRAMMED)

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE (EXISTING / PROGRAMMED)

CYCLE TRACK (EXISTING / PROGRAMMED)

SHARED USE PATH (EXISTING / PROGRAMMED)

PARK

SCHOOL

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

TIER 1 - IMMEDIATE PRIORITY PROJECTS

This map illustrates the bicycle and pedestrian projects identified as Tier 1 - Immediate Priority Projects. See Table 09-2.

25th Street Sidewalks

Central Neighborhood Sidewalks

Washington Street Shared Use Path

McKinley - Hope Shared Use Path

Rocky Ford Road Shared Use Path Extension

25th Street - Nexus Park Shared Use Path

Rocky Ford Road Underpass

Westenedge Drive Path Extension

Garden City Farms Connection

Marr Road Street Improvements

Chestnut / California Cycle Tracks

Downtown Connector Neighborhood Bicycle Route

Sycamore - Tipton Neighborhood Bicycle Route

3rd Street / Lindsey Street and Mill Race Park Trail Extension

Rocky Ford Road / Middle Road Intersection

Central Avenue / 7th Street Intersection

Haw Creek Trail Connector

Fairlawn

T1-X

PROJECT NUMBER

PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT

PROPOSED UNDERPASS

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE (EXISTING & PROGRAMMED / PROPOSED)

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE (EXISTING & PROGRAMMED / PROPOSED)

BICYCLE LANE (EXISTING & PROGRAMMED / PROPOSED)

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE (EXISTING & PROGRAMMED / PROPOSED)

CYCLE TRACK (EXISTING & PROGRAMMED / PROPOSED)

SHARED USE PATH (EXISTING & PROGRAMMED / PROPOSED)

AREA WHERE SIDEWALK REPAIR IS NEEDED

PARK

SCHOOL

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

TIER 2 - SECONDARY PRIORITY PROJECTS

This map illustrates the bicycle and pedestrian projects identified as Tier 2 - Secondary Priority Projects. See Table 09-3.

7th Street Sidewalks

22nd Street Sidewalks

East Downtown Sidewalks

Gladstone Avenue Street Improvements

27th Street Improvements

Airport Loop Trail

25th Street East Side Shared Use Path

Terrace Lake Road Shared Use Path Widening and Extension

Herman Darlage Drive Shared Use Path

Sawin Drive Shared Use Path

Indianapolis Road Shared Use Path

Abbey Place Shared Use Path Extension

10th Street Improvements

Home Avenue Cycle Track

Franklin - Lafayette Neighborhood Bicycle Routes

Northbrook Neighborhood Bicycle Route

US 31 / Beam Road Intersection

US 31/ Westenedge Drive Intersection

US 31 and Brentwood Drive

T2-X

PROJECT NUMBER

PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

RURAL BICYCLE ROUTE (EXIST., PROGRAMMED, TIER 1 / PROPOSED)

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTE (EXIST., PROGRAMMED, TIER 1 / PROPOSED)

BICYCLE LANE (EXIST., PROGRAMMED, TIER 1 / PROPOSED)

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE (EXIST., PROGRAMMED, TIER 1 / PROPOSED)

CYCLE TRACK (EXIST., PROGRAMMED, TIER 1 / PROPOSED)

SHARED USE PATH (EXIST., PROGRAMMED, TIER 1 / PROPOSED)

AREA WHERE SIDEWALK REPAIR IS NEEDED

PARK

SCHOOL

COLUMBUS PLANNING JURISDICTION (STUDY AREA)

PROGRAMMED PROJECTS

TABLE 09-1

Note: Projects listed above may require phasing.

Is All or a Portion of this Project Designated as a People Trail?

StreetRocky Ford Road

AvenueBrown Street Yes

3rd Street Yes

200W

StreetRocky Ford Road Yes

Goeller Boulevard

Oakbrook Drive Yes

ParkHaw Creek Trail Yes

Notes

This project is being completed in conjunction with a current road improvement project.

This project is being completed as a City of Columbus Bicentennial project.

This improvement is a current Redevelopment Commission project.

This project is being completed in conjunction with a current road improvement project.

This project is being completed in conjunction with a current road improvement project.

This project is being completed in conjunction with a current road improvement project. (See Project P-7.)

This project is being completed in conjunction with a current road improvement project. (See Project P-6) and a utility improvement project.

This project consists of a shared use path on 17th Street between Noblitt Park and Washington Street and a shared use path through Donner Park and along 19th Street. An improved neighborhood bicycle route is planned on 17th Street between Washington Street and Lafayete Avenue. Funding to be determined. See also Projects P-9 and P-10.

Funding to be determined. This project will create a safer crossing of Central Avenue on the route between Lincoln and Donner Parks. This project includes the installation of a HAWK Signal.

Funding to be determined. This project will create a safer crossing of Hawcreek Avenue on the route between Lincoln and Donner Parks. This improvement includes the installation of an RRFB Signal and squaring the Lincoln Park Drive approach to 19th Street in order to improve visibility.

Improvements will include curb ramps, crosswalk markings, pedestrian signals, and signal timing.

Improvements will include curb ramps, crosswalk markings, pedestrian signals, and signal timing.

Improvements will include curb ramps, crosswalk markings, pedestrian signals, and signal timing.

This project is being completed by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT).

TIER 1 - IMMEDIATE PRIORITY PROJECTS

Note: Projects listed above may require phasing.

StreetTaylor Road

Is

StreetRocky Ford Road Yes

StreetFoundation for Youth

StreetCentral Avenue Yes

AvenueHerman Darlage Drive

RoadParkside Drive

Deaver Road

Rocky Ford Road

3rd Street

StreetCentral Avenue

StreetHome Avenue

Par 3 Drive

Notes

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and make repairs where needed. This project could be completed along with the 25th Street - Nexus Park Shared Use Path (see Project T1-6). Evaluate the City of Columbus ADA Transitions Plan and strategically repair highest priority sidewalks in the area generally between 13th Street, 19th Street, Donner Park, and Central Avenue.

The project will be completed in phases and should be paired with the following intersection improvements: the Washington Street / U.S. 31 intersection; the Washington Street / 27th Street intersection to improve access to the school campus to the east along 27th Street; and the Washington Street/ 12th Street intersection to facilitate safe access to the proposed Franklin - Lafayette Neighborhood Bicycle Routes (see Project T2-15).

This project will provide safe and convenient access to Foundation for Youth from the State Street shared use path.

This project will improve access to the bicycle and pedestrian network for residents in the area. This project should be paired with the following intersection improvements to improve pedestrian and bicyclist access across Rocky Ford Road: the Rocky Ford Road / River Road / Sycamore Drive intersection and the Rocky Ford Road / Nugent Drive intersection.

See also Project T1-1.

Yes This project consists of an underpass of Rocky Ford Road along the Haw Creek Trail.

Yes

Yes

This project will complete the shared use path on Westenedge Drive and improve access to Parkside Elementary School.

To be completed in conjunction with a Morgan Willow Trace roadway extension. This project should be paired with improvements to the SR46/Morgan Willow Trace intersection to provide safe access to the Jonathan Moore Pike Trail.

This project should include the installation of sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing. This project should also include improved intersections for bicycle and pedestrian travel at the 17th Street, US31, 25th Street, and 30th Street intersections with Marr Road. Improvements to the Marr Road / Hillcrest Drive intersection should additionally be included. Improvements to this intersection will facilitate the crossing of Marr Road so residents living on the east side of the street can safely and conveniently access the Haw Creek Trail on the west side of the street. An improvement to this intersection could include a sidewalk installation on Hillcrest Drive between Marr Road and Starlite Drive to facilitate pedestrian access to the Haw Creek Trail.

These one-way pair cycle tracks will improve access to the downtown for the "Interested but Concerned" bicycle user group. This project should include bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the California and Chestnut Street intersections with 11th Street, the Chestnut Street / 8th Street intersection, and the Chestnut Street / 3rd Street intersection.

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed. To be paired with 7th Street / Central Avenue Intersection Improvements, which will improve access from this route to the Haw Creek Trail (see Project T116).

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed. This project should include an improvement to the 25th Street / Sycamore Street intersection.

This project will create a safer transition from the 3rd Street bridge to area streets and sidewalks. This project should include a shared use path extension from the existing Mill Race Park Trail to improve access to 5th Street. This project may require coordination with INDOT.

This project will create a safer crossing in all directions for users of the Rocky Ford Road and Middle Road shared use paths, as well as on-street bicyclists.

This project will improve access from the Downtown Connector Neighborhood Bicycle Route to the Haw Creek Trail. See Project T1-12.

This project will establish a convenient and safe connection to the Haw Creek Trail for residents living between 17th Street, US 31, and the Haw Creek Trail. This connection will likely be a shared use path extension of 23rd Street.

Install a sidewalk on the north side of Fairlawn Drive, connecting the Taylor Road Shared Use Path (see Project P1) to Richards Elementary School. This project will include a safe crossing at Par 3 Drive to access the existing shared use path on Par 3 Drive.

All or a Portion of this Project Designated as a People Trail?

TIER 2 - SECONDARY PRIORITY PROJECTS

TABLE 09-3

Note: Projects listed above may require phasing.

AvenueGladstone Avenue

StreetCentral Avenue

Is All or a Portion of this Project Designated as a People Trail?

17th Street

StreetCentral Avenue

Middle Road Yes

Talley Road

200S Yes

US 31

RoadHaw Creek Trail Yes

Lowell Road Yes

RoadAbbey Place Park Yes

US 31 Yes

US 31

12th Street

DriveHaw Creek Trail

Notes

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and make repairs where needed.

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed.

Evaluate the City of Columbus ADA Transitions Plan and strategically repair highest priority sidewalks in the area generally between 7th Street, 11th Street, California Street, and Central Avenue.

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed. This project includes a cycle track between State Street and 10th Street. This project should include bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the State Street / Gladstone Avenue intersection.

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed. This project includes a cycle track between Washington Street and Maple Street and a neighborhood bicycle route between Maple Street and Central Avenue. Improvements to the 27th Street / Home Avenue intersection should be evaluated.

This project will create a recreational loop around Columbus Municipal Airport.

This improvement would connect the Taylor Road Shared Use Path (Project P-1) and the Talley Road Shared Use Path (Project P-5).

Widen the existing shared use path between Goeller Boulevard and Shields Drive to a minimum of 10 feet and extend the shared use path to 200 South. The northern portion of this project can be completed if/when the Department of Parks and Recreation assumes management responsibility of the existing path currently maintained by the Tipton Lakes Association.

To be paired with intersection improvements at 25th Street/Herman Darlage Drive and US 31/Herman Darlage Drive.

This project will establish a safe and convenient access to the Haw Creek Trail for residents living along and near Sawin Drive. To be paired with an improvement to the Taylor Road / Sawin Drive intersection.

This project consists of a shared use path along Indianapolis Road. The path extends to Paula Drive and then continues along Paula Drive and 150W to connect to the Lowell Road Shared Use Path (see Project P-4). This path would improve access to and from the Columbus downtown for the growing residential area near Lowell Road.

This project could be completed with Project T2-11.

This project consists of a shared use path between the Haw Creek Trail and US 31 and buffered bicycle lanes between Central Avenue and US 31. This project should include an improvement to the Taylor Road/10th Street/US 31 intersection to facilitate a safe crossing to the existing buffered bike lanes and proposed shared use path on Taylor Road (see Project F-24).

To replace existing Neighborhood Bicycle Route and Buffered Bike Lane. To be paired with improvements to the Home Avenue / 25th Street and Home Avenue / 27th Street intersections, if not already completed.

This project consists of one-way neighborhood bicycle route pairs. Install signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed.

Re-route existing Neighborhood Bicycle Route to Spring Valley Drive. Add signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed.

This project will improve pedestrian crossing conditions at the intersection. This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing conditions at the intersection, which is located along an important corridor between a residential area and a school campus. This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will facilitate access to the shared use path on the south side of County Road 200 South for residents living in Wildflower Estates on the north side of County Road 200 South.

Facilitate a safe connection from Everroad Park to the existing shared use path on Middle Road.

FUTURE PROJECTS TABLE 09-4

FUTURE PROJECTS

DriveGriffa Avenue

AvenueChestnut Street

StreetCentral Avenue

AvenueMichigan Avenue

Maple Avenue

7th Street

Is All or a Portion of this Project Designated as a People Trail?

Notes

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed. This improvement will improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the Haw Creek Trail and to Richards Elementary for residents in the surrounding neighborhood.

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed

Install sidewalks on both sides of the street where missing and where repairs are needed

Noblitt Park Yes Widen to a minimum of 10 feet.

10th Street Yes Widen narrow sections to match existing 8 foot wide shared use path.

AvenueMcCulloughs Run Park Yes

Park25th Street Yes To be paired with improvements to the 25th Street / Talley Road intersection.

RoadSawin Drive Yes

200S

SR 46

25th Street

Marr Road

State Street

StreetIndiana Avenue

Marr Road

…southeast along State Street

State Street

17th Street

RoadClifty Creek Elementary

Clifty Creek Trail

Extension

25th Street

Talley Road

…northeast along Haw Creek Yes

Poshard Drive Yes

The south side of State Road 46 lacks a sidewalk, and sidewalk installation would be challenging. This project bypasses this sidewalk gap and provides a connection from the Goeller Boulevard Shared Use Path to the SR46 / Two Mile House Road improved intersection (see Project P-14).

Given physical constraints along this corridor, this project may need to be downgraded to Neighborhood Bicycle Route.

This project should include an improvement to the State Street / Marr Road intersection.

See also State Street - 3rd Street Cycle Track (Project F-47).

To be installed when City growth extends to this area.

To provide a connection to Clifty Creek Elementary School.

To be constructed when Regency Drive is extended to Taylor Road.

See also Rocky Ford Road Bicycle Lanes (Project F-61).

FUTURE PROJECTS TABLE 09-4 (continued)

Is All or a Portion of this Project Designated as a People Trail?

Marr Road Yes

WayRocky Ford Road

200W

500 N

300 W

600S

46Garden Street Extension

300S

Crossing Lane

200S

400W

BoulevardCarr Hill Road

RoadCarr Hill Road Yes

Goeller Boulevard

Nashville, IN

Carr Hill Road

525W Yes

Lindsey Street

11th Street

CenterLafayette Avenue

DriveChapel Drive

DriveMarr Road

25th Street

StreetHaw Creek Trail

DriveWaycross Drive

Talley Road

Notes

This project would occur with an extension of Desoto Way to the north. An alternate, shorter-term project is a shared use path that jogs from Desoto Way to Northpark Drive connecting to the Middle Road Shared Use Path.

To be constructed when Brian Drive is extended to 200W.

This project will follow the realignment of 175W and include a spur on County Road 450S to Norcross Drive.

County Road 400W currently does not extend north of County Road 200S. This improvement involves the extension of a shared use path north of 200S to connect to the proposed shared use path on Carr Hill Road.

Widen existing path.

To be constructed in conjunction with a Garden Street roadway improvement and extension.

To be completed in phases. See also State Street Path Extension (Project F-18).

To be paired with an improvement to the Jackson Street / 11th Street intersection.

This project consists of a cycle track between Mill Race Center and Washington Street and a neighborhood bicycle route between Washington Street and Lafayette Avenue.

To be paired with an improvement to the 25th Street / Flintwood Drive intersection.

To include an improvement to the Waycross Drive / Taylor Road intersection to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings.

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed. This project should include an improvement to the 13th Street / Central Avenue intersection to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian crossing.

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed

FUTURE PROJECTS TABLE 09-4 (continued)

31st Street

BoulevardCarr Hill Road

River Road

AvenueWashington Street

DriveSawin Drive

425E

Existing Carr Hill Road

Bicycle Lanes

Is All or a Portion of this Project Designated as a People Trail?

Notes

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed

Signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming where needed

Install signage. This route is located on Talley Road, 350N, 425E, 550N, 250E, 500E, 50N, 525E, and 250N as shown on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Map.

ParkTaylorsville Install signage.

WEdinburgh Outlet Mall Install signage.

US 31 Install signage.

SR 46 Install signage.

300S Install signage.

Install signage. This route is located on Country Club Road, Goeller Rd, Raintree Drive, Tulip Drive, 525W, 550W, and 300S as shown on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Map.

This project will improve pedestrian crossing conditions at the intersection. This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing SR 46 at Goeller Boulevard. This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will require coordination with INDOT.

This project will require coordination with INDOT.

10 MAINTENANCE

The purpose of this maintenance section is to promote a wellmaintained, sustainable, safe, secure, and enjoyable bicycle and pedestrian network within the City of Columbus. This plan provides baseline information for short- and long-term maintenance tasks to be completed by the City and includes standardized maintenance expectations for every facility type, with the exception of sidewalks, in the network.

The following defines key aspects of facility management, beginning with operational policies, followed by the division of maintenance responsibilities, maintenance standards, and labor and equipment recommendations.

OPERATIONAL POLICIES

STANDARD OF CARE

The standard of care for all facilities will be consistent across the network to provide reliable and consistent transportation and recreation facilities.

PUBLIC SIDEWALKS

This chapter addresses maintenance expectations and tasks to be completed by the City of Columbus for all bicycle and pedestrian facilities with the exception of sidewalks. Property owners are responsible for the care and maintenance of public sidewalks adjoining their property.

FACILITY CONDITION

All bicycle and pedestrian facilities managed by the City of Columbus will be maintained in a safe and usable manner and facilities should be maintained to provide a continuous, even, and clean surface. Cracked or uneven pavement, severe bumps or depressions, obstructions to sight visibility, and similar conditions along the network should be repaired in a timely manner. Furthermore, pavement markings and signage should remain legible, visible, and clear. Conditions that pose an immediate safety risk should be prioritized above other maintenance needs.

TRAILHEADS AND POINTS OF ACCESS

Trailheads and points of public access will always be maintained in a clean, usable, and safe condition.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICY

Where possible, environmental preservation and restoration should be considered and included in network facility design and ongoing maintenance, including preventative measures to protect environmentally sensitive areas; planting of vegetation along the network to enhance the user experience; and the selective use of herbicide to eliminate invasive species and problem species, such as poison ivy.

RECORD KEEPING

The City should keep accurate and organized records of the maintenance and operations program in order to track the completion of maintenance tasks over time, eliminate gaps or overlap in maintenance services, document facility condition, and prioritize maintenance needs. Record keeping should, at a minimum, include: the schedule of routine and long-term maintenance tasks; inspection reports; hazards, incidents, and safety issues observed and action taken; and trail user input and feedback. Other record keeping items could include prioritization of maintenance projects, annual maintenance budgets and costs, and projected costs for maintenance in subsequent years.

FACILITY CLOSURES

The Parks and Recreation Department and the Department of Public Works will, from time to time, officially close certain sections of the network in order to conduct repairs and upgrades to facilities and due to other maintenance activities, utility work, flooding, or other adverse weather events. At such times, the Parks and Recreation Department and Department of Public Works will post signs and install barriers that stipulate facility closure. Also, when possible, safe alternative routes for bicyclists and pedestrians will be identified and adequately signed.

DIVISION OF MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

Columbus’ current bicycle and pedestrian network, with the exception of sidewalks, is maintained by both the Parks and Recreation Department and the Department of Public Works.

Specific responsibilities for each department should be identified in a Schedule of Routine and Long-Term Maintenance Tasks. This schedule should be evaluated and modified as gaps or overlap of tasks are identified. As new types of facilities are added new maintenance procedures and tasks will also be required. The schedule should be reviewed annually and revised to avoid gaps in responsibility and to keep maintenance tasks located in the appropriate department.

PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Duties for the Parks and Recreation Department will include maintenance and operations of all facilities designated as part of the People Trail network, including shared use paths, trailheads, wayfinding, and other elements of the People Trail network.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Duties for the Department of Public Works include maintenance and operations for all on-road facilities and all offroad facilities (shared use paths) not designated as part of the People Trail network. This includes neighborhood bicycle routes, conventional and buffered bicycle lanes, cycle tracks, and select shared use paths.

BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

When rural bicycle routes are implemented, which are proposed on rural roadways outside of the Columbus city limits, the Bartholomew County Highway Department will be responsible for the maintenance and operations of these on-road facilities.

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (INDOT)

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is typically responsible for the maintenance and operations of all bicycle and pedestrian facilities within its public right-of-way of state highways, including crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Sometimes, as determined on a case-by-case basis and through an agreement, the City will maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the INDOT right-of-way.

AGREEMENTS

The local and state agencies listed above may execute agreements that modify or otherwise assign duties and responsibilities.

VOLUNTEERS

Volunteers can provide services to help offset or reduce the costs of maintenance for the system of facilities. The use of volunteer citizen groups are especially useful for activities such as trash and litter control, invasive species removal, and safety patrols. The Columbus Park Foundation’s Adopt-A-Trail program is an excellent way to engage local citizens in the care and maintenance of the network. Through the Adopt-A-Trail program, residents, businesses, trail users, and various community groups can have an active role in maintaining the lands and facilities of the network. Volunteers in this program work with the Parks Department to provide the following services: litter collection, leaf raking, removal of invasive species, landscaping installation, and similar tasks.

MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES

The maintenance standards in this Plan describe when and how infrastructure within Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network is to be maintained. These standards establish clear expectations and ensure consistent aesthetics and functionality throughout the system. The maintenance standards described below should be amended as appropriate as maintenance needs change.

SHARED USE PATHS

Snow

BICYCLE LANES, BUFFERED BICYCLE LANES, CYCLE TRACKS

Vegetation

Monthly for cycle tracks only if vegetation serves as physical barrier

NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTES, RURAL BICYCLE ROUTES

MAINTENANCE

Inspection Once

Vegetation

Repave

Miscellaneous

MAINTENANCE TASK DETAILS

The following recommendations, from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), describe how maintenance tasks should be performed in order to facilitate safe and efficient travel for bicyclists and pedestrians.

INSPECTION

Inspection of facilities should include an assessment of the current condition of each facility. The condition of each facility should be documented, including short-term issues such as the need for debris removal and long-term issues such as pavement failure or faded striping. Inspection should occur more frequently along facilities that experience frequent flooding or vandalism.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

Vegetation management should include mowing, edging, and trimming vegetation as necessary to maintain a clear path for bicyclists and pedestrians. Vegetation should be maintained to ensure adequate clearance and sight visibility at driveways and street intersections and clear visibility of signage. Vegetation that obstructs the view of pedestrians and bicyclists to approaching motorists should also be removed.

CLEANING (BLOWING/SWEEPING)

Facilities should be cleared of all debris, including glass, gravel, and plant litter (leaves, branches, fruit). The clearing of plant litter may be required more frequently in the summer and fall.

Sweeping/blowing should occur after mowing near shared use paths to ensure that paths remain clear of grass clippings, which can result in slippery conditions particularly after a rainfall. Bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, and cycle tracks should be inspected and cleared after sweeping of roads to ensure that roadway debris does not collect and cause unsafe conditions in the bicycle lanes and cycle tracks. Roadways with curbing should be cleared with maintenance vehicles that pick up debris; for facilities without curbing, debris can be swept off the pavement.

Gravel can be reduced on roadways, sidewalks, and shared use paths by paving gravel driveway or alley approaches.

SIGNS / PAVEMENT MARKING MAINTENANCE

Signs should be replaced, repaired, and cleaned as needed to ensure readability. Crosswalks and other pavement markings should be repainted as needed.

SNOW REMOVAL

On streets with bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, and cycle tracks, snow should be removed from all travel lanes, including the bicycle facilities. Snow should not be stored in or on on-street bicycle facilities, shared use paths, or sidewalks. Snow removal of People Trails should be prioritized based upon commuter usage.

DRAINAGE REPAIR

Drainage and catch basin grates should be flush with pavement on bicycle facilities to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian movement. Unsuitable grates should be replaced with bicycle and wheelchair compatible grates during resurfacing and reconstruction projects. Faulty drains that result in the pooling of water in crosswalks, curb ramps, or in any other location along a bicycle and pedestrian facility should be replaced or repaired.

SURFACE REPAIR

Repairs should be made promptly after identifying cracks, potholes, bumps, or other surface irregularities that could negatively impact bicycle and pedestrian mobility. AASHTO recommends the following regarding surface maintenance and care:

.

.

Prevent the edge of a roadway surface repair from running longitudinally through a bicycle lane or other bicycle or pedestrian facility.

Take preventative maintenance measures, such as ensuring drainage infrastructure is working properly and eliminating intrusive tree roots.

Sweep project areas after repairs. .

Minimize long-term maintenance needs and extend the life of bicycle and pedestrian facilities by building facilities to a high pavement standard. This could include selecting pavement material that is resistant to root damage or selectively placing root barriers in locations where root damage is expected to be a concern.

REPAVE ASPHALT / REPLACE CONCRETE SLABS

AASHTO recommends the following with regard to pavement overlays:

. Correct pavement edge drop-offs.

Extend overlays over the entire roadway surface, including shoulders if intended for bicycle use, to avoid leaving an abrupt edge within a riding area.

Maintain the surface of inlet grates and utility covers to within 0.25 inches of the pavement surface and replace any that are not bicycle compatible. .

.

Pave at least 10 feet back on low-volume driveway connections and 30 feet back or to the right-of-way line, whichever is less, on unpaved public road connections to prevent gravel from spilling onto shoulders or bicycle lanes.

Sweep the project area after an overlay to prevent loose gravel from adhering to the freshly paved surface.

AASHTO also recommends that municipalities establish a process that enables the public to report complaints about surface condition, snow removal, etc. and for the City to respond in a timely manner.

LABOR AND EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

With phased development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, new personnel and equipment will be needed to undertake the day-to-day management of the system. It should be understood that shared use path and on-road facility management and operations is separate from other land management responsibilities currently associated with drainage, parks, and public streets. As such, the following offers guidance for how labor and equipment should be assigned for the care and management of the network.

OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

One (1) three-person trail crew should be employed by the Parks Department specifically to carry out daily maintenance, management, and stewardship of the People Trail network, including trailhead facilities, signage systems, furniture (benches, picnic tables, etc.), landscaping and vegetation, and other elements of the system.

People Trail management by the three-person crew should be performed by subdividing the People Trail into management zones. Based on the current size of the People Trail network, it is recommended that the Parks Department create three (3) management zones, containing approximately 6 miles per management zone. The trail crew would perform complete management activities within each management zone including inspection; mowing; sweeping/blowing; invasive species management; repair of trailheads, furniture and furnishings; vegetation management; and drainage channel management. As new sections of the People Trail network are constructed, additional maintenance crews should be added at the rate of one additional three-person crew for every 30 miles of added trails.

EQUIPMENT NEEDED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

The Department of Parks and Recreation will require the use of a commercial mower, a 4-wheel drive pickup truck, power trimmers, power blowers, chain saws, ATVs with snow plows, pruning sheers, hand shovels, and rakes in order to manage mowing and other land management activities associated with the People Trail network. This needed equipment is in addition to other needs for maintaining Parks Department facilities and land.

EQUIPMENT NEEDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

On street bicycle facilities can mostly be maintained as part of other routine roadway maintenance. However, bicyclists are especially sensitive to conditions of the roadway, particularly potholes, debris, and uneven surfaces, so greater attention to detail and, in some cases, specialty equipment, may be needed. The Department of Public Works will require a street sweeper, replacement brooms, and a utility work machine, such as a Bobcat Toolcat, in order to care for bicycle lanes, cycle tracks, and the shared use paths not designated as part of the People Trail network.

In addition to labor and equipment, it is recommended that an annual budget be set aside to pay for annual costs for fuel, materials, repair to equipment, and other miscellaneous charges and costs for completing the maintenance and management of the bicycle and pedestrian network. The City should track costs and reevaluate the maintenance budget annually.

In order to maintain a high quality bicycle and pedestrian network, it is imperative that multiple stakeholders, including the City of Columbus and the Columbus Park Foundation, contribute to the funding for maintenance of existing facilities.

The appendix consists of a stand-alone document titled Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail Visual Identity This document describes a high level approach to wayfinding along the City’s entire bicycle and pedestrian network, as well as a visual identity system for Columbus’ People Trail network.

CITY OF COLUMBUS, INDIANA

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail Visual Identity

INTRODUCTION

REGULATORY AND WARNING SIGNS

This document outlines an overview of brand and wayfinding standards and does not include information on regulatory and warning signs. Regulatory and warning signs and pavement markings shall be installed on each facility and will be reviewed by the City Engineering Department. Such signs and pavement markings shall generally comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

This document does not include guidance for the use of regulatory and warning signs and pavement markings for vehicular traffic on streets. Signs for on-street bicycle facilities, such as bicycle routes and bicycle lanes shall comply with MUTCD.

Other signs and pavement markings as detailed in this Appendix are specific to off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, People Trails, sidewalks, and shared use paths. The use of these signs and markings shall generally follow the MUTCD. The design of such signs, to be most effective, will differ from the MUTCD. Upon approval of this Appendix, the City acknowledges that the differences have been considered and the City hereby accepts these differences and believes that the signs and markings contained herein will be effective and promote safety of the users.

ABOUT THE PROCESS

Columbus-based designers Brooke Hawkins, Graphic Designer and Rachel Kavathe, Landscape Architect were selected to create a design for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail Visual Identity.

The design team held several meetings in 2021 to gather information from City staff and key stakeholders to better understand the current strengths and weaknesses of the bicycle and pedestrian network, as well as opportunities for future improvements. Meetings were held with the

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Team, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Steering Committee, a focus group of local bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as a meeting with the president of the Park Board, Mark Levett. Input received during these meetings helped to guide the design for the visual identity and wayfinding system.

In addition, the design team reviewed existing documentation on the current state of the system to better understand opportunities for improvement. The team reviewed information provided by the City, including bicycle and pedestrian crash data, conflict point data, intersections marked for improvements, and a demand analysis conducted as a part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update process. The team also reviewed community input collected by the City, including the online mapping tool public comments and the results from the community survey conducted as a part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update process.

Furthermore, the team reviewed the bicycle and pedestrian facility maps provided by the City, as well as the working draft of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update document. The team also reviewed bicycle and pedestrian count data conducted in 2020 along at Haw Creek Trail near Lincoln Park and Jonathan Moore Pike Trail. Finally, the City of Columbus ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan for the Public Right-of-Way, MUTCD and NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide were reviewed prior to initiating the design process. All of this information helped to inform the design process for the creation of the wayfinding system and visual identity.

The team also researched the existing visual identity used throughout the People Trail as well as other locations on the bicycle and pedestrian system as a whole. Finally, an inventory of the People Trail and locations throughout the system was conducted to better understand opportunities and challenges for the visual identity and wayfinding project. Three guiding principles were developed for the citywide wayfinding system and the People Trail visual identity.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Help users reach their destinations with the goal of reducing stress to bicyclists and pedestrians using the system.

• Focus on areas where the system transitions from one facility type to another, and at intersections, with the goal to not only assist user navigation and awareness, but also to increase safety.

• Design for both recreational users and transportation users, new users and experienced users.

MULTILINGUAL TEXT

In order to promote inclusivity and ease of network use by all residents and visitors in Columbus, the use of multilingual text should be considered for all signage at the time of implementation.

CONSISTENCY

Consistency is integral to the success of the project. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail Visual Identity is intended to be used as a whole system. If wayfinding is implemented in phases, the intuitive wayfinding elements should be installed in conjunction with other signage to ensure visual cohesion. Installing only parts of the sign family and/or only parts of the intuitive wayfinding elements will not effectively provide users with the needed visual cues for navigating the wayfinding system.

The visual identity and wayfinding system must be presented consistently. Colors (print, digital, paint, etc.), typefaces/fonts, materials, and vendors should be carefully researched, designed, and documented throughout the implementation phases.

Maintaining consistent wayfinding will allow users to recognize, trust and depend on the system. If information is presented inconsistently, or not fully implemented throughout the trail network, awareness and efficacy of the system will be diminished, potentially resulting in confusion, lack of trust, or disregard for the wayfinding system.

DESTINATIONS

Through earlier surveying and public meetings conducted in conjunction with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, the destinations listed below were considered most highly desirable for access from the bicycle and pedestrian network. The design of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail Visual Identity is intended to navigate users to these destinations. For this reason, the implementation of the wayfinding system must start with the end destination in mind.

• Key employment locations and busy shopping centers should be part of wayfinding system for those using the system for transportation purposes.

• The People Trail is not only a means to other destinations but is itself its own destination. As such, directing users to prominent sites and amenities along the trail should be part of the wayfinding system.

• Connections and wayfinding to and from transit stops to the bicycle and pedestrian network are important for those using the system for transportation purposes.

Top Destinations:

• Downtown

• Parks / recreational areas

• Schools

• Fairgrounds

• Key shopping centers

• U.S. 31

• Jonathan Moore Pike

• Architecture tour sites

• Tipton Lakes area

• Airport

• Key employment locations

• Prominent sites and amenities along People Trail

• Transit stops

• Government offices

NAMED TRAILS

Popular trail sections are typically referred to by the name of a nearby destination (i.e. Haw Creek Trail). In order to maintain consistency and bring awareness to the People Trail system, include “People Trail” in the official name (i.e. Haw Creek People Trail).

Sections of trail not named by a nearby destination (i.e.1821 Trail) should be referred to in wayfinding by their name and treated like a destination, similar to a park or school.

Popular routes or loops (i.e. Columbus Loop) should be referred to on maps and online information but not included in on-trail directional signage. Instead, point trail users to the next destination on the loop’s route.

CO-BRANDING

When directing users along trails that run through neighborhoods, districts or other designated areas that have their own branding, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail wayfinding design and/or branding should maintain the established system outlined in this document. Avoid co-branding or producing

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail signage and wayfinding elements with other branding, colors or materials. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Wayfinding and People Trail wayfinding can be minimized in these areas so as not to visually compete with other designed elements in the area.

BICYCLE NETWORK SUBSETS

The People Trail network is a subset of Columbus’ overall bicycle and pedestrian network. It is comprised only of shared use paths, serving both bicyclists and pedestrians, and consists of low-stress, family-friendly recreational routes throughout the city. The citywide bicycle and pedestrian network consists of sidewalks and a system of both on- and off-street bicycle facilities, including the People Trail network. This document provides a wayfinding strategy for the citywide bicycle and pedestrian network, plus a specific visual identity and wayfinding strategy for the People Trail. Reference the City of Columbus Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for guidance on what bicycle/pedestrian facilities are designated as a People Trail. See diagram below.

OVERALL BICYCLE NETWORK

The complete network of bicycle facilities in Columbus

LOW-STRESS BICYCLE NETWORK

A subset of the overall bicycle and pedestrian network consisting of low-stress bicycle facilities that meet the needs of inexperienced bicyclists and the “Interested but Concerned” user group.

PEOPLE TRAIL NETWORK

The smallest subset of the overall bicycle network, serving both bicyclists and pedestrians, consisting of family-friendly recreational routes and loops.

WAYFINDING OVERVIEW

Wayfinding for the citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Network and the People Trail are based on the same system. Both will use the same visual language through the use of icons, typography, and signage materials. Wayfinding for the People Trail has an expanded purpose, color palette and signage family.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

Purpose: to guide and inform

Color: blue

PEOPLE TRAIL

Primary purpose: to guide and inform in detail

Secondary purpose: to bring awareness of the People Trail and to increase the quality of trail experience (placemaking).

Colors: Primarily green with expanded palette

Examples of sign types for the People Trail.

Example of sign type for the citywide Bicycle and Pedestrain Network.

ICONS

Icons should appear in white, Bright Blue (for Bicycle and Pedestrian Network) and Green (for People Trail). Under special circumstances, icons may appear in black.

Icons added to this group should be similar is style and created as vector artwork to ensure flexibility of color and scale.

Bicycle Trail and/or Bicyclist

Pedestrian Walking

Pedestrian using Wheelchair

TYPOGRAPHY Helvetica

Type plays an important part in building the People Trail and Bicycle and Pedestrian Network wayfinding system. Helvetica is bold and contemporary and embodies the brand personality.

Four weights of Helvetica can be used.

Helvetica Heavy

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

1234567890

Helvetica Bold

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

1234567890

Helvetica Roman

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

1234567890

Helvetica Light

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

1234567890

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK WAYFINDING

COLOR

Pantone 2935 C

CMYK 100 68 4 0

RGB 0 85 184

#0055b8

Bright Blue is the primary color for the citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Network wayfinding.

GROUND MARKINGS

Ground markings can be used to indicate where bicyclists are permitted, and which areas are safe only for pedestrians.

The Shared Use Path directional sign is intended to be utilized along shared use paths outside of the People Trail network and along sidewalks in some situations.

Renderings included throughout this document are conceptual, and are not for construction. Actual signage and wayfinding may vary.

SIGN FAMILY

SHARED USE PATH DIRECTIONAL SIGN

• Maintain a 1 in. margin on all directional signage.

• Primary message is to be set in 150 pt Helvetica Bold or 100 pt Helvetica Bold, whichever is larger. Top-left justified

• Icons are spaced evenly across the bottom margin.

• Maintain a 1 in. margin on all directional signage.

• Location name is to be set in 50 pt Helvetica Bold. Street to be set in 50 pt Helvetica Roman.

• From shared use paths, signage points users to the People Trail using a blue sign with a green People Trail symbol.

Shared Use Path directional signage is intended to be pedestrian-scale and used in locations where people will view the sign primarily on foot, or on bike along off-street facilities.

SIGN FAMILY VEHICULAR DIRECTIONAL SIGN

Vehicular directional signage is intended to be used in locations along a roadway and where bicyclists may be merged with vehicular traffic. Signage in these locations should be sized appropriately to be visible while approaching at higher speeds. The Vehicular Directional Sign will be utilized along bike lanes, bike routes, and cycle tracks.

• Maintain a 2 in. margin on all directional signage.

• Primary message is to be set in 340 pt Helvetica Bold or 260 pt Helvetica Bold, whichever is larger. Sub message is set in 150 Top-left justified

• Icons are at bottom margin

• Maintain a 2 in. margin on all directional signage.

• Location name is to be set in 60 pt Helvetica Bold. Street to be set in 60 pt Helvetica Roman.

• From bike routes, bike lanes and cycle tracks, the sign will point people to the People Trail using a blue sign with a green People Trail symbol.

PEOPLE TRAIL VISUAL IDENTITY

The standards for the People Trail visual identity provide a framework for wayfinding, brochures, ads, websites, presentations, t-shirts, murals and other collateral material. By following these guidelines, we will build a strong and recognizable identity.

PERSONALITY

Informative

Safe

Reliable

Clear & Concise

Spirited & Playful

Inspiring

Loyal (it “looks” like Columbus)

INSPIRATION

The inspiration for the visual identity and logo is based on the trail itself and the way we move along it. The identity represents connections: the physical connections the trail makes to places and the emotional connections we feel within ourselves and to our community when we use the trail.

The People Trail logo is made up of three elements “P”, “T”, and “!”.

The logo represents the trail and users moving along the path.

Colorful circles and squares represent destinations and points of interest throughout our community.

Note: the dotted line is not a brand element. It is used in this document to represent concepts.

LOGO

The logo is the primary symbol and type used to represent the People Trail and how it serves our community. Correct, prominent usage of the logo will ensure brand consistency and effectiveness.

HORIZONTAL LOGO

VERTICAL LOGO

SINGLE COLOR

Single color logos should be used only when it is not possible to use the full color version.

ALTERNATE SYMBOLS

PT symbols can be used without text on signage and in a limited capacity. These can be used when the words “People Trail” appear elsewhere. (See the cover of this document. The round PT symbol is used because the document has “People Trail” in the title.)

CLEAR SPACE

A minimum clear space must be maintained around the logo at all times. The amount of space required depends on the usage. The height of the “PT” in the graphic symbol is the most commonly required amount of clear space around the logo.

Exceptions to the clear space requirement will be permitted only for wayfinding signage where space limitations and readability are factors. The height of the curve of the “P” in the graphic symbol is the minimum required amount of clear space around the logo on wayfinding signage.

LOGO MISUSE

It is important that we don’t jeopardize the integrity of the logo and graphic symbols. These examples are just some of the ways our logo must not be used.

People Trail

Do not condense, stretch, reshape, add to or alter the logo in any way.

Do not use circle symbol with a different typeface or font (see section on typeface).

Do not use effects such as drop shadow, outer glow, bevel/emboss on the logo.

Do not allow images or the background to show through the symbol (the “PT” in the symbol should be white).

COLOR PALETTE

Pantone 348 C

CMYK 100 4 87 18

RGB 0 133 61

#00853d White

CMYK 0 0 0 0

RGB 255 255 255

#ffffff

Green

Pantone 164 C

CMYK 0 63 78 0

RGB 255 167 64

#ff7f40

Pantone 2915 C

CMYK 58 14 0 0

RGB 95 179 288

#5fb3e4

Additional colors are used as accents when emphasizing the playfulness of the identity.

Pantone 489 C

CMYK 5 27 25 0

RGB 239 194 179

#efc2b3

Pantone 7737 C

CMYK 27 15 20 0

RGB 187 198 195

#6ba43a

Pantone 3435 C

CMYK 87 45 78 49

RGB 16 71 53

#104735

Pantone 3945 C

CMYK 8 2 100 0

RGB 243 229 0 #f3e500

Pantone 445 C

CMYK 69 54 54 30

RGB 77 88 88

#4d5858

Pantone 441 C

CMYK 0 63 78 0

RGB 255 167 64 #71a850

Bright orange from the Parks Department “sun” logo

Pantone 1585 C

CMYK 0 75 99 0

RGB 242 101 35 #f26523

Pantone 2955 C

CMYK 100 78 36 29

RGB 0 55 100 #003764

and white are the main brand colors.

Orange and blue are the accent colors in the logo.

PHOTOGRAPHY

When using photography, it is important to use high-quality imagery that aligns with the brand personality. Professional photography, taken on the People Trail is preferred.

STOCK PHOTOGRAPHY

Sometimes stock images may be used. It is important to look at the landscape, pavement and buildings in the images and select photos that look like they could have been taken in Columbus.

EXAMPLES OF PHOTOS NOT TO USE

Photos by Don Nissen. Courtesy of Columbus Area Visitors Center.

Landscape indicates photo was not taken in Columbus.

Low quality (pixelated) image.

Images does not align with brand personality (too dark and not candid).

EXAMPLES OF USE

PEOPLE TRAIL WAYFINDING SYSTEM

SIGN FAMILY

Renderings included throughout this document are conceptual, and are not for construction. Actual signage and wayfinding may vary.

SIGN FAMILY MONUMENT SIGN CONCEPTS

Monument signs are intended to be prominent sculptural features at key locations along the trail. The purpose of monument signs are to:

• Showcase the trail and raise awareness of the People Trail network at key locations, such as in parks or at a major trailhead

• Be artistic expressions of the visual identity

• Become sculpture attractions along the trail system

• Use the colors of the visual identity system for visual cohesiveness

For example, a monument sign could be placed along the People Trail somewhere near Central Avenue and State Street. At a prominent and highly trafficked location such as this, the monument will function as public artwork but also will raise awareness of the People Trail within the community.

By using the branding colors and a sculptural element to mark prominent locations along the trail, the monument signage marks the trail location for those who may not be familiar with the network and also reinforces its brand identity.

Text on the monument is not needed when used as a sculptural element that is part of the overall wayfinding system; however, text could be used on the monument to recognize donors of the People Trail.

12 ft. minimum

Donner Park

Informational signs are intended to be placed at People Trail trailheads. They include a variety of information specific to their location.

• About the location, using the icon system for quick reference

• Trail map with a “Your Are Here” marker and QR code for mobile phone access to maps, trail, and parks information.

• Directional information for destinations near by

• Trail rules

• Decorative branding elements are to be placed along the bottom and sides of the sign so as not to distract from the information.

Variations of Informational sign. Open green rectangles could frame views of landscape, art, or architecture with information about the framed view on the sign.

• Maintain a 1 in. margin on all directional signage.

• Primary message is to be set in 150 pt Helvetica Bold or 100 pt Helvetica Bold, whichever is larger

• Top-left justified

• PT Symbol is at Bottom-right margin

• Maintain a 1 in. margin on all directional signage.

• Location name is to be set in 50 pt Helvetica Bold. Street to be set in 50 pt Helvetica Roman.

• Ensure all text is sized to meet ADA standards

SIGN FAMILY MARKERS/DECISION POINT SIGNAGE

Markers/Decision Point Signs are intended to be used in a variety of ways.

• Signs can be placed along the trail with the People Trail logo to provide visual cues and ensure people that they are heading in the right direction and remaining on the People Trail.

• Signs can be used where two facility types meet to help guide people toward their desired destination.

• Signs may include arrows or destination names to help guide users

• Small signs may include arrows and the People Trail logo to provide reassurance that they are still on the People Trail.

• Small signs may include mile markers in areas where users wish to track distances

INTUITIVE WAYFINDING GROUND MARKINGS

The green line along the trail can be used in areas of the People Trail that are highly trafficked. The line provides assurance that users are on the official People Trail, and also helps to separate traffic on the trail. The green center line could also be used at sharp corners to ensure users remain on their respective sides of the trail. The line is not intended to be used along the entire length of the trail, but only in high traffic areas, at sharp corners, and/or for directional purposes.

Along hazardous edges of the trail, a line may be used for safety purposes to make the edge of the trail more visible to users. Lines along the edges should not use the color green.

The logo can be used directly on the trail in locations where it is not practical or necessary to use the solid line. The logo marking should be repeated along the trail to provide users with reassurance that they are on the correct path. These markings may occur approximately every 1/10th of a mile in areas where the route of the People Trail is more obvious to the user. In areas where the trail intersects other facility types, it may be necessary to use the logo more frequently, such as every 50-100 feet. Exact distances between logo markings should be verified in the field.

At locations where the trail and another facility type meet, the logo and directional arrows may be used to communicate the direction of the People Trail.

INTUITIVE WAYFINDING CROSSWALKS

Crosswalk A is intended for prominent locations along the People Trail. The colors used match the visual identity system.

Crosswalk B can be used in less prominent locations to provide added intuitive wayfinding along the trail system.

INTUITIVE WAYFINDING ARTWORK AND PLACEMAKING

INTUITIVE WAYFINDING SEATING AND TABLES

Concrete benches can be custom fabricated in the shape of the People Trail logo. The pieces that make up the logo can be taken apart and reconfigured in various layouts at different locations along the trail.

Colorful seating and tables can be placed along the trail, particularly in more highly trafficked areas, where people naturally may congregate or would enjoy an outdoor spot to each lunch. The seating example above is the Orbit seating collection from mmcite (mmcite.com). The LOW260 model in the Orbit line is a wheelchair accessible option for the collection.

INTUITIVE WAYFINDING LIGHTING

Bollard lights can be installed along the trail and programmed with RGBW LED lights that align with the People Trail color palette. The

LED lights can provide a bright enough light to illuminate the trail for pedestrians.

RGBW

Above: Forms+Surfaces Light Column Bollards in Stainless Steel with Satin finish shown in RGBW configuration.

Above: Forms+Surfaces Light Column Bollards in Stainless Steel with Satin finish shown in RGBW white. These lights can be up to 6000K for a bright illumination of the trail.

Above: Forms+Surfaces Aptos Bollard can be configured for solar power.

Above: Forms+Surfaces Light Column Pedestrian Lighting

Above: Forms+Surfaces Rincon Pedestrian Lighting