Bicycle System section of the TSP

Draft Existing Transportation System Conditions Page 1 W&H Pacific Project No. 04.0168.0009

Existing Conditions Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are an indicator of a community’s health and livability to its residents, in particular the young and the elderly. Pedestrian system conditions range from comprehensive and well-connected systems to poorly connected systems that can be intimidating for pedestrians. Vancouver has a walkable downtown, and several other areas of the city, particularly the Fort Vancouver area and areas in the southeast and the northwest of the city, are also very walkable. Many of Vancouver’s neighborhoods provide pleasant pedestrian environments. Several areas of the city, however, particularly the eastern portions that were recently annexed, have a patchwork of on-again, off-again sidewalks. Many major arterial streets, such as Fourth Plain, Mill Plain, and 162nd, have continuous sidewalks, but the pedestrian environment on several arterials is poor considering the numerous driveways, lack of crossings, and lack of buffer zone, street trees, and other safety features. Many recent developments have provided sidewalks with attractive landscaping, while adjacent properties continue to lack pedestrian space. Pedestrian conditions around schools are generally adequate; some (e.g., Fruit Valley Elementary) provide attractive pedestrian features, but others (e.g., Burton Elementary) are characterized by difficult pedestrian conditions. The Vancouver pedestrian system as a whole could benefit from increased awareness of safety and connectivity. As in many growing cities, bicycle facilities in Vancouver range from existing popular off-street paths to facilities with serious connectivity gaps. The Waterfront and Discovery Trail segments offer beautiful off-street path opportunities. Bicycle lanes exist on several streets such as McGillivray, Fort Vancouver, St. Johns, St. James, Hazel Dell, 136th and 162nd. There are also numerous short bike lanes throughout the City, typically less than a quarter mile that were installed as part of development projects. The network of existing bike lanes as a whole, however, is not well connected. In many cases, the existing bike lanes lack adequate striping, marking, and signing. Bicycle route signs can be found on several major streets, such as Mill Plain, but many of these areas lack proper signage and conditions to fully function as adequate bicycle systems. Although Vancouver has some elements of a quality bicycle system, there is plenty of room for improvement by encouraging safe connections to link all areas of the city.

Pedestrian Facilities Terminology Pedestrians The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1994) (the AASHTO Green Book) defines a pedestrian as “any

Pedestrian and Bicycle Element of the

City of Vancouver Transportation System Plan


Page 2

person afoot” and as “the lifeblood of our urban areas, especially in the downtown and other retail areas.” Pedestrians can be categorized depending on trip types. Major pedestrian trip types include: to and from work, to and from transit or other multimodal facilities, to and from school, recreation, exercise/health, shopping, social events, work-related, personal errands and appointments, and chained trips (doing errands on the way to work, etc.). The typical pedestrian is a shopper approximately 50% of the time and a commuter approximately 11% of the time (AASHTO Green Book). Pedestrian needs for different trip types vary; for example, a commuter may desire a well-connected direct route, while a recreational pedestrian may be more concerned about the connectivity of a route. However, all pedestrians have several pedestrian needs in common, such as system safety, connectivity, and accessibility. Pedestrians can also be grouped into several user classes based on age group. The Washington State Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways Plan (1994) lists several generalized characteristics for each age group (note: these generalizations may not apply to all individuals). Pedestrian systems should generally be designed to accommodate all age groups.

Age 0 to 4 -Learning to Walk -Requiring constant parental supervision -Developing peripheral vision, depth perception

Age 5 to 12 -Increasing independence but still requiring supervision

-Poor depth perception -Susceptible to “dart out” or intersection dash

Age 13 to 18 -Sense of invulnerability

-Intersection dash Age 19 to 40 -Active, fully aware of traffic environment Age 41 to 65 -May be some slowing of reflexes Age 65+ -Some street crossing difficulty

-Poorer vision -Some difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from behind -High fatality rate

Pedestrian systems must be adequate for usage by pedestrians with disabilities. Pedestrian aids for people with disabilities can include curb cuts and ramps, tactile warnings, easy-to-reach activation buttons, audible warnings and message systems, raised and Braille letters for communication, signal timing at lower than average walking speed, maximum grade of 1:20 and cross slope of 1:50 (ramps can be 1:12), roadway crossing refuges, reduced roadway crossing distances (bulb-outs and curb extensions), traffic calming, handrails, smooth surfaces and unobstructed travel ways (WSDOT Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook).


Page 3

Pedestrian Facilities According to the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan (1994), pedestrian facilities are more than just sidewalks – along with sidewalks, pedestrian facilities include trails, curb ramps, traffic calming and control devices, grade separated crossings, wide shoulders and other technology, design features, and strategies intended to encourage pedestrian travel. AASHTO defines pedestrian facilities as: “sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic control features, special walkways found on some portions of freeway right-of-way, and curb cuts (depressions) and ramps for the older walkers and persons with mobility impairments. They are also parts of bus stops or other loading areas, grade separations, and the stairs or escalators related to these facilities” (Green Book). It is important to note that pedestrian facilities should be considered separate from bicycle facilities, except in certain special cases (such as multi-use paths). Bicyclists and pedestrians have different characteristics that should be recognized and accommodated. Pedestrian facilities can be categorized as two major types: sidewalks and walkways. Both types of facilities are found in Vancouver. The WSDOT Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook defines sidewalks and walkways as follows.

Sidewalks Sidewalks are located along streets and are generally raised and constructed of concrete. Sidewalks are located adjacent to curbs or are separated from curbs by a linear planting strip. Sidewalk widths can vary, but typically they are a minimum of five feet wide on local residential streets and can be six to 16 feet wide or more on collector and arterial streets or in special pedestrian districts. The AASHTO Green Book states that sidewalks should be developed as integral parts of all city streets when possible. Walkways Walkways are usually built over the existing ground surface and are not raised. Walkways often are separated from roadways by a planting buffer or ditch and are usually constructed of material other than concrete, such as asphalt, compacted granular stone, or crushed rock. The minimum recommended width for walkways is five feet with a minimum recommended street separation distance of five feet (unless in areas of low traffic volumes). Walkways sometimes serve as interim solutions in high-traffic areas where sidewalk facilities are needed.

Roadside Shoulders Roadside shoulders can also serve as pedestrian facilities in low-traffic areas. For roads characterized by less than 400 vehicles per day, a three to five foot wide shoulder adjacent to a bike lane is sufficient for pedestrian travel. However, shoulders intended to be pedestrian facilities either on major collectors and arterials with greater than 2,000 vehicle per day or near schools and other areas of high pedestrian concentrations need to be wider than five feet (WSDOT Design Manual). Shoulders can be either paved or unpaved. Paved shoulders must be delineated from the roadway with striping or contrasting paving material. Shoulders intended for pedestrian use should not double as bicycle lanes; separate bike lanes should be designated.

The placement of types of pedestrian facilities varies depending on setting and local standards. Pedestrian facilities along streets with lower average daily traffic volumes can consist of roadway


Page 4

shoulders, while facilities along streets with high traffic volumes (such as arterials) should usually include a comprehensive system of sidewalks, crosswalks, and sometimes grade separations for pedestrians. It should be noted that location of pedestrian facilities on one or both sides of a street also varies depending on setting and standards. According to the AASHTO Green Book, “As a general practice, sidewalks should be constructed initially along all arterial streets that are not provided with shoulders, even though pedestrian traffic may be light.” According to the City of Vancouver’s 1995 Street Standards, “Sidewalks shall be constructed along the frontages of all streets in accordance with city standard plans.” Generally, the City of Vancouver recommends 6-foot sidewalks (with 8- to 10-foot planter strips between the sidewalk and the bike lane) on both sides of all principal and minor arterial streets. The City of Vancouver also recommends 6-foot minimum width sidewalks on both sides of the street on collectors. It is recommended that the sidewalk be separated from the bike lane by a 4- to 6-foot planter strip. Within the area designated as “City Center” (the downtown Vancouver area) the recommended minimum sidewalk width is 12 feet. Existing Pedestrian System The existing pedestrian system in the City of Vancouver consists of on-again/off-again sidewalk network s and other pedestrian facilities. The city has no specified pedestrian districts or designated pedestrian malls. In several Vancouver locations the pedestrian system is comprehensive, such as in some areas of downtown and the Fort Vancouver area. However, some areas of the city are characterized by a relatively piecemeal system, with high-quality sidewalks and pedestrian crossings adjacent to new developments connecting to inadequate or nonexistent systems adjacent to older developments. Classified arterials without sidewalks (or with intermittent sidewalks) include: Lower River Road Fruit Valley Road Evergreen Highway Port Way (south of Mill Plain) 39th Street (west of Lincoln) Lincoln Street (45th – Bernie) Main Street (north of 45th) Ross Street NE 54th Street NE 49th Street (NE 15th-St. James and NE 121st-NE 138th) “P” Street (39th-33rd) 5th Street (east of Grand) Blandford Drive Ellsworth Road (south of McGillivray) McGillivray Boulevard/SE 10th Street (98th-136th) Talton Avenue SE 164th Avenue (south of SE 34th) Devine Road (Mill Plain-18th) NE 65th


Page 5

Andresen Road (SR 500-Fourth Plain and MacArthur-Evergreen) Burton Road (Fourth Plain-18th and 87th-98th) 97th/98th Avenue (14th-18th and Mill Plain-St. Helens) Evergreen Boulevard (east of Blandford) Van Mall Drive (around mall) Thurston Way (south) NE 9th Street NE 18th Street (112th-136th) 28th Street (112th-130th and 143rd-162nd) 138th Avenue (18th-NE 49th) NE 122nd Avenue (NE 39th-NE 49th) NE 49th Street (122nd-138th) Map 6 shows a map of the existing sidewalk system in Vancouver. Major streets in Vancouver are classified into three types of arterials: principal arterials, minor arterials, and collector arterials. All arterials were examined for the purposes of this plan.


Page 6

Map 6


Page 7

Vancouver Walkability Survey The purpose of the Vancouver Visual Pedestrian System Survey was to assess the walkability, or quality of the existing pedestrian system along arterials in the city of Vancouver. The survey was conducted in June 2000 and consisted of a windshield survey of all classified principal arterials, minor arterials, and collector arterials within the City of Vancouver. The survey also assessed the walkability near all schools within the City of Vancouver, and several other pedestrian attractors. The survey process was based on the Downtown Vancouver Walking Visual Survey conducted in the Downtown Vancouver Transportation System Plan. However, the large size of the study area hindered a block-by-block walking survey; walkability instead was assessed on a relatively macroscopic level. Walkability characteristics were recorded for street segments (for example, from arterial-to-arterial) rather than city blocks. Walkability is a measure of the degree to which a sidewalk (or multi-use path) provides a safe, pedestrian-friendly environment. Walkability is determined through several criteria. The criteria used for the Vancouver TSP are slightly different from the criteria used for the Downtown Vancouver TSP due to the differing scales of the surveys. The survey contained nine major walkability characteristics: Width (width of the sidewalk, if existing, excluding the buffer); Clear Width (lack of obstructions); Surface Condition (physical condition of the sidewalk, including presence of cracks, weeds,

and trip hazards); ADA Accessibility (presence/absence of ramps, adequate measurements, etc.); Connectivity (continuous connections linking parts of the pedestrian system); Buffer (planter strip, a proxy for distance from traffic for safety purposes); Intersections (accessibility and safety, including striping, etc.); Signage (directional and intersection signage); Aesthetics/Pedestrian Environment (pedestrian amenities, street trees, adjacent building

design etc.). Note that where sidewalks do not exist, these criteria are moot. Table 17 summarizes the walkability criteria used to evaluate the Vancouver pedestrian system. When applied to specific street sections or transportation corridors these criteria are useful in defining and prioritizing pedestrian system improvements. Distinctive features, both positive and negative, were also noted as part of the survey. From these characteristics an overall rating was assigned for each street segment and summarized in a walkability index.


Page 8

Table 17: Walkability Criteria This table shows examples of good (high degree) and poor (low degree) walkability in terms of several criteria. All photo examples are from Vancouver. Numbers next to the photos correspond to the locations shown on Map 7.

Criteria

WALKABILITY High Degree Low Degree

Sidewalk Width 6 feet or more

Photo # 1

Less than 4 feet

Photo # 2

Clear Width 5 feet or more

Photo # 3

Less than 4 feet Overgrown

vegetation, vehicles, dumpsters, or other obstacles in sidewalk

Photo # 4

Surface Condition Well-maintained Few cracks Smooth surface Lack of weeds and

trip hazards Photo # 5

Poorly maintained Cracks Trip hazards Weeds

Photo # 6

ADA Accessibility Full ADA access

Photo # 7

No ADA access

Photo # 8

Connectivity Easy connection with other areas

Photo # 9

Sidewalk not linked to others

Breaks in sidewalk Vehicles, dumpsters,

and other obstacles in sidewalk

Photo # 10


Page 9

Buffer 4 feet or more

Photo # 11

Less than 2 feet

Photo # 12

Intersection Treatments Crosswalks lined up with sidewalk

Pedestrian signals Striping

Photo # 13

Lack of crosswalks Long crosswalks Inaccessible curb

Photo # 14

Signage Pedestrian-scale signage

Clear directional and intersection signage

Photo # 15

Lack of signage Signage not visible to

pedestrians

Photo # 16

Aesthetics and Pedestrian Environment

Shade Trees Flowers and other

vegetation Landscaping Planters Sculptures, art Views/scenery Outdoor

activities/cafes Pedestrian-oriented

building design Photo # 17

Trash and garbage Graffiti Blank walls Isolated Weeds Offensive smells Lack of pedestrian-

oriented activity

Photo #18

Walkability and the Arterial Street System Arterials are the primary travel routes in the city of Vancouver. Arterials often connect major destinations and serve as primary transit routes. The three types of arterials in Vancouver include principal arterials, minor arterials, and collector arterials. Pedestrian facilities are important along arterials to enhance multimodal connections and provide a safe pedestrian environment. Each arterial segment was evaluated in terms of each of the nine criteria, and was rated as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” for each criterion. The ratings corresponded to specific quantitative or qualitative parameters (primarily based on AASHTO and state standards) as depicted in the walkability table. To achieve the overall walkability ranking for a segment, the criterion ratings were assigned numeric values, where good = 3, fair = 2, and poor = 1. The overall walkability rating was based on the sum of the nine numeric criterion values. Each criterion was given equal


Page 10

Andresen Road missing sidewalks

weight in this evaluation. Segments scoring 22-27 overall were rated as “good,” segments scoring 16-21 overall were rated as “fair,” and segments scoring 9-15 overall were rated as “poor.” Map 7 illustrates the walkability ratings for the Vancouver pedestrian system on arterial streets. In general, the arterial pedestrian system in Vancouver consists of segments of adequate pedestrian facilities linked with segments of inadequate, dangerous, or nonexistent facilities. Several of the arterials are characterized by many points of vehicle access (driveways, etc.) that increase the likelihood of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. In addition, several of the arterials lack planter strips/street trees, which can increase the safety and pedestrian-friendliness of a pedestrian system. Many arterials, especially east of Interstate 5, did not have sidewalks or the existing sidewalks were limited to those bordering relatively new development, resulting in a fragmented pedestrian system along several of those arterials. Most of the street segments with sidewalks were characterized by a “fair” degree of walkability. Arterial segments characterized by “good” walkability primarily were concentrated around Fort Vancouver, Grand Boulevard, McGillivray Boulevard, the new West Mill Plain extension, and north of Fourth Plain west of Interstate 5. Arterial segments characterized by “poor” walkability primarily were concentrated along Andresen Road, Fourth Plain Boulevard (west of Interstate 5), southern portions of Saint James and Saint Johns Roads, the Mill Plain Boulevard Interstate 5 crossing, and certain areas in the downtown region of the city. Descriptions of the 14 principal arterials in Vancouver and their existing pedestrian facilities follow. 18th Street – Pedestrian system consists of 5-foot roadway shoulder from 112th -138th Street.

East of 138th street, intermittent pedestrian system with spots of sidewalk adjacent to Cascade Middle School, Evergreen High School, and certain developments. Relatively high traffic volumes. Overall, lack of connectivity especially in light of proximity to two schools and open space (Evergreen School Park).

112th Avenue – Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system except portion between 18th-28th.

North of 28th pedestrian system fairly good condition with adequate ADA access, but lacking planter strips in most areas. 18th-28th sidewalk has somewhat poor surface condition. Sidewalk from 9th-18th is narrow with no ADA access. Overall, fair system with spots of sidewalk in poor condition, relative lack of street trees/planter strips.

162nd/164th Avenues – Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system. South of Mill Plain the

pedestrian system is high quality with adequate intersection treatments, though some lack of planting strips. North of Mill Plain pedestrian system is generally good quality, though intermittent in some areas. Some areas where ADA is not completely adequate (18th-28th and Mill Plain-18th). Some lack of opportunity for pedestrian crossings. Overall, generally good sidewalk width and surface quality, but lack of street trees/planter strip and connectivity in some areas.

Andresen Road – Comprehensive pedestrian system north of SR

500. Lack of pedestrian system between SR 500 and Fourth Plain.


Page 11

Between Fourth Plain and Mill Plain, pedestrian system is characterized by intermittent sidewalk and heavy orientation toward automobiles, with many driveways and relatively poor access management (increasing likelihood of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts). Beaten path between 18th and Mill Plain, indicating need of sidewalk. Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system between Mill Plain and MacArthur. South of Mac Arthur, no sidewalks or other pedestrian system to connect with SR 14. Overall, intermittent pedestrian system with poor connectivity; some segments with good pedestrian environment and some segments with poor pedestrian environment and accessibility.

“C” Street – Relatively comprehensive pedestrian system in downtown area. Blocks near Mill

Plain/I-5 overpass difficult to navigate and intimidating for pedestrians. Fourth Plain Boulevard– West of I-5, narrow sidewalk in poor condition in close proximity to

relatively high speed traffic (no planting strip). Vehicle traffic has high relative proportion of trucks. East of I-5 sidewalk wider and in good condition with some pedestrian amenities (benches at transit stops), but no planter strip. I-5 overpass difficult to navigate. Overall, lack of planter strip/street trees, many driveways and points of vehicle access (increases likelihood of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts), and relatively poor pedestrian environment.

Grand Boulevard – Comprehensive pedestrian system along length of street. Sidewalk in

good condition with adequate intersection treatments and relatively good pedestrian environment. Some texturized pedestrian ramps. Lack of planting strips and ADA ramps in some areas. Overall, adequate pedestrian system.

Lower River Road – Pedestrian system consists of roadway shoulder (approximately five feet

wide) to be shared with bicyclists. Vehicle traffic consists of relatively high proportion of trucks due to proximity to industrial district and shipping.

Main Street – North of Fourth Plain pedestrian system is comprehensive with pedestrian-

friendly environment and good connectivity, but some lack of planting strips. Main Street in downtown area is also fairly comprehensive with high degree of pedestrian-friendliness, pedestrian amenities and pedestrian-oriented activities. Most intersection crossings have a high degree of accessibility, some with texturized curb ramps. Sidewalk surface between 15th and 16th is somewhat rough. Overall, high degree of pedestrian-friendliness, safety, and connectivity.

McLoughlin Boulevard – Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system from Lincoln to Grand.

Pedestrian system from Grand to Brandt is intermittent, narrow where it exists, and is in relatively poor condition. Overall, crossings at intersections are relatively well-marked and safe, but many need ADA access. Within downtown area, McLoughlin is relatively well-connected and relatively safe, with many street trees. “C” Street to Main Street segment is in poor condition on both sides. I-5 undercrossing lacks safety features such as lighting and connection on north side.

Mill Plain Boulevard – Comprehensive pedestrian system in downtown area and in Fort

Vancouver area from I-5 to Grand. East of Grand the pedestrian system is fair but


Page 12

characterized by many driveways and lack of access management in some areas. East of Grand the pedestrian system also lacks planting strip and street trees (for safety and enhancement of pedestrian environment). Some intersections, such as the intersection with Andresen, are wide and difficult to cross. I-5 overpass and adjacent blocks are difficult to navigate; intimidating intersection for pedestrians. Overall, some areas with lack of planting strip/street trees, many driveways, and some areas with poor pedestrian environment.

St. James Road – Fairly comprehensive, safe pedestrian system. Road has low traffic volume.

Sidewalks in relatively good condition. Some intersections lack ADA ramps and some segments lack planting strips/street trees. Adequate pedestrian environment and connectivity.

St. Johns Road – North of 33rd, safe and comprehensive pedestrian system. Sidewalks in

relatively good condition, some intersections lack ADA ramps and some lack of planting strips/street trees. Adequate pedestrian environment and connectivity. South of 33rd, pedestrian system is intermittent with several beaten paths indicating need for establishment of a pedestrian system, particularly in light of proximity to V.A. Hospital. South of 33rd existing pedestrian system is in poor condition overall, and there seems to be a relatively high rate of pedestrian traffic.

Washington Street – Comprehensive pedestrian system in the downtown area. Sidewalk in

poor condition between 16th and 17th Streets. Autos hang over sidewalk between 17th and McLoughlin due to adjacent parking lot. Most intersections adequate, but some lack ADA access. Some pedestrian amenities and pedestrian-oriented environment.


Page 13

Map 7


Page 14

Burnt Bridge Elementary Raised pedestrian crossing with curb

extensions

Walkability and Schools Walkability was also assessed for the pedestrian system immediately surrounding each public school in the city of Vancouver. Schools in Vancouver are considered priority areas for pedestrian system improvements (particularly improvements related to safety). The same nine walkability criteria were evaluated and the same ranking process was used for the pedestrian system at each public elementary, middle, junior high, senior high, college, and specialized school in the city. Map 8 illustrates the walkability near Vancouver schools. The pedestrian system was observed at 36 public schools. Nine of the schools had no sidewalks. Two of the schools had “poor” pedestrian systems, nine had “fair” pedestrian systems, and 16 had “good” pedestrian systems. Some of these schools were located on streets with relatively low traffic flow, so widened shoulders seemed adequate for accommodating pedestrians in those areas. However, some of the schools not served by pedestrian systems were located on relatively busy roads with narrow shoulders, such as Burton Elementary School. Brief descriptions of the pedestrian system at each school are listed below. Burnt Bridge Elementary – Mostly complete

pedestrian system, including speed humps and curb extensions. Zebra-stripe crosswalks are located on speed humps (raised crosswalk.)

Burton Elementary – No sidewalks, but worn dirt paths leading to the school, indicating pedestrian traffic. Vehicular traffic is relatively high and traffic speed is relatively fast on 28th Street.

Cascade Middle School – Lack of connected pedestrian system on all sides of school; no crossings, no sidewalk on 18th Street. 18th Street and 136th/138th Avenue are relatively busy. Some worn dirt paths indicating pedestrian traffic.

Clark County Vocational Center – Sidewalk in front, but ends, resulting in lack of connectivity. 18th Street is busy, has no crosswalks.

Clark College – Comprehensive pedestrian system including marked crosswalks, textured ADA ramps, and pedestrian signals at intersections. Some intermittent sidewalks on Reserve Street. Medians on Reserve Street and Mill Plain Boulevard.

Crestline Elementary – Sidewalk on one side of frontage street (across from school), two curb extensions.

Discovery Middle School – Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system including narrow buffer, three zebra crosswalks, and ADA compliance. Main Street access is relatively busy in terms of vehicular traffic and has no buffer.

Ellsworth Elementary – Sidewalks along Ellsworth Road, but not on the side streets. Two zebra crosswalks, raised crosswalks, and some signage. Ellsworth Road is fairly busy in terms of vehicular traffic.

Evergreen High School – Lack of connected pedestrian system on all sides of school; no crossings, no sidewalk on 18th Street. 18th Street and 136th/138th Avenue are relatively busy. Some worn dirt paths indicating pedestrian traffic.


Page 15

Fircrest Elementary – No sidewalks, one zebra crosswalk, three speed humps. Relatively low-traffic area.

Fisher’s Landing Elementary – Wide sidewalks, two crosswalks, traffic circle in front of school. Comprehensive pedestrian system.

Benjamin Franklin Elementary – No sidewalks in front of school, but several leading to school. Relatively low-traffic area.

Fruit Valley Elementary – Relatively comprehensive pedestrian system. One zebra crossing with sign, stop signal, and flashing warning sign. Fruit Valley Road is relatively busy with a lot of truck traffic.

Fort Vancouver High School – Sidewalk with two marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals; no buffer on relatively busy street (18th Street).

Harney Elementary – Relatively comprehensive pedestrian system with textured ADA ramps, flashing warning lights, and crosswalk. No buffer on sidewalk.

Hearthwood Elementary – Comprehensive pedestrian system with two zebra crosswalks and treed buffer.

Hough Elementary – Comprehensive pedestrian system in residential area with six zebra crosswalks near school. Sidewalks on both sides and in front of school.

Hudson’s Bay High School -- Comprehensive pedestrian system including marked crosswalks, textured ADA ramps, and pedestrian signals at intersections. Some intermittent sidewalks on Reserve Street. Medians on Reserve Street and Mill Plain Boulevard.

Image Elementary – No sidewalks in front of school or on adjacent access roads (however, striped bike lanes). Several speed humps and zebra crosswalks. Relatively low-traffic area.

Martin Luther King Elementary – Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system, no sidewalk on Boise, narrow sidewalk on Mill Plain approach (with relatively heavy vehicular traffic).

Lincoln Elementary – Speed humps on Daniels, several zebra crosswalks, some textured ADA ramps, no sidewalk on 44th, Franklin, or Lincoln. Missing some key ADA ramps, located in residential area.

Marrion Elementary – Sidewalks on 14th and asphalt path on 104th, minimal sidewalks on cross streets, three zebra crosswalks on speed humps with signs. On low-traffic street.

Marshall Elementary – Fair pedestrian system with one pedestrian crossing. Lack of ADA ramps and median landscaping. Crossing road in front of school somewhat dangerous due to lack of crossings and lack of landscaped median.

McLoughlin Middle School – Sidewalks good, but crossing street in front of school is dangerous. No adequate pedestrian crossings, dangerous median, and lack of ADA.

Mill Plain Elementary – No sidewalks and no pedestrian crossings. Located on relatively busy street linking with Mill Plain Road.

Minnehaha Elementary – Sidewalk directly in front of school but not on access streets or across from school. Zebra crosswalks in front of school with signage. Residential area with relatively low traffic volumes. 3’ sidewalk on east approach.

Mountain View High School – Comprehensive pedestrian system in residential area. No crossings on street in front of school.

Ogden Elementary – No sidewalks, but worn dirt path indicating pedestrian traffic. One zebra crosswalk. Residential area with little traffic.

Riverview Elementary – Sidewalk on one side of street in front of school, but not on other side. Has curb extensions, but one side of curb extension leads to no sidewalk.


Page 16

Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary – Relatively comprehensive pedestrian system; residential area. No ADA access to one zebra crosswalk in front of school.

Shumway Campus, School of Arts and Sciences – Relatively comprehensive pedestrian system in downtown location. Lack of ADA compliance behind school, Main Street access has no buffer on busy street and high traffic volumes. Lack of crossing on Main Street in front of school, but crossings at intersections on Main.

State School for the Blind – Relatively comprehensive pedestrian system. Sidewalk surface maintenance could be better in light of proximity to School for Blind. Raised zebra crosswalk on speed hump with flashing light, sign, and curb extensions. Sidewalk narrow on side of street opposite school.

State School for the Deaf – Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system, poor sidewalk maintenance. Textured ADA ramps, marked crosswalks at intersections. Street narrow on side of street opposite school.

Vancouver Alternative School – Comprehensive pedestrian system, one marked crosswalk at corner. In strip mall/residential location.

Washington Elementary – Comprehensive pedestrian system with zebra crosswalks on all corners of school. ADA poor in back of school. Higher density residential area.

Wy’east Junior High School – Fairly comprehensive pedestrian system with two zebra crosswalks. Sidewalks somewhat narrow on busy street. Median, but no pedestrian crossing to median.


Page 17

Map 8


Page 18

Fourth Plain Bus Shelter

Pedestrian Facilities and Major Business Districts Pedestrians are widely recognized as a key to successful business districts. According to the AASHTO Green Book, “In general, the most successful shopping sections are those that provide the most comfort and pleasure for pedestrians.” Vancouver has several local business districts located within neighborhoods or along arterials. In addition, Vancouver has two major business districts, the downtown area and the Vancouver Mall. Downtown Vancouver Downtown Vancouver is located on the north shore of the Columbia River west of Interstate 5. The downtown area is in the process of redevelopment and revitalization, with the conversion of the Lucky Lager Brewery to Esther Short Park, the Mill Plain Extension, which improves access to the Port of Vancouver, and new investments approaching $1 billion in new housing, offices, retail space, and civic amenities. The pedestrian system in downtown Vancouver recently was detailed and examined in the Downtown Vancouver Transportation System Plan. Overall, the downtown pedestrian system has a fairly comprehensive pedestrian system. Streets are relatively well-connected and most streets are fairly safe. Some notable exceptions include the lack of safety and connectivity of the I-5 overcrossings and undercrossings (except Evergreen Boulevard), the lack of walkability on Fourth Plain, and the lack of connectivity and a pleasant pedestrian environment on streets near the industrial district. In addition, many of the intersections lack ADA ramps and are in need of sidewalk repairs. The Downtown Vancouver TSP identified the potential need for increased pedestrian amenities (benches, water fountains, trash receptacles, street trees, etc.) and pedestrian-oriented activity due to the nature of a central business district; attracting pedestrians is good for downtown business. Vancouver Mall The Vancouver Mall is located near the I-205/Fourth Plain junction. Many driveways leading to restaurants/services and parking lots characterize the region around the mall. Most streets surrounding the Vancouver Mall lack sidewalks or other pedestrian features, and the area is almost entirely oriented toward automobiles. There is a pedestrian crossing with signage near the Vancouver Mall Transit Center area that connects the Vancouver Mall parking area to the apartments and condominiums across Vancouver Mall Way. The loop road around the mall lacks sidewalks, making travel from the apartment complexes to the mall difficult. Much of the Vancouver Mall neighborhood to the west of the mall is well-connected with high quality pedestrian systems, but areas to the north lack an adequate system of sidewalks. Pedestrian Facilities and Multimodal Connections C-TRAN, the regional transit system that provides services to the Clark County area and the city of Vancouver, recently revised and rerouted its bus system to take effect in July 2000. There are three major transit centers in Vancouver: 7th Street Transit Center, Vancouver Mall Transit Center, and Fisher’s Landing Transit Center. The Evergreen Park-and-Ride and Transit Center at 136th and 18th become solely a park-and-ride in 2000, and service to the facility has been substantially cut


Page 19

Fruit Valley Elementary Pedestrian Crossing

Crossing Mill Plain Blvd.

back. The pedestrian systems adjacent to the 7th Street and Fisher’s Landing Transit Centers are fairly comprehensive. The pedestrian system adjacent to the Vancouver Mall Transit Center lacks elements of a sound pedestrian system, although there are some pedestrian crossings and pedestrian signage in the vicinity. Many streets in the Vancouver Mall vicinity lack sidewalks. Access to individual transit stops is adequate in certain areas of the city and inadequate in others. The Downtown Vancouver TSP recommended improvements near the 7th Street Transit Center to accommodate the expected growth in transit use that should accompany new downtown development. The Downtown Vancouver TSP recommended increased pedestrian-scale signage along the Main Street Transit Corridor and near the 7th Street Transit Center. The Downtown Vancouver TSP also recommended the addition of pedestrian lights at Washington Street and 7th (to connect Esther Short Park with the transit center), Columbia Street between 6th and 8th Streets, 6th Street between Esther Street and Columbia Street to connect Esther Short Park to the planned special events facility. The Fisher’s Landing Transit Center is surrounded by a recently constructed pedestrian system near Fred Meyer and Hewitt Packard at SE 34th and NE 164th. The Fisher’s Landing Transit Center serves a relatively newly developed area of the city, and as such, the pedestrian system tends to be fairly adequate. Travel to and from the transit center by foot or bicycle is hindered by 164th Avenue and lack of connecting facilities from surrounding neighborhoods. Pedestrian Facilities and Intersections Many pedestrian facilities at intersections in Vancouver are generally well-designed and safe. Some arterial streets, such as 136th Avenue, Mill Plain, and Andresen Road have long stretches without intersections or designated crossings – these conditions may cause pedestrians to cross mid-block, increasing the likelihood of pedestrian/vehicle conflict. Intersection treatments in the downtown area and at major intersections primarily consist of striped crosswalks and pedestrian light signals. Intersection treatments on streets with less traffic than principal arterials often consist of traditional striped crosswalks or zebra-stripe crosswalks. Some intersections in relatively low traffic areas are not marked at all. Intersection treatments near schools vary from highly visible to nonexistent. Fruit Valley Elementary School connects with Fruit Valley Park with a mid-block crosswalk (in front of the school) with curb extensions, flashing warning lights and speed limit signs, pedestrian signal lights, and zebra stripe markings. Although the pedestrian signal is inadequate in terms of ADA access, this crossing is one of the best-marked in the city. Burnt Bridge Elementary School has several mid-block crossings in front of the school with raised zebra stripe crosswalks. These crossings also include curb extensions, warning signs, and warning demarcation on the street leading up to the speed hump/pedestrian crossing. Other schools have


Page 20

crossings that are not ADA accessible (for example, the crosswalk leads to a curb rather than a pedestrian ramp). Some schools lack crossings altogether.

Bicycle Facilities Terminology The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) notes bicyclists tend to fall into three categories of users:

Advanced or experienced riders are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay.

Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation

purposes but prefer to rider on neighborhood routes, bike lanes, or wide shoulders. Children, riding on their own or with their parents, require access to destinations like

schools and parks. Children ideally should be provided with residential street routes, shared use paths, and bicycle lanes.

The vast majority of streets in Vancouver will not have any bikeway facility designations because they are residential, low volume streets where facilities are unnecessary. Cyclists can comfortably mix with traffic on streets with 3,000 or fewer cars per day. The three types of bikeways described by AASHTO are as follows (see Exhibit 8).

Shared Use Path Shared use paths are also called bike paths or multi-use trails. The required width is 10 feet, with 12 to 14 feet preferred. Shared use paths provide for bicycle travel on a paved right of way completely separated from any street or highway. The most common uses of shared use paths are along rivers, utility rights-of-way, former or active railroad rights-of-way, or within and between parks. They also are used to close gaps in bicycle travel caused by barriers such as cul-de-sacs, bridges, overpasses, etc . . . They can provide recreational opportunities, learning ground for new cyclists, and utilitarian routes, depending on their locations.

Bicycle Lane A bicycle lane is the portion of the roadway designated by striping and bicycle pavement markings for the one-way, exclusive or preferential use of bicycles. Bike lanes should be provided on most collectors and arterials with traffic greater than 3,000 vehicles per day. Bike lanes can help increase the total capacity of the roadway by removing bicycles from the vehicle lanes, provide for more predictable movements, and encourage cycling. Reducing travel and parking lane widths, removing a travel lane, removing parking, or widening the road can accommodate bicycle lanes on existing streets. Bike lanes are


Page 21

typically five feet wide (four foot minimum allowed in certain cases, six foot preferred on new streets.)

Shared Roadway When designated by appropriate signing and stenciling, shared roadways are referred to as bike routes. Shared roadways provide for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic, preferably on lower volume roadways. On higher volume roadways, an extra wide (12 to 14 feet) curb lane is recommended. In some communities, these routes are called bicycle boulevards, defined as shared roadways where the through movement of bicycles is given priority over motor vehicle travel on a local street. Traffic calming devices are used to control traffic speeds and discourage through trips by motor vehicles. Traffic control devices are designed to limit conflicts between automobiles and bicycles and favor bicycle movement on the street. Another type of shared roadway has a shoulder bikeway, upon which the paved shoulder, separated by a four-inch stripe and no bicycle lane markings, is usable by bicycles. Although bicyclists can use the shoulder, auto parking can be allowed on the shoulder. Through movement of bicycles is prioritized over motor vehicle travel on a local street. Traffic calming devices are used to control traffic speeds and discourage through trips by motor vehicles. Traffic control devices are designed to limit conflicts between automobiles and bicycles and favor bicycle movement on the street.


Page 22

Exhibit 8: Types of Bikeway Facilities

Existing Bikeways The existing Vancouver bikeway system consists of an incomplete system of approximately 65.81 miles of bikeways, including 21.2 miles of multi-use pathways and 44.61 miles of bicycle lanes. There are 6.6 miles of shoulder bikeway, and no standard signed bicycle routes or other informal routes (see Table 14). A map of existing bikeways, trails, and bicycle parking is shown in Map 5. A substantial number of Vancouver’s bike lanes do not meet the standard guidelines set forth in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Bicycles are allowed on all paved public roadways in Vancouver, including freeways. On I-5 at the Columbia River/Mill Plain Boulevard exit (Exit 1C), bicyclists must exit on the off-ramp and


Page 23

Columbia Waterfront Trail

Discovery Trail – Stewart Glen

enter I-5 again on the southbound on-ramp. Bicyclists must walk their bicycles across the Columbia River Bridge (signs indicate access to the bridge). Bicyclists are also able to use a separated path in the middle of the I-205 Bridge into Portland. Access from Vancouver can be confusing and the signing is inadequate on I-205. Major existing bikeways in Vancouver include: Waterfront Trail A scenic, four mile paved pathway along the Waterfront that traverses wetland areas, connects to downtown, and serves several present and future activity centers. The total vision includes a path from the eastern to the western borders of Vancouver, including the eastern segment along Evergreen Highway. Once complete, it will become an important recreational and commuting route. Discovery Trail A 12.1-mile paved pathway in several segments, with a total vision of 14.6 miles. Starting at Fruit Valley Road, it follows Stewart Glen to I-5. Currently a crossing of I-5 exists at 39th, leading into Leverich Park via a narrow sidewalk on the north side of 39th. An I-5 overpass at the Burnt Bridge Creek Trail is being built to cross more directly into Leverich Park and connect to the Ellen Davis Walking Trail. The eastern portion of the Discovery Trail goes from Leverich Park to Bagley Park. The segment to Fourth Plain is in the planning stages, while the segment from Devine exists. Discovery Historic Loop This Loop is a partially complete 5.2 mile loop connecting the Columbia River Waterfront with Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Pearson Airpark, and Columbia Shores Village. It includes a railroad undercrossing and at-grade SR-14 crossing at Columbia House Boulevard. St. Johns/St. James, Fort Vancouver Bike Lanes This 6.38 mile route is the only complete north-south route in Vancouver, providing bike lanes the entire length, connecting to a bike lane west on Minnehaha, then north onto Highway 99 out into unincorporated Clark County. McGillivray Bike Lanes These bike lanes connect to numerous outer eastside developments and get cyclists close to the Fishers Landing Transit Center. Although striping improvements are needed to bring several intersections up to current standards, it provides a pleasant riding environment. Of the existing bicycle lanes in Vancouver, a substantial number lack proper markings and signage. For example, McGillivray has the bicycle lane striped on the right side of a right-turn only lane. Many roads lack consistent MUTCD standard markings and signage. However,


Page 24

bicycle lanes more recently installed on streets like 28th, 162nd, and the Mill Plain Extension are up to current standards. Obstacles Bicycle travel in Vancouver is inhibited by the lack of proper bicycle facilities. Additionally, bicyclists find extreme difficulty in crossing many of the I-5 and I-205 interchanges and many major street intersections. As most bicycle-motor vehicle crashes occur at intersections, it is crucial to focus on these for future safety improvements. Examples where attention is needed include 39th/I-5. A positive example is the Mill Plain Extension overpass, which has both bicycle lanes and an adjacent shared use path connecting with the Waterfront shared use path system. A mixed example is Columbia House Boulevard at Columbia Shores, where the Discovery Historic Loop crosses SR-14 at-grade and the railroad on a narrow underpass sidewalk. Although these crossings could use improvements, they do show progress being made.


Page 25

Table 14 Existing Bikeway Facilities in Vancouver

Segment Type Length (miles) Discovery Trail (Stewart Glen) Path 1.5 Discovery Trail (Leverich Park to Bagley Park) Path 2.6 Discovery Trail (Fourth Plain to Devine Road) Path 8 Waterfront Trail Path 4 Discovery Historic Loop Path 2.5 Ellen Davis Trail (walking trail only – Minnehaha to Leverich Park) Path 2.6 Total Multi-Use Paths 21.2 Lower River Road Shoulder 6.60 Fruit Valley Road (Mill Plain to 34th) Bike lane 1.29 Hazel Dell (Newhouse to City limits) Bike lane 0.23 Fort Vancouver (C to Petticoat) Bike lane 2.53 St. Johns (Petticoat to Minnehaha) Bike lane 2.35 St. James (Petticoat to Minnehaha) Bike lane 1.50 39th St (Highway 99 to 15th Ave) Bike lane 1.08 15th Ave ( 45th St to 33rd St) Bike lane 1.35 Andresen ( Minnehaha to 40th St) Bike lane 1.36 86th (Burton to Fourth Plain ) Bike lane 1.40 97th Ave (22nd St to 18th St) Bike lane 0.86 136th Ave (18th St to Mill Plain) Bike lane 2.62 138th Ave (7th St to McGillivray) Bike lane 0.89 Ellsworth ( 19th to 2nd ) Bike lane 0.33 McGillivray (Chkalov to 20th St) Bike lane 5.27 10th St (Nancy to 105th) Bike lane 0.62 Hearthwood (9th St to Mill Plain) Bike lane 1.69 162nd (Poplar to 39st) Bike lane 4.19 20th St (164th to 192nd) Bike lane 2.33 176th Ave (20th St to 34th St) Bike lane 1.36 22nd/25th (McGillivray to 176th) Bike lane 0.77 29th (165th to 176th) Bike lane 1.13 166th/26th (McGillivray to 25th) Bike lane 0.96 168th (26th to 34th) Bike lane 0.71 Burton Road (86th Street to 40th Street) Bike lane 0.28 97th (16th to Burton) Bike lane 0.81 Tech Center Place (Tech Center Drive to 15th) Bike lane 0.19 Tech Center Drive (Tech Center Place to 164th) Bike lane 0.32 Talton (138th to McGillivray) Bike lane 1.94 Total Bike Lanes 44.61


Page 26

Map 5


Page 27

Random Bike Route Sign Mill Plain at 92nd

Signage Implementing a well-planned, attractive, and effective system of network signing greatly enhances bikeway facilities by promoting their presence to both potential and existing users. Signing helps increase the bicycle mode split by leading people to city bikeways and the safe and efficient transportation they offer to local residents and visitors to the county. Currently Vancouver has but a few standard bike route signs. No local street connections are identified. A few standard “bicycle route” signs are used. For example, bicycle route signs are used at the beginning of several paths (e.g., Discovery Trail). A few random bicycle route signs appear from time to time, such as at Mill Plain at 92nd, but in this case with no context as no other improvements indicate that Mill Plain is intended for bicycle usage. Bikeway Support Facilities In a nationwide Harris Poll conducted in 1991, almost half the respondents stated that they would sometimes commute to work by bicycle, or commute by bicycle more often, if there were showers, lockers, and secure bicycle storage at work. Cyclists’ needs for bicycle parking range from simply a convenient piece of street furniture, to storage in a bicycle locker that affords weather, theft and vandalism protection, gear storage space, and 24-hour personal access. Where a cyclist’s needs falls on this spectrum is determined by several factors: Type of trip being made: whether or not the bicycle will be left unattended all day or just for

a few minutes. Security of area: determined by the cyclist’s perception Value of the bicycle: the more a cyclist has invested in a bicycle, the more concern she or he

will show for theft protection or how prone a given area is to bicycle theft. A final need for some potential commuting cyclists are shower, locker, and changing rooms at trip destinations. For those cyclists needing to dress more formally, travel longer distances, or cycle during wet or hot weather, the ability to shower and change clothing can be as critical as bicycle storage. Types of Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking facilities are typically classified as either long-term or short-term: Long-term: Long-term bicycle parking facilities (see Exhibit 9) accommodate employees, students, residents, commuters, and others expected to park longer than two hours. This parking is to be provided in a secure, weather-protected manner and location. Long-term bicycle parking


Page 28

will be either a bicycle locker, or a secure area like a ‘bike corral’ that may be accessed only by bicyclists. Bike lockers are covered storage units that typically accommodate one or two bicycles per locker, and provide additional security and protection from the elements. These are typically located at large employment centers, colleges, and transit stations. Bike corrals can be found at schools, stadiums, special events, and other locations, and typically involve a movable fencing system that can safely store numerous bicycles. Either locking the enclosure or locating it near other activities so that it can be supervised provides security. Short-term: Short-term bicycle parking facilities (see Exhibit 10) are best used to accommodate visitors, customers, messengers and others expected to depart within two hours. Bicycle racks provide support for the bicycle but do not have locking mechanisms. Racks are relatively low-cost devices that typically hold between two and eight bicycles, allow bicyclists to securely lock their frames and wheels, are secured to the ground, and are located in highly visible areas. They are usually located at schools, commercial locations, and activity centers such as parks, libraries, retail locations, and civic centers. Vancouver Bicycle Parking A field review of Vancouver revealed the following observations: Transit centers (see Table 2) have a combination of bicycle lockers and “bike banks” (high

security racks with helmet and gear storage capability). Most employers do not provide bicycle parking. However, one employer - Hewlett-Packard -

has 200 bicycle parking spaces, and several others, including SW Washington Medical Center, the Columbian, and S.E.H. America, have 10 to 30 spaces.

There is a general lack of bike racks in public places throughout the community. In downtown Vancouver, there are six locations with space for three to five bicycles each, and on the Waterfront/Columbia Shores area, there are two racks accommodating four bicycles each.

Public buildings, such as the City of Vancouver, Clark County, Washington Department of Transportation, and Clark Community College generally provide good bicycle parking facilities.

A bicycle parking survey was conducted in mid-June 2000 and mid-September 2000 (while school was in session) at 40 Vancouver public and private elementary, middle, and high schools (see Table 3). Of these, 80 percent had bicycle parking available. 38 percent of the bicycle parking would be considered acceptable as standard short-term quality racks. The rest (62 percent) were “wheelbender” racks. Four schools did not have bicycle racks, but bicycles were locked to fences or enclosed areas at these locations. At Hearthwood Elementary School 12 bicycles were locked to a fence in an enclosed area. At Burnt Bridge Elementary School there were 5 bicycles locked to a fence, at Cascade Middle School there were 19 bicycles locked to fences, and at Mountain View High School there were 13 bicycles locked to fences. Mountain View High School has requested that a bicycle rack be installed.


Page 29

Beaches Restaurant on the Waterfront

There was an average of 9.4 bicycles parked at the 33 schools (including Hearthwood) that provided bicycle parking. The highest numbers were at McLoughlin Middle School (30 bicycles), Discovery Middle School (25 bicycles), Crestline Elementary School (20 bicycles), Lincoln Elementary School (15 bicycles), Marrion Elementary School (15 bicycles), Hudson’s Bay High School (15 bicycles), Washington Elementary School (15 bicycles) and Fisher’s Landing Elementary School (15 bicycles). Three of these schools (Discovery, Fisher’s Landing, and Lincoln) have good-quality racks while the rest have wheelbender (poorer quality) racks. Most schools (22) have provided their racks in good locations; the locations of the rest are either fair (seven schools) or poor (two schools). This suggests that location and parent and teacher acceptance of bicycling to school are more important than quality of rack for Vancouver residents.

For the rest of Vancouver, bicyclists visiting stores, restaurants, places of employment, and community facilities are largely left to their own devices to temporarily store their bicycles. The lack of secure parking has become a major consideration in Vancouver and around the country, due to the increased value of bicycles. Most bicycles today cost $350 dollars to over $2,000 dollars. Bicycles are one of the top stolen items in all communities, and components are stolen even when a bicycle is securely locked. No official shower or locker facility for bicycle

commuters is known to exist in Vancouver. It is likely that some employers provide these facilities, and that some bicycle commuters use facilities in local health clubs. The locations of Vancouver’s existing bicycle parking facilities are shown on the existing bikeway facilities maps (Map 5). Table 15 shows the amount of bicycle parking at transit centers and park-and-rides. Table 16 shows the school bicycle rack inventory.


Page 30

Table 15: C-Tran Transit Center and Park and Ride Lot Bicycle Parking

Location Number of bicycle parking spaces

7th Street Transit Center (Between Broadway and Washington)

19

Vancouver Mall 20

Fisher's Landing Transit Center (SE 164th Avenue and SR 14)

12

Evergreen Park & Ride (NE 138th Avenue and NE 18th Street)

18

Salmon Creek Park & Ride (NE 134th Street and I-5) 18

Camas at Burgerville 4


Page 31

Table 16: School Bicycle Rack Inventory

Location Bike

Racks? Type Locationof Racks

# Bikes Parked

Benjamin Franklin Elementary School Yes Poor Good 4

Burnt Bridge Elementary School No 5

Burton Elementary School Yes Poor Good 10

Cascade Middle School Yes Poor Poor 19

Clark Community College Yes Good Good 10+

Clark County Christian Campus No 0

Crestline Elementary School Yes Poor Good 20

Discovery Middle School Yes Good Good 25

Education Center No 0

Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary School Yes Good Good 13

Ellsworth Elementary School Yes Poor Good 12

Evergreen High School Yes Good Fair 4

Fir Grove Children's Center (private) Yes Poor Fair 0

Fircrest Elementary School Yes Poor Good 25

Fishers Landing Elementary School Yes Good Good 15

Fort Vancouver High School Yes Poor Good 4

Fruit Valley Elementary School Yes Poor Good 6

Harney Elementary School Yes Good Good 2

Hearthwood Elementary School No 12

Hough Elementary School Yes Good Good 1

Hudson's Bay High School Yes Poor Fair 15

Image Elementary School Yes Poor Good 0

Lincoln Elementary School Yes Good Good 15

M.L. King Elementary School Yes Poor Good 3

Marrion Elementary School Yes Poor Good 15

Marshall Elementary School Yes Good Good 4

McLoughlin Middle School Yes Poor Good 30

Mill Plain Elementary School Yes Poor Fair 6

Minnehaha Elementary School Yes Good Good 0

Montessori School No 0

Mt. View High School No 13

Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School (priv) Yes Poor Good 2

Peter Ogden Elementary School Yes Poor Fair 8

Riverview Elementary School Yes Poor Good 12

School of Arts and Sciences High School (Shumway) Yes Poor Poor 1

St. Joseph Elementary School (priv) No 0

Vancouver Alternative School Yes Good Fair 2

Vocational Skills Center No 0

Washington Elementary School Yes Poor Fair 15

Wy'east Junior High School Yes Poor Good 12


Page 32

Exhibit 9: Long-Term Bike Lockers


Page 33

Exhibit 10: Short-term Racks


Page 34

Bicycle Safety Education Programs Education is an important element in increasing bicycling while also improving safety. People often assume that as cycling increases, so will the numbers of crashes. This need not be the case as has been demonstrated in other communities. Probably the most effective way to improve the safety of cycling is simply to improve the quality of Vancouver’s bikeway facilities. However, bikeways cannot do it alone. There is also a need for proper education of youth and adult cyclists and motorists. The City of Vancouver’s Police Department offers safety assemblies and rodeos for Vancouver’s youth upon request. For elementary schools, the whole student body attends a one-hour assembly on the rules of the road. Mostly these are conducted by three volunteers. Rodeos are conducted on a request basis, and involve a road course, safety instruction and helmet giveaways thanks to grant money from groups like the Vancouver Bike Club and Washington Traffic Safety Commission. The City conducted 16 rodeos and nine safety assemblies in 2000, reaching 2700 Vancouver children. Multi-Modal Connections Improving the bicycle-transit link is an important part of making bicycling a part of daily life in Vancouver. Linking bicycles with bus transit overcomes such barriers as crossing the I-5 and I-205 Bridges, lengthy trips, personal security concerns, and riding at night, in poor weather, or up hills. This link also enables bicyclists to reach more distant areas and increases transit ridership on weekends and midday. Bicycling to transit instead of driving benefits communities by reducing taxpayer costs, air pollution, demand for park-and-ride land, energy consumption and traffic congestion with relatively low cost investments. There are four main components of bicycle-transit integration: allowing bicycles on transit; offering bicycle parking at transit locations; improving bikeways to transit; and encouraging usage of bicycle and transit programs. About six million residents annually use public transit in Vancouver, provided by C-Tran and Tri-Met. There are bike racks on all of C-Tran’s and Tri-Met’s buses. They can be used day and night and at the same fare as a regular passenger. The racks each hold two bicycles. As described earlier (see Table 15), some bicycle parking exists at the transit centers and park-and-ride lots. However, bikeways to these stations are not comprehensive. Potential improvements to Vancouver’s multi-modal services are described in other sections. Encouragement and Support Programs


Page 35

Support Groups Vancouver is home to three bicycle repair, supply and rental shops: Chain Reaction Cyclery, Schroders’ Schwinn Cyclery, and Vancouver Cyclery. It is also home to several bicycle support, advocacy and riding groups, including: The Bicycle Alliance of Washington, until recently called NowBike. In the fall of 1994 The

Northwest Bicycle Federation (NowBike) and the Bicycle Federation of Washington (BFW) merged to become the Northwest Bicycle Federation (NowBike). The BFW, a statewide lobbying organization, incorporated in 1982. NowBike, a regional non-profit advocacy group, was incorporated in 1987. The merger combines the talents and memberships of these two successful groups to form a single statewide voice for Washington bicyclists. In the summer of 1998, the Board of Directors voted to change the name to The Bicycle Alliance of Washington.

Vancouver Bicycle Club (VBC), a non-profit organization founded by cyclists in 1998 to

unify bicyclists in Vancouver. The Clark County Bicycle Advisory Committee was established in June of 1994 to provide

direction on bicycle policy and to identify facilities that would promote bicycle riding as a transportation alternative in Clark County.

The Vancouver Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee began meeting in June 2000 to

provide recommendations to the City on bicycle policies and practices in Vancouver. Contact information is available through the City.

The Bicycle Transportation Alliance, based in Portland, OR, promotes bicycling for safer

streets, cleaner air, and energy independence. Events Bike-to-Work Week takes place every year in May (National Bike Month). Bike-to-Work Week events have taken place at some worksites in Vancouver. Generally, the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) participates annually at locations around the state. Many rides also take place in the Vancouver area through the efforts of the Vancouver Bicycle Club and Bicycle Transportation Alliance.


Page 36


Page 37

Needs Evaluation: Pedestrians & Bicycles This section addresses the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the City of Vancouver. Pedestrian and bicycle and needs are analyzed separately. The purposes of the needs analysis for both modes are to:

Evaluate where and what types of pedestrian and bicycle system improvements are needed; and Provide a basis for development of a preferred pedestrian and bicycle network.

Pedestrian Needs The purpose of this section is to evaluate and identify the need improvements to the pedestrian network in Vancouver related to collector and arterial streets. The first part lists the elements of the pedestrian network and examines the general attributes of these elements as they relate to defining improvement needs. The second part details the specific needs in Vancouver and describes how they have been identified by integrating the general attributes of pedestrian improvements with data on existing conditions, pedestrian fatality and injury data, performance measures for pedestrian facilities, and community input. Types of Pedestrian Improvements A safe and functional pedestrian environment that services demand and attracts people to walk consists of several elements. At a minimum, to function, there must be a connected network of continuous pedestrian ways. These continuous ways, in turn, are made up of linear elements, such as sidewalks along streets or multi-use trails, linked by pedestrian street crossings. The connected network must provide access to the uses that attract pedestrian travel, such as schools and parks, neighborhood shopping, transit stops, and public uses such as libraries and post offices. To be safe and attractive, pedestrian facilities must be adequately illuminated, and they may buffer pedestrians from adjacent traffic and provide streetscape amenities for walkers’ comfort. This section discusses the types of improvements that can be made to enhance each of these elements of the pedestrian environment. Sidewalk Improvements The sidewalk is the most obvious element of the pedestrian network. The sidewalk must have a clear width wide enough to accommodate the widest mobility device and wide enough for the expected volume of pedestrian traffic. Further, the sidewalk “clear zone” must be free of street furniture, sign posts, sandwich boards, and any other obstructions. In most parts of Vancouver, this would be satisfied by having a sidewalk wide enough for two people to walk together comfortably, about 1.9 m. or six feet wide. In areas where there are businesses or other pedestrian attractors, the sidewalk should accommodate two wheelchairs


Page 38

traveling together, or two people walking together passing a third person comfortably, a minimum clear width of about 2.2 m or seven feet. Where high pedestrian use is expected, such as in downtown, on shared-use paths, around schools, community centers, and parks 10-12 feet is preferable. It is essential that sidewalk improvements provide accessibility to all users. For pedestrians who use wheelchairs, this means having a minimal cross slope along the sidewalk, especially at driveway crossings, and having appropriate ramps to the street at every crosswalk. Ramps must have level landings. For pedestrians who are blind or have low vision, accessibility is enhanced by having a clear path of travel and tactile warnings at curb ramps. Guidelines for accessibility are developed and maintained by the federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, better known as the Access Board, and are enforced as standards by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, maintenance of the sidewalk system is crucial for safety and functionality. Residents need a pathway clear of obstacles such as poles and signs, holes, broken cement, tree roots, overgrown landscaping or weeds, etc… Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Street crossings are the critical links in a connected pedestrian network, yet crossing the street is the most dangerous aspect of pedestrian travel, and is where practically all pedestrian-motorist collisions occur. Based on data from 1997-2000, 53% of the Vancouver pedestrian-motorist collisions occurred at intersections, and 47% at mid-block locations. Washington law defines a crosswalk as the extension of a curb, sidewalk or shoulder across an intersection, whether it is marked or not. Outside of intersections, crosswalks are created by markings on the road. Under Washington law, motorists have a duty to stop and yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Pedestrians are permitted to cross at other locations, but must yield to motorists. In addition to the danger factor for pedestrians, crossing the street often adds delay to a pedestrian trip. Signals may provide a greater degree of safety for pedestrians at the intersection of multi-lane roadways, but may result in significant waiting or out-of-direction travel. It is essential for the function of the pedestrian network that adequate crossing opportunities be provided. The desire to move traffic without impediment must be balanced against the fact that pedestrians will tend to take the shortest route if they can. The most straightforward approach to increasing pedestrian safety and convenience at crossings is to shorten the crossing distance, slow the speed of approaching traffic and increase the extent to which the pedestrian can see and be seen. Installing curb extensions, adding median islands, or reducing the number of travel lanes (requiring trade-off evaluation for a multi-modal system?) may accomplish these goals. These would require trade-off evaluation for a multi-modal system. Streetscape Improvements In some areas, a higher level of attention to the details of the pedestrian environment is justified by expected high pedestrian use and to encourage pedestrian use. Streetscape improvements have the potential to change the relationship between automobiles and pedestrians by allocating more


Page 39

space to pedestrian travel. Streetscapes where the elements are scaled to human size rather than vehicle size are attractive to pedestrians. Amenities such as public art, benches, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, special transit shelters and pedestrian-scaled lighting fixtures can all be incorporated into coordinated streetscape improvements. Discussion of streetscape elements can also be found in the Washington State Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook. Illumination of Pedestrian Path of Travel Good street lighting is one key to pedestrian safety when the sun is down. Based on data from 1997-2000, 60% of the pedestrian-vehicle collisions in Vancouver occurred at night. Both personal safety and safety with respect to traffic are improved when proper lighting is provided. Good lighting of pedestrian facilities also increases the comfort and perception of personal safety of pedestrian travelers when it is dark out, and these factors can influence their choice of route or their decision whether or not to walk. Accessibility to Transit In 1999, C-TRAN prepared a Pedestrian Accessibility Program Report with the objective of providing C-TRAN customers with the safest and most reliable pathways to access bus stops regardless of personal handicap or injury.” This report reflects the understanding that all C-TRAN customers are pedestrians for some portion of their trip, whether to or from their home or destination to a transit stop, or just from their car in a transit station area. The report identifies a series of needed pedestrian accessibility improvements along eight major bus routes in Vancouver:

3 Rosemere-Brandt 4 Fourth Plain 6 Hazel Dell 25 St. Johns 30 Burton 32 Evergreen 27 Mill Plain 71 Hwy 99

Maps of needed improvements are shown at the end of this section [maps to be added]. Narrative text is available in the C-TRAN report. Analysis of Pedestrian Needs in Vancouver The specific pedestrian needs in the City of Vancouver were analyzed using a combination of:: Community input gathered through neighborhood plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee input, and other public outreach efforts, Inventory of sidewalks, and analysis of pedestrian conditions incorporating safety, access, and conditions of the sidewalk system. Much of this information, as well as other information (ie. census data, location of parks, schools), is illustrated in Maps 3-5. Community Input


Page 40

The following recommendations for sidewalk and crosswalk improvements were taken from 25 City of Vancouver Neighborhood Action Plans and other input. Requests for Sidewalks

N Nicholson Rd. between Falk and Stapleton East Reserve NE 57th Ave W 6th St. NE 62nd Ave. W Davis NE 66th Ave. Evergreen Blvd. at W 5th St. NE 18th NE 28th NE 126th/124th NE 112th NE 137th NE 14th St. (97th to Marion E.S.) NE 97th Ave. between 14th and 16th St. N 9th St. N 12th St. St. James W 33rd St from Main to I-5 St. Johns NE 49th St. NE 54th St. SE Bella Vista Rd

Requests for Painted Crosswalks

Falk and Nicholson Rd. NE 97th Ave. and 10th St. Ashley Terrace on Nicholson Rd. Garrison Rd. Stapleton and Plomondon Ave. Woodridge and 91st Ave W 29th St. and Main St. W 33rd St. at F and H Streets Louisiana (in Evergreen Highlands Neigh.) W 29th St. at F and H Streets W Fourth Plain at F St. SE 98 th Ave/10th St./St. Helens SE Macarthur Blvd. near Charleston Blvd.

Residents also expressed an interest in reducing traffic speeds, adding proper lighting, and installing accessibility ramps in numerous locations throughout the city. Citizens also expressed a need for safer neighborhood connections to schools. Inventory of Sidewalk Conditions City of Vancouver staff collected data pertaining to existing sidewalk conditions. The presence of sidewalks on arterials and major collector streets as well as a walkability rating is presented on Map 3. The walkability rating incorporates factors such as sidewalk presence and width, presence of a buffer, and ADA compliance. Pedestrian-Motorist Collision Analysis The City of Vancouver Police Department reported 151 pedestrian-motorist collisions from 1997 to 2000 (see Map 2 and Figure 2.) While these reports do not represent all the pedestrian-motorist collisions in Vancouver, they represent the more serious occurrences and often involve injuries. Of the 151 reported incidents, 4 resulted in fatalities.


Page 41

It should be noted that from 1993 – 2000 Clark County had the highest pedestrian fatality rate in the state of Washington. Even when pedestrian fatalities are compared to total county population, Clark County still has the highest pedestrian fatality rate per capita in the state. Time of Day/Lighting Sixty seven percent of the reported accidents occurred during daylight hours. It also should be noted that 40 of the 51 accidents that occurred at night occurred where there was lighting. It is unknown whether the lighting at these locations meets appropriate standards with regards to illumination and glare. Enforcement Over half the crashes were caused by motorists failing to yield at an intersection. About one-third involved a pedestrian crossing mid-block (in between intersections) (see Figure 3.) Although motorists failed to yield in at least 70 crashes, Vancouver Police wrote only 18 citations to motorists. This suggests that better police education and enforcement may be needed. It also suggests that better driver education may be needed. Demand and Supply Analysis Staff analyzed and prioritized demand and supply of pedestrian infrastructure using GIS (geographic information systems) software. As can be seen on Map 1, sidewalks exist in older neighborhoods of Vancouver such as the downtown core area. Sidewalks also exist in newer developments in the outer east section of the city. However, these newer neighborhoods provide low connectivity due to the predominance of cul-de-sac patterns of development. From I-5 to I-205, the sidewalk network is discontinuous or lacking. Map 1 also shows the locations of the pedestrian-motorist collisions, including the locations of the four collisions that resulted in fatalities. The highest number of collisions occurred on Mill Plain (29 collisions) and Fourth Plain (32 collisions). A relatively high number of crashes also occurred on Andresen Rd., 18th St., and Grand Blvd. Map 2 shows where parks and public schools are located. These areas serve as attractors for walking trips. A buffer zone of ¼ mile around attractors such as these is commonly used to determine high-demand walking areas. Map 2 also shows where a relatively higher proportion of

Figure 3: Cause of Motorist-Pedestrian Collisions, City of Vancouver, 1997-2000

Unclear blame7%

Motorist fails to yield53%

Ped Crossing mid-block

32%

Pedestrian fails to yield8%

34 33

54

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

# o

f C

oll

isio

ns

Figure 2: Motorist-Pedestrian Collisions, City of Vancouver, 1997-2000


Page 42

Vancouver residents walk. This is based on US Census (Journey to Work) data from 1990, so updated data (when made available) should be used to represent current walking patterns. In Map 3, multiple criteria were combined and represented as three categories: School Area Needs, Demand-Based Needs, and Safety-Based Needs. The highlighted lines labeled “School-Area Needs” were selected based on their proximity within a quarter-mile of a school and the lack of or poor condition of sidewalks. Some of the street segments included: The “Demand Based Needs” graphic represents areas with high population and a relatively higher number of residents that walk to work (as reported by census tract in the 1990 Census). These lines highlight areas with no sidewalks or sidewalks in poor condition. These lines correspond with “School Area Needs”. The “Safety-Based Needs” incorporated locations of accidents as well as areas with a lack of or poor sidewalks. This graphic representation also takes into account high traffic speeds. According to the overall analysis of existing supply, demand, and safety factors, the neighborhoods with the greatest needs for sidewalk improvements are listed below:

Arnada Ellsworth Springs Esther Short Fircrest Harney Heights Hough Riveridge Rosemere West Minnehaha

This does not mean that other neighborhoods do not need improvements. Many of the neighborhoods in Vancouver did not have demand and safety problems because relatively few people choose to walk in these areas (based on the 1990 Census). Bicycle Needs in Vancouver The primary need of bicyclists is a safe bikeway network. This includes signed bike routes, bike lanes, and off-street (shared-use) paths, as outlined in the Existing Conditions section. Bicyclists also need secure parking at destinations. A recent survey conducted for the City of Vancouver demonstrates clear support for the creation of new bicycle facilities. As part of the Transportation System Plan, the City conducted a scientific random sample survey of Vancouver's residents. The survey showed that nearly 60% of Vancouver residents believe there is no easy solution to Vancouver's growing traffic problems, yet 29% believe that building more sidewalks and bicycle paths is part of the solution to


Page 43

Vancouver's traffic congestion. Congestion relief will result from many factors, and important among them is the fact that 40 % of Vancouver residents surveyed believe that more walking and biking for shopping trips is desirable and 19% believe that it is very probable. Citizen responses in the survey also indicated how bicycle transportation should be improved. 16% of residents feel that bicycle paths are the most important transportation improvements for Vancouver, and a strong majority believes that bicycle paths are important to the community. Furthermore, residents feel that streets should be built to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles (30% of respondents feel that equal priority should be given to all three modes). Finally, citizens are willing to spend money to build better bicycle infrastructure. According to the survey results, 12% of Vancouver’s future transportation budgets should be dedicated to development of bicycle paths. It should be noted that the TSP process, City’s Strategic and Growth Management Plan, and other outreach efforts have shown significant support for investments in bicycling and walking. The outcomes and goals of these planning efforts are described in the Recommendations section of this Plan. Vancouver has a diverse population and a complex land use pattern, meaning that the city is home to many different types of bicyclists with a variety of needs. A brief geographic characterization of Vancouver reveals some of this potential variation in bicycle use and demand. In the west, Vancouver remains largely rural in character. In the central city, in-fill housing and increased urban activity are resulting in a large latent demand for bicycle facilities. East of I-205, the city is shaped by primarily by large volume arterial streets and suburban density housing and commercial corridors. As revealed by citizen comments, these areas have different bicycle facility needs These needs are discussed in greater detail below. Bicycle commuting is an important component to address in the Transportation System Plan. Access to the C-Tran bus system helps extend the commute range of cyclists, but C-Tran also faces an increasingly dispersed live-work pattern that is difficult to serve. Despite these facts, Vancouver has a great potential to increase bicycle commuting because of its:

diverse population and land-uses, increasing residential neighborhood density near employment centers and

recreational access points, mild, albeit rainy climate, favorable topography in many areas of Vancouver, available land for trail corridors along the Columbia, Burnt Bridge Creek,

Bonneville Power Administration corridor, and in other areas rapidly expanding bikeway options, including bike lanes and shared-use

paths, increasing traffic congestion, such that bicycle commuting is as fast as some

car commutes, and tremendous public interest in bicycle use.

There are also challenges in the integration of bikeway facilities in Vancouver. These include:


Page 44

lack of a connected pattern of streets in many parts of the City (particularly

the eastside) means few options other than high volume arterial streets available,

difficulty and cost in retrofitting existing urban streets with bicycle lanes, and long distances between residential and work areas.

Demand for recreational bicycle facilities is also growing. Based on interviews with cyclists, there is a clear demand for bicycle connections to existing developed parks and shared- use paths like the Columbia Waterfront, Discovery, and Burnt Bridge Trails. Vancouver residents are aware of existing parks and frequently drive to access these facilities for bicycling. Many residents desire direct bicycle connections between neighborhoods and parks and recent education and outreach efforts by Vancouver/Clark County Parks are resulting in an increase in this desire. Expanding the Vancouver bicycle network could potentially produce an increase in bicycle use and decrease in automobile use for these trips Types of Bicyclists Each type of bicyclist has slightly different needs. The three most important bicyclist groups in Vancouver – utilitarian bicyclists, recreational bicyclists and youth bicyclists are described here. Utilitarian Bicyclists Utilitarian bicyclists include cyclists that use their bicycle primarily for transportation to and from work, shopping, and/or other errands. These cyclists typically seek the most direct and fastest route available, with regular adult utilitarian bicyclists often preferring to ride on arterial streets rather than side streets or off-street facilities. Commute periods typically coincide with peak automobile traffic volumes and congestion, increasing the exposure to potential conflicts with vehicles. Finding a place to safely park bicycles is of paramount importance to many bicycle utilitarian bicyclists. Major concerns include traffic congestion, changes in weather (rain), riding in darkness, personal safety and security. Rather than be directed to side streets, most utilitarian adult cyclists would prefer to be given bike lanes or wider curb lanes on direct routes, however, unprotected crosswalks and intersections (no stop sign or signal control) in general are the primary concerns of utilitarian bicyclists. Utilitarian bicyclists generally prefer routes where they are required to stop as few times as possible, thereby minimizing delay. Recreational Bicyclists The preferences of recreational bicyclists are often different from those of utilitarian bicyclists. The following points summarize recreational characteristics and preferences:

Recreational bicycling typically falls into one of three categories; (1) exercise, (2) non-work destinations such as parks (3) touring, long distance treks or events.


Page 45

Recreational users range from healthy adults to children to senior citizens. Each group has their own abilities, interests and needs.

Directness of the route is typically less important than routes with less traffic conflict. Visual interest, shade, protection from weather elements, moderate gradients and other features are also important.

People exercising or touring often prefer a loop route rather than having to backtrack.

Youth Bicyclists Many younger students (ages seven to 11) use sidewalks for riding to schools or parks, which is acceptable in areas where pedestrian volumes are low and driveway visibility is high. Where on street parking and/or landscaping obscures visibility, sidewalk riders may be exposed to a higher incidence of accidents. Older students (12 years or older) who consistently ride at speeds over 10 miles per hour (mph) should be directed to riding on street wherever possible. Students riding the wrong-way on streets are common and account for a large number of recorded accidents, pointing to the need for safety education. Many youth ride on local residential streets, but are at most risk when crossing or riding along major arterials. Bicycle System Criteria This section addresses three criteria for selecting new bicycle facility projects. Public input, analysis of gaps in the existing system, and analysis of recent crash data involving bicyclists will all guide the selection of future improvements to the City of Vancouver bicycle transportation infrastructure. Together, these three criteria help identify the type and location of new bicycle facilities and improvements. Public Input The needs listed below were developed based on a review of the 25 City of Vancouver Neighborhood Action Plans, comments by members of the Vancouver Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and citizen comments made as part of the City of Vancouver Transportation System Plan Visioning process. Surveying current and potential users offers information about types of users and trips, as well as user input on needs and problems. Surveys can be approached in a scientific or non-scientific manner. Scientific surveys can range from the random household survey to the field surveys of users stopped along a given route or area of town. For the City of Vancouver, a scientific survey specific to the bicycle needs analysis was deemed unnecessary due to the broad range of public input already solicited through the Transportation System Planning process and the Neighborhood Action Plans. This public input is anecdotal in nature but due to the number of plans and comments reviewed it reflects a citywide perspective. A summary of the main comments are listed below. It should be noted that the list below is not comprehensive because there were far too many detailed comments. The following headings group comments on bicycle facility needs according to interest categories clearly identified during the review of comments.


Page 46

Improve Bicycle Connections to Schools Many residents of Vancouver desire improved bicycle access to local schools. Connections between existing neighborhoods and schools are emphasized in several neighborhood plans. Specific locations emphasized include:

– Prioritize sidewalk improvements to those streets that children use to walk or bike to Washington School or Discovery Middle School.

– Improve bike access on 29th Street and Daniels Street, provided no on-street parking spaces are removed. 29th Street crosses Main Street and I-5, which would allow for a bicycle connection to Shumway School (and playground area), Shumway Neighborhood and Rosemere Neighborhood.

– Improve Bicycle Safety – General bicycle safety is the focus of many public comments in both the

Neighborhood Plans and Transportation System Plan Vision. Specific locations addressed include:

– Improve the safety of Blandford Drive for pedestrians and bicyclists – Make MacArthur Boulevard safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobile

traffic. On-Street Bikeways Additional on-street bikeways are widely needed, according to residents of the City. The range of facilities requested for major streets include bike routes, bike lanes, continuous sidewalks, monitoring and upgrading of existing city standards, and alternative routes on lower-traffic streets. Residents have requested improvements for practically every major street in the City. Many Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Members call for bicycle lanes on all major streets, as well as signed bicycle routes (a.k.a. bicycle boulevards) on local street systems to offer main street route alternatives. For example, they call for bicycle lanes on Gher and 137th/138th, and also for a bicycle boulevard in between somewhere in the 122nd/124th area. Specific recommended segments are laid out in the Recommendations Section. Vancouver’s neighborhood plans also cite numerous specific routes for bicycle improvements, including, but not limited to, the following:

– E 5th – NE 18th – NE 28th – NE 112th – SE 124th – SE 126th – NE 137th – Bella Vista Road – NE Burton Road – W Evergreen Boulevard – Forest Plain Blvd – N Nicholson Road – Plomondon Road


Page 47

– SR 500 – St. Helens – Thurston Road

Other streets mentioned through the public process include:

– Fruit Valley Road – E/NE Mill Plain – E/NE Fourth Plan – E McArthur – E Andresen – NE 97th/98th – NE 39th – NE 49th – Falk Road

Shared-Use Paths (Extension of Existing and New) There is a desire for new, dedicated bicycle paths and bicycle path extensions in the following locations:

– Construct pedestrian and bicycle path along Evergreen Boulevard from Andresen to West of Blandford Drive.

– Complete the Burnt Bridge, Columbia Waterfront, and Discovery Trails. – Connections to Existing Parks & Major Trails

Residents throughout the City identified the needs for improved connections to existing park and bicycle facilities. The most significant identified need is for connections to the Discovery Trail. Residents of the majority of neighborhoods have stated their desire for direct bicycle access to the Discovery Trail without the need for other transportation modes. Connections to Transit and Commuter Facilities Residents traveling to and from Portland as well as through various parts of the City noted a need for bikeway facilities connecting to transit stations. For example, many residents working in Portland would take better advantage of bike-transit options if better bikeways to transit stations were available. They also noted the need for high quality end-of-trip facilities like bike parking, lockers, showers, and clothing storage at transit stations and in Downtown and at businesses. Bikeway Network Gap Evaluation The National Bicycling and Walking Study identifies schools, shopping, and transit stations as key destinations for bicyclists, in addition to employment centers. Parks, public facilities, and retail centers are other destinations likely to attract cyclists. Because most trips start or end at home, the network must be complete and offer a bikeway within a reasonable distance for bicyclist comfort and ease of use. This “reasonable” distance varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Portland, Seattle, and other urban communities use a half-mile spacing between bikeway network facilities.


Page 48

Many suburban towns and counties consider a bikeway network spacing of one-mile between facilities to be reasonable.1 While there is no widely-accepted ideal spacing between bikeways, a distance of approximately one half to one mile apart, roughly following the arterial system spacing, is appropriate for Vancouver. Based on the map of existing bikeways, transit stations, major employment areas, schools, parks, and other attractors, the following observations can be made about the gaps in the existing bikeway system. New east-west connections are needed to enable bicycle access from the eastern neighborhoods of the City to downtown and its environs. The Mill Plain Extension is the only westward route out of downtown, while Evergreen provides an incomplete bikeway to the east. Other east-west routes are largely non-existent at this time, although one is underway on 28th Street. New north-south bikeways are also needed. Currently, only nly based on the St. James/St. Johns in the western part of the central city, and 162nd on the eastern edge of town have bike lanes. Improved bikeway access is needed in the residential neighborhoods in close proximity to downtown. Presence of such facilities can greatly facilitate short-distance bicycle commuting to downtown Vancouver and increase shopping trips by bicycle in the downtown commercial area. Freeway crossings are a major obstacle. The only on-street bikeway crossing I-5 is at 39th, with one under construction for the Burnt Bridge Trail. Crossing I-205 is similarly difficult, with McGillivray the only option. A second I-205 crossing is planned for 28th Ave Many schools lack bikeway connections, although most provide good bike parking (as showing in the Existing Conditions). Bicycle Crash Analysis Many potential bicyclists cite the fear of traffic as their main objection to riding a bicycle on urban streets. The City can help alleviate this fear by providing good bikeway facilities, particularly at intersections, where most bicycle-motor vehicle crashes occur. However, many concerns about cycling’s level of danger are based on the misconception that most bicycle crashes involve an automobile. In fact, the vast majority of bicycle crashes do not involve a motor vehicle; rather, studies of hospital data have shown that the vast majority of bicycle accidents involve falls or collisions with stationary objects, other cyclists, or pedestrians. This points to the need for education of cyclists and motorists, enforcement of existing laws, and encouragement of safe cycling techniques. In reviewing data for the City of Vancouver available from 1997 to 2000, approximately 38 bicycle-motor vehicle crashes per year are reported in the City of Vancouver (see Map 1.) Crash Locations Many of the crashes occured along major roads. Roads with 10 or more crashes are:

1 Examples include: Maricopa County, AZ; Washington, D.C. Council of Governments; North Texas Council of Governments; Solano County, CA. Seattle, Portland, and other more urbanized jurisdictions use a .5 mile ideal spacing distance.


Page 49

– Fourth Plain Boulevard – Mill Plain Boulevard

Along Fourth Plain Boulevard, there are specific intersections with three or more crashes over the four year period:

– Fourth Plain Blvd. at Andresen Road – Fourth Plain Blvd. at Falk Rd.

In addition, a number of mid-block collisions occurred near intersections. The following intersections saw 3 or more collisions occur nearby between 1997 and 2000.

– Mill Plain Boulevard at Andresen Road – Fourth Plain Boulevard at Fort Vancouver

Way Patterns in Types of Crashes There are four major causes for the majority of bicycle-motorist accidents in the City of Vancouver over the past four years. These causes include:

– bicyclists riding on the sidewalk and entering street traffic unexpectedly

– bicyclists riding against the direction of vehicular traffic

– bicyclists failing to yield at intersections and traffic signals, and

– motorist failing to yield appropriately to bicyclists.

These patterns can be addressed through both improved bicycle infrastructure and education for bicyclists and motorists. It is important to specifically address some of Vancouver's bicycle accident trends to indicate potential improvements. Sidewalk riding and riding against the direction of vehicular traffic are behaviors that may suggest the need for facilities in addition to education. Other behavior, such as motorists and bicyclists failing to yield properly to one another, requires community-wide education. The pattern of bicycle-related crashes resulting from sidewalk riding is an indication that cyclists are unsure how to navigate many roadways in Vancouver. Cyclists use sidewalks because they are not comfortable sharing traffic lanes with motor vehicles, yet often sidewalks have obstacles that cyclists cannot navigate, forcing them into the travel lanes unexpectedly. Accidents involving sidewalk riding by bicyclists generally result in categorization of the accident as “bicyclist-at-fault” by local law enforcement agencies. This pattern results in

Unclear (sidew alk

riding)26%

Riding against traffic12%

Bike fails to yield31%

Motorist fails to yield26%

Misc5%

Figure 1: Bicycle-Motorist Collisions Vancouver, WA 1997-2000


Page 50

negative statistics related to bicycle use, coloring the perception of increased bicycle use by various parties, including local elected officials, local law enforcement, and motorists. Bicycle lanes can potentially reduce this trend along such streets as Mill Plain Boulevard and Fourth Plain Boulevard. Bicycle Needs Conclusions Needs for Specific Improvements Vancouver needs an increased density of north/south and east/west bicycle routes along its major arterial streets, particularly in connecting residents to transit, business areas, shopping, and other areas. Bicycle end-of-trip facilities are needed to provide safe bike parking and commuter incentives. Residents have identified an extensive list of options through the Neighborhood Plans and comments during the Transportation System Plan visioning process. The specific priorities will be listed in the Recommended Improvements section. Needs of Vancouver Families and Children Vancouver residents have identified several key bicycle transportation needs in their community. First, they have clearly identified the need for improved bicycle access to neighborhood schools. Vancouver families, similar to those nationally, have expressed the need for improved bicycle safety, providing families with a greater range of transportation options for school access. Second, families also desire recreational bicycle access to local and regional parks and destination trails. Important family oriented bicycle facilities include:

– Neighborhood bicycle connections to the Discovery Trail and Columbia River waterfront parks

– Safe bicycle crossings near neighborhood schools Bicycle Education Needs Because of the number of bicycle accidents in Vancouver related to improper yielding at intersections, education should be given a strong emphasis. Education is an important element in increasing bicycling while also improving safety. People often assume that as cycling increases, so will the numbers of crashes. This need not be the case as has been demonstrated in other communities. Probably the most effective way to improve the safety of cycling is simply to improve the quality of Vancouver’s bikeway facilities. However, bikeways cannot do it alone. There is also a need for proper education of both youth and adult cyclists and motorists.


Page 51


Page 52


Page 53


Page 54


Page 55


Page 56

Pedestrian and Bicycle Recommendations Introduction National and local polls frequently cite the lack of walkways and bikeways as the number one reason more people do not walk or bicycle more frequently for daily trips. In Vancouver, focus groups gathered for the Transportation System Plan (TSP) in Summer 2001 suggested allocating 10 to 16 percent of future transportation funding to walkways and bikeways. A 2001 region-wide survey found a similar result, with a suggested 18 percent allocation to walkways and bikeways. Respondents to a 1999 Clark County survey ranked the creation of more trails for walking and bicycling the third most important of 15 possible parks and recreation facilities, projects, and improvements. These surveys suggest that Vancouver residents support the expenditure of taxpayer funds to improve walking and bicycling conditions in Vancouver. Walkways and bikeways bring enormous benefits to all residents. The expansion of walkway and bikeway facilities and support programs has been found to dramatically increase non-motorized transportation usage. This has been documented in cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and numerous cities in Europe. Improving walkways and bikeways leads to increasing transportation choices for transit, walking, and bicycling, bringing air, noise, water quality, and health benefits. Well designed facilities improve safety for all users and lead to an increase in the carrying capacity of the overall transportation system. Numerous cities have found that as walking and bicycling increase, the rate and number of pedestrian or bicycle crashes with motor vehicles declines. Walkways and bikeways help provide a balanced, connected, multi-modal system. This section presents the proposed pedestrian and bicycle system and improvements for the City of Vancouver. The recommended system and improvements consists of the following components:

– Pedestrian improvements, including sidewalk in-fill, bus stop shelters, benches, trees, and intersection improvements.

– Bicycle improvements, including on-street and off-street bikeway system, signage, parking, and support facilities.

– Pedestrian and bicycle support programs, as related to safety, education, and community and employer outreach.

It should be noted that the TSP focuses on arterial and collector streets rather than neighborhood street improvements. Neighborhood pedestrian and bicycle routes are shown where appropriate to make a critical connection.


Page 57

Long Term Vision One of the key aspects of a livable community is the ability of all residents, whether they are school children or senior citizens, a choice to walk or bicycle for daily trips. The Vancouver Transportation System Plan includes the following goals and policies intended to enhance this ability: Goal: To provide a balanced, multi-modal transportation system for Vancouver that supports the safe, efficient movement of people and goods. Policies include:

The vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to connect major activity centers in the Vancouver area, increase the overall accessibility of Vancouver’s transportation system, and provide access to residential, school, shopping and industrial areas.

The implementation of transportation system and transportation demand management measures, provision of enhanced transit service, and provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Vancouver shall be embraced by policy as the first choice for accommodating travel demand and relieving congestion in a travel corridor, before road widening projects are undertaken.

The transportation system for Vancouver shall consist of an integrated network of facilities and services for a variety of motorized and non-motorized travel modes.

The Vancouver Transportation System Plan shall promote alternative commute methods that decrease demand on the transportation system, such as using transit, telecommuting, carpooling, vanpooling, using flexible work schedules, walking, bicycling, etc.

The Vancouver transportation system shall be designed with consideration of the needs of persons with disabilities by meeting the requirements set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Transportation facilities in Vancouver shall be designed and constructed to mitigate noise, energy consumption, neighborhood disruption, economic losses to the private or public economy, and social, environmental or institutional disruptions, and to encourage the use of public transit, bikeways, sidewalks, and walkways.

Provide an affordable transportation system that utilizes all transportation modes in order to ensure access for all citizens.

Goal: To facilitate provision of an appropriate supply of parking facilities in Vancouver while reducing reliance on the automobile. Policies include:

To define the role of on-street parking as secondary in priority to the needs of the various transportation modes (vehicular, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) in use of the street right-of-way.


Page 58

Goal: To facilitate the increased use of bicycle transportation in Vancouver by assuring that convenient, accessible, and safe bicycling facilities are provided. Goal: To facilitate the increased use of pedestrian transportation in Vancouver by assuring that convenient, accessible, and safe pedestrian facilities are provided. The Vancouver transportation system shall be designed with consideration of the needs of persons with disabilities by meeting the requirements set forth in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA.) The recommendations described below are intended to meet these goals and help realize the vision. In addition, the following specific action items are recommended:

Create and fund a pedestrian and bicycle coordinator position and program to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in this Plan.

Create a permanent citizens’ Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) tasked with advising the City on all matters related to walking and bicycling.

Make Bicycling Magazine’s “Top Ten Cities for Bicycling” list within the next 10 years.

Host a national walking or bicycling conference such as the bi-annual Pro-Bike/Pro-Walk conference, in the next 10 years; host a state or regional conference in the next five years.

Implement a comprehensive walking and bicycling system, focusing in particular on completion of the Discovery Trail system by the 2005 Lewis and Clark celebration

Develop pedestrian design guidelines for sidewalk width, amenities, and other items.

Develop a series of support programs, including maintenance, signing, bicycle parking, education, sidewalk aesthetic enhancements, safe routes to school, and others.

Update City Street Standards to better incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Update the City’s zoning code to ensure that developments are more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

Adopt a bicycle parking ordinance for new and redeveloping buildings. Benchmarks for achieving these action items are laid out in Table 4. Creating a Pedestrian and Bicycle System All streets except limited access highways should be accessible by foot or bicycle. Whenever streets are reconstructed, resurfaced, or constructed, appropriate walkway and bikeway facilities should be included to accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist needs. Pedestrian System


Page 59

Sidewalks and safe crossing treatments are necessary for all streets in Vancouver. Compliance with the American with Disabilities Act is mandatory by Federal law. Pedestrian improvements by nature are highly localized, and therefore prototype solutions have been developed that have widespread applicability in Vancouver. The key necessary improvements are the provision of sidewalks and safe crossings, as well a system that is accessible by all pedestrians, including those with disabilities. Sidewalks preferably should be located on both sides of the street, while intersection treatments involve:

– reducing crossing distance; – reducing automobile speeds at crossings; – providing as straightforward and obvious a

crossing path as possible; – ensuring disabled access at curb cuts and medians; – providing well marked crosswalks and accessible push buttons; – ensuring sight distance and safety; – ensuring orientation for blind and sight-impaired pedestrians.

Other treatments that enhance pedestrian travel include sidewalk amenities like street trees, benches, bus shelters, guide signing, and street lighting. Recommendations for sidewalk in-fill and intersection improvements are listed in Table 2 and on Figure 2. Cost estimates shown are derived from a typical five-foot wide sidewalk at $35 a lineal foot, or $190,000 per mile. Crossing improvements include a placeholder program item for future needed improvements for various intersections. In addition, mid-block crossing locations should be considered. Shared use paths, which are used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized users, are listed under bikeway improvements. Bicycle System In general, local streets with fewer than 3,000 motor vehicles per day require no special bicycle improvements, although traffic calming may be necessary if volumes or speeds increase to an unacceptable level. Some local streets are recommended for bicycle boulevard modifications on the bikeway network. For streets with more than 3,000 vehicles per day, the preferred treatment is bicycle lanes. Where bicycle lanes cannot be included, the alternative treatments are traffic calming or wider than normal outside lanes. Where the appropriate bikeway and acceptable alternatives cannot be included in a project, bikeway facilities may be constructed on a nearby (within a quarter mile) parallel street. The recommended bicycle circulation strategy consists of a comprehensive network of utilitarian bikeways connecting Vancouver’s agrarian west section, the central city’s urban housing and commercial uses, and the eastern residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors with schools, parks, community centers, and other destinations. A bikeway ‘system’ is a network of

Beaten walking path on Andresen shows

pedestrian demand


Page 60

bicycle routes that, for a variety of reasons including safety and convenience, provide a superior level of service for bicyclists. It is important to state that, by law, bicyclists are allowed on all streets and roads (except where specifically prohibited) regardless of whether they are a part of the bikeway system. The bikeway network is a tool that allows the City to focus and prioritize implementation efforts to provide the greatest community benefit. The network uses a combination of shared use paths, bicycle lanes, and signed shared roadways (also known as bicycle boulevards), as have been discussed in the Existing Conditions section of this report. There are numerous ways to implement the bikeways in this plan. Shared use paths typically involve developing an off-street corridor, while a bicycle boulevard involves development of a local street through traffic calming elements. For bicycle lanes, the City may widen a street, pave soft shoulders, reduce travel or parking lane widths, or removing travel or parking lanes in order to reallocate space. The City has to consider whether such projects’ potential impacts, such as on-street parking removal or traffic congestion, are more harmful than the benefits gained from the bikeway. These circumstances are to be evaluated very carefully before a decision is made to implement an alternative treatment such as traffic calming improvements, a wider outside lane, or alternative parallel bikeway route. Guidelines for bikeway development are laid out in AASHTO’s Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) and the City’s Bicycle Facility Design Implementation Practices (July, 2000.) The proposed bikeway system is shown in Figure 1. Projects are listed in Table 1. Cost estimates shown have been developed by unit costs only:

– Bike routes: $10,000 to $100,000 per mile, depending on whether the project is a simple signing project or may entail intersection improvements, traffic calming, and other changes.

– Bike lanes: $20,000 to $100,000 per mile, depending on whether the project entails simple restriping, or is more complex and may entail significant public process or right-of-way acquisition. Projects assumed to be part of an overall road construction or reconstruction project are assumed to be $20,000 a mile.

– Shared use paths: $1,000,000 per mile. Again, this may vary considerably depending on right-of-way needs, intersection treatments, environmental considerations, needed structures, and other issues.

Detailed cost estimates should be developed as the projects become eligible for funding. Walkway and Bikeway System Criteria and Ranking Both walkway and bikeway projects have been broken down between short, medium, and long-term projects, based on the following criteria:

Crossing enhancement and traffic calming

improvements added to Evergreen in lieu of

bicycle lanes


Page 61

– Connectivity to desired destinations, such as employment centers, commercial districts, schools, parks, institutions, and recreational destinations;

– Potential bicyclist and pedestrian usage (population served); – Connectivity to existing and proposed bikeways and walkways; – Ease of implementation; and – Connectivity to transit.

Pedestrian and bikeway improvements were developed based on:

– Field evaluation of missing system gaps, with a target of providing the most direct and convenient routes possible, a parallel bikeway approximately every half mile, and sidewalks and safe crossings on all arterials and collectors;

– Needs evaluation of safety, demand, and supply of pedestrian and bicycle facilities;

– Input from the public throughout the TSP process; – A review of the 25 City of Vancouver Neighborhood Action Plans; and – Staff input and knowledge.

To identify the best opportunities for walking and bicycling routes, the consultant team considered the following information: Existing walking and bicycling patterns based on counts and observations, census and

other data Current walking and bicycling volumes Existing walkway and bikeway facility inventory Traffic volumes and travel speeds on streets Amount of side friction (driveways, side streets) Curb-to-curb width Destinations served Schools Parks Employment Centers Transit stations Topography and gradients Integration into the regional bikeway system Presence of reasonable alternatives Directness and connectivity to destinations Accident data and safety concerns

In addition, public input was sought throughout the TSP process from those familiar with walking and bicycling opportunities and constraints in Vancouver, as well as those desiring to increase walking and bicycling opportunities. Staff also provided extensive review of the proposed facilities.


Page 62

The proposed walkway and bikeway systems serve to guide those responsible for implementation. The system and segments will evolve over time as a result of changing walking and bicycling patterns and implementation constraints and opportunities.


Page 63


Page 64


Page 65


Page 66


Page 67


Page 68


Page 69


Page 70


Page 71

Walking and Bicycling Support Programs The following programs are intended to support the installation of walking and bicycling in Vancouver:

Walkway and bikeway maintenance program ADA compliance program Bicycle end-of-trip facilities Signing program Sidewalk aesthetic enhancement program Neighborhood traffic management program Safe routes to school program Education Enforcement Transit Coordination Employer incentives Bicycle rejuvenation, parts, and repair program Events Staff training Pedestrian and bicycle count program

Maintenance Program Responsible parties: City of Vancouver, potentially volunteers While implementing walkway and bikeway facilities is important, keeping them in good condition is equally important. When a bicycle lane becomes filled with debris, for example, cyclists are forced into the motor vehicle lane. Poor bikeway maintenance can contribute to accidents and deter potential cyclists unwilling to risk flat tires and skidding on city streets. Poor walkway maintenance can lead to dangerous conditions, particularly for vulnerable populations like youth, elderly, and disabled residents. The City recommends development, over time, of a comprehensive, integrated approach to walkway and bikeway maintenance. This program would consist of: A “quick response” mechanism for routine items like sweeping, filling potholes, sidewalk repairs, signing/striping, and grate repair. This would include the creation of a City sidewalk repair crew. Preservation and expansion of the “Safe Walkways” program for sidewalk gap in-fill and safety improvements, such as removal of obstructions.

Pole in sidewalk, Mill Plain Blvd.


Page 72

Preservation and expansion of the “Safe Bikeways” program for longer-term items such as adjusting signal timing, adding signal detector loops and/or push buttons, smoothing railroad crossings, bike lane gap in-fill, and innovative treatments for trouble spots. Enhancement of routine maintenance activities. Examples include:

– extending the overlay over the entire surface of the roadway to avoid leaving an abrupt edge;

– after overlays, raising inlet grates, manhole and utility covers to within 1/40 in (6 mm) of the pavement;

– encouraging private property owners with gravel driveways along a shoulder to pave the driveway 5-10 feet (1.5-3 m) back from the edge of pavement, or to right-of-way, to prevent gravel from spilling onto the shoulders or bike lanes;

– working to trim vegetation from bike lanes and shared use paths;

– replacing or repairing sidewalks and shared use paths broken by tree roots;

– inspecting and maintaining bikeway signs, lines, and legends regularly;

– modifying or replacing non-standard drainage grates with bicycle-safe grates; – repairing or relocating faulty drains at intersections where the water backs up

onto the curb cut or into the crosswalk; – avoiding use of chip seal or other rough materials on bikeways and

walkways; – sweeping fresh loose materials off the road before they have a chance to

adhere to the pavement; – back-filling utility cuts in bike lanes to the level of the roadway: – back-filling cuts in sidewalks with concrete, flush with the surrounding

sidewalk grade. Community adoption program to allow local businesses and organizations to ‘adopt’ a shared use path. This effort would be similar to the adoption of segments of the Interstate Highway system. Small signs located along the pathway would identify supporters, acknowledging their contribution. Support would be in the form of an annual commitment to pay for the routine maintenance of the pathway, which in general costs about $8,500 per mile. The Parks & Recreation Department or other groups may administer this program.

Asphalt path cracking


Page 73

ADA Compliance Program Responsible parties: City of Vancouver The American with Disabilities Act requires the City of Vancouver to bring all public space and buildings into compliance. The City has been slowly replacing curb ramps, for example, to meet the requirements. The City should develop an aggressive program in coordination with other improvement projects and programs, such as the Maintenance Program described above to add and/or replace non-compliant curb ramps city-wide; remove obstructions; train staff about ADA standards; retrofit public buildings and open space (e.g. parks) with ADA-compliant restrooms, elevators, and other facilities; ensure pedestrian-activated signals are accessible to those with disabilities; and review building codes. Bicycle End-of-Trip Facilities Responsible parties: local businesses, City of Vancouver, C-Tran As discussed in the Existing Conditions section of this report, end-of-trip facilities (bicycle parking, showers, lockers) for bicycle riders are as important to bicycling as motor vehicle parking is to auto drivers. The end-of-trip facilities program should be multi-pronged and designed as a public-private partnership. It should consist of: Development and adoption of bicycle parking zoning code requirements for installation by private developers during construction or reconstruction of buildings throughout the City. A recommended code is shown in Table 3. Once adopted, this code should be reviewed every five years to determine needed changes. Installation of bike racks at parks, public buildings, transit centers and stops, park and ride lots and trailheads. This would be City–funded and managed. Development of a “business bicycle parking program” to provide racks on request of the local businesses in retail districts citywide. The program could be either funded by the City for racks provided in public rights-of-way, or funded jointly by the City and businesses through a subsidy program (e.g. the business pays for the rack, the City installs and maintains it.) Shower and locker encouragement program. The City should encourage businesses to provide showers and lockers for commuting cyclists by zoning code or fee incentives. Downtown bicycle commuter station. Several Seattle-area, California, and Colorado communities are developing a “Bike Station” facility provides commuting cyclists with bicycling

Bicycle locker at park-and-ride lot

Long Beach Bike Station

ADA compliant curb ramps needed for many

users


Page 74

parking, showers, changing rooms, clothing storage, bicycle repair, and information. Some provide dry cleaning service, coffee shops, and other amenities. Most are located in conjunction with transit stations. Downtown Vancouver is an ideal location for such a station, connecting C-TRAN into Portland. Signing Program Responsible parties: City of Vancouver Signs help bicyclists find and travel appropriate routes and to reach specified destinations. The signs also provide a safety measure for both bicyclists and motorists. Signage can be implemented as part of new bikeway creation, and added to existing on and off-street bikeways. This program consists of bicycle route identification signs, safety signs (including etiquette signs on shared use paths), informational kiosks, and downtown pedestrian way-finding signs. Bicycle route identification signs should be posted along the primary north-south and east-west corridors. This type of sign helps direct travel by having a consistent bicycle symbology, Currently Vancouver uses the standard AASHTO “bike route” sign. However, this sign has been used inconsistently around the City, and does not assist cyclists in identifying appropriate bikeway routes. A sample bike route identification sign for Vancouver is shown below. Such signs may include a destination plate to direct cyclists to transit stations, bridges, schools, parks, and other key locations. The City should work with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee to develop a signage system with a common identifying theme (such as Ft. Vancouver, shown in sample sign below), destinations, and implementation funding sources and schedule. Safety signs, such as trail etiquette signs, can help improve user behavior on shared use paths and in specific roadway situations. Informational kiosks help lay out a specific route with supplemental information. An example is the Discovery Trail Historic Walking Loop, for which an informational kiosk with a map of the route should be placed in two to three locations along the loop, such as Esther Short Park. Installation of way-finding signs for downtown pedestrians. Such signs are a common element in successful downtowns. They typically use international symbols for common destinations like parks, libraries, and municipal buildings. The creation of such a program for downtown, particularly in coordination with the Discovery Trail Historic Walking Loop and other significant downtown development would be a major enhancement.

Randomly-placed bike route sign on Mill Plain


Page 75

Sample bike route sign Trail etiquette sign

The implementation phasing of a signing program would:

– Develop a protocol for bikeway signing, including sign design, locations, destination plates, and potential items such as mileage.

– Improve or replace signs on existing bikeways. – Develop and install safety signs on shared use paths and other locations as

needed. – Develop and install informational kiosks as part of Discovery Trail

implementation. – Develop and install way-finding signs in downtown for pedestrians.


Page 76

Sidewalk Aesthetic Enhancement Program Responsible parties: City of Vancouver, local businesses This program would develop a public-private partnership for improving the public façade of buildings throughout Vancouver. Building owners would apply for grant funding to enhance their façade. Enhancement may include redesign of the building façade and addition of overhangs, landscaping, artwork, and bicycle parking. The City would offer guidance, funding, and design review, while the owner would be responsible for design and implementation. While the details would have to be worked out, this program could potentially lead to tremendous investment in the beauty and walkability of Vancouver’s neighborhood and downtown commercial activity areas. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Responsible parties: City of Vancouver The goal of this existing City program is to make Vancouver a better place to live through improvements to the transportation system. The City should continue this program, as it clearly benefits pedestrians and bicyclists in Vancouver. To address this goal the following prioritized tasks make up the bulk of staff time. Priority 1: Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans Neighborhood Traffic Management Planning (NTMP) is intended to provide Vancouver’s neighborhood associations with a process to enhance and maintain the livability of their neighborhood by improving the transportation system. NTMP Transportation Services provides the planning and engineering assistance to plan why, what, where and when transportation changes will be made. Priority 2: Neighborhood Transportation Improvements Program The Neighborhood Transportation Improvement Program (NTIP) is intended to provide a method of funding and constructing traffic calming (speed control) and traffic management (volume control) requests. This may include installing speed humps or other traffic calming devices. It may include traffic management projects or pedestrian safety projects near schools that require more development or public process. Projects are typically submitted through the City’s Neighborhood Consolidated Grant Request process. Priority 3: Citizen Request This work item involves responding to requests for information and service from the public. The Transportation Services’ engineering technicians take the lead role in processing the citizen

Speed bump on residential street

Trees, awnings, and decorative sidewalk items enhance

pedestrian-oriented businesses


Page 77

requests but the program provides assistance with speeding complaints and other neighborhood traffic issues. Priority 4: Neighborhood Action Plan Review and Follow-up The existing Neighborhood Action Plan (NAP) all have a Mobility Management section with a list of Action Steps. Staff assist neighborhood associations with follow-up on these Action Steps where appropriate. They then implement some Action Steps, dismiss some as not appropriate, and set aside others for further study. This work also includes assistance with the review of new Neighborhood Action Plans. Priority 5: Bicycle/Pedestrian Support This work item involves making the City of Vancouver as pedestrian and bicycle friendly as possible by providing traffic engineering assistance to the various projects underway. This may include cost estimating, safety evaluation, and assistance with signing and striping issues and grant application preparation. Safe Routes to School Program Responsible parties: City of Vancouver, schools, parents, teachers, community groups School districts are required by state regulations to have suggested walk route plans for every elementary school. The basic regulation is quoted in full from the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) (WAC 392-151-025 Route plans). “Suggested route plans shall be developed for each elementary school that has students who walk to and from school. It shall recommend school routes based on considerations of traffic patterns, existing traffic controls and other crossing protection aids such as school patrols. These route plans shall limit the number of school crossings so that students move through the crossings in groups, allowing only one entrance-exit from each block to and from school. The safe route to school map shall be distributed to all students with instructions that it be taken home and discussed with the parents.” Funding is available through the State and is based on the number of students in kindergarten through grade five living within one radius mile of school. In addition, funds allocated to school districts for students living within one mile of school can be spent to alleviate pedestrian safety deficiencies along school walk routes. Potential actions eligible for such funding include the use of warning signs, sidewalks, overpasses, crossing guards and bus transportation. Priority must be given to students in kindergarten through fifth grade. RCW 46.61.385 and its associated regulations encourage the use of school patrols to help students safely cross roadways adjacent to the school and other crossings identified in the suggested safe route to school plans. School patrols and adult crossing guards are key elements of a safe walk route, especially for younger children who lack the cognitive abilities necessary to cross a busy street. State

49th St. raised, marked school crossing with curb

extensions


Page 78

regulations also recommend forming a Safety Advisory Committee to aid districts in developing walk routes and overseeing a school patrol program. Vancouver proposes to build on the State program by developing a local safe routes to school program. This also would build upon the City’s neighborhood traffic enhancement program. The toolbox of potential solutions includes:

– signal timing modifications – curb extensions and median islands – traffic calming – markings and signage – bicycle lanes – crosswalks – crossing guard programs – safe routes to school maps – escorted bike and walk groups – educational safety curriculums (described in detail below) – outreach programs to encourage safe driving.

Education Responsible parties: City of Vancouver, schools, parents, teachers, community groups Pedestrian education programs are rare, but important as well. Usually theses programs are taught to second, third, and fourth graders prior to them going through a bicycle education course. It is essential that school children understand such items as how to safely cross the road (e.g. scanning for cars), where the best places to cross are, and never to cross behind a bus or car before they are allowed to travel out on their own. Pedestrian education should be taught as early as first grade, and continue through third grade. The lack of education for bicyclists, especially younger students, continues to be a leading cause of accidents. For example, Vancouver’s accident history includes a number of wrong-way and sidewalk riding crashes. Motorist education on the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians is virtually non-existent. Many motorists mistakenly believe, for example, that bicyclists do not have a right to ride in travel lanes and that they should be riding on sidewalks. Many motorists do not understand the concept of ‘sharing the road’ with bicyclists, or why a bicyclist may need to ride in a travel lane if there is no shoulder or it is full of gravel or potholes. Bicycle education programs in schools are typically taught to fourth through eighth graders. Curriculum is generally derived from established programs developed by groups such as the League of American Bicyclists, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Oregon’s Bicycle Transportation Alliance. In Vancouver, the Police Department teaches bicycle education at selected schools annually, but the program is far from comprehensive. Formal adult bicycle education is virtually non-existent in Vancouver. These programs should be seen as an integral part of the Safe Routes to School Program described above.


Page 79

Expand Current Education Programs Existing educational programs at Vancouver schools should be expanded in a cooperative effort between the City and the School District, and supported by a secure, regular funding source. A Safety Committee should be formed consisting of appointed parents, teachers, administrators, police, an active bicyclist, and public works staff whose task it is to identify problems and solutions, ensure implementation, and submit recommendations to the School Board or City Council. Develop New Educational Program Materials and Curriculum. Education materials should be expanded to promote the benefits of walking and bicycling, the need for education and safety improvements, the most recent educational tools available in the country (including the use of low-cost safety videos), and directives to parents on the proper school drop-off procedure for their children. Educational pamphlets for children should be made more readable. Incentive programs to reward good behavior should be developed. Educational programs, and especially on-bike and on-street pedestrian training, should be expanded to more grades and for more hours per year. Education curriculum should, at a minimum, cover the following lessons:

– on-bike training or bicycle ‘rodeos’ – the use and importance of bicycle helmets – how to adjust and maintain a bicycle – night riding (clothes, lights) – rules of the road – riding on sidewalks – how to negotiate intersections – riding and walking defensively – use of hand signals – seatbelt safety

A standard safety handbook format should be developed incorporating the best elements of those currently in use, and made available to each school on disk so they may be customized as needed. Vancouver schools should develop a circulation map of the campus and immediate environs to include in the handbooks, clearly showing the preferred circulation and parking patterns and explaining in text the reason behind the recommendations. This circulation map should also be a permanent feature in all school newsletters. Bicycle helmet subsidy-programs are available already in Vancouver, and should be used to provide low-cost approved helmets for all school children bicyclists. Develop an Adult Education Program

Teaching children handling skills

Helmeted riders going with the flow of traffic


Page 80

Establish an adult bicycle education program through organizations such as the Vancouver Bicycle Club, in cooperation with the Parks and Recreation Department and/or other City departments. This program should (a) teach adults how to ride defensively, (b) teach adults how to ride on a variety of City streets, and (c) encourage adults to feel more confident to ride to work or for utilitarian and recreational trips. The program should coordinate with local bicycling groups who could provide the training expertise, and possibly lead organized bicycle-training sessions, tours and rides. The City should partner with local, State and national health organizations to promote bicycling and walking. Educate Motorists Educate motorists about the rights and characteristics of pedestrians and bicyclists through a variety of means including: making pedestrian and bicycle safety a part of traffic school curriculum in Vancouver, producing a brochure on pedestrian and bicycle safety and laws for public distribution, enforcing existing traffic laws for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, working to improve the DMV manual’s treatment of pedestrians and bicyclists sending an official letter to the Department of Motor Vehicles recommending the inclusion of bicycle laws in the drivers license exam. Enforcement Responsible parties: Police Department, City of Vancouver Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists all must behave consistently and according to established laws in order for all to enjoy a safe system. The City should work with the Police Department to develop a consistent enforcement program for pedestrian and bicycle-related laws. Such programs have been very effective, in combination with increased walkway and bikeway facilities, at increasing public awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety issues. Suggested components of a program for Vancouver include: Police training: work with the Police department to ensure officers are trained in Washington State laws and local ordinances related to safe motoring, walking, and bicycling. Invite a police department liaison to participate in the PBAC. Hold regular meetings with traffic enforcement officers to discuss issues and solutions. Develop and distribute Informational brochures to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Design periodic traffic enforcement “sting” operations targeting violations like failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, speeding in school zones, driving in bicycle lanes, and bicyclists and motorists running red lights. Publicize to ensure maximum benefit. Consider increased enforcement and fees for traffic violations that endanger pedestrians and bicyclists.

C-Tran bike racks


Page 81

Develop and continue a Police on Bikes Program to establish police presence at a community level. Transit Coordination Responsible parties: City of Vancouver, C-Tran, Tri-Met Enhancing the multi-modal capabilities of the local transportation system is a major Federal, state, and regional policy goal. The term “multi-modal” refers to the ability to maximize the number of transportation modes that can be effectively served in one corridor or linked together to provide a high quality level of service to the public. Transit options can extend the effective range of a bicycle trip considerably; bicycle riders can help increase transit use. Walking is essential to the success of transit; the most successful transit systems are completely integrated with local pedestrian travel through close neighborhoods easily accessible and convenient to transit. The list of projects in Tables 1 and 2 includes many projects focused on maximizing the bike and pedestrian-transit connection. The main multi-modal elements for bicycles are access, parking and secure storage, on-board storage, and information, as shown in Figure 4.

Provide high capacity short-term and long-term bike parking at transit stations.

Provide additional bicycle services, e.g. Bike Stations, free/rental bicycles, repairs.

Promote bike and walk-transit options. Provide regional web-based bike-transit route finding system.

Fund and develop high quality bikeways and walkways to transit stations.

Figure 4 Bike/Pedestrian to Transit Coordination Opportunities

Provide bike racks on buses. Allow bikes on buses if necessary. Allow flexible drop-off locations for pedestrians in low light conditions.


Page 82

Old Bicycle Renovation, Parts, and Repair Program Responsible parties: Community groups, bicycle-related businesses This program, which exists in Vancouver as the Cycle of Blessings and in Portland as the Community Cycling Center, ties directly into the previous program by obtaining broken, stolen, or other bicycles and restoring them to working condition. Similar programs exist in Vancouver, B.C., Marin County, CA, St. Louis, MO, Washington, D.C., and other cities. These programs’ mission is also to train young people (ages 12 to 18) how to repair bicycles as part of a jobs training effort. Bicycles are an excellent medium to teach young people the fundamentals of mechanics, safety, and operation. Young people can use these skills to maintain their own bicycles, or to build on related interests. Such a program is often staffed by volunteers from local cycling organizations and bicycle shops, who can help build an interest in bicycling as an alternative to driving. The seed money to begin this program often comes from a local private funding source. The bicycles themselves could be derived from unclaimed stolen bicycles from the police department, or from donated bicycles. Bike Fairs, Rides, Walks, and Races Responsible parties: Community groups, City of Vancouver, health organizations To encourage increased bicycling, bicycle interest groups are well positioned to capitalize on the growing interest in on-road and off-road bicycle races and criteriums. The Mayor’s Bike Rides, held during the summers in Vancouver, are very popular. Rides sponsored by the Vancouver Bicycle Club and Portland Wheelmen Touring Club are also popular, as are walks sponsored by VolksWalk. The potential for walks and rides to draw enormous crowds in Vancouver exists; the Portland Bridge Pedal and Bridge Walk, for example, draws over 15,000 participants annually. The annual Discovery Walk Festival is one such example, composed of numerous walks each April. Such events could be an economic draw for Vancouver. Ideas include:

Columbia Bridge Pedal: As the Columbia Waterfront is completed and connected to Portland’s developing Marine Drive system, a route drawing riders and walkers over both the I-5 and I-205 bridges would be popular.

Vancouver Lake/Frenchman’s Bar Ride. Lewis and Clark Discovery Ride, following the Lewis and Clark Trail into the

Vancouver-Portland area.

Portland’s Community Cycling Center serves area

kids in need

The annual Mayor’s bike rides


Page 83

Events usually are sponsored by local businesses, and involve some promotion, insurance, and development of adequate circuits for all levels of riders. Vancouver can assist in developing these events by acting as a co-sponsor, and expediting and possibly underwriting some of the expense of, for example, police time. Vancouver should encourage these events to have races, walks, and tours that appeal to the less experienced cyclist. Employer Incentives Responsible parties: Community groups, City of Vancouver, health organizations, local businesses, State of Washington Employer incentives to encourage employees to try walking or bicycling to work include sponsoring bike fairs and races, providing bicycle lockers and shower facilities, and offering incentives to employees who commute by walk or bicycle by allowing for more flexible arrival and departure times, and possibly paying for transit or taxis during inclement weather. The City may offer incentives to employers to institute these improvements through air quality credits, lowered parking requirements, reduced traffic mitigation fees, or other means. This program should be developed in compliance with Washington State’s Commute-Trip Reduction (CTR)program. A fleet of lender bicycles available to employees to use as a commute alternative has proved successful in Portland and other U.S. cities. Appropriate employers include government agencies (such as parking enforcement deputies), utility companies (such as electric company meter readers), industrial campuses, and downtown employers for short trips. The bicycle may be purchased new or obtained from police auctions, repaired, painted and engraved with ID numbers, and made available free of charge to employees. Depending on demand, bicycles may be made available through reservations or on a rotating basis. The bicycles themselves should be lower-end heavy-duty bicycles that have minimal resale value. Employer’s responsibilities would be limited to an annual maintenance inspection and repairs as necessary. The objective of the program is to encourage employees to try bicycling to work as an alternative, without making a major investment. Employers may wish to allow bicycle commuters to leave 15 minutes early from work, or some other type of incentive to encourage use of the bicycles. Vancouver may consider such a program and may wish to encourage private employers to follow suit by offering the subsidized purchases of bicycles. Walk-to-School and Bike-Commute Days Responsible parties: Community groups, City of Vancouver, health organizations, local businesses, State of Washington In conjunction with the national walk-your-child-to-school days and Bike Commute Day in May Vancouver should help promote a local bike-commute day. The bike/walk-to-school days could be jointly sponsored with the School District, possibly in conjunction with pedestrian and bicycle education programs. Other support ideas include:


Page 84

Develop, promote and publicize bicycle commuter services, such as bike shops selling commute gear and regular escorted commute rides.

Create an annual commuter challenge for area businesses.

Create events such as “bicycle to the grocery store” days, when cyclists get

vouchers for, or coupons off items in the store, or “walk to the movies” days, when pedestrians and receive free popcorn or a discount on a movie or refreshments.

Create public service announcements on radio and TV to promote the health and

livability benefits of walking and bicycling, as well as the detrimental effects of excessive motor vehicle use (e.g. pollution, traffic noise, congestion, loss of life and mobility).

Develop and implement a public education campaign to encourage walking and

bicycling, such as ads on movie screens, city bench, bicycle locker and billboard advertising, and videos on cable access television.

Develop measures to reduce bicycle theft such as a registration program,

subsidized locks, and training for proper locking techniques. Training Responsible parties: City of Vancouver As Vancouver works to improve bicycling and walking conditions, staff from all departments need training to understand the standards and guidelines for planning and implementation of walkways, bikeways, and accessibility improvements. Engineering and maintenance staff may be unfamiliar with new AASHTO bikeway guidelines and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. Parking enforcement staff may be unfamiliar with laws related to parking in bike lanes, while building code enforcement staff may know nothing about the new code requirements for bicycle parking as part of building construction. Vancouver should sponsor an on-going series of trainings about topics of utility. This series could include such topics as:

– Safe routes to school techniques – ADA requirements – Incorporating pedestrian enhancement features into bikeway development – Current guidelines and standards in bikeway development – Bike parking: what works, what doesn’t work, code adoption and

enforcement, bike locker programs, new rack options, etc… – Maintenance practices to undertake, successful team-building with

maintenance staff – Cutting edge techniques and research (bike boxes, shared lane stencils,

colored pavement, roundabouts, etc…)


Page 85

This list is by no means exhaustive. Vancouver City staff and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee should brainstorm a list of topics, develop a schedule, and host these important trainings. Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts Responsible parties: City of Vancouver A basic part of all transportation analysis is an understanding of usage and activity. Traffic counts are conducted as part of almost all traffic studies, while transit and rail ridership are basic analytical components to studying those modes of transport. In contrast, little information is available on walking trends and bicycle ridership. Most projections of pedestrian and bicycle usage are based on U.S. Census Journey to Work data, which is adequate for planning level area-wide analysis but not for specific corridor usage. Without this basic information, it is difficult for Vancouver to understand trends in walking and bicycle usage, or to analyze whether investments are resulting in higher levels of usage. As part of this Plan, the consultant team undertook pedestrian and bicycle counts at select locations, as shown in Table 3. It is recommended that Vancouver conduct annual counts using interns or volunteers, to track pedestrian and bicycle usage. Vancouver should assume a leading role in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating this information, as part of the ‘Measuring Success” effort detailed below. There are four primary reasons why pedestrian and bicycle counts should be an essential and regular activity: Conditions and trend analysis: a consistent count effort would help to show the number of people currently walking and bicycling, how this number is changing over time, and the characteristics of the cyclists (especially helmet usage.) This would help understand the need for walkway and bikeway improvements along with appropriate design and capacity of those improvements. Network planning: consistent counts would help to prioritize improvements, justify the inclusion of walkways and bikeways as part of new development, as mitigations to impacts, and as part of transportation projects. Crash analysis – consistent counts would help to develop base usage information so that collision information could be correlated to walking and bicycling trends. Demand forecasting – consistent counts would help to calibrate regional projection models on future pedestrian and bicycle usage and needs. Location Criteria Table 3 shows the initial 20 locations selected for counts. They were selected based on the following criteria: 1. Counts should be conducted on existing or future segments of the walkway and bikeway

network.


Page 86

2. Count locations should represent a geographic diversity within the City, along with a sampling of urban, suburban, and rural areas, and commuter, student, and utilitarian trip making.

3. All count locations should be in an area where a counter can conduct counts in a safe

manner. Additionally, Vancouver should consider conducting user surveys at select count locations. Survey questions could include, among other things, trip purpose, trip length, and timeframe in which the rider began cycling. It would also be very useful to derive information on whether a walkway or bikeway improvement affected a user’s decision to walk or ride, or whether the pedestrian/bicyclist previously drove a car, used transit, etc. Portland conducted such surveys in recent years, for example, and learned that a significant percentage of survey respondents had begun cycling in the past two years, in direct response to the physical improvements being made. Work Zone Planning Responsible parties: City of Vancouver, WSDOT Construction zones can create a significant impediment to pedestrian and bicycle travel and should be planned out carefully. Guidelines and standards should be adopted to make certain that there is consistency between all construction projects in Vancouver with which both the City of Vancouver and WSDOT are involved. This can include directional or informational signage directed toward pedestrians and bicyclists, access through construction sites, and other measures.


Page 87

Table 3: Vancouver Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts

Location Date Time Pedestrians Bicyclists Total

male female total male male female female totalhelmet no helmet helmet no helmet

Columbia St & W 8th St 09/27/2000 4-5 pm 24 11 35 5 7 0 0 12 47Columbia St & W 8th St 09/27/2000 5-6 pm 15 14 29 9 6 3 2 20 49McGillivray & 136th St 09/28/2000 4-5 pm 12 4 16 16 5 1 1 23 39McGillivray & 136th St 09/28/2000 5-6 pm 18 11 29 10 2 2 2 16 45NE 112th & NE 28th St 10/02/2000 4-5 pm 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 3 5NE 112th & NE 28th St 10/02/2000 5-6 pm 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 4McLoughlin & Ft Vanc. 10/03/2000 4-5 pm 14 5 19 5 9 1 4 19 38McLoughlin & Ft Vanc. 10/03/2000 5-6 pm 9 5 14 3 5 1 4 13 27Evergreen & Grand 10/04/2000 4-5 pm 6 7 13 5 2 0 0 7 20Evergreen & Grand 10/04/2000 5-6 pm 7 15 22 7 1 0 0 8 30Andresen & 18th St 10/05/2000 4-5 pm 7 2 9 5 1 0 0 6 15Andresen & 18th St 10/05/2000 5-6 pm 2 3 5 3 0 2 1 6 11W aterfront Path 10/18/2000 4-5 pm 11 6 17 3 1 0 0 4 21W aterfront Path 10/18/2000 5-6 pm 9 7 16 8 3 1 1 13 29I-5 Bridge southbound 10/18/2000 4-5 pm 9 0 9 6 5 0 0 11 20I-5 Bridge southbound 10/18/2000 5-6 pm 9 2 11 5 9 2 0 16 27I-205 Bridge southbound 10/23/2000 4-5 pm 2 0 2 4 1 0 1 6 8I-205 Bridge southbound 10/23/2000 5-6 pm 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 8W 44th St & Lincoln Av 10/24/2000 4-5 pm 3 1 4 0 1 0 1 2 6W 44th St & Lincoln Av 10/24/2000 5-6 pm 4 3 7 1 0 0 0 1 8


Page 88

Measuring Success

The success of this Plan depends on both City and community support. To measure its success, a series of benchmarks are recommended below. The City’s Transportation Department should report to City Council annually on the progress in meeting these benchmarks. The benchmarks selected are those things that can be quantified and are thus simply markers of success. Other more subjective criteria may be useful to discuss over time as well. Table 4: Vancouver TSP Pedestrian and Bicycle Success Benchmarks By 5 Years By 10 Years By 20 Years Walkway Network 25% Complete Approximately 21 new walkway miles (cumulative)

Walkway Network 75% Complete Approximately 60 new walkway miles (cumulative)

Walkway Network 100% Complete Approximately 78 Walkway miles (cumulative)

Bikeway Network 45% Complete Approximately 60 new bikeway miles

Bikeway Network 75% Complete

APPROXIMATELY 100 NEW

BIKEWAY MILES

(CUMULATIVE)

Bikeway Network 100% Complete Approximately 130 new bikeway miles (cumulative)

Walk/bike counts Up 100% from current levels



Pedestrian/bike-motor vehicle crashes Numbers of crashes remain steady

Pedestrian/bike-motor vehicle crashes Crash rates relative to bike use reduced 10%, overall number of crashes reduced 10%

Pedestrian/bike-motor vehicle crashes Crash rates relative to bike use reduced 50%, overall number of crashes reduced 50%

Make Bicycling Magazine’s Top 10 Cities for bicycling list

Host state or regional pedestrian/bike conference

Host national Pro-Bike/Pro-Walk conference

Documents

Bicycle System section of the TSP