NOACA Regional Priority Bike Plan

Prepared By Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland Ohio 44114
REGIONAL B ICYCLE P LAN
2013 Update
June 2013
NORTHEAST OHIO A R E A W I D E COORDINATING A G E N C Y
1299 Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44114
The preparation of this publication was financed through grants received from the Federal Highway Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation and appropriations from the counties of and municipalities within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina. The contents do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation or the Ohio Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard or regulation.
The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is a public organization serving the counties of and municipalities and townships within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina (covering an area with 2.1 million people). NOACA is the agency designated or recognized to perform the following functions:
Serve as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), with responsibility for comprehensive, cooperative and continuous planning for highways, public transit, and bikeways, as defined in the current transportation law. Perform continuous water quality, transportation-related air quality and other environmental planning functions. Administer the area clearinghouse function, which includes providing local government with the opportunity to review a wide variety of local or state applications for federal funds. Conduct transportation and environmental planning and related demographic, economic and land use research. Serve as an information center for transportation and environmental and related planning. At NOACA Governing Board direction, provide transportation and environmental planning assistance to the 172 units of local, general purpose government.
The NOACA Governing Board is composed of 44 local public officials. The Board convenes monthly to provide a forum for members to present, discuss and develop solutions to local and areawide issues and make recommendations regarding implementation strategies. As the area clearinghouse for the region, the Board makes comments and recommendations on applications for state and federal grants, with the purpose of enhancing the regions social, physical, environmental and land use/transportation fabric. NOACA invites you to take part in its planning process. Feel free to participate, to ask questions and to learn more about areawide planning.
GRAND RIVER VILLAGE MENTOR ON N AKE KE THE LAKE
PAINESVILLE TWP. P FA FAIRPORT A HARBOR VILLAGE.
MADISON PERRY R
PAINESVILLE
90
ST
LAKELINE E
LA
TIMBERLAKE
THOMPSON TWP.
LAKE GEAUGA
WILLOWICK WILLO OW K O OWICK
EUCLID E UCLID D
CHARDON TWP.
HAMBDEN TWP.
MONTVILLE TWP.
90
CHARDON
HIGHLAND RICHMOND HTS.
MAYFIELD A VILLAGE
AQUILLA MUNSON TWP. CLARIDON TWP.
L LYNDHURST
MAYFIELD A D HTS.
GATES A MILLS
C CHESTERLAND TWP.
HUNTSBURG TWP.
271
SHEFFIELD D LAK LAKE LA
AVON LAKE A
A VILLAGE LLAGE BAY
LAKEWOOD
ROCKY RO
CLEVELAND
SHAKER HTS.
PEPPER PIKE
G HUNTING V VALLEY
BEACHWOOD O
RUSSELL TWP.
MIDDLEFIELD TWP. NEWBURY TWP. BURTON BURTON TWP. MIDDLEFIELD
GARFIELD HTS.
HILLS WA W AR RR RE EN NS SV VIL RA N. ILL LL LE ND N E AL L H
HIGHLAND AND D
CHAGRIN C HAGRIN
S. RUSSELL
BEDFORD
MAPLE HTS.
AMHERST TWP. S. AMHERST
BEREA
INDEPENDENC
GLEN WILLOW
GEAUGA
ELYRIA ELYRI L A
SEVEN H HILLS
OAKWOOD
G Y HOGA CUYAHOGA CUYA
80
MIDDLEBURGH EB HTS. S.
PARMA P HTS.
P PARMA
V LLEY VA VALLEY VIE
BEDFORD
BAINBRIDGE TWP.
AUBURN TWP.
TROY TWP.
PARKMAN P TWP.
422
GEAUGA PORT POR TAGE PORTAGE
NEW RUSSIA TWP.

R LORA
N. ROYAL ROYALTON Y LTON
BROADVIEW HTS.
CARLISLE TWP.
EATO A N EATON TWP.
STRONGSVILLE VI
480
BRECKSVILLE
80
AHOGA MEDINA DI SUMMIT
OBERLIN GRAFTON
KIPTON
80
CAMDEN TWP. PITTSFIELD TWP. La GRANGE La GRANGE TWP. TWP. WELLINGTON TWP. BRIGHTON TWP. WELLINGTON PENFIELD TWP. LITCHFIELD TWP. YORK TWP. GRAFTON TWP. LIVERPOOL TWP. HINCKLEY TWP.
PORTAGE
SUMMIT
80
271
MEDINA TWP.
MEDINA
SUMMIT
GRANGER TWP. M MEDINA
LORAIN I
ROCHESTER HUNTINGTON TWP.
MEDINA
ROCHESTER TWP.
SPENCER SPENCER TWP.
CHATHAM A TWP.
77
MONTVILLE TWP TWP. SHARON TWP.
For more information, call (216) 241-2414 or log on at http:\\www.noaca.org

HOMER TWP.
GUILFORD TWP. LODI HARRISVILLE TWP. SEVILLE RITTMAN
WADSWORTH W TWP.
76
WADSWORTH W ADSWORTH H
71
ii
GA G UG E U GEA GEAUGA
EA
LAKE
NORTH PERRY R
MADISON TWP.
BOARD OFFICERS
President: Valarie J. McCall, Chief of Government Affairs, City of Cleveland First Vice President: Mary E. Samide, President, Geauga County Board of Commissioners Second Vice President: Ted Kalo, President, Lorain County Board of Commissioners Secretary: Daniel P. Troy, Lake County Commissioner Assistant Secretary: Kathleen Scheutzow, Trustee, Brunswick Hills Township, Medina County Assistant Secretary: Robert E. Aufuldish, President, Lake County Board of Commissioners Treasurer: Stephen D. Hambley, Medina County Commissioner Assistant Treasurer: Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Assistant Treasurer: John D. Hunter, Mayor of Shefeld Village, Lorain County Immediate Past President: Edward S. Jerse, Director of Regional Collaboration, Cuyahoga County
BOARD MEMBERS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY Robert G. Blomquist, Mayor, City of Olmsted Falls William R. Cervenik, Mayor, City of Euclid Scott E. Coleman, Mayor, City of Highland Heights Timothy J. DeGeeter, Mayor, City of Parma Edward O. FitzGerald, County Executive, Cuyahoga County Susan K. Infeld, Mayor, City of University Heights Edward S. Jerse, Director of Regional Collaboration, Susanna Niermann ONeil, Acting City Manager, Cleveland Heights Michael S. Procuk, Mayor, Village of Brooklyn Heights Julian Rogers, Councilman, City of Cleveland Leonard A. Spremulli, Mayor, Village of Bentleyville Robert A. Stefanik, Mayor, City of North Royalton Michael P. Summers, Mayor, City of Lakewood Deborah L. Sutherland, Mayor, City of Bay Village Bonita G. Teeuwen, P.E., Director of Public Works CITY OF CLEVELAND Anthony Brancatelli, Councilman, Robert N. Brown, Director of Planning Martin J. Keane, Councilman Valarie J. McCall, Chief of Government Affairs Mamie J. Mitchell, Councilwoman Jomarie Wasik, Director of Capital Projects GEAUGA COUNTY Tracy A. Jemison, Geauga County Commissioner Mary E. Samide, President, Geauga County Board of Commissioners Ralph Spidalieri, Geauga County Commissioner LAKE COUNTY Robert E. Aufuldish, President, Lake County Board of Commissioners James R. Gills, P.E., P.S., Lake County Engineer Ray Jurkowski, LAKETRAN General Manager Judy Moran, Lake County Commissioner Daniel P. Troy, Lake County Commissioner LORAIN COUNTY Holly Brinda, Mayor, City of Elyria Kenneth P. Carney, Sr., P.E., P.S., Lorain County Engineer Ted Kalo, President, Lorain County Board of Commissioners Dick Heidecker, Trustee, Columbia Township John D. Hunter, Mayor, Village of Shefeld Chase M. Ritenauer, Mayor, City of Lorain Tom Williams, Lorain County Commissioner MEDINA COUNTY J. Christopher Easton, Public Service Director, City of Wadsworth Stephen D. Hambley, Medina County Commissioner Michael J. Salay, P.E., P.S., Medina County Engineer Kathleen Scheutzow, Trustee, Brunswick Hills Township _________________________________
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT (NEORSD)

Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA)
George M. Dixon, Board President CLEVELAND-CUYAHOGA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY: William D. Friedman, President/CEO
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

(ODOT): Myron S. Pakush, Deputy Director,
District 12 Ex ofcio Member: Kurt Princic, Chief, Northeast District Ofce, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
NOACA DIRECTORS
Grace Gallucci, Executive Director Cheryl A. Kurkowski, CPA, Director of Finance & Operations Jonathan Giblin, Director of Programs Randy Lane, Director of Programming William Davis, Associate Director of Planning
iii
1) Title & Subtitle:
Regional Bicycle Plan, 2013 Update
2) NOACA Report No.:

TR1304
3) Author(s):
Contributors:
Marc Von Allmen
4) Report Date: June 2013
Daniel Boyle William Davis Gayle Godek
Sara Maier Ryan Noles
Amy Stacy Brenda Walker
5) Performing Organization Name & Address:

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114-3204 Phone: (216) 241-2414 FAX: (216) 621-3024 Web site: www.noaca.org
6) Project Task No.: 6103-03
7) NOACA Contract/Grant No.:
8) Sponsoring Agency Name & Address:

Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 W. Broad St., Box 899 Columbus, OH 43216-0899
9) Type of Report & Period Covered:

FY2008-2013
10) Sponsoring Agency Code:
11) Supplementary Notes:

Federal funding for this project was provided by the Federal Highway Administration and administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation.
12) Abstracts: The 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan serves as an update to the 2008 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan. It also functions as a component of NOACAs long-range planning efforts. The plan analyzes current conditions for bicycling, including levels of usage, construction of bikeways and other facilities, safety, as well as other factors. The plan update discusses previous goals, and establishes new goals, objectives, and performance measures. The plan also proposes priority roadways and facilities for a regional network and bicycling-related programs, and provides guidance for implementation. 13) Key Words & Document Analysis:
A. Descriptors - Bicycle, bicycling, safety, multimodal, implementation, funding, stakeholders, benefits, regional priority, performance, progress, crash rate, count volumes, goals, objectives, B. Identifiers/Open Ended Term Regional Planning
14) Availability Statement: Available in print and on the NOACA website
15) No. Pages: 88 16) Price:
tr1304
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1: Benefits of Bicycling Chapter 2: Progress Since 2008 Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, & Performance Measures Chapter 4: Current Usage & Demand Chapter 5: Safety Chapter 6: Regional Priority Bikeway Network Chapter 7: Programs Chapter 8: Implementation & Funding Chapter 9: Conclusion Appendix I: Works Cited Appendix II: Regional Priority Bikeway Network Appendix III: Design Guidance Appendix IV: Stakeholder Engagement 1 5 8 12 14 26 33 42 47 51 53 56 67 71
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Miles of Bicycle Lanes & Shared Use Paths Table 2: Bicycle Count Volumes by Year Table 3: Crashes Involving Bicyclists by Year Table 4: Potential Bikeway Demand Scoring Table 5: High Crash Rate Locations Table 6: High Crash Rate Corridors Table 7: List of Funding Opportunities LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Bicycle Commute Mode Share Map 2: Bicycle Counts Map 3: Potential Bikeway Demand Map 4: Potential Bikeway Demand & Existing Bikeways Map 5: Crash Density Map Map 6: Regional Priority Bikeway Network LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Northeast Ohio Bicycle Commuters, Bicycle Crashes, & Crash Rate Figure 2: Crashes Involving Bicyclists by County & Year Figure 3: Number of Crashes by Hour of Day Figure 4: Location of Crashes Involving Bicyclists Figure 5: Vehicle at Fault in Crashes Involving Bicyclists 11 26 27 27 28 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 & 24-25 30-31 & 32-33 34-41 8 10 10 15 29 29 50
vi
NOACAs 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan maps out what needs to be accomplished to make northeast Ohio more bicycle friendly, and serves as an update to the 2008 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan. It also functions as a component of Connections+ 2035, NOACAs long-range transportation plan, which is concerned with the entire regional transportation network. Because federal regulations mandate that regional transportation planning include all modes of transportation, it is important to incorporate the Regional Bicycle Plan into Connections+ 2035. Additionally, a more bicycle-friendly northeast Ohio can potentially lead to a wide variety of benefits for the region. The bicycle is a zero-emission vehicle, so replacing vehicle trips with bicycle trips decreases air pollution and can improve air quality, a current problem in our region.1 Bicycling also serves as a great form of exercise, which can help combat obesity as well as other health conditions.2 Infrastructure improvements can also improve safety for current bicyclists, and can make others feel safe enough to take to the road on two wheels instead of four.3 This infrastructure is typically less expensive and easier to maintain than building and expanding roads for motorized traffic. Finally, a more bicycle-friendly northeast Ohio can provide a number of mobility benefits such as a safer and more efficient means of transportation for those who do not have access to a car. Research about cities and regions that are already experiencing some of these benefits due to investments in bicycle facilities is discussed in Chapter 1 of this plan.
Progress and Future
To plan for improved conditions for bicycling, it is important to obtain a clear vision of what infrastructure exists today, the current efforts to reach bicycling-related goals, and whether these efforts are effective. The 2008 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan established five regional goals.4 Feedback from focus group participants and staff analysis reveal progress has been made on all five goals. In some instances, however, progress is difficult to measure or quantify. Also, there is room for improvement in regard to all five goals, and in some cases progress is not occurring fast enough. Chapter 2 goes into more detail as to what progress has been made in regard to each goal.
The 2013 plan includes the following goals:

1. Plan and implement bicycle facilities. 2. Create and support new or improved policies and programs related to bicycling.
The list of regional goals is intentionally short and straightforward to avoid overlap and confusion. Measuring progress on goals will be easier as a result. Related to each of
the overarching goals, numerous objectives are also listed. The completion of each objective will result in becoming closer to reaching a stated goal. Finally, in addition to the goals and corresponding objectives, the 2013 plan establishes a list of performance measures. These performance measures have been previously monitored in some fashion. They will now be measured and monitored in a consistent way so that progress can be tracked and trends can be identified. The establishment of performance measures will further clarify the accountability of all parties involved in making northeast Ohio more bicycle friendly. The goals, objectives, and performance measures are further explained in Chapter 3.
Current Conditions
Besides assessing progress on previous goals, it is important to develop a clearer picture of current conditions and trends regarding bicycling in northeast Ohio. This allows for a more accurate identification of needs. NOACA staff examined factors such as current bicycling rates, potential demand for bicycle facilities, and volumes and trends for crashes involving bicyclists. Results from initial analyses were then presented for feedback to the NOACA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC), as well as focus group and public meeting participants, to gain more insight on current conditions. Crash data used to explore safety conditions included all reported and located crashes involving bicycles from 2007 through 2011, the most recently available five-year period. The data was obtained from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Geographic Information Systems Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT). Examined factors include crash volumes by county and year, distribution of crashes for time of day, the location of crashes in relation to the roadway network (intersection, non-intersection, driveway, other), and the identification of high-crash locations and corridors. Chapter 4 provides more detail on each one of these factors. To get an idea of where people are currently riding, NOACA staff compiled data from the U.S. 2010 Census and American Community Survey. Bicycle commuter rates were mapped out across the region at the census tract level. Results from recent bicycle counts were also used to determine where high volumes currently exist. Results from surveys, focus groups, and public meetings were also used to shed light on this topic. Chapter 5 includes some discussion of this analysis as well as observations. In addition to considering where people are currently riding, a methodology based on practices from peer regional bicycle planning efforts was developed and used to determine which areas within the region are most likely to have the highest potential demand for bikeways. The methodology included compiling census data for a variety of factors that are understood to have a correlation with higher rates of
bicycling. These six factors include population density, job density, bicycle commute rates, walking and transit commute rates, number of zero-vehicle households, and percentage of short commutes. Each census tract was assigned a score based on each of the six factors, and then a composite score was derived to determine the potential bikeway demand for every tract in the region.
Regional Priority Bikeway Network
The Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN) is a vision of a system of interconnected routes throughout northeast Ohio that are safe and convenient for bicyclists. The region has seen an increase in the number of facilities over the past four years, but to allow for safe and efficient bicycle transportation throughout the region, focus needs to be given to building a network that connects people to where they need and want to go. NOACA supports the provision of safe accommodations for bicyclists on roads within the region, but the roads included in the RPBN will take priority for the development of bicycle facilities that serve riders of all ages with different skill levels. The specific type of bikeway to be implemented is not indicated, but guidance on this decision can be found in Appendix III. The RPBN was identified by using the Potential Bikeway Demand layer developed in Chapter 5, as well as other factors, such as existing and planned bikeways, public transportation stops, current bicycle suitability of the road, and regional attractions. NOACA staff discussed this methodology with the BPAC and developed a draft. The draft RPBN was then presented to the BPAC for review, as well as at public meetings held throughout the region. Finally, the draft RPBN was sent out to all cities, villages, counties, and other stakeholders within the region for feedback. This extensive public involvement process was conducted so that the RPBN would truly reflect the regional vision for a safe and efficient bikeway network.
Proposed Programs
To make northeast Ohio a truly bicycle-friendly region, stakeholders should offer and conduct a multitude of programs to complement infrastructure improvements. This plan provides a menu of suggested programs that consists of four categories: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Some of the listed programs have already been implemented within the region and should either be continued or expanded. Others have been implemented elsewhere and have made other regions more bicycle friendly. Each program includes a suggested lead agency, department, or organization, as well as suggested partners. The actual implementation of a program may involve different leaders or supporters. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of current or future bicycle-related programs within the region, but instead a list of priorities to work toward implementation. Chapter 7 contains the list of programs.
Implementation and Conclusion
As the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Greater Cleveland, NOACA determines how federal funding for transportation projects is spent within the region. Chapter 8 contains an overview of various funding programs administered by NOACA, as well as additional state and federal programs. This is not a comprehensive list; there are many funding opportunities for municipalities or organizations interested in planning or constructing bikeway projects or implementing bicycle programs. The majority of bicycling-related projects that NOACA works with, however, involve these funding programs. This plan outlines many efforts that need to be undertaken to make northeast Ohio a bicycle-friendly region. Public and stakeholder involvement guided and strengthened this plan through its development, and NOACA staff appreciates all who participated. As with previous regional bicycle plans, this plan is a living document and should be updated on a regular basis.
Chapter 1: Benefits of Bicycling

NOACA is eager to continue investing in the regional multimodal transportation system because of the varied benefits that can be realized, such as improvements to the environment, public health, and safety. Some of these benefits are expanded upon below. The Cleveland-Akron-Elyria urbanized area has the 12thhighest level of PM2.5, or fine particles, in the nation, one of six pollutants monitored for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.5 Although air pollution comes from a variety of sources and a range of efforts is necessary for clean air, our transportation habits play a considerable role. The fact that the bicycle is a zero-emission vehicle makes it a great opportunity to clear the air in northeast Ohio. Many of the commutes made or errands run in the region are short enough in distance to travel by bike.6 According to the American Lung Associations State of the Air 2012, the cleaner air that would result from a mode shift for these trips could encourage more businesses to locate in the region, offer a more attractive and healthy place for people to move to or continue to reside in, and create safer conditions for the hundreds of thousands in the region who suffer from respiratory diseases.7 According to a nationwide study, Ohio is now the 13th fattest state in the U.S., with an adult obesity rate of 29.6 percent and a childhood obesity rate of 18.5 percent.8 These are extremely alarming numbers, considering that obesity has been linked to serious medical conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and numerous forms of cancer. Someone who has been 40 percent overweight for more than 10 years is twice as likely to die prematurely. Additionally, an obese person spends 42 percent more in medical care costs annually.9 One of the many contributing factors to obesity is a lack of exercise. Increased levels of active transportation could go a long way to helping to lower these disturbing numbers. The Cleveland Clinic website prescribes at least 30-45 minutes of moderate exercise on most, if not all days. A daily five-mile round trip bike ride, perhaps for errands or commuting, would be more than sufficient. Additionally, the prescribed moderate exercise built into a daily routine could replace an hour budgeted at the gym, thereby increasing free time.
Environmental Impacts
Health Impacts
Safety Impacts
Additional investments in bicycle infrastructure will likely yield multiple benefits when it comes to road safety. Bikeways, especially more recent innovations such as bicycle boulevards and intersection treatments, will provide safer conditions for
current bicyclists. Furthermore, potential bicyclists, who may be wary due to a sense of lack of safety, will be more likely to incorporate bicycling into their everyday travel habits. The benefit of increased safety from additional bicycle infrastructure extends to all modes of transportation. Research has been conducted to better understand the effects of higher bicycle mode shares on safety for all road users. One study, analyzing 11 years of traffic data for 24 California cities, portrayed positive impacts. As the bicycle mode share increased, traffic fatality rates for all roads users, including motorists, decreased.10 This positive impact is the result of more cautious driving due to an increase in the presence of bicyclists, the fact that bicycle-friendly roads and intersections concurrently promote safer driving, and shorter trips due to a shift in mode choice, among other factors.
Economic Impacts
In a time when cities and counties nationwide are feeling the budget crunch, increases in costs for maintaining the existing transportation system are making matters considerably worse. Maintenance costs increase as the road network continues to grow, following the outward migration of both population and jobs from urban cores in northeast Ohio.11 In the 2012-2015 NOACA Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), more than $122 million is dedicated to resurfacing projects alone.12 Due to their size, as well as the size and weight of the vehicles that use them, bikeways cost significantly less to construct and maintain. Transportation spending is not only a problem at the regional and local level, but on an individual level as well. A report by the Center for Neighborhood Technology noted Cleveland (tied with Detroit) as the city spending the second highest percentage of personal income on transportation.13 More recent studies reveal that 60 percent of the regions housing stock is not affordable for the average annual income wage earner, when transportation costs associated with housing are also considered. The majority of the remaining 40 percent is located within urban areas or along transit routes.14 This 40 percent could expand significantly with increased investment in the multimodal network, including bike facilities.
Travel Impacts
Similar to other urban areas, people in northeast Ohio continue to feel the burden of a congested transportation system. In 2011 it is estimated that people living in Greater Cleveland on average lost nearly $642 to congestionrelated costs. The urbanized area as a whole lost $736 million, ranking 36th among 101 urban areas nationwide.15 There are numerous factors contributing to the regions congestion, such as a lack of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, as well as others. While it should not be considered a silver bullet solution, a significant increase in bicycle mode share can help relieve congestion throughout the region. The more people choose to get from their origin to destination by bike, the fewer the cars and congestion on our roads. A study released in 2011 looked at pairs of cities similar in size and compared their respective bicycle mode shares and hours of congestion-related delay per capita.16 In the three cases examined (New York City/Los Angeles, Philadelphia/Miami, Boston/Dallas), each city with the highest non-motorized mode share also had less hours spent in congestion per capita.
Another travel benefit provided by increased investment in bike facilities and other multimodal infrastructure is improved mobility for those who are unable to afford and maintain a car. The percentage of workers 16 and older without access to a motorized vehicle varies from just over 5 percent in Geauga and Cuyahoga counties to 1.2 percent in Medina County. That percentage more than doubles for the City of Cleveland, where more than one in ten do not have access to a motorized vehicle.17 Some of these people do not own a car by choice, but many simply cannot afford one. Providing more affordable options for all transportation system users can begin to erase this mobility inequality.
Quantifying the Benefits
Staff researched per mile rates to quantify the benefits of bicycling for northeast Ohio. These rates were applied to the number of miles that could be traveled by bike as opposed to driving alone. The results are below:
The number of people who commute by driving alone for a distance of five miles or less each way is 79,256 .* Taking into consideration weekends, time off, part-time workers, and weather conditions, the number of possible commutes by bike for this group is roughly estimated to be 146.
The rates of benefit per mile by switching from driving to biking are 38.5 calories burned** 423 grams of CO2 avoided*** 64 cents saved**** This yields an annual benefit of Nearly 1 Billion Calories Burned Per Year! Over 23 Million Pounds of CO2 Removed From the Air! $16 Million in Savings for Northeast Ohioans!
This figure is taken from the 2007-2009 ACS and represents the number of people in Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina counties that have commutes of ten minutes or less and drive alone. These commutes are assumed to be five miles or less because the 2009 NHTS found an average commute speed of 28.7 for areas within an MSA of population 1-2.9 million and 32.5 for rural areas. This figure is taken from State of Wisconsins Department of Health and corresponds to bicycling, light effort, at a rate of 10-11.9 mph.
**
*** This figure is taken from the U.S. EPAs Office of Transportation and Air Qualitys website. **** Thomas Gotschi, Active Transportation For America (Rails to Trails Conservancy, 2008); http://www.railstotrails.org/ourwork/advocacy/activetransportation/ makingthecase/index.html (accessed Dec. 19, 2011).
Chapter 2: Progress Since 2008

NOACA last updated its regional bicycle plan in 2008. The plan listed five overarching goals, as well as corresponding strategies that would gauge the degree to which these goals were met. The five goals are listed below, along with some of the strategies, with the progress that was made in the previous four years.
1. Promote a Network of Safe Bikeways and Supporting Facilities

An inventory of bikeways was created for the 1997 plan, edited and updated in 2006 for the 2008 plan, and edited and updated once again during the completion of this plan. The increase in miles of shared use paths and bicycle lanes over the two time periods is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: MILES OF BICYCLE LANES & SHARED USE PATHS
Year 1997 2006 2012
Lanes 8 40 55
Paths 105 195 260
Table 1 shows that both miles of bike lanes and paths continue to increase in northeast Ohio. Bike paths have been installed at a faster rate than bike lanes, with annual growth rates over the past six years averaging 10.8 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. Some shared use paths function as excellent transportation options, but many are geared toward recreation. While it is exciting to see both types of bikeways continue to be constructed throughout the region, it will be important to increase growth rates and to concentrate on providing facilities that offer transportation options. In addition to bike lanes and shared use paths, support facilities vital to the continued increase in ridership have also been installed throughout the region. Perhaps the most notable would be The Bike Rack, the bike storage facility and commuter station located in downtown Cleveland. The facility offers separate shower/changing facilities, lockers, bicycle rentals and a full-service bicycle repair shop.18
2. Increase Bicycle Planning and Provision of Facilities at the Local Level

NOACA has implemented several programs and initiatives, providing funding and technical assistance to help facilitate multimodal planning at the local level in northeast Ohio, including: Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative (TLCI): This program offers federal funding as well as technical assistance for municipalities within the NOACA region to conduct planning efforts geared toward improving multimodal infrastructure, among other objectives.19 Since the 2008 Bicycle Plan Update, eight grant recipients have been able to adopt multimodal master plans, mapping networks of potential bicycle and pedestrian projects, while 30 others have been able to make plans to improve vital corridors throughout the NOACA region.
Walkable Communities Workshops: In 2008, NOACA partnered with the National Center for Bicycling and Walking to lead walking audits in the communities of Lakewood, Brooklyn, Strongsville, and Chesterland. These workshops were geared toward getting planners, engineers, law enforcement officers, and elected officials out in the field to discuss possible solutions for improving the local multimodal infrastructure. All four workshops resulted in a list of possible projects that would make the communities more accommodating for bicyclists and pedestrians, including:
Road diets to allow for bike lanes on roadways with underused capacity Shared use paths running parallel to arterials with high motor vehicle volumes Repainting crosswalks to allow for greater visibility to motorists
Bicycle Friendly Communities: NOACA staff has assisted communities in applying for Bicycle Friendly Community status, a designation awarded to communities nationwide by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB).20 Designations are based upon a variety of criteria regarding bicycling and are awarded at five different levels: Diamond, Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze. Currently there are no designated communities in the NOACA region, although Cleveland Heights received an honorable mention in 2010. NOACA believes that continued efforts to plan for and build a more complete multimodal infrastructure network will yield stronger applications and more designations in the years to come. Various municipalities have also prioritized planning for improved bicycle infrastructure without funding assistance from NOACA. The cities of Lakewood and Cleveland in Cuyahoga County, Medina County, and others jurisdictions have invested time and money to organize the ideas of local stakeholders to ensure that future investments go toward building an optimal network that will create momentum as it is implemented. All of these planning efforts significantly strengthen future applications for federal funding.
3. Increase Bicycle Ridership for Transportation

Data sources suggest that bicycle ridership is continuing to grow in northeast Ohio. The LAB annually compiles journey to work data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, comparing commuting trends for the 70 most populous U.S. cities. Journey to work data is concerned specifically with information regarding commuting trips, as opposed to all travel, and is released annually. Included in the compilation are the bicycle mode shares for each city, as well as the percent increases in mode share over the past decade. The City of Cleveland experienced an increase in bicycle mode share of approximately 280 percent from 2000 to 2010, the highest rate of increase for all 70 cities.21 The tremendous increase can be attributed to a wide variety of causes, including the increase in facilities noted above, a growing bicycling community, revitalization of the more compact, urban core areas, as well as many others. Cleveland now has a bicycle commute share estimated to be 0.6 percent, with Lorain County next in line at 0.5 percent.22 Another means to gauge progress on this goal is by examining bicycle count data. NOACA has been conducting bicycle counts since 2004; however, the bicycle count program was changed in 2011 to reflect standards included in the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD). The NBPD is a nationwide effort to collect bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts in a more uniform manner to achieve a better understanding of multimodal travel behavior.23
Many of the counts conducted since the program change in 2011 were located at intersections that had been counted in the past; however, these counts were screenline counts as opposed to intersection counts (counting traffic only at one leg of the intersection, as opposed to all four). In addition, recent counts were all conducted during the same two-hour period (from 5PM7PM), and during one-week periods in May and September. Previous counts were conducted during various hours of the day between June and August. Therefore, due to a shift in methodology, it is difficult to make accurate comparisons between past counts and counts since 2011. Table 2 below shows some of the counts that were conducted in 2011 as well as previous years. Note that previously, NOACA aimed to count locations every four years to allow for more time before assessing increases or decreases in volumes. Therefore, a count at each location is not available for the majority of years shown.
Table 2: BICYCLE COUNT VOLUMES BY YEAR

Count Location C oun Coun Co u tL unt Loc Lo ocati ti ion o on Detroit Ave. East of 25th St. Edgehill Rd. East of Overlook Rd. Detroit Ave. East of Warren Rd. Lake Ave. East of Avon Belden Rd. High St. North of College St. Liberty St. South of Mentor Ave. Bell St. West of Mapleridge Rd. County C ount o ou nt nty ty Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Lorain Medina Lake Geauga 2006 20 06 57 N/A 32 19 19 10 N/A 2008 2 008 00 8 N/A 108 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2010 2009 20 09 2 0 01 0 010 N/A 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 113 N/A N/A N/A 11 N/A N/A 2011 20 11 1 88 60 58 12 6 9 6 Increase/ I / Incr In crea cr ea ease ase se/ D Decrease Decrea Decr De ecr crea ea ease ase e -22% -6% 81% -37% -45% -10% 500%
Keeping the differences in methodology in mind, there are some conclusions that can be made from these results. One statement that still holds true is that the highest bicycle volumes remain in Cuyahoga County, which has higher population densities, a more complete street grid, and a mix of land uses. The three Cuyahoga County count locations returned the highest volumes from 2006 through 2010, and once again in 2011 under the new methodology.
4. Promote Safer Bicycling in the Region and Reduce Accidents

To gauge the safety of the regions bicyclists, the 2008 plan compared the number of crashes involving bicyclists in each county between 1991 and 1995 to those between 2002 and 2006. That comparison showed that accidents involving bicyclists had decreased since the 1997 plan. This held true regionwide and in four of the five counties.24 For this plan, crash data from ODOT from 2008 to 2011 is shown in the table below.
Table 3: CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS BY YEAR

Year Ye ar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 C Cuyahoga uyah uy ya aho oga og a 310 363 374 374 Geau Ge Geauga auga auga au 4 4 3 5 L Lake ake ak e 48 54 47 34 Lora Lo Lorain ora ain n M edin ed ina in na Medina 65 57 64 63 17 16 17 14 Regi Re Region g on gi o 444 494 505 490
Source:Crash Statistics System (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/crashstatistics/CrashReports.aspx (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
Region-wide, crashes involving bicyclists increased by 10 percent from 2008 to 2011. This increase is alarming because total crashes for all vehicles regionwide decreased 4 percent from 2008 to 2011.25 Geauga, Lorain, and Medina
10
county crash volumes remained relatively stable, while crashes in Lake County decreased. Cuyahoga County, which has significantly higher crash volumes than all the other counties, also saw the biggest increase from 2008 to 2011. This is clearly a harmful trend, but it is difficult to determine to what extent this increase should be attributed to less safe conditions for bicyclists, increased levels of bicycling (and therefore a potential decrease in crash rate), or both. Figure 1 below compares the number of bicycle commuters, the number of bicycle-related crashes, and a bicycle crash rate calculated as the ratio between the two (bicycle-related crashes/bicycle commuters) from 2005 to 2011.
Figure 1: NORTHEAST OHIO BICYCLE COMMUTERS, BICYCLE CRASHES, & CRASH RATE
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2006 0
Number of bicycle-related crashes
Bicycle commuters Bicycle-related crashes Bicycle crash rate
Source:Crash Statistics System (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); https:// ext.dps.state.oh.us/crashstatistics/CrashReports.aspx (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). See also Table S0801: ACS 1-Year Estimate: Commuting Characteristics by Sex (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau); www.census.gov (accessed Oct. 10, 2012).
Due to fluctuation, it will be beneficial to continue to track this data over a longer time frame to better identify trends. The number of bicycle-related crashes has gradually increased over time, but the bicycle crash rate and number of bicycle commuters has fluctuated. While the number of crashes increased 10 percent from 2008 to 2011, the crash rate had a modest increase of 2 percent. In the two years in which there were significant increases in the number of bicycle commuters (2006 to 2007 and 2009 to 2010), however, the number of crashes remained relatively stable, resulting in a significant decrease in the crash rate. Additionally, the one year in which there was a significant decrease in the number of bicycle commuters (20082009), there was a significant increase in crashes, resulting in a significant increase in crash rate. These observations begin to illustrate a trend of safety in numbers that has also been experienced around the nation.26 Although infrastructure improvements, continued education of drivers and bicyclists, and many other factors play a role in increasing the safety of bicyclists, it is likely that, as the number of bicyclists on the road increases, so does their safety.
5. Encourage Involvement of the Private Sector & Other Outside Support for Biking
Although little investment from the private sector has been tracked, one significant investment was that of the Gund Foundation. The foundation awarded a grant of $60,000 to the advocacy organization Bike Cleveland in November 2011. Bike Cleveland has put this money toward funding its
11
executive director position, creating the first professional bike advocacy organization with paid staff in northeast Ohio.27 Additionally, the private sector was involved during the annual Bike to Work Day celebrations. NOACA approached employers for the first time in 2009, and again in 2010, to join in the event by encouraging their employees to try commuting to work. In 2009, 13 employers informed NOACA they would participate, and in 2010, the number grew to 27 employers.28 Participating employees provided positive feedback, including the intention to continue to commute by bike after trying it for the first time.
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures

Long-range Goals
This plan focuses on one mode, bicycling, but it also functions as one part of the overall long-range transportation planning process conducted by NOACA. Therefore, this plan should be and is in accordance with the stated goals of Connections+ 2035.
Regional Bicycle Plan Goals
It is important to develop goals and objectives specific to bicycling in order to better achieve the long-range planning goals. NOACA staff developed two main goals based on analysis of previous internal and external planning efforts, current conditions and needs, and input from the public and stakeholder groups. They are as follows: 1. Plan and implement bicycle facilities 2. Create and support new or improved policies and programs related to bicycling
Regional Bicycle Plan Objectives
These two goals may seem simple and straightforward, but to make progress on or achieve them, there is much work to be done. This work is further outlined by the list of objectives below. As opposed to overarching goals, objectives are distinct, and whether they have been fully or partially achieved will be easily determined in the future. The objectives are listed below their corresponding goals, but the completion of some objectives will result in progress made on both goals.
Objectives for Goal 1 (Plan and implement bicycle facilities): a. Identify a regional network that provides more options for people currently bicycling, as well as those considering bicycling for transportation. b. Coordinate with cities, counties, villages, townships, and the state to implement local connections into the regional network. c. Eliminate critical gaps in the current regional network, as well as local bikeway networks. d. Encourage the design and implementation of innovative and safe bicycle facilities that have proven successful in other metropolitan areas, and analyze their impacts within the region. e. Increase the quantity and quality of bicycle parking at appropriate locations. f. Develop maintenance strategies for existing and future bicycle facilities. g. Improve bicycle access to targeted destinations, including public transportation stops, schools, shopping centers, and places of employment.
12
h. Target major barriers to safe bicycling travel within the region, such as highways, railroads, bridges, rivers, and work with cities, counties, villages, townships, and the state to develop solutions. i. Enhance the user experience by incorporating way-finding signage where applicable.
Objectives for Goal 2 (Create and support new or improved policies & programs related to bicycling):
a. Improve and clarify NOACAs current policies related to planning and programming infrastructure projects and the provision of bicycle facilities. b. Draft and adopt a regional complete streets policy. c. Update appropriate agency processes to facilitate the implementation of a regional complete streets policy. d. Provide project sponsor resources that facilitate the implementation of a regional complete streets policy. e. Support the local adoption and implementation of complete streets policies. f. Develop strategies to improve the enforcement of laws regarding bicycling. g. Continue to update and distribute county bicycle maps to interested bicyclists. h. Offer bicycle facility planning and design training opportunities to local planning and engineering staffs. i. Lead or support the implementation of programs listed in Chapter 7.
Finally, progress in making northeast Ohio a more bicycle-friendly region can be documented by adopting performance measures. Performance measures are defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as qualitative or quantitative measures of outcomes, outputs, efficiency, or cost effectiveness.29 Benefits of incorporating performance measures in any transportation planning exercise include enhanced accountability, transparency for the public being served, improved decision making, and a better ability to assess system performance. According to MAP-21, performance measures will be developed by the U.S. DOT, and states and MPOs must develop performance targets to correspond to the federal performance measures.* NOACA will use the following performance measures to evaluate progress. The performance measures used will be reevaluated in subsequent updates to the Regional Bicycle Plan to ensure that they effectively capture the necessary context to determine progress. 1. Annual number of bicycle-related crashes 2. Annual number of miles of bikeways constructed 3. Annual growth of bicycle commute mode share and bicycle count volumes Progress on these performance measures will be tracked by means of an annual or biennial bicycling report card, one of the proposed evaluation programs in Chapter 7.
Regional Bicycle Plan Performance Measures
* MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. Funding surface transportation programs at more than $105 billion for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization enacted since 2005.
13
Chapter 4: Current Usage & Demand C

In addition to creating a snapshot of the current bikeway network, it is important to explore the current level of bicycle usage and potential demand for more facilities in the region. In doing so, a framework d can be developed for continued investment in more bicycle and c pedestrian infrastructure. Ultimately, this process will help NOACA p determine which areas should be identified as priorities for bicycle d facility projects. Numerous factors need to be analyzed to determine f an areas bicycle usage as well as potential demand. a
Where people are bicycling W

T Two main data sources are available to determine where and how many people are riding bicycles in Northeast Ohio. One source is the m journey to work data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Bicycle jo commuting rates for all census tracts within the NOACA region c from the 2010 Census are displayed in Map 1.30 As shown in the f map legend, the darker the red shading, the higher the percentage m of people commuting by bike. To put the numbers in context, the o national mode share is a little more than 0.5 percent of the population n commuting by bike. The City of Cleveland, as a whole, has a rate of c 0.6 percent. Areas within Cuyahoga County that display relatively 0 high bicycle commuting rates are downtown and the near east and h west neighborhoods in the City of Cleveland, the cities of Lakewood w and Cleveland Heights, and an outer ring of various suburban a municipalities. Areas displaying relatively higher commuting rates in m Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina counties are largely limited to the G more urban areas. Map 1 also shows existing bikeways and suggests m that expenditures for bicycle facilities have been appropriately focused t in n higher-usage areas. Bicycle counts conducted by NOACA with the help of volunteers B provide additional insight into levels of bicycling. As stated in Chapter p 2, the NOACA bike count program was reorganized in fall 2011, and 2 the locations chosen for each count period include: t - Locations that had been counted in previous years - Locations surrounded by relatively high population densities, a mix of land uses, bicycle facilities, and other factors that are likely to make bicycling a more viable transportation option. - Locations for planned bicycle facility installation or improvements (before and after studies) After NOACA staff compiles a list of potential count locations based A on these factors, the locations counted from year to year depend o on volunteer availability. NOACA intends to continue and improve o volunteer recruitment efforts so that locations can be counted on a v consistent basis and additional locations can be added in future years. c Map 2 shows the five-county region and its major roads, as well as M bicycle count locations and volumes from September 2011 and May b 2012. As the legend indicates, the size of each dot represents the 2 number of bicycles that were counted during a two-hour period during n the evening peak period. t
14
Looking at Map 2, most of the higher volumes are located in t the he Ci City ity o of f Cleveland and the inner ring suburbs. Because the bicycle count program unt pro ogram m was only recently changed, it will be important to continue to conduct o cond duct t the counts in a consistent manner so that trends can be accurately ur rately y monitored in the future. Also, as the sample size grows, further analysis her ana alys sis can examine the various strengths of correlations between count volumes ount volum mes and factors such as land use, population density, presence of bikeway, f a bikewa ay, , and other factors.
Where people may want to ride

By compiling data on a handful of factors, it is possible to uncover nc cover wh which hich hi h areas within the NOACA region may have a greater demand fo for more or mo ore r bicycle facilities. Numerous planning efforts at various scales the s across ss t he he nation have conducted similar analyses to develop priorities fo for future or the f uture utu development of bikeways. The different factors used in these to e efforts ts t o determine potential bikeway demand vary to some extent, but generally ut t gene era rall ly include the following:
Percentage of people already commuting by bike Percentage of people already commuting by other active transportation modes (walking and public transit) Percentage of people who do not own an automobile Percentage of people with commutes of ten minutes or less Population density Employment density
Data was complied from the 2010 Census to create a map depicting epicting ep ga composite demand score based on these six factors.31 Table 4 show shows ws how each factor was weighted to determine the potential demand score mand s core e for each census tract, and Map 3 shows the results.
Table 4: POTENTIAL BIKEWAY DEMAND SCORING

Factor Fact Fa ctor ct or or Population Density (# of people per acre) Employment Density (# of jobs per acre) Commutes by Bicycle (% of employed 16 & older) Commutes by Walking or Public Transit (% of employed 16 & older) Zero-Vehicle Households (% of households) Short Commutes (% of employed 16 & older) Range R ange an g ge <5 5-15 >15 <5 5-15 >15 0.8-2 2-4 >4 5-15 15-25 >25 5-15 15-25 >25 10-25 15-25 >25 Score S core co re 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6
15
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau

NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
16
Darker census tracts received higher potential bikeway demand scores. The City of Cleveland stands out as the most prominent priority area. Priority areas are also identified throughout the five-county region. The following municipalities contain census tracts with relatively high composite scores.
City of Cleveland Heights City of East Cleveland City of Elyria City of Lakewood City of Lorain Village of Middlefield City of Oberlin City of Painesville City of Wadsworth
Mode Share (%)

0.0 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.5 1.5 - 10.1 Bike Lane Bike Path County Boundary Major Road
: Planning For Greater Cleveland
Not only are individual areas able to be identified as potential priorities, but larger, regional corridors also emerge from this analysis. Numerous corridors originate from the City of Cleveland and extend outward to various Cuyahoga County municipalities. Additionally, a corridor that connects the cities of Lorain and Elyria in Lorain County can be seen. Finally, the most prominent regional priority corridor identified by this map extends from eastern Lorain County throughout Cuyahoga County along the shore of Lake Erie, and all the way to the eastern end of Lake County. Although the number of bicycle trips spanning the distance of these regional corridors may be a small portion of all trips, a regional bikeway
17
10
01
2 Miles
Data Sources: U.S. S. Census Cen ensus Bureau reau

NOACA makes no representations entations or r warranties with respect to the accuracy cy y and/or an completeness of the map. .
18
network with connections to local networks will be necessary to realize many of the benefits outlined in Chapter 1. Besides analyzing census data, it is also important to obtain insight directly from the public to determine where people would like to see improvements for bicycling. This question, as well as others, were posed to people throughout the five-county region through surveys, small focus groups, and public meetings. Feedback obtained included general priorities such as the need to extend currently existing bikeways, as well as the importance of prioritizing bikeways that provide connections to places of employment, schools, and recreation opportunities. Also, more specific feedback was provided on which roads were the best candidates for future bikeways. Appendix IV provides more details on guidance and insight received through public engagement efforts.
SEPTEMBER S SEPTE EMBER R 2011 1 Bicyclist 10 Bicyclists 100 Bicyclists County Boundary
MAY 2012 1 Bicyclist 10 Bicyclists 100 Bicyclists
Where we need more bike facilities

By overlaying existing bikeways on the potential bikeway demand map, some judgment can be made on which priority areas are being served, and which priority areas are underserved. Map 4 begins to explore this situation. The map shows that most of the priority areas include a few existing shared use paths (dark green) and/or bike lanes (light green). Conversely, there are some darker red areas that have close to none. Examples include the
Major Road
Greater Cleveland
19
10
Data Sources: U.S. Census Cen ensus Bureau reau

NOACA makes no representations ntations or r warranties with respect to o the accuracy cy y and/or an completeness of the map.
20
cities of Elyria, Lakewood, Lorain, Painesville, and Wadsworth, and the Village of Middlefield. Still, areas that have high potential bikeway demand as well as some existing bikeways can also be considered underserved. One prime example is the City of Cleveland. Cleveland has more miles of bikeways than any other municipality in the region. As shown on the map, however, many of these bikeways exist in isolation, not connected to one another. While some may provide options for traveling down the street for a quick errand, they often fall short of getting a person from an origin to a destination. The Detroit Superior and Hope Memorial Bridges clearly illustrate this deficiency. Both include bikeways, but they would be much more valuable and likely support significantly higher volumes if they functioned as segments within a network. For bicycles to be a more viable transportation option in the region, isolated facilities must grow into local networks, and local networks must connect to each other to form a more robust, regional network. Chapter 6 provides more discussion of a regional bikeway network in northeast Ohio.
Composite Demand Score

4-6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 County Boundary
Greater Cleveland
21
2.5
Miles

22
Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6

7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Bike Lane Shared Use Path State Roads County Boundary
23
Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6

7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Bike Lane Shared Use Path State Roads County Boundary
0 2.5 5
Miles

24
25
Chapter 5: Safety
Improving the safety of all transportation modes, including bicycling, is a vital goal for NOACA. To make this improvement, NOACA staff should analyze trends to help identify the most effective solutions. Toward this end, staff downloaded crash data for all accidents involving bicyclists from ODOTs GIS Crash Analysis Tool for the years from 2007-2011, the most recent available five-year time frame. The following graphs pertain to this data. It is important to note that data for crashes involving bicyclists is typically not as complete and accurate as crashes involving only motorists. This is because crashes involving bicyclists are typically underreported. Figure 1 displays annual crash volumes by county.
Figure 2: CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS BY COUNTY & YEAR

400 350 Number of Crashes 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Cuyahoga Geauga eauga Lake ake Lorain orain Medina edina
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: Crash Statistics System (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); https://ext.dps.state. oh.us/crashstatistics/CrashReports.aspx (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
Cuyahoga County has significantly higher crash volumes than the other four counties. This is likely a result of a variety of factors that include total population, population density, bicycle mode share, as well as others. After calculating a crash rate for each county (number of crashes involving bicyclists per 100,000 people), the order of highest to lowest remains the same, but the range decreases, with Cuyahoga at a rate of roughly 30 accidents per 100,000 people, and Geauga with a rate of roughly five accidents per 100,000 people. Most counties experienced relatively stable levels of bicycle crashes over these five years. The county with the most significant change was Cuyahoga County, which saw an increase from 331 crashes in 2007 to 374 cashes in 2011. This growth, along with the fact that Cuyahoga County has the largest volume of crashes involving bicyclists, indicates that the county should be a priority in safety improvements for bicyclists. The time of day in which a crash occurs can provide some insight as to what safety improvements can be made. Figure 3 shows the number of crashes that occurred during each hour of the day from 2007 to 2011. The graph shows that the majority of crashes involving bicyclists occurred during evening peak hours, which is informative in prioritizing certain safety measures. According to this data, safety measures should likely be directed toward conflicts between rush hour motorists and bicyclists, such as increased education, further encouragement of off-peak commuting, safer accommodations connecting bicyclists to their places of work, as well as many others.
26
Figure 3: NUMBER OF CRASHES BY HOUR OF DAY

400 350 Number of Crashes 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 2 3 Hour of Day
Source: Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
Another crash characteristic that needs to be considered when prioritizing future safety measures is the locations of crashes involving bicyclists in relation to the road network. Figure 4 shows where these crashes occurred from 2007 to 2011.
Figure 4: LOCATION OF CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS
Intersection Non-Intersection Driveway Other

Source: Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot. state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
The graph shows that nearly half of all crashes involving bicyclists occurred at intersections, nearly a third of crashes occurred at non-intersections (along the road but not near driveways), and nearly a fifth of crashes occurred at driveways. Although many measures can increase safety at all three location types, there are intersection-specific bicycle safety improvements that project sponsors should prioritize to effectively reduce crash rates. These include a variety of pavement markings, signage, and signal-timing strategies. Examining common causes can also provide insight on which safety measures should be prioritized. Examining the data from 2007-2011, three of the top five contributing factors recorded are Unknown, Other improper action, and None. All provide very little information. This may indicate that increased efforts by law enforcement officials are needed so we can better understand the causes for crashes involving bicyclists. Top contributing factors that do provide some information and apply to both motorists and bicyclists include Failure to yield and Improper crossing. These two contributing factors are likely tied to
27
the fact that, as displayed in Figure 4, many crashes occur at intersections. Pavement markings and signage alerting motorists and bicyclists should be used at more dangerous intersections to reduce bicycle-related accidents. Many bicyclists feel that education and enforcement needs to be directed toward motorists to promote safer, shared roads. Concurrently, motorists point out that some bicyclists ignore traffic signals and signage, putting themselves in harms way. Figure 5 displays vehicles at fault in crashes involving bicyclists from 2007 to 2011.
Figure 5: VEHICLE AT FAULT IN CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS
Bicyclist Motorist Unknown/Hit & Skip Non-Motorist
Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
The graph illustrates that both motorists and bicyclists are equally at fault in crashes involving both modes. There are likely instances where some blame can be attributed to unsafe road conditions and infrastructure, regardless of whether the bicyclist or motorist was at fault. Either way, safety measures geared toward bicyclists and motorists should be pursued. Additionally, this was confirmed during all focus groups, with participants expressing that better education needs to be made available to all modes of traffic. Along with understanding what types of crashes occur between bicyclists and motorists, it is important to determine where crashes occur so NOACA and municipalities can prioritize where to install safety measures. To accomplish this, NOACA staff mapped crashes involving bicyclists with reports that included location data along the road network. Then, staff determined a crash rate (crashes per mile) for each road segment included in the road inventory maintained by ODOT. The results are found in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 includes the top segments overall in terms of crash rate. One important thing to note about this list is that all segments measure less than a half mile, and most less than a quarter mile. With lengths this small, spot and intersection improvements should be considered first. The smaller segments shown could be improved by increased signage, signals, and/ or pavement markings that increase driver awareness and further instruct bicyclists at these dangerous spots; however, these smaller segments must also be examined within their context of the overall roadway network. For example, Detroit Avenue appears four different times on this list, in three different cities, indicating that improvements need to extend beyond specific intersections and instead to the entire corridor. One trend is that
28
Table 5: HIGH CRASH RATE LOCATIONS

Street Stre St reet re et et W Erie Ave. E 13th St. Segment S egme eg ment me nt Washington to Broadway Superior to Chester County C ount ou nty nt y LOR CUY Municipality M Mu n ci ni c pa pali lity li ty City of Lorain City of Cleveland City of Cleveland Annual Annu An nual nu al Crash C rash ra sh Rate Rate 12.19 11.75 7.07 Length L engt en gth gt h 0.11 0.1 0.16
Lorain Ave. Richmond St. Detroit Ave. Denison Ave. Lorain Ave. Westway Blvd. West Ave. Bagley Rd. Fulton Rd. Detroit Ave. 2nd St. Detroit Ave. Franklin Blvd. Lee Rd. Root Rd. 9th St. Detroit Ave.
Denison to W 98th Prospect to Erie St. Warren to Belle W 73rd to W 69th W 83rd to W 80th Wager to Northview Broad to 3rd Between IR 71 Ramps Between IR 71 Ramps W 192nd to Lake West to Court W 28th to W 25th W 28th to W 25th Cedar to Essex Bainbridge to Kruger Saint Clair to Superior Robinwood to Bunts
CUY LAK CUY CUY CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY LOR CUY LOR CUY CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY
City of Painesville City of Lakewood City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Rocky River City of Elyria City of Middleburg Hts City of Cleveland City of Avon Lake City of Rocky River City of Elyria City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Cleveland Hts City of North Ridgeville City of Cleveland City of Lakewood
6.53 6.25 6.23 5.98 5.93 5.88 5.77 5.59 5.0 4.93 4.72 4.72 4.7 4.69 4.51 4.43 4.35
0.36 0.12 0.12 0.1 0.1 0.16 0.1 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.13
Avon Beldon Rd. Community to Walker
Table 6: HIGH CRASH RATE CORRIDORS

Stre St reet re et Street S egme eg ment me nt Segment C ount ou nty nt y County M Mu Muni uni nici cipa ci pali pa lity li ty Municipality Annual Annu An nual nu a al C ra ash Crash Rate Rate L engt engt en gth h Length
Detroit Ave. Vine St. Lorain Ave. Turney Rd. Madison Ave. Lee Rd. Broadway Mayfield Rd. Detroit Ave. Tower Blvd. 220th St. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Ridge Rd. Mentor Ave. Detroit Ave. Clark Ave.
Graber to Warren 337th to SOM Center W 80th to W 57th Willard to Rockside Riverside to Cohasset Hyde Park to Cedar 28th to 36th Coventry to Lee Lake to W 49th Oberlin to Falbo Westwood to Lorain Norton to W 117th 229th to 204th Rocky River to Warren W 117th to Denison W 57th to W 25th Pearl to Snow Hopkins to Wellesly Bunts to 117th IR 90 Ramp to W 44th
CUY LAK CUY CUY CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY LOR CUY CUY CUY CUY CUY CUY CUY LAK CUY CUY
City of Lakewood City of Eastlake City of Cleveland City of Garfield Hts City of Lakewood City of Cleveland Hts City of Lorain City of Cleveland Hts City of Cleveland City of Lorain City of Fairview Park City of Cleveland City of Fairview Park City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Cleveland City of Parma City of Mentor City of Lakewood City of Cleveland
3.58 3.17 2.96 2.75 2.72 2.62 2.59 2.53 2.49 2.29 2.27 2.27 2.22 2.2 2.14 2.11 2.11 2.09 2.03 1.94
1.56 0.56 0.87 0.94 2.12 0.53 0.54 0.63 0.88 0.61 0.52 1.32 1.7 0.81 0.83 1.23 0.56 1.43 1.08 1.13
29
2.5
2.5
Miles Miles

30
the majority of segments are in Cuyahoga County and predominately in urban areas. Also, two of the segments on the list include shared use paths in proximity to highway ramps. Table 6 is included to identify potential corridor improvements beyond the spot locations listed in Table 5. The list includes segments of at least a half mile in length with the highest crash rates in the region. Similar to the previous table, all segments are located in urban areas, and the majority of the segments are located within Cuyahoga County. Again, major east-west corridor safety concerns can be identified, with Detroit Avenue appearing three times and Lorain Avenue appearing six times. Municipalities that contain these high crash rate road segments should either improve them to accommodate bicyclists safely, or direct bicyclists to a convenient, alternate route which either already safely accommodates cyclists or has conditions that make it more feasible to do so. Map 5 displays high crash intersections and corridors, as well as crash density for the NOACA region. High crash densities are found throughout the region, but concentration occurs along Lake Erie, and in Cuyahoga County, specifically on the near west side of the City of Cleveland and in the City of Lakewood. A variety of measures need to be considered by municipalities with high crash densities, and their implementation will be a priority for NOACA.
Crash Density
Low Medium Low Medium Medium High High High Crash Intersection High Crash Corridor Roads County Boundaries
31
Crash Density
Low Medium Low Medium Medium High High High Crash Intersection High Crash Corridors Roads County Boundaries
0 2.5 5
Miles

32
Chapter 6: Regional Priority Bikeway Network

Progress has been made in planning and implementing bikeways in northeast Ohio. Because funding for bikeway projects continues to be limited, it is important that investments be made strategically. Bikeways that function as part of regional and local networks, as opposed to isolated segments, must be identified and prioritized for funding. The 2008 Priority Plan, part of the 2008 Regional Bicycle Plan, included the roads prioritized for bikeway improvements within the region. Feedback from the BPAC in 2012 indicated that the 2008 Priority Plan built a solid foundation, but that changes needed to be made. A main concern was that the Priority Plan was too extensive and did not do a good enough job of focusing on true regional priority roadways for investment. Another concern was that an updated format would need to provide more guidance in regard to types of facilities and design solutions, as opposed to simply drawing lines on a map. These concerns were considered in developing the 2013 Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN). The RPBN represents NOACAs vision for a safe and efficient regional bikeway network. The implementation of this regional network will be one of the most important steps
33

Existing Planned
Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 15 - 20 7 -10 11 -14

0
21 - 30 Roads
2.5
Miles

34
in increasing the regional bicycle mode share, as well as expanding the variety of bicyclists in terms of age and skill level. NOACA staff developed an initial draft of the RPBN based on feedback from the BPAC on the 2008 Priority Plan, as well as methods used by other MPOs throughout the nation. Factors that were deemed to be important in developing a regional network were converted into digital map layers. These layers were overlaid to determine which areas and roads possessed multiple characteristics that make them candidates for future bikeway investments. One of the layers used in this exercise was the Potential Bikeway Demand (PBD) layer explained in Chapter 4. In addition to the Potential Bikeway Demand, these additional layers were used:
Existing bikeways Committed and planned bikeways (results from TLCI studies, city and county bicycle and pedestrian plans, etc.) Locally and regionally significant destinations (schools, hospitals, libraries, shopping malls, places of employment, etc.) Public transportation networks Skill level ratings from the NOACA Bicycle Transportation Maps 2008 NOACA Regional Priority Plan
After developing the initial draft, staff presented the RPBN to the BPAC for review. The draft was then presented at all five
35
2.5
Miles

NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of these maps.
36

Existing Planned
Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Roads
Miles
37
Regional gional gi i Pr Priority ty Bikeway ew Network

Existing ting g Planned P
Potential entia ial Bikeway ay Demand d Score S 2 4- 6 15 - 20 7 -10 -1 11 -14 21 2 - 30 0 Roads Roa
Miles
38
of the public meetings held throughout the region. Finally, staff sent letters to mayors, county planning and engineering departments, as well as other stakeholder groups to solicit additional guidance and input. Throughout all planning stages, staff obtained feedback and made adjustments so that the RPBN can most accurately reflect a true regional vision for the priority bikeway network. Map 6 shows the RPBN along with the Potential Bikeway Demand layer. The routes drawn on the map should not be interpreted as the only prospective roadways to include bikeways or the only roadways that will receive NOACA funding for bikeway projects. NOACA is concerned with safety for all modes of transportation, including bicycling, on all roads on which they legally travel. There is a limited amount of funding for transportation projects, however, and therefore applications for bikeway projects that are included in the RPBN will be more competitive than others. Many steps have been taken to make sure the RPBN reflects current regional priorities. If priorities change, however, it is important that the RPBN be updated. Also, if a different route that makes similar connections is later determined to be more appropriate, then the current planned route may be dropped as a priority and replaced with the new route. Any replacement should
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau NOACA makes no representations or Data Sources: warranties with respect to the accuracy Census of Bureau and/or US completeness
NOACA makes no representations : Plan Planning For or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
the map.
Greater Cleveland
39
be carefully considered, taking into account the same resources and methodology used to develop the original route. Also, it is important to link origins and destinations as directly as possible. Appendix II provides more details about segments included in the RPBN. Potential project sponsors should reference this appendix to determine if any segments lie within their municipality. Segments in bold already include bikeways that accommodate a variety of users and skill levels. For guidance on which types of bikeways are appropriate for different situations, project sponsors should reference Appendix III. Appropriate design resources are stated for bikeways, and guidance is provided on which types of bikeways are appropriate for different traffic and roadway conditions.
0 2.5 5
Miles

Existing Planned
Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Roads

40
41
Chapter 7: Programs
Improving the regional infrastructure and adopting and strengthening policy related to bicycling will go a long way toward achieving the two goals of the 2013 plan. To reach these goals most effectively, however, programs geared toward connecting current and potential bicyclists to resources should be developed and offered. Programs should be targeted to specific audiences to maximize their effectiveness in providing support and guidance. The following list of programs is intended to be a menu of options for cities, counties, villages, and in some cases, current and potential bicyclists in northeast Ohio. Many of the programs listed currently exist in some shape or form, and many successful local examples that can be replicated are included. But all of the listed programs can be improved upon, expanded, or made more consistent to have a greater impact. The programs are grouped into four categories: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Each program listed includes potential leaders and supporters. NOACA can play a role in many of these suggested programs, but in some instances, NOACA may not be best suited to lead program implementation. Numerous regional partners will need to work together to offer these valuable programs.
Education
NAM AME ME OF O PRO ROGRAM OGR GRA AM A M LEA EAD E AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U DIE IE ENCE Share the Road Campaign NOACA City safety departments, advocacy organizations Motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians
As the number of bicyclists increases in northeast Ohio, it will be important to educate all transportation system users about how to coexist safely with each other. A share the road campaign will involve numerous components, including Share the Road signage, public safety announcements played over the radio, flyers and brochures handed out to the public, increased media coverage, and many others.
NAM AME ME OF O PRO ROGRAM OGR GRA AM A M LEA EAD E AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IE ENCE Maintenance Classes Bicycle shops, bicycle co-ops NOACA Beginner & intermediate bicyclists
Although bicycles are easier to maintain than a motor vehicle, bicycle maintenance can be a barrier for some to start riding, ride more often, or ride on some streets out of concern for the wear and tear on the bicycle. Many focus group and public meeting participants stated they needed further instruction on topics such as fixing a flat tire and checking their gears. Many bicycle shops and organizations throughout the region currently offer maintenance classes. Bicyclists should contact your local bike shop or bike coop to see what is currently offered.
42
NAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE
Complete Streets Education NOACA, local municipalities National planning & engineering organizations Local planning & engineering departments
New design guidance related to bicycle facilities and roads frequently develops and changes, and it is important that local planners and engineers stay informed of new research and be trained in best practices. NOACA should provide training opportunities to potential project sponsors to develop better multimodal infrastructure projects that more effectively achieve agency goals. Some cities, such as Cleveland and Oberlin, have already taken the initiative to bring in national experts for training sessions with various departments, staff, and local stakeholders. In addition, NOACA has hosted webinars on various topics offered by the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals.
NAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IENC IE NC CE Driver & Bicyclist Education Ohio BMV, Driver Education Providers NOACA, Ohio MPOs, ODOT Beginning drivers & bicyclists
Many drivers on the road today in northeast Ohio are not aware of a bicyclists right to the road. This can be a major deterrent to all modes sharing the road safely. This misconception can be mitigated by making sure future motorists receive instruction and information on bicycling-related laws during their driver education courses and while obtaining their drivers license. Additionally, many beginner and experienced bicyclists within the region have not been properly educated on how to ride safely and legally. Similar to maintenance classes, numerous bike shops and co-ops within the region offer rider education courses. NOACA will work with current education providers to increase awareness and accessibility of existing opportunities, and also to develop more educational resources for all bicyclists.
Encouragement
NAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET A GE G ET AUD UDIENCE U IE ENC CE Open Streets Local municipalities NOACA, law enforcement, advocacy organizations Beginner, intermediate & advanced bicyclists, families
Open Streets (also called Walk and Roll or Ciclovias) involve closing down a street to motorized traffic for several hours during an off-peak time and opening it up to all forms of nonmotorized traffic. Bicyclists and pedestrians are then free to enjoy the street as a paved public park and experience the surrounding neighborhood in a new and unique way. Benefits of Open Streets events are wide ranging, including
43
engaging participants in physical activity, building community identity, and increased business to participating and surrounding vendors and stores.32 In northeast Ohio, the City of Cleveland was a national pioneer in Open Streets. Walk and Roll events, the local name for Open Streets, were held in various Cleveland neighborhoods from 2006 to 2011. NOACA will support Cleveland and other cities in additional Open Streets events in the future.
NAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM M LEA EAD E AD SUP UPPORT U UPPO PPO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IEN IE EN NC CE Bike Share System City of Cleveland NOACA, first ring cities/suburbs, advocacy organizations Cleveland & surrounding cities
Many cities throughout the U.S. and the world are beginning to implement or already have bike share systems to promote an increased bicycle mode share. Bike share systems make a fleet of bicycles available to the public at convenient locations for short one-way or two-way trips. Bike share systems can make bicycling a more convenient option for people at work, people running errands, or tourists.
NA AME AM ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM RAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE Bike to Work Day & Car-Free Fridays Advocacy organizations NOACA Potential & current bike commuters
For a variety of reasons, many people are reluctant to try commuting by bicycle for the first time. This is where Bike to Work Day comes in. By providing an opportunity for first-time bike commuters to ride with fellow bicyclists, and through incentives such as breakfast locations for socializing and competitions between workplaces, this type of program can provide the motivation for people to give commuting by bicycle a try. During the public meetings and focus groups for this plan, many people mentioned that while they enjoy and have participated in Bike to Work Day, the fact that it is an annual event as opposed to a regular occurrence makes it more of a novelty than a true influence for riding. A solution to this problem would be to organize a similar event on a monthly or weekly basis.
NAM AME ME OF OF PRO ROGRAM OG GRAM GR AM M LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PPO PORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AU GE UDIENCE UDIE UD I NC IE CE Bike to School Day, Bike Rodeos School Districts NOACA, parent volunteers Schoolchildren
Bike to School Day works very similarly to Bike to Work Day, but it is targeted to schoolchildren. Childhood obesity rates continue to rise throughout northeast Ohio, and studies show that active transportation such as biking or walking to school on a regular basis can improve a childs health as well as performance in the classroom.33
44
In addition, many parents have concerns about letting their children walk or bike to school due to safety reasons. On a Bike to School Day, parent volunteers provide supervision throughout the trip to school and can also provide instruction and tips so that students can develop safer habits of their own. Schools can incorporate other activities, such as bike rodeos, so that children can learn, try out, and perfect their skills while having fun. Numerous Bike to School days have been held throughout northeast Ohio, and some schools have held an annual event for a number of years. Some of these schools include Root Middle School and Claggett Middle School in the Medina City School District, Bay Village High School and Middle School in the Bay Village School District, and also Rocky River Middle School.
NAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM M LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT UPPO PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IENC IE NC CE Bicycle Maps NOACA BPAC, Bicycle Clubs Transportation & recreational bicyclists
NOACA has developed, printed, and distributed county bicycle maps that show parks, bike shops, and shared use paths within the region. These maps also show a bike suitability ranking for all major roads within the region, based on a variety of factors such as lane widths, average daily traffic, vehicle speeds, public input, and others. These maps can help guide current and potential bicyclists in choosing a low stress, safer route. These maps will continue to be updated and distributed to all interested bicyclists. The maps can also be downloaded from NOACAs website at www.noaca.org/bikemaps.html.
Enforcement
NAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM M LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE I NC IE CE Sting Operations Law Enforcement NOACA, city safety & traffic departments Unsafe bicyclists and motorists
Traffic laws related to bicycling can often be misunderstood or ignored by both bicyclists, motorists, and all other road users. Highly visible and publicized sting operations, in which law enforcement officers observe specific high-crash locations and hand out informational materials, warnings, and/or citations to offenders, can make a significant impact in encouraging safe and lawful behavior.
45
NAM AME ME OF PRO ROGRAM OGR RAM LEA EAD D SUP UPPORT UPPO PO ORT TAR ARGET A G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE
Bicycle Law Enforcement Task Force Law enforcement NOACA, advocacy organizations Police departments
There are many players involved in the enforcement of traffic laws related to bicyclists, and often many of these players do not communicate with each other regularly, or even at all. A regional bicycle law enforcement task force would be made up of law enforcement, traffic and civil engineers, transportation planners, elected officials, bicycling advocates, and other groups. This opportunity to leverage unique skills and insights and to work collaboratively would be a valuable tool to all parties included, and would likely result in safer streets for all mode users.
Evaluation
NAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR RAM LEA EAD D SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET A G T AUD GE UDIENCE U IENC IE NC CE Bicycling Report Card NOACA Advocacy organizations, current bicyclists Current bicyclists, elected officials
A regional bicycling report card would be a document released by NOACA on a regular basis that would give a snapshot of what progress has been made and where work needs to be focused moving forward. The report card would be very closely tied to the performance measures covered in Chapter 4, as well as the goals and objectives. Some of the information would come from internal databases, some would come from the U.S. Census, and other grades would relate to user feedback from bicyclists via a survey. Many good examples of bicycling report card programs are administered by various governments, agencies, and groups. Advocacy groups in Seattle and Ottawa produce report cards that suggest areas to focus on for their respective planning and engineering departments.34 The City of Cincinnati Department of Transportation and Engineering produces a report card to improve transparency, document and celebrate progress, and reassess goals and strategies.35 A northeast Ohio regional bicycling report card could be led by a variety of stakeholders. The contents of the report card should be strategically selected so that accurate and valuable assessments are made, and the process to do so is as streamlined as possible.
46
NAM AME E OF PRO ROGRAM OGR GRAM AM LEA EAD AD SUP UPPORT UPPO PO ORT TAR ARGET A G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE
Bicycle & Pedestrian Counts NOACA Volunteers Elected officials, engineering & planning departments
NOACA has conducted bicycle counts since 2004, and the count program was aligned with national standards from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project in 2011. Now, with the generous help of volunteers, NOACA conducts counts at various locations throughout the region on a biannual basis in May and September. The main purpose of these counts is to document levels of bicycling within the region, beyond what is available through U.S. Census data. In addition, the resulting data can be used to explore which factors have stronger correlations to higher bicycling volumes, support before and after studies with recently built bikeways, as well as other applications. More information on the count program can be found at www.noaca. org/bikepedcounts.html. Numerous improvements can be made to make the bike count program even more successful and valuable for the region. These include the continued development of a consistent count location inventory, the use of purchased automatic bicycle counting technology, and consistent reporting and sharing of the resulting data. As stated, this list should not be viewed as exhaustive, but instead as a jumping-off point for what can be done programmatically to make Northeast Ohio more bicycle friendly. These are the programs NOACA plans to focus on implementing within the next four years, either by leading program execution or by supporting others. Roles mentioned after each program are current recommendations, and the eventual implementation of programs may evolve differently.
Chapter 8: Implementation & Funding

To implement the projects and programs outlined in this plan, it is important to identify all available funding sources for which these projects and programs are eligible. Various funding programs are listed below and are categorized by the administrator of the program described. This is not an exhaustive list for potential project sponsors, but it does include the most frequently used programs.
MPO
Surface Transportation Program The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital project, including intercity bus terminals.36
47
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program is a flexible funding source to state and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).37 Transportation Alternatives Program The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility; community improvement activities; environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for the planning, design, or construction of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate system routes or other divided highways.38
State
Clean Ohio Trails Fund The Clean Ohio Trails Fund works to improve outdoor recreational opportunities for Ohioans by funding trails for outdoor pursuits of all kinds. Special emphasis is given to projects that: Are consistent with the statewide trail plan; Complete regional trail systems and links to the statewide trail plan; Link population centers with outdoor recreation area and facilities; Involve the purchase of rail lines linked to the statewide trail plan; Preserve natural corridors; Provide links in urban areas to support commuter access and provide economic benefit.39
48
Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to the states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail uses. The RTP is an assistance program of the U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Federal transportation funds benefit recreation, including hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, off-road motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle riding, four-wheel driving, or using other off-road motorized vehicles.40 Safety Program This funding can be used by ODOT district offices or local governments to improve safety on any public roadway. A portion of the funding is also used to fund education and enforcement programs that encourage safer driving.41 Safe Communities (Section 402) This grant program provides federal funds administered through the Ohio Department of Public Safety/Office of Criminal Justice ServicesTraffic Safety (OCJSTS) to eligible entities to be used for such projects as traffic safety education, enforcement, and engineering projects. Funds are to be used for highway safety support based on problem identification, with the intent of reducing overall fatal and injury crashes. This program operates on a reimbursement basis.42 State and Local Capital Improvement Program The State Capital Improvement Program allows the state to use its general revenues as debt support for improvements to roads, bridges, culverts, water supply systems, wastewater systems, storm water collection systems, and solid waste disposal facilities. The Local Transportation Improvement Program provides gasoline tax receipts annually for road and bridge projects.43
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Most grant programs administered by the FTA may be used to fund the design, construction, and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle projects that enhance or are related to public transportation facilities, including the Urbanized Area Formula Program. All pedestrian improvements located within one-half mile and all bicycle improvements located within three miles of a public transportation stop or station shall have a de facto physical and functional relationship to public transportation.44
49
Table 7: LIST OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Construction, reconstruction, preservation, or operational improvements for highways including projects to accommodate other transportation modes if such accommodation does not adversely affect automotive safety. All eligible projects under TAP
Construction of projects or programs that shift travel demand to other transportation modes, including non-recreational bikeway
Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road facilities Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for shared use paths
Planning, engineering, design, construction, and land acquisition for shared use paths Construction, maintenance, and land acquisition for shared use paths and complimentary facilities Educational programs for safety and environmental protection Construction of bicycle facilities in high-crash locations Safety education program
Safety programs related to speed management, distracted driving, and other topics
Construction, engineering, and land acquisition related to bike facilities included in roadway projects
Construction, engineering, and land acquisition related to bike facilities included in roadway projects
Construction, design, and maintenance of bicycle facilities within three miles of a public transportation facility
50
Chapter 9: Conclusion
The 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan outlines a multitude of steps that need to be taken for northeast Ohio to be a more bicycle-friendly region. These steps call for the effort and coordination of a wide variety of stakeholders within the region. No single organization or agency will be able to implement this plan alone. This is in large part because hundreds of people were involved in the creation of this plan. This plan is guided and strengthened by insight obtained working with the NOACA Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Council and through surveys, focus groups, public meetings, and other outreach efforts. NOACA staff greatly appreciates all who were involved, and looks forward to working with these partners, as well as new ones, to implement this plan. As with previous regional bicycle plans, this plan should function as a living document and be updated and adjusted accordingly. Additionally, this plan is in support of and functions as a part of Connections+ 2035, NOACAs long-range transportation plan. NOACA staff and the Governing Board should continue to improve agency processes and policies to facilitate the implementation of these plans.
Applications accepted on an annual basis (due in July)
51
52
Appendix I: Works Cited

1. Todd Litman, Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2011); http://www.vtpi.org/documents/ walking.php (accessed Dec. 19, 2011). Jeffery Levi, F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens Americas Future 2012 (Trust for Americas Health, 2011); http://healthyamericans.org/report/100/ (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). Wesley Marshall, Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users Environmental Practice 13 (2011): 16-27; http://files.meetup. com/1468133/Evidence%20on%20Why%20Bike-Friendly.pdf (accessed Dec. 19, 2011). Sally Hanley, Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan (Cleveland, OH: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, 2008). Janice E. Nolan, State of the Air 2011 (Washington, D.C.: American Lung Association [ALA], 2011); http://www.stateoftheair.org/2012/assets/state-ofthe-air2012.pdf (accessed April 4, 2012). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), MAP-21 Summary Info (Washington D.C.: FHWA, 2012); http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ summaryinfo.cfm (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). Nolan, State of the Air 2011. Levi, F as in Fat. Diseases and Conditions/Obesity/Overview (Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Clinic); http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/obesity/hic_obesity_overview. aspx (accessed Dec. 17, 2012).
2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7. 8. 9.
10. Marshall, Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer. 11. Kyle Smith, BUILT Cleveland (Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2011); http://www.cnt.org/repository/BUILT-Cleveland.FINAL.pdf (accessed Mar. 5, 2012). 12. Edward May, Transportation Improvement Program SFY 2012-2015 (Cleveland, OH: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, 2011). 13. Scott Bernstein, Driven to Spend: Pumping Dollars out of Our Households and Communities (Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2005); http://www.transact.org/library/reports_pdfs/driven_to_spend/Driven_to_ Spend_Report.pdf (accessed Dec. 19, 2011). 14. Housing + Transportation Affordability Index (Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2011); http://www.htaindex.org/map/ (accessed Dec. 19, 2011). 15. David Schrank, Bill Eisele, and Tim Lomax, Annual Urban Mobility Report: Urban Mobility Information (College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute [TTI], 2012); http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/ (accessed Dec. 17, 2012).
53
16. Litman, Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs. 17. Table S0801: ACS 2011 1-Year Estimate: Commuting Characterisitcs by Sex (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau); http://www.census.gov (accessed Oct. 10, 2012). 18. The Bike Rack, http://www.clevelandbikerack.com (accessed Nov. 30, 2012). 19. Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative (Cleveland, OH: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency); http://www.noaca.org/tlci.html (accessed Nov. 30, 2012). 20. Bicycle Friendly America Program (Washington, D.C.: League of American Bicyclists); http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/ index_about.php (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). 21. Darren Flusche, 2010 Bike Commuting Data Released (Washington, D.C.: League of American Bicyclists); http://blog.bikeleague.org/ blog/2011/09/2010-bike-commuting-data-released/ (accessed Nov. 30, 2012). 22. Table S0801: ACS 2011 1-Year Estimate: Commuting Characteristics by Sex. 23. National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project; http:// bikepeddocumentation.org (accessed Nov. 30, 2012). 24. Hanley, Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan. 25. Crash Statistics System (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/crashstatistics/CrashReports.aspx (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). 26. Understanding Bicyclist-Motorist Crashes in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: City of Minneapolis Public Works Department, 2013). 27. Foundation Announces Final 2011 Grants (Cleveland, OH: The George Gund Foundation, Dec. 7, 2011); http://www.gundfdn.org/news-andpublications/news-list/foundation-announces-final-2011-grants (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 28. Sally Hanley, Summary of Bicycle Planning Activities in Fiscal Year 2010 (Cleveland, OH: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, 2010). 29. FHWA, MAP-21 Summary Info. 30. Table DP05: ACS 2010 5-Year Estimates: Commuting Characteristics by Sex (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau); http://www.census.gov (accessed Jun. 18, 2012). 31. Ibid. 32. The Open Streets Guide (Chicago: Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2012); http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/media/open_
54
streets_guide/ (accessed March 21, 2012). 33. Linda McCreary, A Mixed Method Evaluation of School-Based Active Living Programs, American Journal of Preventative Medicine 43 (2012): 395398; http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(12)00480-1/abstract (accessed Nov. 26, 2012). 34. Tessa Greegor, Seattle Bicycle Report Card 2012 (Seattle, WA: Cascade Bicycle Club, 2012); http://www.cascade.org/pdf/Seattle_Bicycle_Report_ Card_2012_web.pdf (accessed Sept. 3, 2012). See also 2011 Report on Ottawa Bicycling (Ottawa, ON, Canada: Citizens for Safe Cycling, 2012); http://www.safecycling.ca/news-and-projects/cfsc-news/503-ottawa-2011report-card-on-bicycling-released (accessed Sept. 3, 2012). 35. Report Card on Bicycling: Cincinnati 2011 (Cincinnati, OH: City of Cincinnati Department of Transportation and Engineering [DOTE], 2012); http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bikes/news/bike-report-card-shows-progress/ (accessed Sept. 3, 2012). 36. GuidanceSurface Transportation Program (STP) Implementation Guidance (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, Nov. 19, 2012); http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidestp.cfm (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 37. GuidanceCongestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program Interim (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 2012); http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidecmaq.cfm (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 38. GuidanceThe Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration); http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ guidance/guidetap.cfm (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 39. Clean Ohio Fund | Recreational Trails (Columbus, OH: Clean Ohio Fund); http://clean.ohio.gov/RecreationalTrails/Default.htm (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 40. GuidanceThe Transportation Alternatives Program. 41. Safety Application Funding & Guidelines (Columbus, OH: The Ohio Department of Transportation); http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ Planning/SPPM/SystemsPlanning/Pages/FundingGuidelines.aspx (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 42. ODPS | Grants (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety); http:// www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/grants.stm (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 43. OPWC - OPWC Overview (Columbus, OH: Ohio Public Works Commission); http://www.pwc.state.oh.us/OPWCOverview.html (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 44. FTAGrant Programs (Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration); http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/12305.html (accessed Dec. 17, 2012).
55
Appendix II: Regional Priority Bikeway Network

Existing segments are in bold. Segment
Basset Rd. Clague Rd. Lake Rd. Woodland Rd. Bedford Reservation Trail Broadway Ave. Bedford Reservation Trail Bridge St. Bridge St. Cleveland Metroparks Dr. Eastland Rd. Valley Parkway Trail Lake Shore Blvd. Sheldon Rd. Smith Rd. Smith Rd. Snow Rd. Memphis Ave. Bell St. Bellview St. Hall St. Main St. 117th St. 140th St. 150th St. Aetna Rd. Broadview Rd. Broadway Ave. Broadway Ave. Broadway Ave. Broadway Ave. Buckeye Rd. Buckeye Rd.
Location
Lake Rd. to Crocker Rd. Lake Rd. to IR 90 Brunswick Dr. to Humiston Dr. Sulgrave Rd to IR 271 N/A Flora Dr. to Bedford Reservation Trail N/A Front St. to Eastland Rd. Henry St. to Front St. Bridge St. to S Quarry Ln. Bridge St. to Wendy Dr. N/A Cleveland Lakefront Trail to 140th St. Eastland Rd. to Smith Rd. Snow Rd. to Sheldon Rd. Brookpark Rd. to Snow Rd. Smith Rd. to 130th St. Peelor Ave. to Newberry Dr. Main St. to Ridgewood Rd. Franklin St. to Main St. Solon Rd. to Franklin St. Bell St. to Bellview St. Lorain Ave. to Bellaire Rd. Lake Shore Blvd. to Saint Claire Ave. Puritas Ave. to Brookpark Rd. Broadway Ave. to MLK Dr. Pearl Rd. to Brookpark Rd. E 30th St. to 55th St. Harvard Ave. to Miles Ave. E 55th St. to Aetna Rd. Aetna Rd. to Harvard Ave. MLK Dr. to Van Aken Blvd. Woodland Ave. to MLK Dr.
Length Municipality
1.07 0.38 5.28 1.00 1.87 2.20 0.79 0.47 0.20 0.93 0.77 2.60 3.18 1.98 1.06 1.01 1.05 1.77 0.90 0.14 0.32 0.34 1.09 1.38 1.08 1.84 1.73 1.82 0.42 0.64 1.13 1.54 1.11 Bay Village Bay Village Bay Village Beachwood Bedford Bedford Bedford Heights Berea Berea Berea Berea Berea Bratenahl Brook Park Brook Park Brook Park Brook Park Brooklyn Chagrin Falls Chagrin Falls Chagrin Falls Chagrin Falls Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland
County
Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga
56
Segment
Cedar Ave. Cedar Glen Pkwy. Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway Cliffview Rd. Delavan Ave. Delavan Ave. Denison Ave. Denison Ave. Detroit Ave. Detroit Ave. Detroit Ave. E 116th St. E 13th St. E 13th St. E 177th St. E 22nd St. E 22nd St. E 30th St. E 3rd St. E 4th St. E 55th St. E 55th St. E 55th St. E 55th St. E 9th St. East Blvd. Edgecliff Ave. Erieside Ave. Euclid Ave. Euclid Ave. Euclid Ave. Grovewood Ave. Harvard Ave.
Location
Stokes Blvd. to MLK Dr. MLK Dr. to Murray Hill Rd. N/A Euclid Ave. to Belvoir Blvd. Villaview Rd. to Waterloo Rd. E 177th St. to IR 90 Lorain Ave. to Pearl Rd. Pearl Rd. to Newburgh Heights Corp Limit W 25th St. to W 9th St. W 65th St. to W 25th St. Lake Ave. to W 65th St. Harvard Ave. to Miles Ave. Superior Ave. to Euclid Ave. Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave. Delavan Ave. to Grovewood Ave. Prospect Ave. to Woodland Ave. Euclid Ave. to Prospect Ave. Woodland Ave. to Broadway Ave. Erieside Ave. to Saint Clair Ave. Prospect Ave. to Huron Rd. Superior Ave. to Euclid Ave. Woodland Ave. to Broadway Ave. Euclid Ave. to Woodland Ave. N Marginal Rd. to Superior Ave. Erieside Ave. to N Marginal Rd. MLK Dr. to Saint Clair Ave. Rocky River Dr. to W 159th St. W 3rd St. to E 9th St. E 22nd St. to E 55th St. 55th St. to MLK Dr. MLK Dr. to Lakeview Rd. Lake Shore Blvd. to 177th St. 116th St. to Lee Rd.
Length Municipality
0.15 0.23 0.39 0.51 0.06 0.15 2.99 1.60 0.59 1.30 0.36 0.25 0.26 0.15 0.06 0.53 0.09 0.22 0.48 0.09 0.94 1.44 1.12 0.89 0.08 0.18 0.20 0.50 1.20 2.14 1.09 0.97 1.98 Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland
County
Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga
57
Segment
Harvard Ave. Hayden Ave. Hogsback Ln. Holmden Ave. Huron Rd. Huron Rd. Lake Ave. Lake Ave. Lake Shore Blvd. Lakefront Bikeway Lakeshore Blvd. Lanken Ave. Lee Rd. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Lorain Ave. Madison Ave. Memphis Ave. Miles Ave. Mill Creek Trail MLK Dr. MLK Dr. MLK Dr. MLK Dr. MLK Dr. MLK Dr. MLK Dr. MLK Dr. MLK Dr. North Marginal Rd. Nottingham Rd. Ontario St.
Location
E 55th St. to Broadway Ave. Saint Clair Ave. to Woodworth Rd. Riverside Dr. to Valley Parkway Trail W 14th St. to Towpath Trail E 13th St. to Prospect Ave. Ontario St. to E 4th St. West Blvd. to Detroit Ave. W 117th St. to West Blvd. E 140th St. to Grovewood Ave. N/A Grovewood Ave. to 185th St. IR 90 to Nottingham Rd. Scottsdale Blvd. to Harvard Ave. W 20th St. to Ontario St. 65th St. to 20th St. Rocky River Dr. to W 140th St. W 140th St. to 117th St. W 117th St. to W 101st St. Denison Ave. to W 65th St. Cleveland Corp Limit to Rocky River Dr. W 117th St. to West Blvd. Newberry Dr. to Pearl Rd. Broadway Ave to E 116th St. N/A Superior Ave. to Euclid Ave. Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway to East Blvd. Carnegie Ave. to Cedar Ave. Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave. Euclid Ave. to Cedar Ave. East Blvd. to Saint Clair Ave. Buckeye Rd. to Aetna Rd. Stokes Blvd. to Woodland Ave. Woodland Ave. to Buckeye Rd. E 9th St. to E 55th St. Lankken Ave. to Dille Rd. Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave.
Length Municipality
1.23 0.21 0.39 0.32 0.16 0.07 0.82 0.90 0.78 1.35 2.10 0.20 0.51 0.92 1.80 1.42 1.20 0.83 1.38 0.45 0.76 1.44 1.11 0.72 1.47 0.36 0.05 0.91 0.33 0.19 1.61 0.35 0.53 2.67 0.67 0.14 Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland
County
Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga
58
Segment
Ontario St. Ontario St. Pearl Rd. Pearl Rd. Pearl Rd. Prospect Ave. Prospect Ave. Puritas Ave. Rocky River Dr. Sackett Ave. Saint Clair Ave. Saint Claire Ave. Saint Clare Ave. Stokes Blvd. Superior Ave. Superior Ave. Superior Ave. Superior Ave. Towpath Trail Towpath Trail Valentine Ave. Valley Parkway Trail W 140th St W 140th St. W 14th St. W 159th St. W 25th St. W 65th St. W 9th St. West Blvd. West Blvd. Woodland Ave. Woodland Ave. Cedar Rd. Lee Rd. Lee Rd.
Location
Huron Rd. to Carnegie Ave. Superior Ave. to Prospect Ave. Memphis Ave. to Brookpark Rd. Denison Ave. to Memphis Ave. IR 71 to Denison Ave. Huron Rd. to E 22nd St. Ontario St. to Huron Rd. W 150th St. to W 140th St. Hogsback Ln. to Lorain Ave. W 25th St. to Scranton Rd. East Blvd. to E 140th St. W 9th St. to Ontario St. Ontario St. to W 13th St. Cedar Ave. to MLK Dr. E 13th St. to 55th St. Belvoir Blvd. to Upper Valley Dr. 55th St. to MLK Dr. W 9th St. to Ontario St. N/A N/A Scranton Rd. to W 14th St. N/A Lorain Ave. to Puritas Ave. Lakewood Heights Blvd. to Lorain Ave. Valentine Ave. to Holmden Ave. IR 90 to Edgecliff Ave. Lorain Ave. to IR 71 Detroit Ave. to Lorain Ave. Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave. Lake Ave to Madison Ave. Madison Ave. to Lorain Ave. E 22nd St. to E 55th St. E 55th St. to Buckeye Rd. Murray Hill Rd. to Lee Rd. Cedar Rd. to N Park Blvd. Forest Hills Blvd. to Cedar Rd.
Length Municipality
0.30 0.15 1.93 0.72 0.39 0.55 0.39 0.55 1.59 0.10 2.55 0.32 0.56 0.63 1.95 1.26 1.61 0.32 1.58 3.61 0.21 1.09 1.48 1.05 0.33 0.39 1.98 0.65 0.14 0.80 0.79 1.28 1.18 2.01 1.18 1.58 Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Heights Cleveland Heights Cleveland Heights
County
59
Segment
Towpath Trail Eddy Rd. Euclid Ave. Euclid Ave. Hayden Ave. Lee Rd. Superior Ave. Dille Rd. Euclid Ave. Euclid Ave. Lakeshore Blvd. Lorain Ave. E 117th St. McCracken Rd. Mill Creek Trail Bedford Reservation Trail Alexander Rd. Pleasant Valley Rd. Bunts Rd. Bunts Rd. Carabel Ave. Delaware Ave. Detroit Ave. Lake Ave. Lake Ave. Lake Ave. Madison Ave. Madison Ave. Madison Ave. Merl Ave. Morrison Ave. Nicholson Ave. Riverside Dr. Sloane Ave. Summit Ave. Webb Rd.
Location
N/A Hayden Ave. to Euclid Ave. Eddy Rd. to Lee Rd. Lakeview Rd. to Eddy Rd. Woodworth Rd. to Eddy Rd. Euclid Ave. to Forest Hills Blvd. Lee Rd. to Belvoir Blvd. Roseland Ave. to Euclid Ave. Dille Rd. to Sun Ave. Upper Valley Dr. to Dille Rd. 185th St. to Westbrook Dr. 230th St. to Story Rd. Mill Creek Trail to McCracken Rd. E 117th St. to Broadway Ave. N/A N/A Canal Rd. to Hub Pkwy. Edgewood Ln. to Canal Rd. Madison Ave. to Lakewood Heights Blvd. Merl Ave. to Madison Ave. Delaware Ave. to Lakewood Heights Blvd Morrison Ave. to Carabel Ave. Lake Rd. to Riverside Dr. Summit Ave. to Nicholson Ave. Webb Rd. to Summit Ave. Nicholson Ave. to W 117th St. Westwood Ave. to Bunts Rd. Bunts Rd. to W 117th St. Rocky River Dr. to Westwood Ave. Bunts Rd. to Nicholson Ave. Madison Ave. to Delaware Ave. Lake Ave. to Merl Ave. Detroit Ave. to Hogsback Ln. Detroit Ave. to W Clifton Blvd. Lake Ave. to Madison Ave. Lake Ave. to Northwood Ave.
Length Municipality
4.27 0.24 0.66 0.82 1.26 0.80 1.14 0.27 3.25 0.83 3.85 2.93 0.13 1.07 1.36 0.27 0.79 3.18 0.47 0.73 0.10 0.06 0.36 1.26 0.69 0.76 0.93 1.08 0.67 0.36 0.40 0.33 1.17 0.56 1.24 0.57 Cuyahoga Heights East Cleveland East Cleveland East Cleveland East Cleveland East Cleveland East Cleveland Euclid Euclid Euclid Euclid Fairview Garfield Heights Garfield Heights Garfield Heights Glenwillow Independance Independence Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood Lakewood
County
60
Segment
W 117th St. Broadview Ave. Bagley Rd. Eastland Rd. Valley Parkway Trail Big Creek Trail Miles Rd. Harvard Ave. Barton Rd. Butternut Ridge Rd. Cedar Point Rd. Clague Rd. Clague Rd. Columbia Rd. Lorain Rd. Lorain Rd. Mastick Rd. North Olmsted Bike Path Stearns Rd. Valley Parkway Trail Bedford Reservation Trail Valley Parkway Trail Lander Rd. Bagley Rd. Broadview Rd. Pearl Rd. Pleasant Valley Rd. Snow Rd. Big Creek Trail Woodland Rd. Argyle Rd. Beach Cliff Blvd. Hilliard Blvd. Lake Rd. Lake Rd. Wooster Rd.
Location
Bellaire Rd. to Peelor Ave. McCracken Rd. to Flora Dr. Big Creek Pkwy. to 130th St. Sheldon Rd. to Wendy Dr. N/A N/A Harper Rd. to Solon Rd. Newburgh Heights Corp Limit to E 55th St. Jaqueline Ln. to Lorain Rd. IR 480 to Mastick Rd. Columbia Rd to Valley Pkwy Trail Lorain Rd. to Mastick Rd. Marion Rd. to Lorain Rd. Butternut Ridge Rd. to Cedar Point Rd. Clague Rd. to W 230th St. Barton Rd. to Stearns Rd. Shepherds Hill Ln. to Clague Rd. N/A North Olmsted Corp Limit to IR 480 N/A N/A N/A Woodland Rd. to Miles Rd. 130 St. to Pleasant Valley Rd. Brookpark Rd. to Pleasant Valley Rd. Brookpark Rd. to Snow Rd. Bagley Rd. to Broadview Rd. 130th St. to Pearl Rd. N/A IR 271 to Landen Rd. Beach Cliff Blvd. to Lake Rd. Argyle Rd. to Lake Rd. Clague Rd. to Wooster Rd. Humiston Dr. to Argyle Rd. Beach Cliff Blvd. to Detroit Ave. Hilliard Blvd. to Rockcliff Dr.
Length Municipality
0.19 1.89 1.35 0.81 0.67 3.32 3.81 1.13 0.84 0.71 0.55 1.15 1.00 0.23 0.34 0.90 0.40 1.85 1.53 1.30 0.33 1.39 2.93 0.27 4.04 1.27 4.99 2.07 2.17 1.45 0.11 0.34 2.55 1.69 0.23 0.05 Linndale Maple Heights Middleburg Heights Middleburg Heights Middleburg Heights Moreland Hills Newburgh Heights North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted North Olmsted Oakwood Olmsted Orange Parma Parma Parma Parma Parma Parma Heights Pepper Pike Rocky River Rocky River Rocky River Rocky River Rocky River Rocky River
County
Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga
Middleburgh Heights Cuyahoga
61
Segment
Pleasant Valley Rd. Belvoir Blvd. Belvoir Oval Lee Rd. Lee Rd. Woodland Rd. Woodland Rd. Bedford Reservation Trail Harper Rd. Belvoir Blvd. Big Creek Trail Pearl Rd. Valley Parkway Trail Belvoir Blvd. Towpath Trail Alexander Rd. Bedford Reservation Trail Clague Rd. Crocker Rd. Crocker Rd. Crocker Rd. Crocker Rd. Hilliard Blvd. Stearns Rd. Lake Shore Blvd. Kinsman Rd. Kinsman Rd. Maple Highland Trail Maple Highland Trail Maple Highland Trail Maple Highland Trail Maple Highlands Trail Maple Highlands Trail Maple Highland Trail Maple Highlands Trail Kinsman Rd.
Location
Broadview Rd. to Edgewood Ln. Fairmount Blvd. to Shaker Blvd. Shaker Blvd. to Woodland Rd. Woodland Rd. to Scottsdale Blvd. Woodland Rd. to Park Blvd. Lee Rd. to Sulgrave Rd. Van Aken Blvd. to Lee Rd. N/A Miles Rd. to Bedford Reservation Trail Cliffview Rd. to Cedar Rd. N/A Albion Rd. to Boston Rd. N/A Cedar Rd. to Fairmount Blvd. N/A Hub Pkwy to Metroparks APT N/A Knickerbocker Rd. to Marion Rd. Detroit Rd. to Market St. Nagle Rd. to Detroit Rd. Hilliard Blvd. to Center Ridge Rd. Market St. to Hilliard Blvd. Crocker Rd. to Clague Rd. Center Ridge Rd. to Westlake Corp Line Westbrook Dr. to 330th St. E Park Ave. to Thurt Rd. Ravenna Rd. to E Park Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A North View Dr. to State Ave.
Length Municipality
1.24 0.53 0.43 1.39 0.51 3.02 0.81 3.06 0.74 3.81 1.49 4.28 1.00 1.04 5.67 0.87 4.48 1.98 0.42 0.97 1.26 0.75 3.80 0.82 2.25 2.50 2.45 1.02 6.61 0.66 2.08 1.00 0.16 3.93 0.30 1.07 Seven Hills Shaker Heights Shaker Heights Shaker Heights Shaker Heights Shaker Heights Shaker Heights Solon Solon South Euclid Strongsville Strongsville Strongsville University Heights Valley View Walton Hills Walton Hills Westlake Westlake Westlake Westlake Westlake Westlake Westlake Willowick Burton Burton Burton Chardon Chardon Chardon Chardon Claridon Concord Twp Huntsburg Middlefield City
County
Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga
62
Segment
Maple Highland Trail
Location
N/A Thurt Rd. to North View Dr. Bell Rd. to Kinsman Rd. Ashleigh Dr. to Auburn Rd. Auburn Rd. to Ravenna Rd. Ridgewood Rd. to Ashleigh Dr. N/A SOM Center Rd. to Christine Ct. 330th St. to Woodstock Rd. Lakeshore Blvd. to Stevens Blvd. SOM Center Rd. to 364th St. Woodstock Rd. to Willowick Dr. Johnycake Ridge Rd. to Mentor Ave. Jackson St. to Mentor Ave. Hopkins Rd. to Heisley Rd. Heisley Rd. to Mill Morr Dr. King Edward Ct. to Chillicothe Rd. Iroquois Tr. to Center St. Center St. to Jackson St. Corwin Dr. to Lake Metroparks Greenway N/A Mill Morr Dr. to Corwin Dr. Willowick Dr. to SOM Center Rd. Euclid Ave. to Ridge Rd. IR 90 to Bishop Rd. Bishop Rd. to Hale Farms Dr. Mentor Ave. to River St. Stevens Blvd. to Mentor Ave. Kirtland Rd. to King Edward Ct. Mentor Ave. to Johnycake Ridge Rd. Christine Ct. to Iroquois Tr. Erie St. to Kirtland Rd. Hale Farms Dr. to Hastings Ave. Spaulding St. to Hastings Ave. E 364th St. to Erie St. Main St. to Cooper Foster Park Rd.
Length Municipality
2.70 Middlefield City Newbury Newbury Newbury South Russel Concord Eastlake Eastlake Eastlake Eastlake Lakeline Mentor Mentor Mentor Mentor Mentor Mentor Mentor Painesville Painesville Painesville Twp Timberlake Wickliffe Wickliffe Wickliffe Willoughby Willoughby Willoughby Willoughby Willoughby Willoughby Willoughby Willoughby Willoughby Amherst City 0.34 2.11 2.58 2.98 4.02 2.86 3.00 0.36 0.99 0.43 0.62 2.09 0.80 0.77 0.84 3.76 2.78 1.73 1.60 3.36 1.12 0.62 0.31 0.39 1.92 0.19 0.30 0.50 0.36 1.11 0.65 2.80 0.95 1.23 2.60 Middlefield Twp
County
Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Geauga Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lorain
Kinsman Rd. Auburn Rd. Bell Rd. Kinsman Rd. Bell Rd. Lake Metroparks Greenway Lakeshore Blvd. Lakeshore Blvd. SOM Center Rd. Stevens Blvd. Lakeshore Blvd. Chillicothe Rd. Heisley Rd. Jackson St. Jackson St. Johnycake Ridge Rd. Lakeshore Blvd./Munson Rd. Munson Rd./Hopkins Rd. Jackson St. Lake Metroparks Greenway Jackson St. Lakeshore Blvd. Bishop Rd. Euclid Ave. Ridge Rd. Erie St. Erie St. Johnycake Ridge Rd. Kirtland Rd. Lakeshore Blvd. Mentor Ave. Ridge Rd. River St. Stevens Blvd. Cleveland Ave./N Ridge Rd.
63
Segment
Lake Rd. 2nd St. 2nd St. Broad St. E Bridge St./Cleveland St. E Broad St. Lake Ave. Middle Ave. North Coast Inland Trail North Coast Inland Trail North Coast Inland Trail North Coast Inland Trail West Ave. Lake Ave. Broadway Broadway E 31st St. E 36th St. Erie Ave. Erie Ave. Fulton Rd. N Ridge Rd. Plant St. Barton Rd. Center Ridge Rd. Lake Rd. Broadway Cooper Foster Park Rd. Center Rd. Grafton Rd. Pearl Rd. Pearl Rd. Granger Rd. Broadway St. Damon Dr.
Location
Avon Lake WCL to Avon Lake ECL Gateway Blvd. to West Ave. 3rd St. to Gateway Blvd. West Ave. to E Bridge St. Broad St. to JFK Memorial Pkwy. E Bridge St. to S Abbe Rd. Parmely Ave. to West Ave. Broad St. to 16th St. N/A N/A N/A N/A Lake Ave. to 2nd St. Cooper Foster Park Rd. to Parmely Ave. Erie Ave. to Elyria Ave. Elyria Ave. to 39th St. Fulton Rd. to Norfolk Ave. Broadway to Plant St. Broadway to Lorain ECL Parkview Ave. to Broadway E 31st St. to Plant St. Cooper Foster Park Rd. to Broadway E 36th St. to Fulton Rd. Center Ridge Rd. to Jaqueline Ln. Hidden Acres Dr. to Barton Rd. Sheffield Lake WCL to Sheffield Lake ECL 39th St. to Cooper Foster Park Rd. Broadway to Lake Ave. Substation Rd. to Clearbrooke Dr. Substation Rd. to Southbridge Blvd. Boston Rd. to Sleepy Hollow Rd. Sleepy Hollow Rd. to Brunswick Hills Corp Line Nichols Rd. to Medina Line Rd. Friendship St. to South St. Rolling Meadows Dr. to Roshon Dr.
Length Municipality
5.38 0.40 0.39 0.50 1.96 1.21 1.65 1.08 2.12 0.73 2.46 1.33 0.25 2.57 1.02 1.55 2.12 0.79 2.64 0.86 0.27 1.29 0.13 0.43 5.24 3.57 1.10 0.51 2.98 3.16 4.16 1.05 5.11 0.75 0.22 Avon Lake Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Elyria Twp Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain North Ridgeville North Ridgeville Sheffield Lake Sheffield Twp Sheffield Twp Brunswick Brunswick Brunswick Granger Twp Medina Medina
County
Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Lorain Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina
Brunswick Hills Twp Medina
64
Segment
E Washington St. E Washington St. Friendship St. Guilford Blvd. Guilford Blvd. Huntington St. Jefferson St. Marker Rd. Reagan Pkwy./Foote Rd. Rolling Meadows Dr. Roshon Dr. S Court St. South St. Sturbridge Dr. Union St. W Liberty St. Fenn Rd. Huntington St. Medina Rd. Pearl Rd. Weymouth Rd./Granger Rd. Yellowstone Dr. Beach Rd. Ridgewood Rd. Windfall Rd. Broad St. Great Oaks Tr. High St. Highland Ave. West St. Beach Rd. Leatherman Rd. Reimer Rd. Towpath Trail
Location
Roshon Dr. to Glenshire Ln. Guilford Blvd. to Roshon Dr. Jefferson St. to Broadway St. E Washington St. to Twin Oaks Blvd. Twin Oaks Blvd. to Sturbridge Dr. Grande Blvd. to Union St. Union St. to Friendship St. Yellowstone Dr. to W Liberty St. Yellowstone Dr. to Medina Rd. Union St. to Damon Dr. Damon Dr. to E Washington St. South St. to Sturbridge Dr. S. Court St. to Broadway St. S Court St. to Guilford Blvd. Huntington St. to Weymouth Rd. N State Rd. to Broadway St. Huntington St. to Pearl Rd. Fenn Rd. to Grande Blvd. Glenshire Ln. to Windfall Rd. Medina Corp Line to Fenn Rd. Reagan Pkwy. to Nichols Rd. Marker Rd. to Hillview Way Ridgewood Rd. to Wadsworth Twp Corp Limit Windfall Rd. to Beach Rd. Medina Rd. to Ridgewood Rd. Highland Ave. to County Line Rd. Leatherman Rd. to High St. Great Oaks Tr. to West St. West St. to Broad St. High St. to Highland Ave. Wadsworth Twp Corp Limit to Reimer Rd. Reimer Rd. to Great Oaks Tr. Beach Rd. to Leatherman Rd. N/A
Length Municipality
0.44 0.03 0.11 1.19 0.29 1.38 0.25 1.00 3.16 0.09 0.30 0.66 0.07 0.91 1.00 0.82 0.40 0.54 2.67 2.36 2.83 0.39 3.89 1.52 1.30 2.01 1.12 0.32 1.29 0.08 0.50 0.30 0.43 6.19 Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Twp Medina Twp Medina Twp Medina Twp Medina Twp Medina Twp Sharon Sharon Sharon Wadsworth Wadsworth Wadsworth Wadsworth Wadsworth Wadsworth Twp Wadsworth Twp Wadsworth Twp Summit County
County
Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Summit
66
Appendix III: Design Guidance

This appendix provides design guidance for bicycle facilities for planners and engineers in northeast Ohio. All projects using federal funds must follow federal design guidance. Additional guidance from ODOT may also be relevant depending on the location and type of project.
References
Below is a list of references that are valuable and applicable to designing bicycle facilities. This is not an exhaustive list of resources available to planners and engineers, and some of the references may have been updated since the adoption of this plan. Association of American State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
1. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, 2011); https://bookstore.transportation.org/ item_details.aspx?id=1917 2. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, 2012); https://bookstore.transportation.org/ item_details.aspx?id=1943
Ohio Department of Transportation
1. Location and Design Manual, Volume 1 Roadway Design (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation, 2012); http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Roadway/ DesignStandards/roadway/Pages/locationanddesignmanuals.aspx 2. Design Guidance for Roadway-Based Bicycle Facilities (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation, 2005); http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/bicycle/Pages/ Design.aspx 3. Design Guidance for Independent Bicycle Facilities (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation, 2005); http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/bicycle/Pages/ Design.aspx 4. Ohio Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation, 2012); http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Roadway/ DesignStandards/traffic/OhioMUTCD/Pages/OMUTCD2012_ current_default.aspx
National Association of City Transportation Officials
1. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd ed. (New York: National Association of City Transportation Officials (2012); http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/
67
Bicycle Facility Design

The AASHTO Bike Guide, listed above, includes guidance for design of six different types of bikeways, some with subcategories. The following includes descriptions of each type, illustrations and measurements, and guidance on their suitability in regard to roadway and traffic conditions. 1A Shared Lane (No special provisions) 1B Shared Lane (Wide outside shoulder) Definition:
Type of Bikeway
Shared lanes (no special provisions)
A shared lane is a lane of a traveled way that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle traffic.
Best Use
Minor roads with low volumes, where bicyclists can share the road with no special provisions. Major roads where bike lanes are not selected due to space constraints or other limitations.
Motor Vehicle Design Speed

Speeds vary based on location (rural and urban).
Traffic Volume
Speeds vary based on location (rural and urban).
Classification or Intended Use

Rural roads, or neighborhood or local streets.
Shared lanes (wide outside lanes)
Variable. Use as the speed differential between bicyclists and motorists increases. Generally any road where the design speed is more than 25 mph.
Variable. Use as the speed differential between bicyclists and motorists increases. Generally any road where the design speed is more than 25 mph.
Arterials and collectors intended for major motor vehicle traffic movements
2 Marked Shared Lane Definition: Marked lanes are designated with a shared-lane marking, also referred to as a sharrow. A shared-lane marking is a pavement marking symbol that indicates an appropriate bicycle positioning in a shared lane.
Best Use
Space constrained roads with narrow travel lanes, or road segments upon which bike lanes are not selected due to space constraints or other limitations.
Type of Bikeway
Marked shared lanes

Variable. Use where the speed limit is 35 mph or less.
Traffic Volume
Variable. Useful where there is high turnover in on-street parking to prevent crashes with open car doors.

Collectors or minor arterials.
68
3 Paved Shoulders Definition: A shoulder is the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way that accommodates stopped vehicles, emergency use, and lateral support of sub base, base, and surface courses. Shoulders, where paved, are often used by bicycles.
Best Use
Rural highways that connect town centers and other major attractors.
Type of Bikeway
Paved Shoulders

Variable. Typical posted rural highway speeds (generally 40-55 mph).
Traffic Volume
Variable.

Rural roadways; inter-city highways.
4 Bike Lanes Definition: A bicycle lane is a portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs. It is intended for one-way travel, usually in the same direction as the adjacent traffic lane.
Best Use
Major roads that provide direct, convenient, quick access to major land uses. Also can be used on collector roads and busy urban streets with slower speeds
Type of Bikeway
Bike Lanes

Generally any road where the design speed is more than 25 mph.
Traffic Volume
Variable. Speed differential is generally a more important factor in the decision to provide bike lanes than traffic volumes.

Arterials and collectors intended for major motor vehicle traffic movements.
5 Bicycle Boulevards Definition: A bicycle boulevard is a street segment, or series of contiguous street segments, that has been modified to accommodate through bicycle traffic and minimize through motor traffic.
Best Use
Local roads with low volumes and speeds, offering an alternative to, but running parallel to, major roads. Still should offer convenient access to destinations.
Type of Bikeway
Bicycle Boulevards

Use where the speed differential between motorists and bicyclists is typically 15 mph or less. Generally, posted limits of 25 mph or less.
Traffic Volume
Generally less than 3,000 vehicles per day.

Residential roadways.
69
6A Shared Use Path (independent right of way) 6B Shared Use Path (adjacent to roadway) Definition: A shared use path is a bikeway physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right of way. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other nonmotorized users. Most shared use paths are designed for two-way travel.
Best Use
Linear corridors in greenways, or along waterways, freeways, active or abandoned rail lines, utility rightsof-way, or unused rights-of-way. May be a short connection, such as a connector between two cul-de-sacs, or a longer connection between cities. Adjacent to roadways with no or very few intersections or driveways. The path is used for a short distance to provide continuity between sections of path on independent rightsof-way.
Type of Bikeway
Shared use path (independent right of way)

N/A
Traffic Volume
N/A

Provides a separated path for nonmotorized users. Intended to supplement a network of on-road bike lanes, shared lanes, bicycle boulevards, and paved shoulders.
Shared use path (adjacent to roadways)
The adjacent roadway has highspeed motor vehicle traffic such that bicyclists might be discouraged from riding on the roadway.
The adjacent roadway has very high motor vehicle traffic volumes such that bicyclists may be discouraged from riding on the roadway
Provides a separated path for nonmotorized users. Intended to supplement a network of on-road bike lanes, shared lanes, bicycle boulevards, and paved shoulders. Not intended to substitute or replace on-road accommodations for bicyclists, unless bicycle use is prohibited.
70
Appendix IV: Stakeholder Engagement

Throughout the development of this plan, input and guidance from a variety of stakeholders was a high priority for NOACA staff. Results from engagement efforts were used to determine the content to be included in the plan, the methodologies used to generate that content, and the resulting recommendations and visions for a more bicycle-friendly northeast Ohio. With the involvement of stakeholders and the incorporation of their knowledge and insight, this plan has built in buy-in on a regional scale to help drive implementation moving forward. There were a variety of stakeholders targeted by NOACA staff for this plan. The NOACA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council was involved early on in the process to determine the content to be included in the plan, how to engage the regional bicycling community and the public in general, and some of the infrastructure recommendations coming out of the plan. Public engagement took place throughout the process, and included three main efforts. A survey was developed to gain more knowledge about peoples travel behaviors in general, as well as specifically in regard to bicycling. The survey was made available on NOACAs website, posted and circulated online by partner agencies and groups, and printed copies were distributed to various locations such as jobs and family services locations and transitional housing. A total of 574 people completed the survey. Seven focus groups were conducted in four of the five counties within the NOACA region. These groups were set up to hear a variety of viewpoints such as beginner, intermediate, and advanced riders; recreational and transportation bicyclists, as well as other factors. Participation was capped and discussions were led to hear stories and details that were not able to be obtained by the surveys. A total of 63 people participated in the focus groups. Five public meetings were conducted at various locations throughout the region. Participants in these meetings were briefed on the plan development and public engagement process to date. They were then encouraged to provide feedback through five different stations concerning existing bikeway infrastructure, future bikeway locations, dangerous intersections, goals and objectives, and bicycling-related programs. A total of 30 people participated in the public meetings.
Additionally, feedback was solicited from cities, villages, and counties in the NOACA region on the RPBN. It is important for NOACA staff to make sure municipalities that have jurisdiction over roads included in the RPBN are in agreement that the eventual inclusion of bicycle accommodations on or along the roadway is feasible and that the roadway is the best candidate to make the connections necessary and to build a regional network.
71
Survey Results 1. In good weather conditions, about how often do you ride a bike?
Daily Several times a week Once a week Several times a month Less than several times a month Never (if so, skip questions 2-4)
2. Which choice best describes your level of comfort while riding a bike?
I feel comfortable riding in most streets I feel comfortable riding in some streets I only ride on bike paths or sidewalks
3. Why do you ride a bike? (Check all that apply)

For Fo F or s sh shopping hop ppi pn ng go or r e er rra rand an nds nd ds errands
To g To get et t et to os sc school chool ho oo ol
To g To get et t et to ow wo work or rk k
I do do n not ot o th have ave av ac a cc ce ess ss t o a ca ar access to car
For Fo r re recr recreation crea cr eati ea t on ti
To c To connect onne on ect ct t to o p pu blic b ct ra ansit ns sit it public transit
72
Other O Ot he h er (p (please ple eas ase s sp ecif e fy y) specify)
For Fo or ex e exercise ec er ci ise
Survey Results 4. When riding a bike, what is your average trip distance (one way)?
0-3 Miles 3-5 Miles 5-10 Miles 10-24 Miles Over 24 Miles
5. How far do you travel (one way) from your home to work or school?
0-3 Miles 3-5 Miles 5-10 Miles 10-15 Miles Over 15 Miles Not Applicable
6. What mode of transportation do you typically use (for the majority of your trip if more than one mode) to get from home to work or school?
0.0% 0 .0%
Walk Wheelchair Bike Public Transit Carpool Drive Alone Not Applicable
73
Survey Results 7. What are the most significant barriers to traveling by bike more often? (Rank each choice: 1 = insignificant 2 = fairly insignificant 3 = neutral 4 = fairly significant 5 = significant)
600 500 400 300 200 100 0
1 2 3 4 5 Physical P Ph hys ysic cal al f fitness/ it tn ne e es ss/ s hea he h ea al lt th hi ssue ss ues ue es health issues Bike B Bi ke eo ownership/ wner wn ner e sh s ip p/ main ma inte nte tena en na ance nc ce maintenance Travel T rav avel e t time im i me D st Di Distance stan a ce ce Carrying C Ca arr rry ry yi ing ng i items tems te ems ms Yes, for recreational or exercise purposes Yes, for transportation (work, school, errand, etc.) purposes Yes, for recreation/ exercise and transportation purposes No Weather We W eat athe er S fe Sa Safety fety ety t
8. Would you like to be able to ride your bike more often?
74
100
200
300
400
500
600
More Mo M or re eo off-road ff f f-r roa oad bi b bike ik ke ep paths aths at hs More M Mo ore es separated epar ep a at a ed e b bike ik i ke la lanes ane nes More Mo M ore eo on-road nn -ro oad ad b bike ik ke l la lanes ane es Wider W Wi ide der er sh s shoulders o ld ou der e s on on o outside u si ut s de et traffic ra r aff fic cl lanes a es an es Mo More M ore es signed ig i gned ne ed bi b bike ike er routes o te ou es
More M Mo or re er roads oa o ads sw with ith it th sh s sharrow har a ro row (s ( (shared sh ha are ed l la lane) an ne e) m ma markings ark rking in ng gs s More Mo ore es sidewalks id i dew e al a ks ks Better Be B ett tter e r road oa ad & bi b bikeway ke ewa way m ma maintenance ainte in nte ena anc nce More M re Mo eb bike ike ra ik racks ack cks More M Mo ore es sheltered he elt ter e ed ed & &/or /or se /o secu secured ecu c re ed bi b bike ike ep parking a ki ar king ng More Mo ore es shower/locker ho h owe wer/ r/lo oc ck ker er f facilities ac a ci il lit tie es Slower Sl S low wer e c cars a s & tr ar t trucks ruc ck ks s Better Bett Be ett tter er b bike ik ike ke ma m maps aps & w wayfinding ay a yfi f nd ndin in ng to tools ools Bike B Bi ik ke ee education du d uc ca ati t on o p programs ro ogr g am ams Health Heal He H eal a th t i insurance ns nsur su ur ran ance ei incentives nc ncen ce en nti tive ves Higher Hi H igh g er er g gas as p as prices ric ri ce es Trips T Tr ips ip ps ma m made ad de eq quickest ui u ick c e es st by by b bike ik i ke
More Mo M or re ei intersection nter nt e se sect ect ction io on b bi bike ike ea amenities me eni niti ties es ( (bike bike ke s signals, ig gna als s, bi b bike ike eb boxes) oxes ox es)
Survey Results
9. Which of the choices below would have the biggest impact in encouraging you to bike more often? (Rank each choice: 1 = no impact, 2 = minor impact, 3 = medium impact, 4 = major impact)
Increased In ncr crea ease sed en e enforcement fo f orc rcem cem e en e t of of t traffic ra aff ffi ic cl laws a sf aw fo for or ca c cars, ars, rs s, bi b bikes, ike es s, ,&p pedestrians ed e des e tr ti ia ans ns
75
76
Response Count Response Count
100 120 140 160 180 200 20 40 60 80 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Response Count In & around Chardon University Circle Valley Parkway Big Creek Parkway Towpath Trail Lake Erie Lake County
10
20
30
40
50
60
LAKE COUNTY
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
GEAUGA COUNTY
10. Corresponding to the county that you live in, choose the top THREE (3) destinations in which you are/would be most likely to travel, FROM YOUR HOME, by bike.
In & around Painesville
Downtown Cleveland
Survey Results
In & around Mentor
In & around Burton
Lake Erie Maple Heights Trail
Cuyahoga County/Cleve. Cuyahoga County/Cleve.
Geauga County
Cleve. Naighborhood Cntr. (Ohio City) Cuyahoga County City Center (Solon) Other
Other
Other
Response Count Response Count Response Count

100 120 20 40 60 80 0 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 140
100
120
20
40
60
80
LORAIN COUNTY
MEDINA COUNTY
11. Corresponding to the county that you live in, choose the top THREE (3) routes in which you are/would be most likely to travel by bike, CONSIDERING CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Lake Ave. In & around Medina (city) In & around Lorain (city) In & around Elyr Elyria Reserv Black River Reservation North Coast Inland Trail Lake Erie Cuyahoga County/Cleve. Cuyahoga y County/Cleve. County/ Lorain County Medina Other Other In & around Wadsworth Cuyahoga Valley National Park Valley Parkway
Lorain Ave./Rd.
Detroit Ave./Rd.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
Pearl Rd./W. 25th St.
W. 65th St.
W. 117th St.
Dover Center Rd.
Shaker Blvd.
Euclid Ave.
Survey Results
Lakeshore Blvd.
E. 55th St.
Warrensville Center Rd.
Broadway Ave.
Other
77
78
Response Count
10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 0 100 120
Response Count Lakeshore Blvd.
Response Count
10 15 20 25 30
20
40
60
80
11. Continued
Survey Results
Avon Belden Rd.
Bell Rd.
LAKE COUNTY
LORAIN COUNTY
GEAUGA COUNTY
Lake Rd. Mentor Ave.
Ravenna Rd.
lorain Blvd. Euclid Ave.
Mayfield Rd.
Detroit Rd. SOM Center Rd.
Kinsman Rd.
Broadway Other
Kirtland Chardon/Chardon Rd.
Other
Other
Response Count Response Count

30 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 0 25
Response Count
10
15
20
12. Corresponding to the county that you live in, choose the top THREE (3) routes in which you are/would be most likely to travel by bike, ASSUMING THE ROUTE WAS MADE SAFER FOR BICYCLISTS.
Bell Rd. Lake Ave. Lorain Ave./Rd. Detroit Ave./Rd. Pearl Rd./W. 25th St. Pearl Rd. W. 65th St. W. 117th St. Dover Center Rd. Shaker Blvd. Euclid Ave. Lakeshore Blvd. E. 55th St. Warrensville Center Rd. Broadway Ave. Other High St. Center Rd.
MEDINA COUNTY
GEAUGA COUNTY
Ravenna Rd.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
Mayfield Rd. Court St.
Kinsman Rd.
Survey Results
Kirtland Chardon/Chardon Rd.
Other
Liberty St./Washington St. Greenwich Rd.
Other
79
80
Response Count
10 5 0 100 120 20 40 60 80 0
Response Count
Response Count
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
12. Continued
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Center Rd. Avon Belden Rd.
Lakeshore Blvd.
Survey Results
High St. Lake Rd.
LAKE COUNTY
Mentor Ave.
MEDINA COUNTY
LORAIN COUNTY
Pearl Rd. Lorain Blvd.
Court St. Detroit Rd.
Euclid Ave.
Liberty St./Washington St. Broadway
SOM Center Rd.
Greenwich Rd.
Other
Other
Other
Survey Results 13. Gender

Male Female
14. Age
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-54 55-74 75 & Over
0.2%
0.4% 2.8%
2.8%
15. Employment Status

Full-time Part-time Not Employed Retired Student
81
Survey Results
16. Household Income

Below $25,000 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,999 or Above
17. Race
% 5.8
90.0 9 0.0%
Caucasian/White African-American Hispanic Asian Native American
82
Photography credits: NOACA Daniel Boyle Cheryl Onesky cover: top & right, vi, 2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 40 cover: lower left, 1, 5, 8
www.pedbikeimages.org Dan Burden 13, 14, 25, 28, 45, 46, 48, 66 Mike Cynecki 52 Tiffany Robinson 51 Laura Sandt 41, 47, 49 Carl Sundstrom 23 Sound Transit 4
83
NORTHEAST OHIO A R E A W I D E COORDINATING A G E N C Y
1299 Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44114
2013.03

NOACA Regional Priority Bike Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOACA Regional Priority Bike Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prepared By Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland Ohio 44114

REGIONAL B ICYCLE P LAN

NORTHEAST OHIO A R E A W I D E COORDINATING A G E N C Y

1299 Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44114

PAINESVILLE TWP. P FA FAIRPORT A HARBOR VILLAGE.

WILLOWICK WILLO OW K O OWICK

HIGHLAND RICHMOND HTS.

AQUILLA MUNSON TWP. CLARIDON TWP.

SHEFFIELD D LAK LAKE LA

A VILLAGE LLAGE BAY

MIDDLEFIELD TWP. NEWBURY TWP. BURTON BURTON TWP. MIDDLEFIELD

HILLS WA W AR RR RE EN NS SV VIL RA N. ILL LL LE ND N E AL L H

AMHERST TWP. S. AMHERST

G Y HOGA CUYAHOGA CUYA

V LLEY VA VALLEY VIE

NEW RUSSIA TWP.

N. ROYAL ROYALTON Y LTON

EATO A N EATON TWP.

GRANGER TWP. M MEDINA

ROCHESTER HUNTINGTON TWP.

SPENCER SPENCER TWP.

For more information, call (216) 241-2414 or log on at http:\\www.noaca.org

GUILFORD TWP. LODI HARRISVILLE TWP. SEVILLE RITTMAN

NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT (NEORSD)

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

1) Title & Subtitle:

Regional Bicycle Plan, 2013 Update

2) NOACA Report No.:

Marc Von Allmen

4) Report Date: June 2013

Daniel Boyle William Davis Gayle Godek

Sara Maier Ryan Noles

Amy Stacy Brenda Walker

5) Performing Organization Name & Address:

6) Project Task No.: 6103-03

7) NOACA Contract/Grant No.:

8) Sponsoring Agency Name & Address:

9) Type of Report & Period Covered:

10) Sponsoring Agency Code:

11) Supplementary Notes:

14) Availability Statement: Available in print and on the NOACA website

15) No. Pages: 88 16) Price:

Progress and Future

The 2013 plan includes the following goals:

Regional Priority Bikeway Network

Implementation and Conclusion

Chapter 1: Benefits of Bicycling

Quantifying the Benefits

Chapter 2: Progress Since 2008

1. Promote a Network of Safe Bikeways and Supporting Facilities

Table 1: MILES OF BICYCLE LANES & SHARED USE PATHS

Year 1997 2006 2012

Paths 105 195 260

2. Increase Bicycle Planning and Provision of Facilities at the Local Level

3. Increase Bicycle Ridership for Transportation

Table 2: BICYCLE COUNT VOLUMES BY YEAR

4. Promote Safer Bicycling in the Region and Reduce Accidents

Table 3: CRASHES INVOLVING BICYCLISTS BY YEAR

Number of bicycle-related crashes

Bicycle commuters Bicycle-related crashes Bicycle crash rate

Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures

Regional Bicycle Plan Goals

Regional Bicycle Plan Objectives

Regional Bicycle Plan Performance Measures