Prepared By Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland Ohio 44114
REGIONAL B ICYCLE P LAN
2013 Update June 2013
T
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.
i
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:
GRAND RIVER VILLAGE
MADISON TWP.
NORTH PERRY R
LAKE
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 region’s 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.
PAINESVILLE TWP. P FA FAIRPORT A HARBOR VILLAGE.
• 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.
MADISON PERRY R PAINESVILLE
90
MENTOR ON N AKE KE THE LAKE
THOMPSON TWP.
2
K
LA
EA
GA G UG E U GEA GEAUGA
ST
LAKELINE E
E
TIMBERLAKE
WILLOWICK WILLO OW K O OWICK
EUCLID E UCLID D
90
L LYNDHURST
HIGHLAND RICHMOND HTS.
SHEFFIELD D LAK LAKE LA
LAKE GEAUGA
CHARDON TWP.
HAMBDEN TWP.
AQUILLA
MAYFIELD A VILLAGE
MAYFIELD A D HTS.
C CHESTERLAND TWP.
GATES A MILLS
MUNSON TWP.
CLARIDON TWP.
LAKEWOOD
ROCKY RO
CLEVELAND
SHAKER HTS.
PEPPER PIKE
G HUNTING V VALLEY
RUSSELL TWP.
BEACHWOOD O
MIDDLEFIELD TWP. BURTON
NEWBURY TWP.
BURTON TWP.
HIGHLAND AND D
V LLEY VA VALLEY VIE
SEVEN H HILLS
BEREA
INDEPENDENC
S. AMHERST
R LORA
NEW RUSSIA TWP.
BEDFORD
MAPLE HTS.
S. RUSSELL
BEDFORD
GLEN WILLOW
BAINBRIDGE TWP. GEAUGA
ELYRIA ELYRI L A
P PARMA
TROY TWP.
AUBURN TWP.
422 GEAUGA PORT POR TAGE PORTAGE
BROADVIEW HTS.
N. ROYAL ROYALTON Y LTON
CARLISLE TWP.
480
STRONGSVILLE VI
EATO A N EATON TWP.
80
BRECKSVILLE
OBERLIN GRAFTON
AHOGA SUMMIT
MEDINA DI
KIPTON
80 PITTSFIELD TWP.
La GRANGE
GRAFTON TWP.
LIVERPOOL TWP.
80
HINCKLEY TWP. SUMMIT
La GRANGE TWP. TWP.
271
WELLINGTON TWP. LITCHFIELD TWP.
GRANGER TWP.
LORAIN I
M MEDINA
MEDINA
ROCHESTER
ROCHESTER TWP.
MEDINA TWP.
YORK TWP.
HUNTINGTON TWP.
SPENCER
77
CHATHAM A TWP.
MONTVILLE TWP TWP.
SHARON TWP.
SPENCER TWP.
For more information, call (216) 241-2414 or log on at http:\\www.noaca.org HOMER TWP.
ii
MEDINA
WELLINGTON
PENFIELD TWP.
SUMMIT
BRIGHTON TWP.
WADSWORTH W TWP.
GUILFORD TWP.
76
LODI HARRISVILLE TWP.
71
WADSWORTH W ADSWORTH H
SEVILLE RITTMAN
PORTAGE
CAMDEN TWP.
MIDDLEFIELD
CHAGRIN C HAGRIN
G Y HOGA CUYAHOGA CUYA
AMHERST TWP.
MIDDLEBURGH EB HTS. S.
80
HILLS WA W AR RR RE EN NS SV VIL RA N. ILL LL LE ND N E AL L H
OAKWOOD
GARFIELD HTS.
PARMA P HTS.
HUNTSBURG TWP.
271
AVON LAKE A
A VILLAGE LLAGE BAY
MONTVILLE TWP.
CHARDON
PARKMAN P 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 Sheffield 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 O’Neil, 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 Sheffield 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 officio Member: Kurt Princic, Chief, Northeast District Office, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
NOACA DIRECTORS Grace Gallucci, Executive Director
Jonathan Giblin, Director of Programs
Cheryl A. Kurkowski, CPA, Director of Finance & Operations
Randy Lane, Director of Programming William Davis, Associate Director of Planning
iii
1) Title & Subtitle:
3) Author(s):
Regional Bicycle Plan, 2013 Update
Marc Von Allmen
2) NOACA Report No.: TR1304
4) Report Date: June 2013
Contributors:
Daniel Boyle
Sara Maier
Amy Stacy
William Davis
Ryan Noles
Brenda Walker
Gayle Godek
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
8) Sponsoring Agency Name & Address: Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 W. Broad St., Box 899 Columbus, OH 43216-0899
6) Project Task No.: 6103-03
7) NOACA Contract/Grant No.:
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 NOACA’s 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:
15) No. Pages: 88
Available in print and on the NOACA website 16) Price:
tr1304
iv
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
Chapter 1: Benefits of Bicycling
5
Chapter 2: Progress Since 2008
8
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, & Performance Measures
12
Chapter 4: Current Usage & Demand
14
Chapter 5: Safety
26
Chapter 6: Regional Priority Bikeway Network
33
Chapter 7: Programs
42
Chapter 8: Implementation & Funding
47
Chapter 9: Conclusion
51
Appendix I: Works Cited
53
Appendix II: Regional Priority Bikeway Network
56
Appendix III: Design Guidance
67
Appendix IV: Stakeholder Engagement
71
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Miles of Bicycle Lanes & Shared Use Paths
8
Table 2: Bicycle Count Volumes by Year
10
Table 3: Crashes Involving Bicyclists by Year
10
Table 4: Potential Bikeway Demand Scoring
15
Table 5: High Crash Rate Locations
29
Table 6: High Crash Rate Corridors
29
Table 7: List of Funding Opportunities
50
LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Bicycle Commute Mode Share
16-17
Map 2: Bicycle Counts
18-19
Map 3: Potential Bikeway Demand
20-21
Map 4: Potential Bikeway Demand & Existing Bikeways
22-23 & 24-25
Map 5: Crash Density Map
30-31 & 32-33
Map 6: Regional Priority Bikeway Network
34-41
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Northeast Ohio Bicycle Commuters, Bicycle Crashes, & Crash Rate
11
Figure 2: Crashes Involving Bicyclists by County & Year
26
Figure 3: Number of Crashes by Hour of Day
27
Figure 4: Location of Crashes Involving Bicyclists
27
Figure 5: Vehicle at Fault in Crashes Involving Bicyclists
28
v
vi
NOACA’s 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, NOACA’s 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
1
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
Environmental Impacts
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 Association’s 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
Health Impacts
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.
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
5
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 region’s 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 region’s 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.
6
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 Wisconsin’s 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. EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s 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).
7
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
Lanes
Paths
1997
8
105
2006
40
195
2012
55
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.
8
• 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
9
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 tiion o on Detroit Ave. East of 25th St.
County C ount o ou ntty nty
2006 20 06
2008 2 008 00 8
Cuyahoga
57
N/A
2010 2009 20 09 2 0 01 0 010 N/A
113
2011 20 11 1 88
IIncrease/ Incr In crea cr ea ease ase se// D Decrease Decrea Decr De ecr crea ea ease ase e -22%
Edgehill Rd. East of Overlook Rd.
Cuyahoga
N/A
108
64
N/A
60
-6%
Detroit Ave. East of Warren Rd.
Cuyahoga
32
N/A
N/A
N/A
58
81%
Lake Ave. East of Avon Belden Rd.
Lorain
19
N/A
N/A
N/A
12
-37%
High St. North of College St.
Medina
19
N/A
N/A
11
6
-45%
Liberty St. South of Mentor Ave.
Lake
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
9
-10%
Bell St. West of Mapleridge Rd.
Geauga
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
6
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 region’s 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
C Cuyahoga uyah uy ya aho oga og a
Geau Ge Geauga auga auga au
L Lake ake ak e
Lora Lo Lorain ora ain n M edin ed ina in na Medina
Regi Re Region g on gi o
2008
310
4
48
65
17
444
2009
363
4
54
57
16
494
2010
374
3
47
64
17
505
2011
374
5
34
63
14
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 500 400 300 200 100 0
Number of bicycle-related crashes
600
Bicycle commuters Bicycle-related crashes Bicycle crash rate
0 2006
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 NOACA’s 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.
Regional Bicycle Plan Performance Measures
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.
* 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 ffacility projects. Numerous factors need to be analyzed to determine an area’s 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 ffrom the 2010 Census are displayed in Map 1.30 As shown in the 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 tthat expenditures for bicycle facilities have been appropriately focused 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 tthe locations chosen for each count period include: - 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 tthe evening peak period.
14
Looking at Map 2, most of the higher volumes are located in tthe he Ci City ity o off 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 ductt the counts in a consistent manner so that trends can be accurately urrately y monitored in the future. Also, as the sample size grows, further analysis her ana alyssis can examine the various strengths of correlations between count volumes ount volum mes and factors such as land use, population density, presence off a bikewa bikeway, 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 s across ss tthe he he nation have conducted similar analyses to develop priorities fo for or the ffuture uture utu development of bikeways. The different factors used in these e efforts ts tto o determine potential bikeway demand vary to some extent, but generally utt gene era rallly 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 mand sscore 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
Range R ange an g ge
Score S core co re
Population Density (# of people per acre)
<5 5-15 >15
2 4 6
Employment Density (# of jobs per acre)
<5 5-15 >15
2 4 6
Commutes by Bicycle (% of employed 16 & older)
0.8-2 2-4 >4
2 4 6
Commutes by Walking or Public Transit (% of employed 16 & older)
5-15 15-25 >25
2 4 6
Zero-Vehicle Households (% of households)
5-15 15-25 >25
2 4 6
Short Commutes (% of employed 16 & older)
10-25 15-25 >25
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.
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
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
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
0
01
Data Sources: U.S. S. Census Cen ensus Bureau reau NOACA makes no representations entations orr warranties with respect to the accuracy cyy and/or an completeness of the map..
18
2 Miles
5
10
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
MAY 2012
1 Bicyclist
1 Bicyclist
10 Bicyclists
10 Bicyclists
100 Bicyclists
100 Bicyclists
County Boundary
Major Road
Greater Cleveland
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
19
0
Data Sources: U.S. Census Cen ensus Bureau reau NOACA makes no representations ntations orr warranties with respect too the accuracy cyy and/or an completeness of the map.
20
5
10
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
0
2.5
5
Miles
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
: Planning For Greater Cleveland
22
NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
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
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
: Planning For Greater Cleveland
24
0
2.5
Miles
5
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 ODOT’s 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 Number of Crashes
350
2007
300
2008
250 200
2009
150
2010
100
2011
50 0
Cuyahoga
Geauga eauga
Lake ake
Lorain orain
Medina edina
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
Number of Crashes
350 300 250 200 150 100 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 harm’s 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
Segment S egme eg ment me nt
County C ount ou nty nt y
Municipality M Mu n ci ni c pa pali lity li ty
Annual Annu An nual nu al Crash C rash ra sh Rate Rate
Length L engt en gth gt h
W Erie Ave.
Washington to Broadway
LOR
City of Lorain
12.19
0.11
E 13th St.
Superior to Chester
CUY
City of Cleveland
11.75
0.1
Lorain Ave.
Denison to W 98th
CUY
City of Cleveland
7.07
Richmond St.
Prospect to Erie St.
LAK
City of Painesville
6.53
0.36
Detroit Ave.
Warren to Belle
CUY
City of Lakewood
6.25
0.12
Denison Ave.
W 73rd to W 69th
CUY
City of Cleveland
6.23
0.12
Lorain Ave.
W 83rd to W 80th
CUY
City of Cleveland
5.98
0.1
Westway Blvd.
Wager to Northview
CUY
City of Rocky River
5.93
0.1
West Ave.
Broad to 3rd
LOR
City of Elyria
5.88
0.16
Bagley Rd.
Between IR 71 Ramps
CUY
City of Middleburg Hts
5.77
0.1
Fulton Rd.
0.14
0.16
Between IR 71 Ramps
CUY
City of Cleveland
5.59
Avon Beldon Rd. Community to Walker
LOR
City of Avon Lake
5.0
0.16
Detroit Ave.
W 192nd to Lake
CUY
City of Rocky River
4.93
0.12
2nd St.
West to Court
LOR
City of Elyria
4.72
0.12
Detroit Ave.
W 28th to W 25th
CUY
City of Cleveland
4.72
0.12
Franklin Blvd.
W 28th to W 25th
CUY
City of Cleveland
4.7
0.12
Lee Rd.
Cedar to Essex
CUY
City of Cleveland Hts
4.69
0.29
Root Rd.
Bainbridge to Kruger
LOR
City of North Ridgeville
4.51
0.13
9th St.
Saint Clair to Superior
CUY
City of Cleveland
4.43
0.13
Detroit Ave.
Robinwood to Bunts
CUY
City of Lakewood
4.35
0.13
Source: “Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool” (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
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.
Graber to Warren
CUY
City of Lakewood
3.58
1.56
Vine St.
337th to SOM Center
LAK
City of Eastlake
3.17
0.56
Lorain Ave.
W 80th to W 57th
CUY
City of Cleveland
2.96
0.87
Turney Rd.
Willard to Rockside
CUY
City of Garfield Hts
2.75
0.94
Madison Ave.
Riverside to Cohasset
CUY
City of Lakewood
2.72
2.12
Lee Rd.
Hyde Park to Cedar
CUY
City of Cleveland Hts
2.62
0.53
Broadway
28th to 36th
LOR
City of Lorain
2.59
0.54
Mayfield Rd.
Coventry to Lee
CUY
City of Cleveland Hts
2.53
0.63
Detroit Ave.
Lake to W 49th
CUY
City of Cleveland
2.49
0.88
Tower Blvd.
Oberlin to Falbo
LOR
City of Lorain
2.29
0.61
220th St.
Westwood to Lorain
CUY
City of Fairview Park
2.27
0.52
Lorain Ave.
Norton to W 117th
CUY
City of Cleveland
2.27
1.32
Lorain Ave.
229th to 204th
CUY
City of Fairview Park
2.22
1.7
Lorain Ave.
Rocky River to Warren
CUY
City of Cleveland
2.2
0.81
Lorain Ave.
W 117th to Denison
CUY
City of Cleveland
2.14
0.83
Lorain Ave.
W 57th to W 25th
CUY
City of Cleveland
2.11
1.23
Ridge Rd.
Pearl to Snow
CUY
City of Parma
2.11
0.56
Mentor Ave.
Hopkins to Wellesly
LAK
City of Mentor
2.09
1.43
Detroit Ave.
Bunts to 117th
CUY
City of Lakewood
2.03
1.08
Clark Ave.
IR 90 Ramp to W 44th
CUY
City of Cleveland
1.94
1.13
Source: “Geographic Information System Crash Analysis Tool” (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation); https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
29
0
0
2.5
2.5
5
5
Miles Miles
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
: Planning For Greater Cleveland
30
NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
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.
Crash Density Low Medium Low Medium Medium High High High Crash Intersection High Crash Corridor Roads County Boundaries
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.
31
Crash Density Low Medium Low Medium Medium High High High Crash Intersection High Crash Corridors Roads County Boundaries
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
: Planning For Greater Cleveland
32
0
2.5
Miles
5
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 NOACA’s vision for a safe and efficient regional bikeway network. The implementation of this regional network will be one of the most important steps
33
Regional Priority Bikeway Network Existing
Planned
Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 15 - 20 7 -10
21 - 30
11 -14
Roads
0
2.5
Miles
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
: Planning For Greater Cleveland
34
NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
5
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
0
2.5
5
Miles
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of these maps.
36
Regional Priority Bikeway Network Existing Planned
Potential Bikeway Demand Score
0
2
4
Miles
4- 6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Roads
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
38
7 -10
21 2 - 30 0
-1 11 -14
Roads Roa
0
2
Miles
4
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.
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau NOACA makes no representations or Data Sources: warranties with respectUS to the accuracy Census ofBureau and/or completeness the map.
NOACA makes no representations : Plan Planning For or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
Greater Cleveland
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
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
Regional Priority Bikeway Network Existing Planned
Potential Bikeway Demand Score 4- 6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 30 Roads
Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
: Planning For Greater Cleveland
40
NOACA makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy and/or completeness of the map.
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
Complete Streets Education
LEA EAD AD
NOACA, local municipalities
SUP UPPORT U PO ORT TAR ARGET ARGE G T AUD GE UDIENCE UDIE IENC IE NC CE
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 bicyclist’s 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 driver’s 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 child’s 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 NOACA’s 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 Transportation’s 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 Services–Traffic Safety (OCJS–TS) 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, NOACA’s 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).
2.
Jeffery Levi, “F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future 2012” (Trust for America’s Health, 2011); http://healthyamericans.org/report/100/ (accessed Dec. 17, 2012).
3.
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).
4. 5.
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).
6.
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).
7.
Nolan, “State of the Air 2011.”
8.
Levi, “F as in Fat.”
9.
“Diseases and Conditions/Obesity/Overview” (Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Clinic); http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/obesity/hic_obesity_overview. aspx (accessed Dec. 17, 2012).
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. “Guidance—Surface 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. “Guidance—Congestion 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. “Guidance—The 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. “Guidance—The 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. “FTA—Grant 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
Location
Basset Rd.
Lake Rd. to Crocker Rd.
1.07
Bay Village
Cuyahoga
Clague Rd.
Lake Rd. to IR 90
0.38
Bay Village
Cuyahoga
Lake Rd.
Brunswick Dr. to Humiston Dr.
5.28
Bay Village
Cuyahoga
Woodland Rd.
Sulgrave Rd to IR 271
1.00
Beachwood
Cuyahoga
Bedford Reservation Trail
N/A
1.87
Bedford
Cuyahoga
Broadway Ave.
Flora Dr. to Bedford Reservation Trail
2.20
Bedford
Cuyahoga
Bedford Reservation Trail
N/A
0.79
Bedford Heights
Cuyahoga
Bridge St.
Front St. to Eastland Rd.
0.47
Berea
Cuyahoga
Bridge St.
Henry St. to Front St.
0.20
Berea
Cuyahoga
Cleveland Metroparks Dr.
Bridge St. to S Quarry Ln.
0.93
Berea
Cuyahoga
Eastland Rd.
Bridge St. to Wendy Dr.
0.77
Berea
Cuyahoga
Valley Parkway Trail
N/A
2.60
Berea
Cuyahoga
Lake Shore Blvd.
Cleveland Lakefront Trail to 140th St.
3.18
Bratenahl
Cuyahoga
Sheldon Rd.
Eastland Rd. to Smith Rd.
1.98
Brook Park
Cuyahoga
Smith Rd.
Snow Rd. to Sheldon Rd.
1.06
Brook Park
Cuyahoga
Smith Rd.
Brookpark Rd. to Snow Rd.
1.01
Brook Park
Cuyahoga
Snow Rd.
Smith Rd. to 130th St.
1.05
Brook Park
Cuyahoga
Memphis Ave.
Peelor Ave. to Newberry Dr.
1.77
Brooklyn
Cuyahoga
Bell St.
Main St. to Ridgewood Rd.
0.90
Chagrin Falls
Cuyahoga
Bellview St.
Franklin St. to Main St.
0.14
Chagrin Falls
Cuyahoga
Hall St.
Solon Rd. to Franklin St.
0.32
Chagrin Falls
Cuyahoga
Main St.
Bell St. to Bellview St.
0.34
Chagrin Falls
Cuyahoga
117th St.
Lorain Ave. to Bellaire Rd.
1.09
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
140th St.
Lake Shore Blvd. to Saint Claire Ave.
1.38
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
150th St.
Puritas Ave. to Brookpark Rd.
1.08
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Aetna Rd.
Broadway Ave. to MLK Dr.
1.84
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Broadview Rd.
Pearl Rd. to Brookpark Rd.
1.73
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Broadway Ave.
E 30th St. to 55th St.
1.82
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Broadway Ave.
Harvard Ave. to Miles Ave.
0.42
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Broadway Ave.
E 55th St. to Aetna Rd.
0.64
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Broadway Ave.
Aetna Rd. to Harvard Ave.
1.13
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Buckeye Rd.
MLK Dr. to Van Aken Blvd.
1.54
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Buckeye Rd.
Woodland Ave. to MLK Dr.
1.11
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
56
Length Municipality
County
Segment
Location
Length Municipality
County
Cedar Ave.
Stokes Blvd. to MLK Dr.
0.15
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Cedar Glen Pkwy.
MLK Dr. to Murray Hill Rd.
0.23
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway
N/A
0.39
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Cliffview Rd.
Euclid Ave. to Belvoir Blvd.
0.51
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Delavan Ave.
Villaview Rd. to Waterloo Rd.
0.06
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Delavan Ave.
E 177th St. to IR 90
0.15
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Denison Ave.
Lorain Ave. to Pearl Rd.
2.99
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Denison Ave.
Pearl Rd. to Newburgh Heights Corp Limit
1.60
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Detroit Ave.
W 25th St. to W 9th St.
0.59
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Detroit Ave.
W 65th St. to W 25th St.
1.30
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Detroit Ave.
Lake Ave. to W 65th St.
0.36
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 116th St.
Harvard Ave. to Miles Ave.
0.25
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 13th St.
Superior Ave. to Euclid Ave.
0.26
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 13th St.
Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave.
0.15
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 177th St.
Delavan Ave. to Grovewood Ave.
0.06
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 22nd St.
Prospect Ave. to Woodland Ave.
0.53
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 22nd St.
Euclid Ave. to Prospect Ave.
0.09
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 30th St.
Woodland Ave. to Broadway Ave.
0.22
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 3rd St.
Erieside Ave. to Saint Clair Ave.
0.48
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 4th St.
Prospect Ave. to Huron Rd.
0.09
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 55th St.
Superior Ave. to Euclid Ave.
0.94
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 55th St.
Woodland Ave. to Broadway Ave.
1.44
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 55th St.
Euclid Ave. to Woodland Ave.
1.12
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 55th St.
N Marginal Rd. to Superior Ave.
0.89
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
E 9th St.
Erieside Ave. to N Marginal Rd.
0.08
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
East Blvd.
MLK Dr. to Saint Clair Ave.
0.18
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Edgecliff Ave.
Rocky River Dr. to W 159th St.
0.20
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Erieside Ave.
W 3rd St. to E 9th St.
0.50
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Euclid Ave.
E 22nd St. to E 55th St.
1.20
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Euclid Ave.
55th St. to MLK Dr.
2.14
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Euclid Ave.
MLK Dr. to Lakeview Rd.
1.09
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Grovewood Ave.
Lake Shore Blvd. to 177th St.
0.97
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Harvard Ave.
116th St. to Lee Rd.
1.98
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
57
Segment
Location
Harvard Ave.
E 55th St. to Broadway Ave.
1.23
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Hayden Ave.
Saint Clair Ave. to Woodworth Rd.
0.21
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Hogsback Ln.
Riverside Dr. to Valley Parkway Trail
0.39
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Holmden Ave.
W 14th St. to Towpath Trail
0.32
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Huron Rd.
E 13th St. to Prospect Ave.
0.16
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Huron Rd.
Ontario St. to E 4th St.
0.07
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lake Ave.
West Blvd. to Detroit Ave.
0.82
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lake Ave.
W 117th St. to West Blvd.
0.90
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lake Shore Blvd.
E 140th St. to Grovewood Ave.
0.78
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lakefront Bikeway
N/A
1.35
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lakeshore Blvd.
Grovewood Ave. to 185th St.
2.10
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lanken Ave.
IR 90 to Nottingham Rd.
0.20
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lee Rd.
Scottsdale Blvd. to Harvard Ave.
0.51
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
W 20th St. to Ontario St.
0.92
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
65th St. to 20th St.
1.80
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
Rocky River Dr. to W 140th St.
1.42
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
W 140th St. to 117th St.
1.20
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
W 117th St. to W 101st St.
0.83
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
Denison Ave. to W 65th St.
1.38
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
Cleveland Corp Limit to Rocky River Dr.
0.45
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Madison Ave.
W 117th St. to West Blvd.
0.76
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Memphis Ave.
Newberry Dr. to Pearl Rd.
1.44
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Miles Ave.
Broadway Ave to E 116th St.
1.11
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Mill Creek Trail
N/A
0.72
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Superior Ave. to Euclid Ave.
1.47
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway to East Blvd.
0.36
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Carnegie Ave. to Cedar Ave.
0.05
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave.
0.91
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Euclid Ave. to Cedar Ave.
0.33
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
East Blvd. to Saint Clair Ave.
0.19
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Buckeye Rd. to Aetna Rd.
1.61
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Stokes Blvd. to Woodland Ave.
0.35
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
MLK Dr.
Woodland Ave. to Buckeye Rd.
0.53
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
North Marginal Rd.
E 9th St. to E 55th St.
2.67
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Nottingham Rd.
Lankken Ave. to Dille Rd.
0.67
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Ontario St.
Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave.
0.14
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
58
Length Municipality
County
Segment
Location
Length Municipality
County
Ontario St.
Huron Rd. to Carnegie Ave.
0.30
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Ontario St.
Superior Ave. to Prospect Ave.
0.15
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Pearl Rd.
Memphis Ave. to Brookpark Rd.
1.93
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Pearl Rd.
Denison Ave. to Memphis Ave.
0.72
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Pearl Rd.
IR 71 to Denison Ave.
0.39
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Prospect Ave.
Huron Rd. to E 22nd St.
0.55
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Prospect Ave.
Ontario St. to Huron Rd.
0.39
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Puritas Ave.
W 150th St. to W 140th St.
0.55
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Rocky River Dr.
Hogsback Ln. to Lorain Ave.
1.59
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Sackett Ave.
W 25th St. to Scranton Rd.
0.10
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Saint Clair Ave.
East Blvd. to E 140th St.
2.55
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Saint Claire Ave.
W 9th St. to Ontario St.
0.32
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Saint Clare Ave.
Ontario St. to W 13th St.
0.56
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Stokes Blvd.
Cedar Ave. to MLK Dr.
0.63
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Superior Ave.
E 13th St. to 55th St.
1.95
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Superior Ave.
Belvoir Blvd. to Upper Valley Dr.
1.26
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Superior Ave.
55th St. to MLK Dr.
1.61
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Superior Ave.
W 9th St. to Ontario St.
0.32
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Towpath Trail
N/A
1.58
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Towpath Trail
N/A
3.61
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Valentine Ave.
Scranton Rd. to W 14th St.
0.21
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Valley Parkway Trail
N/A
1.09
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
W 140th St
Lorain Ave. to Puritas Ave.
1.48
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
W 140th St.
Lakewood Heights Blvd. to Lorain Ave.
1.05
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
W 14th St.
Valentine Ave. to Holmden Ave.
0.33
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
W 159th St.
IR 90 to Edgecliff Ave.
0.39
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
W 25th St.
Lorain Ave. to IR 71
1.98
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
W 65th St.
Detroit Ave. to Lorain Ave.
0.65
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
W 9th St.
Saint Clair Ave. to Superior Ave.
0.14
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
West Blvd.
Lake Ave to Madison Ave.
0.80
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
West Blvd.
Madison Ave. to Lorain Ave.
0.79
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Woodland Ave.
E 22nd St. to E 55th St.
1.28
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Woodland Ave.
E 55th St. to Buckeye Rd.
1.18
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Cedar Rd.
Murray Hill Rd. to Lee Rd.
2.01
Cleveland Heights
Cuyahoga
Lee Rd.
Cedar Rd. to N Park Blvd.
1.18
Cleveland Heights
Cuyahoga
Lee Rd.
Forest Hills Blvd. to Cedar Rd.
1.58
Cleveland Heights
Cuyahoga
59
Segment
Location
Towpath Trail
N/A
4.27
Cuyahoga Heights
Cuyahoga
Eddy Rd.
Hayden Ave. to Euclid Ave.
0.24
East Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Euclid Ave.
Eddy Rd. to Lee Rd.
0.66
East Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Euclid Ave.
Lakeview Rd. to Eddy Rd.
0.82
East Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Hayden Ave.
Woodworth Rd. to Eddy Rd.
1.26
East Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Lee Rd.
Euclid Ave. to Forest Hills Blvd.
0.80
East Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Superior Ave.
Lee Rd. to Belvoir Blvd.
1.14
East Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Dille Rd.
Roseland Ave. to Euclid Ave.
0.27
Euclid
Cuyahoga
Euclid Ave.
Dille Rd. to Sun Ave.
3.25
Euclid
Cuyahoga
Euclid Ave.
Upper Valley Dr. to Dille Rd.
0.83
Euclid
Cuyahoga
Lakeshore Blvd.
185th St. to Westbrook Dr.
3.85
Euclid
Cuyahoga
Lorain Ave.
230th St. to Story Rd.
2.93
Fairview
Cuyahoga
E 117th St.
Mill Creek Trail to McCracken Rd.
0.13
Garfield Heights
Cuyahoga
McCracken Rd.
E 117th St. to Broadway Ave.
1.07
Garfield Heights
Cuyahoga
Mill Creek Trail
N/A
1.36
Garfield Heights
Cuyahoga
Bedford Reservation Trail
N/A
0.27
Glenwillow
Cuyahoga
Alexander Rd.
Canal Rd. to Hub Pkwy.
0.79
Independance
Cuyahoga
Pleasant Valley Rd.
Edgewood Ln. to Canal Rd.
3.18
Independence
Cuyahoga
Bunts Rd.
Madison Ave. to Lakewood Heights Blvd.
0.47
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Bunts Rd.
Merl Ave. to Madison Ave.
0.73
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Carabel Ave.
Delaware Ave. to Lakewood Heights Blvd
0.10
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Delaware Ave.
Morrison Ave. to Carabel Ave.
0.06
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Detroit Ave.
Lake Rd. to Riverside Dr.
0.36
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Lake Ave.
Summit Ave. to Nicholson Ave.
1.26
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Lake Ave.
Webb Rd. to Summit Ave.
0.69
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Lake Ave.
Nicholson Ave. to W 117th St.
0.76
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Madison Ave.
Westwood Ave. to Bunts Rd.
0.93
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Madison Ave.
Bunts Rd. to W 117th St.
1.08
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Madison Ave.
Rocky River Dr. to Westwood Ave.
0.67
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Merl Ave.
Bunts Rd. to Nicholson Ave.
0.36
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Morrison Ave.
Madison Ave. to Delaware Ave.
0.40
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Nicholson Ave.
Lake Ave. to Merl Ave.
0.33
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Riverside Dr.
Detroit Ave. to Hogsback Ln.
1.17
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Sloane Ave.
Detroit Ave. to W Clifton Blvd.
0.56
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Summit Ave.
Lake Ave. to Madison Ave.
1.24
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
Webb Rd.
Lake Ave. to Northwood Ave.
0.57
Lakewood
Cuyahoga
60
Length Municipality
County
Segment
Location
Length Municipality
County
W 117th St.
Bellaire Rd. to Peelor Ave.
0.19
Linndale
Cuyahoga
Broadview Ave.
McCracken Rd. to Flora Dr.
1.89
Maple Heights
Cuyahoga
Bagley Rd.
Big Creek Pkwy. to 130th St.
1.35
Middleburg Heights
Cuyahoga
Eastland Rd.
Sheldon Rd. to Wendy Dr.
0.81
Middleburg Heights
Cuyahoga
Valley Parkway Trail
N/A
0.67
Middleburg Heights
Cuyahoga
Big Creek Trail
N/A
3.32
Middleburgh Heights Cuyahoga
Miles Rd.
Harper Rd. to Solon Rd.
3.81
Moreland Hills
Cuyahoga
Harvard Ave.
Newburgh Heights Corp Limit to E 55th St.
1.13
Newburgh Heights
Cuyahoga
Barton Rd.
Jaqueline Ln. to Lorain Rd.
0.84
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Butternut Ridge Rd.
IR 480 to Mastick Rd.
0.71
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Cedar Point Rd.
Columbia Rd to Valley Pkwy Trail
0.55
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Clague Rd.
Lorain Rd. to Mastick Rd.
1.15
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Clague Rd.
Marion Rd. to Lorain Rd.
1.00
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Columbia Rd.
Butternut Ridge Rd. to Cedar Point Rd.
0.23
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Lorain Rd.
Clague Rd. to W 230th St.
0.34
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Lorain Rd.
Barton Rd. to Stearns Rd.
0.90
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Mastick Rd.
Shepherds Hill Ln. to Clague Rd.
0.40
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
North Olmsted Bike Path
N/A
1.85
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Stearns Rd.
North Olmsted Corp Limit to IR 480
1.53
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Valley Parkway Trail
N/A
1.30
North Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Bedford Reservation Trail
N/A
0.33
Oakwood
Cuyahoga
Valley Parkway Trail
N/A
1.39
Olmsted
Cuyahoga
Lander Rd.
Woodland Rd. to Miles Rd.
2.93
Orange
Cuyahoga
Bagley Rd.
130 St. to Pleasant Valley Rd.
0.27
Parma
Cuyahoga
Broadview Rd.
Brookpark Rd. to Pleasant Valley Rd.
4.04
Parma
Cuyahoga
Pearl Rd.
Brookpark Rd. to Snow Rd.
1.27
Parma
Cuyahoga
Pleasant Valley Rd.
Bagley Rd. to Broadview Rd.
4.99
Parma
Cuyahoga
Snow Rd.
130th St. to Pearl Rd.
2.07
Parma
Cuyahoga
Big Creek Trail
N/A
2.17
Parma Heights
Cuyahoga
Woodland Rd.
IR 271 to Landen Rd.
1.45
Pepper Pike
Cuyahoga
Argyle Rd.
Beach Cliff Blvd. to Lake Rd.
0.11
Rocky River
Cuyahoga
Beach Cliff Blvd.
Argyle Rd. to Lake Rd.
0.34
Rocky River
Cuyahoga
Hilliard Blvd.
Clague Rd. to Wooster Rd.
2.55
Rocky River
Cuyahoga
Lake Rd.
Humiston Dr. to Argyle Rd.
1.69
Rocky River
Cuyahoga
Lake Rd.
Beach Cliff Blvd. to Detroit Ave.
0.23
Rocky River
Cuyahoga
Wooster Rd.
Hilliard Blvd. to Rockcliff Dr.
0.05
Rocky River
Cuyahoga
61
Segment
Location
Pleasant Valley Rd.
Broadview Rd. to Edgewood Ln.
1.24
Seven Hills
Cuyahoga
Belvoir Blvd.
Fairmount Blvd. to Shaker Blvd.
0.53
Shaker Heights
Cuyahoga
Belvoir Oval
Shaker Blvd. to Woodland Rd.
0.43
Shaker Heights
Cuyahoga
Lee Rd.
Woodland Rd. to Scottsdale Blvd.
1.39
Shaker Heights
Cuyahoga
Lee Rd.
Woodland Rd. to Park Blvd.
0.51
Shaker Heights
Cuyahoga
Woodland Rd.
Lee Rd. to Sulgrave Rd.
3.02
Shaker Heights
Cuyahoga
Woodland Rd.
Van Aken Blvd. to Lee Rd.
0.81
Shaker Heights
Cuyahoga
Bedford Reservation Trail
N/A
3.06
Solon
Cuyahoga
Harper Rd.
Miles Rd. to Bedford Reservation Trail
0.74
Solon
Cuyahoga
Belvoir Blvd.
Cliffview Rd. to Cedar Rd.
3.81
South Euclid
Cuyahoga
Big Creek Trail
N/A
1.49
Strongsville
Cuyahoga
Pearl Rd.
Albion Rd. to Boston Rd.
4.28
Strongsville
Cuyahoga
Valley Parkway Trail
N/A
1.00
Strongsville
Cuyahoga
Belvoir Blvd.
Cedar Rd. to Fairmount Blvd.
1.04
University Heights
Cuyahoga
Towpath Trail
N/A
5.67
Valley View
Cuyahoga
Alexander Rd.
Hub Pkwy to Metroparks APT
0.87
Walton Hills
Cuyahoga
Bedford Reservation Trail
N/A
4.48
Walton Hills
Cuyahoga
Clague Rd.
Knickerbocker Rd. to Marion Rd.
1.98
Westlake
Cuyahoga
Crocker Rd.
Detroit Rd. to Market St.
0.42
Westlake
Cuyahoga
Crocker Rd.
Nagle Rd. to Detroit Rd.
0.97
Westlake
Cuyahoga
Crocker Rd.
Hilliard Blvd. to Center Ridge Rd.
1.26
Westlake
Cuyahoga
Crocker Rd.
Market St. to Hilliard Blvd.
0.75
Westlake
Cuyahoga
Hilliard Blvd.
Crocker Rd. to Clague Rd.
3.80
Westlake
Cuyahoga
Stearns Rd.
Center Ridge Rd. to Westlake Corp Line
0.82
Westlake
Cuyahoga
Lake Shore Blvd.
Westbrook Dr. to 330th St.
2.25
Willowick
Cuyahoga
Kinsman Rd.
E Park Ave. to Thurt Rd.
2.50
Burton
Geauga
Kinsman Rd.
Ravenna Rd. to E Park Ave.
2.45
Burton
Geauga
Maple Highland Trail
N/A
1.02
Burton
Geauga
Maple Highland Trail
N/A
6.61
Chardon
Geauga
Maple Highland Trail
N/A
0.66
Chardon
Geauga
Maple Highland Trail
N/A
2.08
Chardon
Geauga
Maple Highlands Trail
N/A
1.00
Chardon
Geauga
Maple Highlands Trail
N/A
0.16
Claridon
Geauga
Maple Highland Trail
N/A
3.93
Concord Twp
Geauga
Maple Highlands Trail
N/A
0.30
Huntsburg
Geauga
Kinsman Rd.
North View Dr. to State Ave.
1.07
Middlefield City
Geauga
62
Length Municipality
County
Segment
Location
Length Municipality 2.70
Middlefield City
County
Kinsman Rd.
Thurt Rd. to North View Dr.
0.34
Middlefield Twp
Geauga
Auburn Rd.
Bell Rd. to Kinsman Rd.
2.11
Newbury
Geauga
Bell Rd.
Ashleigh Dr. to Auburn Rd.
2.58
Newbury
Geauga
Kinsman Rd.
Auburn Rd. to Ravenna Rd.
2.98
Newbury
Geauga
Bell Rd.
Ridgewood Rd. to Ashleigh Dr.
4.02
South Russel
Geauga
Lake Metroparks Greenway
N/A
2.86
Concord
Lake
Lakeshore Blvd.
SOM Center Rd. to Christine Ct.
3.00
Eastlake
Lake
Lakeshore Blvd.
330th St. to Woodstock Rd.
0.36
Eastlake
Lake
SOM Center Rd.
Lakeshore Blvd. to Stevens Blvd.
0.99
Eastlake
Lake
Stevens Blvd.
SOM Center Rd. to 364th St.
0.43
Eastlake
Lake
Lakeshore Blvd.
Woodstock Rd. to Willowick Dr.
0.62
Lakeline
Lake
Chillicothe Rd.
Johnycake Ridge Rd. to Mentor Ave.
2.09
Mentor
Lake
Heisley Rd.
Jackson St. to Mentor Ave.
0.80
Mentor
Lake
Jackson St.
Hopkins Rd. to Heisley Rd.
0.77
Mentor
Lake
Jackson St.
Heisley Rd. to Mill Morr Dr.
0.84
Mentor
Lake
Johnycake Ridge Rd.
King Edward Ct. to Chillicothe Rd.
3.76
Mentor
Lake
Lakeshore Blvd./Munson Rd.
Iroquois Tr. to Center St.
2.78
Mentor
Lake
Munson Rd./Hopkins Rd.
Center St. to Jackson St.
1.73
Mentor
Lake
Jackson St.
Corwin Dr. to Lake Metroparks Greenway
1.60
Painesville
Lake
Lake Metroparks Greenway
N/A
3.36
Painesville
Lake
Jackson St.
Mill Morr Dr. to Corwin Dr.
1.12
Painesville Twp
Lake
Lakeshore Blvd.
Willowick Dr. to SOM Center Rd.
0.62
Timberlake
Lake
Bishop Rd.
Euclid Ave. to Ridge Rd.
0.31
Wickliffe
Lake
Euclid Ave.
IR 90 to Bishop Rd.
0.39
Wickliffe
Lake
Ridge Rd.
Bishop Rd. to Hale Farms Dr.
1.92
Wickliffe
Lake
Erie St.
Mentor Ave. to River St.
0.19
Willoughby
Lake
Erie St.
Stevens Blvd. to Mentor Ave.
0.30
Willoughby
Lake
Johnycake Ridge Rd.
Kirtland Rd. to King Edward Ct.
0.50
Willoughby
Lake
Kirtland Rd.
Mentor Ave. to Johnycake Ridge Rd.
0.36
Willoughby
Lake
Lakeshore Blvd.
Christine Ct. to Iroquois Tr.
1.11
Willoughby
Lake
Mentor Ave.
Erie St. to Kirtland Rd.
0.65
Willoughby
Lake
Ridge Rd.
Hale Farms Dr. to Hastings Ave.
2.80
Willoughby
Lake
River St.
Spaulding St. to Hastings Ave.
0.95
Willoughby
Lake
Stevens Blvd.
E 364th St. to Erie St.
1.23
Willoughby
Lake
Cleveland Ave./N Ridge Rd.
Main St. to Cooper Foster Park Rd.
2.60
Amherst City
Lorain
Maple Highland Trail
N/A
Geauga
63
Segment
Location
Lake Rd.
Avon Lake WCL to Avon Lake ECL
5.38
Avon Lake
Lorain
2nd St.
Gateway Blvd. to West Ave.
0.40
Elyria
Lorain
2nd St.
3rd St. to Gateway Blvd.
0.39
Elyria
Lorain
Broad St.
West Ave. to E Bridge St.
0.50
Elyria
Lorain
E Bridge St./Cleveland St.
Broad St. to JFK Memorial Pkwy.
1.96
Elyria
Lorain
E Broad St.
E Bridge St. to S Abbe Rd.
1.21
Elyria
Lorain
Lake Ave.
Parmely Ave. to West Ave.
1.65
Elyria
Lorain
Middle Ave.
Broad St. to 16th St.
1.08
Elyria
Lorain
North Coast Inland Trail
N/A
2.12
Elyria
Lorain
North Coast Inland Trail
N/A
0.73
Elyria
Lorain
North Coast Inland Trail
N/A
2.46
Elyria
Lorain
North Coast Inland Trail
N/A
1.33
Elyria
Lorain
West Ave.
Lake Ave. to 2nd St.
0.25
Elyria
Lorain
Lake Ave.
Cooper Foster Park Rd. to Parmely Ave.
2.57
Elyria Twp
Lorain
Broadway
Erie Ave. to Elyria Ave.
1.02
Lorain
Lorain
Broadway
Elyria Ave. to 39th St.
1.55
Lorain
Lorain
E 31st St.
Fulton Rd. to Norfolk Ave.
2.12
Lorain
Lorain
E 36th St.
Broadway to Plant St.
0.79
Lorain
Lorain
Erie Ave.
Broadway to Lorain ECL
2.64
Lorain
Lorain
Erie Ave.
Parkview Ave. to Broadway
0.86
Lorain
Lorain
Fulton Rd.
E 31st St. to Plant St.
0.27
Lorain
Lorain
N Ridge Rd.
Cooper Foster Park Rd. to Broadway
1.29
Lorain
Lorain
Plant St.
E 36th St. to Fulton Rd.
0.13
Lorain
Lorain
Barton Rd.
Center Ridge Rd. to Jaqueline Ln.
0.43
North Ridgeville
Lorain
Center Ridge Rd.
Hidden Acres Dr. to Barton Rd.
5.24
North Ridgeville
Lorain
Lake Rd.
Sheffield Lake WCL to Sheffield Lake ECL
3.57
Sheffield Lake
Lorain
Broadway
39th St. to Cooper Foster Park Rd.
1.10
Sheffield Twp
Lorain
Cooper Foster Park Rd.
Broadway to Lake Ave.
0.51
Sheffield Twp
Lorain
Center Rd.
Substation Rd. to Clearbrooke Dr.
2.98
Brunswick
Medina
Grafton Rd.
Substation Rd. to Southbridge Blvd.
3.16
Brunswick
Medina
Pearl Rd.
Boston Rd. to Sleepy Hollow Rd.
4.16
Brunswick
Medina
Pearl Rd.
Sleepy Hollow Rd. to Brunswick Hills Corp Line
1.05
Brunswick Hills Twp Medina
Granger Rd.
Nichols Rd. to Medina Line Rd.
5.11
Granger Twp
Medina
Broadway St.
Friendship St. to South St.
0.75
Medina
Medina
Damon Dr.
Rolling Meadows Dr. to Roshon Dr.
0.22
Medina
Medina
64
Length Municipality
County
Segment
Location
Length Municipality
County
E Washington St.
Roshon Dr. to Glenshire Ln.
0.44
Medina
Medina
E Washington St.
Guilford Blvd. to Roshon Dr.
0.03
Medina
Medina
Friendship St.
Jefferson St. to Broadway St.
0.11
Medina
Medina
Guilford Blvd.
E Washington St. to Twin Oaks Blvd.
1.19
Medina
Medina
Guilford Blvd.
Twin Oaks Blvd. to Sturbridge Dr.
0.29
Medina
Medina
Huntington St.
Grande Blvd. to Union St.
1.38
Medina
Medina
Jefferson St.
Union St. to Friendship St.
0.25
Medina
Medina
Marker Rd.
Yellowstone Dr. to W Liberty St.
1.00
Medina
Medina
Reagan Pkwy./Foote Rd.
Yellowstone Dr. to Medina Rd.
3.16
Medina
Medina
Rolling Meadows Dr.
Union St. to Damon Dr.
0.09
Medina
Medina
Roshon Dr.
Damon Dr. to E Washington St.
0.30
Medina
Medina
S Court St.
South St. to Sturbridge Dr.
0.66
Medina
Medina
South St.
S. Court St. to Broadway St.
0.07
Medina
Medina
Sturbridge Dr.
S Court St. to Guilford Blvd.
0.91
Medina
Medina
Union St.
Huntington St. to Weymouth Rd.
1.00
Medina
Medina
W Liberty St.
N State Rd. to Broadway St.
0.82
Medina
Medina
Fenn Rd.
Huntington St. to Pearl Rd.
0.40
Medina Twp
Medina
Huntington St.
Fenn Rd. to Grande Blvd.
0.54
Medina Twp
Medina
Medina Rd.
Glenshire Ln. to Windfall Rd.
2.67
Medina Twp
Medina
Pearl Rd.
Medina Corp Line to Fenn Rd.
2.36
Medina Twp
Medina
Weymouth Rd./Granger Rd.
Reagan Pkwy. to Nichols Rd.
2.83
Medina Twp
Medina
Yellowstone Dr.
Marker Rd. to Hillview Way
0.39
Medina Twp
Medina
Beach Rd.
Ridgewood Rd. to Wadsworth Twp Corp Limit
3.89
Sharon
Medina
Ridgewood Rd.
Windfall Rd. to Beach Rd.
1.52
Sharon
Medina
Windfall Rd.
Medina Rd. to Ridgewood Rd.
1.30
Sharon
Medina
Broad St.
Highland Ave. to County Line Rd.
2.01
Wadsworth
Medina
Great Oaks Tr.
Leatherman Rd. to High St.
1.12
Wadsworth
Medina
High St.
Great Oaks Tr. to West St.
0.32
Wadsworth
Medina
Highland Ave.
West St. to Broad St.
1.29
Wadsworth
Medina
West St.
High St. to Highland Ave.
0.08
Wadsworth
Medina
Beach Rd.
Wadsworth Twp Corp Limit to Reimer Rd.
0.50
Wadsworth Twp
Medina
Leatherman Rd.
Reimer Rd. to Great Oaks Tr.
0.30
Wadsworth Twp
Medina
Reimer Rd.
Beach Rd. to Leatherman Rd.
0.43
Wadsworth Twp
Medina
Towpath Trail
N/A
6.19
Summit County
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
A shared lane is a lane of a traveled way that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle traffic. Best Use
Motor Vehicle Design Speed
Traffic Volume
Classification or Intended Use
Shared lanes (no special provisions)
Minor roads with low volumes, where bicyclists can share the road with no special provisions.
Speeds vary based on location (rural and urban).
Speeds vary based on location (rural and urban).
Rural roads, or neighborhood or local streets.
Shared lanes (wide outside lanes)
Major roads where bike lanes are not selected due to space constraints or other limitations.
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:
Type of Bikeway Marked shared lanes
68
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.
Motor Vehicle Design Speed
Traffic Volume
Classification or Intended Use
Variable. Use where the speed limit is 35 mph or less.
Variable. Useful where there is high turnover in on-street parking to prevent crashes with open car doors.
Collectors or minor arterials.
3 Paved Shoulders Definition:
Type of Bikeway Paved Shoulders
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.
Motor Vehicle Design Speed Variable. Typical posted rural highway speeds (generally 40-55 mph).
Traffic Volume Variable.
Classification or Intended Use Rural roadways; inter-city highways.
4 Bike Lanes Definition:
Type of Bikeway Bike Lanes
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
Motor Vehicle Design Speed
Traffic Volume
Generally any road where the design speed is more than 25 mph.
Variable. Speed differential is generally a more important factor in the decision to provide bike lanes than traffic volumes.
Classification or Intended Use Arterials and collectors intended for major motor vehicle traffic movements.
5 Bicycle Boulevards Definition:
Type of Bikeway Bicycle Boulevards
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.
Motor Vehicle Design Speed
Traffic Volume
Use where the speed differential between motorists and bicyclists is typically 15 mph or less. Generally, posted limits of 25 mph or less.
Generally less than 3,000 vehicles per day.
Classification or Intended Use Residential roadways.
69
6A Shared Use Path (independent right of way) 6B Shared Use Path (adjacent to roadway) Definition:
Type of Bikeway
70
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
Shared use path (independent right of way)
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.
Shared use path (adjacent to roadways)
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.
Motor Vehicle Design Speed N/A
The adjacent roadway has highspeed motor vehicle traffic such that bicyclists might be discouraged from riding on the roadway.
Traffic Volume N/A
The adjacent roadway has very high motor vehicle traffic volumes such that bicyclists may be discouraged from riding on the roadway
Classification or Intended Use Provides a separated path for nonmotorized users. Intended to supplement a network of on-road bike lanes, shared lanes, bicycle boulevards, and paved shoulders.
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.
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 people’s travel behaviors in general, as well as specifically in regard to bicycling. The survey was made available on NOACA’s 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
72
Other O Ot he h er (p (please ple eas ase sspecify) sp eciffy e y)
I do do n not ott h o have ave av ac a cc ce ess ss tto o a ca ar access car
To c To connect onne on ect ct tto o p pu blic b c ttransit ra ansit nssit it public
For Fo F or ssh shopping hop ppi pn ng go orr e er rra rand an nds nd ds errands
To g To get et tto et ow wo work orrk k
To g To get et tto et o ssc school chool ho oo ol
For Fo or ex e exercise ec er ciise
Forr re Fo recr recreation crea cr eati ea t on ti
3. Why do you ride a bike? (Check all that apply)
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
1
400
2
300
3
200
4
100
5 Carrying C Ca arr rry ry yiing ng iitems tems te ems ms
Weather We W eat athe er
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
D st Di Distance stan a ce ce
S fe Sa Safety fety ety t
Travel T rav avel e ttime iim me
Physical P Ph hys ysic cal al ffitness/ ittn ne e essss/ hea he h ea alltth h iissues ssue ss ues ue es health
0
8. Would you like to be able to ride your bike more often? Yes, for recreational or exercise purposes Yes, for transportation (work, school, errand, etc.) purposes Yes, for recreation/ exercise and transportation purposes No
74
Trips T Tr ips ip ps ma m made ad de eq quickest uiick u c e esst by by b bike iik ke
Higher Hi H igh g er er g gas as p as prices ric ri ce es
Health Heal He H eal a th t iinsurance nssu nsur urran ance e iincentives nc ncen ce en nti tive ves
Bike B Bi ik ke ee education du d uc ca ati t on o p programs ro ogr g am ams
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
Increased In ncr crea ease sed en eenforcement ffo orc rcem cem e en e t of of ttraffic raaff ffiicc llaws a s ffo aw for or ca ccars, ars, rss, bi b bikes, ikeess,, & p pedestrians eed des e tr t iiaans ns
Slower Sl S low wer e c cars a s & tr ar ttrucks ruc ck kss
More Mo ore e sshower/locker ho h owe wer/ r/lo oc ck ker er ffacilities ac a ciillittie es
More M Mo ore e ssheltered he eltter 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 M re Mo eb bike ike ra ik racks ack cks
Better Be B ett tter e rroad oa ad & bi b bikeway ke ewa way m ma maintenance ainte in nte ena anc nce
More Mo M orre e iintersection nter nt e se sect ect ction io on b bi bike ike ea amenities me eni niti ties es ((bike bike ke ssignals, ig gna alss, bi b bike ike eb boxes) oxes ox es)
More Mo ore e ssidewalks iid dew e al a ks ks
More M Mo orre e rroads oa o adss w with ith it th sh ssharrow har a ro row (s ((shared sh ha are ed lla lane) an ne e) m ma markings ark rking in ng gss
Mo More M ore e ssigned iig gned ne ed bi b bike ike e rroutes o te ou es
Wider W Wi ide der er sh sshoulders o ld ou der e s on on o outside u si ut s de e ttraffic rra afffic c llanes a es an es
More Mo M ore eo on-road n--ro n oad ad b bike ik ke lla lanes ane es
More M Mo ore e sseparated epar ep a at a ed e b bike iik ke la lanes ane nes
More Mo M orre eo off-road ffff-rroa oad bi b bike ik ke ep paths aths at hs
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) 600
500
400
300
1
2
200
3
4
100
0
75
Response Count
76 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Lake County
Other
Other
LAKE COUNTY
Geauga County
0
Cuyahoga County/Cleve.
20
Cuyahoga County/Cleve.
40
Maple Heights Trail
60
Lake Erie
80
In & around Burton
100
In & around Mentor
120
200
180
GEAUGA COUNTY Other
Cuyahoga County City Center (Solon)
Cleve. Naighborhood Cntr. (Ohio City)
Lake Erie
Towpath Trail
Big Creek Parkway
Valley Parkway
University Circle
Downtown Cleveland
140
In & around Chardon
Response Count 160
In & around Painesville
Response Count
Survey Results
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.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
Response Count 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Other
Broadway Ave.
Warrensville Center Rd.
0
E. 55th St.
5
Lakeshore Blvd.
10
Euclid Ave.
15
Shaker Blvd.
20
Dover Center Rd.
25
W. 117th St.
30
W. 65th St.
MEDINA COUNTY
Other
Lorain County
Cuyahoga County/Cleve.
Valley Parkway
Cuyahoga Valley National Park
0
Pearl Rd./W. 25th St.
20
Detroit Ave./Rd.
40
In & around Wadsworth
60
Lorain Ave./Rd.
80
Other
Medina
Cuyahoga y County/Cleve. County/
Lake Erie
North Coast Inland Trail
Reserv Black River Reservation
In & around Elyr Elyria
In & around Lorain (city)
100
In & around Medina (city)
Response Count 120
Lake Ave.
Response Count
Survey Results
LORAIN 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.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
77
Response Count
78
60
40
20
0
15
Other
20
Other
Kirtland Chardon/Chardon Rd.
Kinsman Rd.
25
Other
SOM Center Rd.
Euclid Ave.
Mayfield Rd.
Ravenna Rd.
30
Broadway
0
Detroit Rd.
10
lorain Blvd.
20
Mentor Ave.
Response Count 10
Lake Rd.
30
Bell Rd.
0
Lakeshore Blvd.
5
Avon Belden Rd.
Response Count
Survey Results
11. Continued
GEAUGA COUNTY
60
LAKE COUNTY
50
40
LORAIN COUNTY
120
100
80
Response Count
10
5
0
GEAUGA COUNTY
30
25
20
15
Other
0
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
Other
Broadway Ave.
Warrensville Center Rd.
E. 55th St.
Lakeshore Blvd.
Euclid Ave.
Shaker Blvd.
Dover Center Rd.
W. 117th St.
W. 65th St.
Other
Greenwich Rd.
Liberty St./Washington St.
Court St.
Pearl Rd.
High St.
Center Rd.
MEDINA COUNTY
Kirtland Chardon/Chardon Rd.
20
Pearl Rd./W. 25th St.
120
Kinsman Rd.
40
Detroit Ave./Rd.
140
Mayfield Rd.
80
Lorain Ave./Rd.
100
Ravenna Rd.
60
Lake Ave.
Response Count 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Bell Rd.
Response Count
Survey Results
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.
79
Response Count
80 20
0
MEDINA COUNTY
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Broadway
Other
Other
Detroit Rd.
Greenwich Rd.
Liberty St./Washington St.
40
Court St.
60
Lorain Blvd.
0
Pearl Rd.
5
Lake Rd.
10
High St.
15
Other
SOM Center Rd.
Euclid Ave.
Mentor Ave.
Lakeshore Blvd.
20
Avon Belden Rd.
Response Count 25
Center Rd.
Response Count
Survey Results
12. Continued 50
LAKE COUNTY
45
40
35
30
120
LORAIN COUNTY
100
80
Survey Results 13. Gender Male Female
14. Age
0.2%
0.4% 2.8%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-54 55-74 75 & Over
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
Caucasian/White African-American Hispanic
90.0 9 0.0%
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
